Has evolution been proven ?

"Refuted" would be the better term. There is, after all, a difference. Funny, I only began to feel truly at peace and joyful when I realized that God doesn't exist. If your feelings are proof, then mine must be too, but how can we both be right?Maybe feelings aren't much evidence of anything?

I think Brad hates it when I tell people this, but nobody does. Well, that's not entirely true. Some posters apparently find great lucidity in his writing.I am not one of them. Most people here don't seem to be. Sorry, Brad, but I felt it was important that Lam not feel like he was the only one.

There's a computer scientist whose name escapes me who predicts that, given enough time, computing power will escalate to the point where it would be possible to exactly model the history of the Earth, including the conciousness of all humans who had ever lived, and reconstruct their identities inside of a massive computer simulation.At that point, they need never die or suffer because the simulation would be programmed to be the ultimate human paradise. Whatever that is.Fanciful in the extreme but I bring it up to demonstrate that views of the afterlife need not require anything so tenuous as the soul. If you're really interested in non-supernatural ideas about the afterlife I reccommend the fiction of Iain M. Banks.Anyway perhaps conciousness creates souls. Who knows? But it's hardly the case that evolution = no souls or afterlife. Given that those things aren't accessable to scientific inquiry by definition, it would be overstepping the bounds of science to use evolution, or any other theory, to try to disprove them. (Though certainly there isn't any evidence that they do exist.)

Tipler, that's the guy. I was wrong about him being a computer scientist, I guess.Thanks for the correction.

If the only evidence offered in support for that is that the two accounts don't agree, then it's just an ad-hoc hypothesis, and the only reason to believe it is if you assume the Bible has to be true.

It's much like sugar, only it makes you thirsty.Or am I supposed to assume that you've never tasted sweet, either? Should I assume you've never tasted anything at all?

This doesn't follow. If there's no situation that would prove God false then God can't ever be assumed to be true.Saying something isn't falsifiable isn't an admission that it must be true. It's a realization that there's no way to tell the difference between it being true and it being false.If God isn't falsifiable, there's no difference between God existing and God not existing. Therefore your conclusions about evolution are also false - the truth of evolution would have nothing to do with the existence of God.