solid proof of evolution

[Cancel 2020.1]

You’re assuming lots of time would help.

On what basis do you make that assumption?

That's not correct. I'm assuming that lots of time COULD, not WOULD.

You're the one drawing conclusions based on assumptions. Not me.

[Nomad]

I’ll believe that when I see it lol.

I’m a doubting Darth.

That's what they said about the Earth being round, man's ability to fly and travelling to the moon.

[Nomad]

its a strange world where beliefs have to be proven, but science does not........

Science proves itself constantly.

AAMOF, until it's been satisfactorily proven to scientific standards, it's not considered science.

[Mott the Hoople]

Ultimately, everything could be science - even the existence of a god. It's just not science we have or understand right now.

Meh...I don’t believe so. Not without changing the definition of science.

[Micawber]

Darth wants to test the assumption that gobs of time would help, in other words that frequency of an event increases its odds. Simply get out a deck or cards or roll craps.
Define your dependent variable as rolling two 6s. The more times you do it, the more likely it gets done. Seriously doubts that?

Also, I am way deterministic. Yes, if the conditions that created life occur exactly again life must occur again. To me the only question is how liberal are those range of conditions.

[Darth Omar]

That's not correct. I'm assuming that lots of time COULD, not WOULD.

You're the one drawing conclusions based on assumptions. Not me.

No, the best evidence we have says the probability of life occurring by chance is small: no one has ever witnessed it and we can’t even make it happen when we try. It’s a sound, evidence-based conclusion.

An assumption is an assumption whether it has could or would in front of it.

You get points for the ‘could’ though.

[Nomad]

Meh...I don’t believe so. Not without changing the definition of science.

Maybe what we know as science was created by a creator.

Possibly according to some blueprint or plan based upon some universal logic.

We know next to nothing.

[Cancel 2020.1]

No, the best evidence we have says the probability of life occurring by chance is small: no one has ever witnessed it and we can’t even make it happen when we try. It’s a sound, evidence-based conclusion.

An assumption is an assumption whether it has could or would in front of it.

You get points for the ‘could’ though.

It's certainly okay for you to think that way, but nothing about the above statement is scientific.

If time is the crucial element in the equation - which is very plausible - you're simply ignoring it to arrive at your conclusion. Which, as a result, is faulty.

[Darth Omar]

Darth wants to test the assumption that gobs of time would help, in other words that frequency of an event increases its odds. Simply get out a deck or cards or roll craps.
Define your dependent variable as rolling two 6s. The more times you do it, the more likely it gets done. Seriously doubts that?

Also, I am way deterministic. Yes, if the conditions that created life occur exactly again life must occur again. To me the only question is how liberal are those range of conditions.

If life ‘must occur’ when ever conditions are right, then you’re basically invoking a deterministic law.

What law is that?

[Micawber]

Science proves itself constantly.

AAMOF, until it's been satisfactorily proven to scientific standards, it's not considered science.

Why is science superior to religion? Because it works, biches! Dawkins.

How many religious patents pending are there right now? That would be zero. How many airplanes did religion make? zero.
How many hypotheses did religion falsify? zero.

There should not even be a competition, yet religion appears threatened by science. If religion is being harmed by science, religion should yield ground and
go back into its proper sphere next to candyland, Dr Seuss and phrenology. Then it won't worry about science, testing, replication and progress.

Religion is fiction and its adherents are delusional.

[Darth Omar]

It's certainly okay for you to think that way, but nothing about the above statement is scientific.

If time is the crucial element in the equation - which is very plausible - you're simply ignoring it to arrive at your conclusion. Which, as a result, is faulty.

My point is untestable assumptions aren’t very scientific lol.

God is imminently plausible. But God isn’t testable.

[Darth Omar]

Why is science superior to religion? Because it works, biches! Dawkins.

How many religious patents pending are there right now? That would be zero. How many airplanes to religion make? zero.
How many hypotheses did religion falsify? zero.

They should not even be in competition, yet religion appears threatened by it. If religion is being harmed by science, religion should yield ground and
go back into its proper sphere next to candyland, Dr Seuss and phrenology

You have your own religion but you’re oblivious to it lol.

[Mott the Hoople]

The things that are created when we are way below what’s necessary even for a rudimentary form of life.

On what basis do we assume that life will occur anytime or anywhere conditions are right?

Well if she’s hot to trot and you have a case of Budweiser...

[Mott the Hoople]

We can't make ANY assumptions about it. We can't recreate a primordial earth, and we certainly can't "add" the periods of time that might have been necessary for life to arise.

In other words we simply don’t know.

[Darth Omar]

That's what they said about the Earth being round, man's ability to fly and travelling to the moon.

Those sorts of things involve basic physics.

To form life from non-life they need coax something like DNA into existence. We’ll exceed the speed of light first.