evolution is proven to a certain point, it is not proven to the full extent. to believe it fully because some of it makes sense is ignorant.
I more believe in natural selection with the will to change the future. this can be physically or any other way.

btw i have a edited part on my last post for you BD

This post was edited by tagged4nothing on May 21 2010 06:04pm

That's what I'm saying though, you're expecting for something to happen that is incapable of happening. I.E. 100% proof of anything.

It's impossible to prove with 100% certainty that this reality is indeed real as we know it, but we don't need to prove such a thing with such accuracy as we already operate under such an "assumption" to begin with.

you are misunderstanding me completely. I am only debating the topic. I would like to see 100% proof one day, but I do not expect this. If it doesn't I will continue believing in natural selection with boundaries that can be broken over the full theory of evolution.
I do not believe in creationism either. Meaning I have no idea why we have slugs and why we have humans. perhaps they are the weak link and we just evolved to human over time. or perhaps not. I am just debating every point cause this is what I do.

it seems you dont understand the difference between evolution and abiogenesis

This post was edited by Kamikizzle on May 21 2010 06:09pm

I am going to get high then read on this theory, I will be back soon with a response.

And evolution is also proven, and also is what we call a fact. They both have empirically verifiable evidence for their existence.

Which part isn't proven? Absolute proof of anything is impossible. Proof beyond reasonable doubt? Easily fulfilled for evolution.

oh boy !

...a promise of upcoming mindless drivel

...can't wait

you are correct, but it still doesn't change anything of evolution. I have been reading about the theory of abiogenesis though for some time since smoke break. I do find this theory possible, just like I do evolution. They both go hand in hand here as well. This theory implies a small number of ways life started not from any form of organism but from such things as simple chemicals combining with other objects that in time create things that can become organisms. Either way, you added a step to evolution sort of. It may be possible, but it is not proven, so I am not going to say it's right. My point is these are theories for a reason right now, and not "the origin of life"(not referring to the book). They come from random events and no one can say when all of this happened. This has been interesting to read about and I'm going to continue shortly. currently, I can only say you have as random of a thought as creationism or evolution. All 3 can be linked to each other simply these 2 ways: They are not proven, so all 3 are theories. they all take faith and/or ignorance to full-heartily say you believe them to be true instead of just theories. From my perspective, all 3 theories listed are random, there is even a small random chance of a higher being that pushed something to happen, even if not creationism, but something to effect earth one day. they are all random to me so far, all theories. I will say they are correct yet.

By the definition of scientific theory a theory can't be proven, to expect one to be is retarded. When you look up theory you will also realize creationism is not a theory.