The truth about the mainstream cosmologist establishment

What is "evolutionism"? Anything proposed as an explanation - a hypothesis - that can't be tested either by the predictions or retrodictions it makes, is generally excluded from mainstream theory. Please provide at least one concrete example where an untested hypothesis has been passed off as a fact. Thanks. BTW: why do you put "scientists" in quotation marks? Umm, none? Evolution is an explanation for the diversity of life (i.e., biology). Dark matter, I seem to remember, has something to do with cosmology. Certainly has no place in biology.

Yeah, it can get pretty crazy here sometimes. Usually, the more controversial the post, the more responses it garners. Anyway, I appreciate you responding to my post. Unfortunately, we can't go too far afield into evolutionary theory on this thread else we risk the wrath of the Almighty Admin. I'd be happy to go into more detail on another thread. However, for the sake of clarity, I'd like to very briefly address the points you raised. As others have been quick to point out, this isn't an accurate statement. Evolution is based on the observation that critters in the past are different but related to critters that live today. In addition, in short-generation organisms, we can actually observe these changes happening. AFAIK, the discussion about whether there is or isn't a creator doesn't enter into it. No, it doesn't. Abiogenesis is the theory that various chemical interactions are sufficient in and of themeselves to produce self-replicating molecules as the precursors to life. You're partially correct that "simple chemical molecules" don't spontaneously combine into single celled organisms - there's a whopping number of intermediate steps that need to occur to get from chemistry to biology. Although there are some very indicative experiments that have been undertaken showing how biologically significant macromolecules can form under plausible pre-biotic conditions, no one has created "life" in a test tube as yet. However, as a number of other posters have pointed out, abiogenesis is an idea arising from organic chemistry that has nothing to do with what happens once life arrives - the purview of evolutionary theory. Actually, I've found it's very hard to make a layman belive in abiogenesis. I'm not sure I "believe" in it myself, although I think based on many of the experiments I've read about that it is highly plausible. Indeed, you're correct that no biologist would be able to explain exactly how this is possible, since no one (to date) knows how it actually ocurred. On the other hand, as I mentioned there are a number of what appear to be potentially fruitful lines of investigation being undertaken to specifically demonstrate the idea. Remains to be seen whether they are ever successful. However, once again, you're dealing with chemistry not biology. Remember: evolution is a biological theory about how life changes over time, leading to an explanation for the current diversity of life. Not how it arose in the first place. Mostly right: abiogenesis is a hypothesis (or rather, a number of competing and sometimes mutually exclusive hypotheses). However, evolution is much more well-supported. In truth, we don't (if by "we" you mean biologists), at least as concerns abiogenesis. I certainly support declaring evolution (life has a history and descent with modification) a "fact". I would not support declaring the theory of evolution itself (i.e., exactly how it all worked itself out to date) as a fact - nor would most biologists I'm familiar with.As to your cosmology questions inre dark matter, etc: not my area. I can't even intelligently discuss the current ideas about dark matter in relation to their strength as hypotheses. As I've mentioned to others here in the past, my idea of "doing science" is to spend the day playing frisbee on a tropical beach while studying Olive Ridley nesting behavior. I have physics-phobia, so cosmology is right out. Sorry.To be continued in another, more appropriate thread.