Conclusion vs Presupposition

But proving a negative is a logical impossibility. You dont say, for example, that we must start with the presupposition that there is an invisible, intangible pink unicorn perched on your shoulder. Given that there is no evidence of such an entity, it is assumed to not exist.Until evidence is uncovered that necessitates the supernatural, it is logical to conclude that the supernatural does not exist. This is not a presupposition - naturalistic explanations have been found for things like the change in species over generations, the orbits of the planets, weather patterns, etc.There is evidence of the natural.There is not evidence of the supernatural.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

This is a meaningless statement. The "genetic code" contains "information" only inasmuch as we can look at the chemical makeup of a particular DNA sequence and associate that sequence with a given trait in the organism, like production of a certain protein. DNA, and the way it governs life, are nothing more than very complex chemistry.That's all it is, Beretta. Change the sequence a little, get a different protein. Nothing more. Neither, Beretta. Statements like this are how we know you've never read a biology or even chemistry textbook - or at the very least didn't comprehend what you were seeing. Chemistry is not random - chemical bonds form under very specific, predictable, non-random conditions. Neither is DNA some sort of "information code impressed on matter." And all rational inquiry. It is impossible to study that which you cannot even prove exists. "Natural laws" is a misnomer. The laws of physics are nothing more than models created by humans to describe the observed processes of the natural world. Because of the terminology, you act like some intelligence must have made the laws that govern reality - you're putting the cart before the horse. There are no laws of nature. There is only the way the Universe works. The laws are human constructs, "best-fit" models used to describe the workings of the Universe in a way we can use to predict reactions (using the predictions of the law of gravity, for instance, to plot out the path of a space probe). Your comprehension is irrelevant. Making sense to the uneducated or ill-informed is irrelevant. The Universe behaves in specific ways. Gravity always works in the same way, and our law of gravity can be used to predict the behavior of masses very accurately. The laws of thermodynamics are always, in every single reaction, observed. Given the behaviors of the Universe which we describe with the laws of physics, the formation of stars and solar systems was inevitable - not chance. Similarly, should abiogenesis be shown to be the cause of life, it would mean that life is the inevitable result of chemistry given the presence of certain chemicals under certain conditions - not random.You seem to misunderstand "naturalistic philosophy" a great deal.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

"Actually not" as in, evolution does not propose that "purely natural processes produced life from inanimate chemicals that somehow organized themselves" as you stated. That would be a poor description of Abiogenesis - and while even that description is misleading and inaccurate, it has literally nothing to do with Evolution. Evolution only speaks about the changes in life forms over time. it has nothing to do with how life formed in the first place. Your incredulity doesn't make an argument false - especially when you don't even comprehend what you're arguing against. Though your projection is amusing - Evolution is a process. The Theory that describes that process goes into minute detail regarding how and why life forms change over generations. "God did it" is the explanation that explains nothing, Baretta. Its like saying "Joe fixed my car." You have said nothing about what Joe did to fix the car, you just know that it's fixed now and that you're attributing that fact to Joe. The Theory of Evolution is more like giving the exact, step by step process that best fits how the car was fixed. Again with the projection. You're comparing science to "It exists so God did it, no questions please." Evidence goes much farther than blanket "just-so" statements of faith. Evolution isn't a philosophy. It's a scientific Theory that accurately describes the observed changes in life forms over generations. If you can actually show an inaccuracy regarding the Theory of Evolution, if you can provide evidence that specifically contradicts it, we'll admit that the current Theory is wrong - and we'll make a new Theory (which could be a modified version of Evolution, or something new entirely, depending on what the new evidence is) so that we once again have an accurate model of the observed processes of nature. Until then...Baretta, you've been operating entirely on blanket statements with no evidence and horrendous misrepresentations about Evolution and the processes it involves. Please, go and learn about Evolution so that, if you still choose to argue against it, you can argue against the real Theory rather than the made up inaccuracies and strawmen you've argued against so far. Argument from popularity? News flash, Baretta: the majority of human beings are woefully uneducated. What percentage of the world population, do you think, has even a 3rd grade level education? Is being on the "majority" side really that impressive if the majority can't even understand long division, and thinks a double-bond is related to a 007 movie?

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Considering that we can actually see and understand examples of simple forms of life (simple in this context meaning "simpler than multicellular life")...that's a pretty reasonable conclusion. Im sorry...what?

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.

Nobody says that. The Theory of Evolution has bee modified many times to account for new data. That's what science does. The only ones insisting on infallibility are Creationists with regard to the bible. What? I dont think you understand what a mutation is. Mutations are simply errors in the copying of a DNA (or RNA) sequence. They happen all the time - you even have some mutations of your own. The "first mutation" would have occurred when the first life form self-replicated, but didn't copy perfectly. What? Radiometric dating (I assume this is what you're talking about) is an entirely seperate subject from the Theory of Evolution, though radioactive decay is very well understood and extremely predictable. Not true. We discover new things all the time, so clearly things that have not yet been observed CAN be real. And this isn't "evolutionists" we're talking about - rational people of all types work under the "presupposition" that we assume a thing does not exist until we see evidence that it does. It's the same reason nobody seriously assumes that there is an invisible dragon perched on your shoulder. Jar is a Christian, and believes in both evolution and god. Evolution also has nothing to do with Big Bang cosmology.I dont see evolutionists making presuppositions, Lucy. I see you making presuppositions about evolution, without even reading about what it actually says.

---

Every time a fundy breaks the laws of thermodynamics, Schroedinger probably kills his cat.