Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution

I am going to post this here, and in the proof for creationism thread, because it is pertinent in both threads. The member "real life" operates on an assumption that all he need do is cast doubt on a theory of evolution, and he will have succeeded in "proving" a theistic creation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Leaving aside that the doubts he attempts to cast are hopelessly flawed, and that this is shown time and again when people engage him in discussion--no system of logic is bound by his dualistic approach. Even were someone to prove that a theory of evolution were hopelessly flawed (something "real life" will never accomplish), it would not constitute evidence of poofism, it would not prove that "real life's" imaginary friend had poofed the cosmos into existence. This is at the heart of confronting his line of bullshit--so long as we are willing to be sucked into his wilely but ignorance-based forensic tactic, he "wins" if he casts doubt, because his thesis holds that if science is discredited, his poofism is the only other valid explanation. It is not.

If three people were sitting in a dark room, and a shot rang out, after which one of them leapt up and turned on the lights to discover that one of them had been shot--proving that either of the two remaining had not shot that person would not constitute evidence that the third were a murderer. It would not prove that the dead person had not shot him- or herself, and it would not dispose of the possibility that a fourth person had done the shooting and escaped before the lights were turned on.

I consider that thought exercise particularly apt, because "real life" seems always to operate in the dark when a discussion centers on questions of science or logic.

Setanta wrote:

I am going to post this here, and in the proof for creationism thread, because it is pertinent in both threads. The member "real life" operates on an assumption that all he need do is cast doubt on a theory of evolution, and he will have succeeded in "proving" a theistic creation. Nothing could be further from the truth. Leaving aside that the doubts he attempts to cast are hopelessly flawed, and that this is shown time and again when people engage him in discussion--no system of logic is bound by his dualistic approach. Even were someone to prove that a theory of evolution were hopelessly flawed (something "real life" will never accomplish), it would not constitute evidence of poofism, it would not prove that "real life's" imaginary friend had poofed the cosmos into existence. This is at the heart of confronting his line of bullshit--so long as we are willing to be sucked into his wilely but ignorance-based forensic tactic, he "wins" if he casts doubt, because his thesis holds that if science is discredited, his poofism is the only other valid explanation. It is not.

If three people were sitting in a dark room, and a shot rang out, after which one of them leapt up and turned on the lights to discover that one of them had been shot--proving that either of the two remaining had not shot that person would not constitute evidence that the third were a murderer. It would not prove that the dead person had not shot him- or herself, and it would not dispose of the possibility that a fourth person had done the shooting and escaped before the lights were turned on.

I consider that thought exercise particularly apt, because "real life" seems always to operate in the dark when a discussion centers on questions of science or logic.

I would love to hear your 'third' or 'fourth' options.

The first two are:

1. Life on earth originated by natural means.

2. Life on earth did NOT originate by natural means.

Treat us to 3. and 4. , willya?

In a scenario where the oceans may have been frozen to a depth of 300 meters (or more), how much available water vapor do you postulate in that cold environment?

Do you know what temperature Miller-Urey used? Wait till you find out...............

Then we'll see some puddles...............

real life wrote:

In a scenario where the oceans may have been frozen to a depth of 300 meters (or more), how much available water vapor do you postulate in that cold environment?

Do you know what temperature Miller-Urey used? Wait till you find out...............

Then we'll see some puddles...............

Oh silly of me or anyone to think it would possibly snow in the polar regions since according to you there is no water vapor in cold air.

But even sillier is the notion of sublimation I guess. ( You might want to look it up.)

But lets explore this a little bit more..
Miller-Urey used a DIFFERENT atmosphere. The Oceans would have frozen to 300 meters only with the SAME atmosphere as today. With the atmosphere that Miller-Urey used the oceans would NOT have been frozen.

So, that leads us back to your statement that unless you observe it you can't make the claim. Since you didn't observe that the atmosphere was the same 3 billion years ago, since you don't even think the earth existed 3 billion years ago, since you are blowing smoke, your argument is nothing but a phantasmagoria that disappears when anyone gets close to it.

As usual, you don't directly address issues raised with you.

I am listening intently.

1. Life on earth originated by natural means.

Does this mean I just wasted my tithe to the Flying Spaghetti Monster church. Damn.

Setanta wrote:

As usual, you don't directly address issues raised with you.

Nonsense.

Your criticism of me was for my 'dualism'.

I offered you a wide open shot to show the flaw in my view, as articulated by me , not as mischaracterized by you.

Go for it.

1. Life on earth originated by natural means.

or

2. Life on earth did NOT originate by natural means.

Treat us to options 3 and/or 4, Setanta.

I am listening intently.

Let's put in simpler terms. You allege we face a choice between a naturalistic explanation and the supernatural explanation. I say there is no reason to believe that there is any such thing as "the supernatural" without evidence. You consistently fail to provide any evidence that there is any "supernatural."

Let's put in simpler terms. You allege we face a choice between a naturalistic explanation and the supernatural explanation.

I say there is no reason to believe that there is any such thing as "the supernatural" without evidence.

ROS:
In my opinion the reason they attack evolution is because biology more easily lends itself to pros. Do you really think any of these cognitive wonders could produce even a ridiculous argument against a specific contour integral on a Riemannian geometry.