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

These arguments always remind me of the joke about the scientists who challenged god to a man making contest, they scooped up a handful of dirt, god says whoa hold on there, get your own dirt.
It seems the question is, just how do you get something from nothing?
We , humans, can't do it. Can't see how it can be done.
Is believing in some sort of spontaneous appearance of matter really any more logical, sound, or reality based, than belief in god?
Evolution does nothing to disprove a creator. Science can only make predictions based on limited observation. Religion can offer nothing beyond circular argument.
I don't see where it can be said that anyone isn't placing their faith in some dogma of one form or another.

Evolution doesn't try to disprove a creator. Evolution concerns the path life takes once it exists; it is not concerned with how either the cosmos or life itself came into being. That's the oldest dodge in the god squad arsenal, to immediately challenge a theory of evolution based on cosmogony (where does the cosmos come from) and with scorn for the idea of abiogenesis. However, two things should be noted with regard to the imaginary friend superstition. What is known as Occam's razor, entia non sunt multiplicanda, argues against the logical necessity for a god. Furthermore, the concept that chemical reactions might result in abiogenesis is a lot more plausible than silly contentions about old white dudes living up in the clouds and making life from dirt.

Well, first off evolution and abiogenesis are totally different areas of inquiry and, evenn following your story line , remember, it wsnt "Something out of nothing" Think of it more this way if you care. Scientists are busy slowly dicovering gods recipe. Theyve gone waay beyond discovering "god's dirt" and have almost discovered the entire means and method.Even when life is built in a fashion that makes sense, Im sure that Creationists will just state the obvious "See, the SCienetists have merely discovered what god was thinking that day"

SCience , to be pwrfectly honest, doesnt really give a rats ass whose in charge of the time clock, they just wanna know that all the occurences follow some laws of chemistry, physics , geology, and biology.
SO far, were on th right track, and , more importantly, all these evolution discoveries have broader applications to the material world in the relms of medicine, agriculture, and applied chem and physics.

Thats something that the Creationists and IDers fail to even recognize or give a tip of the hat.

Maybe that you've misunderstood my position. I haven't any problem with evolution at all, in fact, it seems quite obvious.

I'm not on the god squad, whatever that is.

You've thrown out the chemical reaction argument as if it relates to my post. It doesn't. My post refers to the question of where those chemicals came from.

I don't agree with that. While it may hold true for the religionist grunts, religious leaders recognized, long before Darwin ever published, that anything which tends to undermine their version of a world view undermines their authority. That's why you have Cicero anticipating the watchmaker analogy more than 2000 years ago with his sundial metaphor.

The modern religious demagogue is even more concerned with the ramification of the concept of evolution into society. This is why the Leopold and Loeb case and the Nazis have become hobby horses for the religious ranters. They attempt to tie Neitzsche and Darwin to a concept of pure, independently existent evil, because the more that science ramifies its discoveries, the more their authority is undermined.

This is not mere cynicism on my part, either. It wasn't necessary to prosecute John Scopes for any good reason, other than to safeguard religious authority. Teaching a wrong thing is not a crime, leaving aside the issue of whether or not evolution is a wrong thing.

All of which leads us back to cosmogony, which appears not to have sunk in with you. You have failed to understand what i wrote. Evolution has nothing to do with the origins of the cosmos, or of life.

Thousands of years ago a statement, attributed to Solomon, claims god created it all in such a way that man could never figure it out, that this would be the task of man all the days of his life.
I think that applies just as well to religionist as scientist, and is just as true today as then.

Youve misinterpreted what I said. I was saying that the APPLICATIONS of evolutionary theor(ies) are workeable and are the bases of modern discoveries in meds and ag. THATS what the Cretins and the IDers fail to admit.
The last discussion by Ralph was that "DNA was obvioulsy demontrating how all organisms are related via creation" WHen he failed to recognize that most of the DNA similarilties are additive or subtractive based upon the genera and orders of organisms. The use of thiose facts in ag production and animal husbandry and restoration of wild stock is a "mechanistic application" of DArwin.

We dont disagree that CONTROL is the big oprize that Creationists seek. However, Ive been consistent herein that their worldview is based upon miscasting of science and scientific theory . If they cant do it by logic, they try to do it by deceit.



I think Ive been consistent in saying basically the same thing elsewhere. SO I havent changed my outlook since yesterday, dont worry.

That's a non sequitur. The topic of discussion is proof for evolution. There is an abundance of evidence for evolution. There is no evidence for either a deity or for creation, special or otherwise. By dragging in cosmogony and abiogenesis, for whatever your intent may have been, you are deploying the favorite arguments of religious demagogues, who don't give a rat's ass what you and i may think, but only what will sound plausible to the mass of the faithful who are alarmed to think that their entire world view is under attack.

Fairy stories about Solomon have no relevance to this issue.

. Even if this were true, if solomon were alive today, i wonder how many of his words he would have to take back. Surely your knowledge base didnt quit several thousand years ago did it?

I recall that in the eighteenth century people used to say "WE aint ever gonna have television"

I don't disagree with you at all when it comes to the religious argument.
What you continue to dodge is the fact that you are doing the very same thing from the atheistic side. My entire argument speaks to the value of agnosticism.
As far as the fairy story, the statement is very real regardless of who said it, and contains a significant element of truth. Unless you happen to think mans' knowledge can be anything other than finite.

That's not at all what the statement says. I'll ask you the same question. Do you think mans' knowledge can ever be anything but finite?

My my my. THe Creationists are buying commercial time at the bottom of this thread. Its a disease of the mind

This is just horseshit. I claim no certitude, but i do challenge the certitude of the religious. Being an atheist has nothing to do with it, and i resent your unfounded and snotty claim about what i am arguing.

Your argument is not real, because it presumes a creation. The claim that all reality can never be known is mere tautology, and certainly, once again, has no relevance for the issue of the validity of evolutionary theory.

The bottom of the thread must know i'm not a theist. I've got an American Express ad.

Well, using your own statement attributed to Solomon. B y posting attributions that Biblical patriarchs or gods have said is not worth debate time. You cant (or wont) see the very inconsistancy that your SOlomon quote has offered us by your own admission that "perhaps" as a man, his own knowledge was finite and basically neolithic.Would Solomon have to eat his words in 2010?, Im gonna say yes Mans knowledge is expanding. It may be finite but so far noone appears to know the limits to our expansion yet. AGree?

Holy ****!!, Now the ad is offering to give me a DIVINITY DEGREE. MAybe Ive scared em andthey want me on their side. FOOLS, Ill infiltrate their masses and give em all a "Downhouse Dump", r a "NAtural Selection Steamer"

Once again you are creating a strawman. Snotty must be your current buzzword.
Evolution is a sound theory, with practical application for mankind. The issue in society today does indeed arise out of the fears of the religious. This thread is full of that. It's too late to claim otherwise.
I have never questioned the validity of evolution. My argument has not presumed creation either. My argument presents the question.
I am all in agreement with your position on the certitude of the religious.

If you are saying the potential for knowledge is infinite I agree.

Snotty is not a buzz-word, it's a description of people who attempt to bolster a feeble argument by making unfounded claims about what i believe, and in contradiction of what i have argued. It is not a straw man to point out that you attributed to me the same fault which i had attributed to the religious. I attribute to them an unfounded certitude. I have not alleged any certitude with regard to a theory of evolution.

You seem to need a lesson in English. The title of the thread is "Don't tell me there's no proof for evolution." It is not "Don't tell me that evolution is proven beyond all doubt." It is not "Don't tell me that there isn't absolute proof of evolution." It's about some proof, not absolute proof. It's about the best probable explanation for the wide variety and complex systems of life this planet.

The burden of argument placed on deniers of evolution by the titular statement is that they demonstrate that there is no proof for evolution. Your silly maunderings here have to do with certitude. So what if people who consider evolutionary theory the best explanation for the variety and complexity of life do not have absolute certitude? They are under no such burden. Those who make silly statements about what Solomon did or did not believe have a far harder row to hoe.

Your argument, as i tire of pointing out, presents an irrelevant question.