Conclusion vs Presupposition

Okay, that is a presupposition. Sorry but that is a false statement.Looking at it honestly, here is what is seen:

• we see that life exists today.
• there are fossils found buried in the ground that show that life existed in the past.
• looking at some of the deepest, oldest rocks we find no evidence of life.
• we see that life forms have changed from very simple to more complex.
• we see that certain lifeforms appear to show gradual changes over time.

Based on those facts, what can be concluded?Well the conclusion (note: not a presupposition) is that there was a time when there was no life on earth and that since then life has evolved.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

In Message 1 I present three examples and ask about whether or not we are using presuppositions or arriving at inescapable conclusions. From the OP: It ends with "The question is, where are the alleged presuppositions?"That is the topic folk.Can we head in that general direction?

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

You might conclude that but you would be wrong.The fact is that what is seen is a period when all we see are the indications of very simple life forms, for example traces left by cyanobacteria or Vendian-type body fossils soft bodied critters. Notice I said Vendian-type. There is a reason for that. Right now we are still unsure of just what such critters were; some seem to be almost like worms, others almost like soft bodied editions of the arthropods.The designation of such critters as simple refers to the facts that the indications do not show hard bodies or the complexity of later organisms.What we do know is that we find layers where all we see is such critters, and higher up we find layers where similar critters are mixed in with hard bodied critters.Where are the presuppositions?

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

Actually, over time problems with both the Theory itself and with conclusions drawn from it have happened. Based on new evidence both the theory and conclusions have changed. Therefore YOUR presupposition is shown to be false. Huh? Evolution deals with life and how it has changed over time. The accuracy of dating is constantly challenged and as capabilities have improved, available methods and reliability have increased. Dating is a matter of conclusions based on available information. There is no presupposition there. Huh? Sorry but that is simply nonsense. Sorry but more bullshit. I happen to believe in GOD and am also a Christian. That is totally unrelated to any of the issues or examples outlined in Message 1.So basically, you have posted a bunch of YOUR presuppositions, none of which are borne out by the facts.Once again, please look at Message 1. Other than the three basic assumptions described and explained in Message 5, where are the presuppositions?

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

No. It is not a supposition. The fact is so far the Theory of Evolution has been able to explain what is seen. It is based on conclusions, please read Origin of the Species to see the beginnings including the steps that led to a conclusion.Since the first publication, other ideas, theories and methods of approach (for example the whole field of genetics has since been developed and guess what, it has supported earlier conclusions) have come along and been incorporated to help the explanation. Ah, no it is not a supposition. We can see life. We can see evidence that once there was no life. Therefore the conclusion (not supposition ) is that life current exists and that it had an origin. Sorry but again that is simply bullshit. Still just bullshit. We can observe that matter exists, it is a conclusion, not a supposition.Once again, in Message 1 I outlined three examples. Other than the basic assumptions discussed in Message 5, what presuppositions are involved?

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

Nope. It too is a conclusion. We see evidence of certain events and features today. There are floods and fires and volcanoes and earthquakes and rivers and streams and rain and drought. We can see the results of such events. We know their signatures, and when we look around at the past, we see the same things.The conclusion then, not presupposition, is that the same processes were going on in the past that are going on today.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

Actually, no, not assuming much accept the assumption that bottom layers were there before the upper layers were laid down.Again, we are looking at conclusions. We conclude that the part under something was there before the upper part was created unless there are signs that the order has been changed through physical means.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

Yet again, those have been explained to you. Neither is a presupposition, both are conclusions.

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

Once again, that is simply not true. It also is a conclusion, we can see radioactive decay going on in the past, both in the evidence from stars and sites here on earth such as Oklo in Gabon.Now so far you have not addressed any of the examples listed in Message 1 and each of your asserted suppositions has been shown to be a conclusion instead. Do you have anything related to the topic?

---

Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

In Message 1 three scenarios are outlined. Other than the three basic assumptions outlined in Message 5, what presuppositions are involved?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!