ok, I read it all now. I have a suggestion. What if we replace the word PROVEN with accepted, then things will go much better
Of course, LL will still disagree with whether what is accepted is correct or not.
I think this can be cleared up by quoting ages and time frames as accepted. Maybe they are correct, maybe they are not. given current technology, they are the best we can come up with, so they are accepted, but not necessariy correct.
Outside,
Man, I still disagree with your dismissal of the probability issue. That is the ONLY strong arguement LL had going for him. Sorry LL. Ok, maybe you had some other interesting points, but it all comes down to probability. given sufficiently high odds, and a long enough time frame, I think I can agree with you on evolution, but I need the odds first. I need to be able to calculate them first.
Again, it comes back to that break through where we can finally create life from non living materials in a lab. I think at that point, evolution will win, but until then, its not a fact. Ok, even then it wouldn't be a fact, but it would be very likely to be the answer we are looking for. It seems there is a lot of animostiy between the creation versus evolution issue. Its not such a big deal. I don't get this. I certainly wouldn't take the time to disect every sentence to "prove" my point. This shows almost a religous "faith" in your belief, on both sides. I'm sorry, but I see it that way.
I'm pretty open on these things. Or at least I think I am. I will tell you, it's a hell of a lot harder to "PROVE" or hell, for that matter demonstrate creationism than evolution, but I'm not trying to proove anything. I don't believe either side. I like the alien theory too, but that leads of course to the vicious circle where orginal life must still arise from somewhere. Where that was, I'm not certain. The idea, the concept even, that there was some being that created everything seems utterly absurd to a rational scientific mind. However, so does the idea that something arose from nothing. In any event, our current understanding can't explain what happened, and where it all came from. That is my stance on this. Neither side PROVES anything. However, since most scientists, and science in general rejects the God theory (the null hypolthesis in this case) you are left with the alternative, life arose from nothingness. Ok, in that sense, I see why the scientific community and the scientific method "proves" evolution. You can't accept what you can't find evidence to support, God Hypotheses for example, so you are left with the alternative, evolution. In this case, this really is a case of if not x then y, because at least to my knowledge there probably isn't another answer, but I still try to lean toward the none of the above in case we find another alternative (I don't see one yet though, I could be wrong however). Ok, in that sense, if you want to argue it that way, you can come to a logical conclusion in which evolution MUST have happened. Clearly it must have, somehow, if this is are starting point. Science MUST choose evolution, even with out evidence that life CAN be created from nothingness at all.
Ok problem solved, at least for me. I see how the argument always leads to evolution as the ONLY POSSIBLE answer using the scientific method. Clearly, in some form, it MUST be true, assuming we were correct in rejecting our null hypothesis, the God hypothesis.