mike the wiz writes:
With evolution, the problem is that weak evidence is promoted to conclude that it is a "fact", but evolution is not a fact, logically speaking. (I promise you)
That's a nice promise you got there, I'll do you one better though. Instead of some lazy promise, I'll actually
show you that evolution is a fact.
Logically, to make evolution a fact, and proven, you have to find the logical equivalent in nature, and PROVE that evolution MUST follow.
No, this doesn't make any sense.
Logically, to make evolution a fact, and proven, all we have to do is find the logical equivalent in nature (which has been done) and SHOW that evolution agrees with ALL observations (which it does). Add in the fact that evolution can also be used to PREDICT future observations (which has also successfully happened) and you got yourself a tightly packed, extremely well validated, proven fact.
All without relying on any promises.
Until it can be logically shown that evolution certainly followed - you only have a weak "picture" made from weak evidences, which usually depend on a belief in other theories with weak evidences.
It is not required to show that evolution logically, certainly follows from the observations. It is only required to show that evolution agrees with ALL observations. Like any other science... it is not required to show that gravity logically, certainly follows from the observations. It is only required to show that gravity agrees with ALL observations.
The only thing that would weaken evolution, is finding observations in nature that do not agree with it. This hasn't happened yet, after 200 years of intense searching. All we find is confirmation after confirmation. But who knows? Maybe you'll be the first. But I won't accept your promise, you'll actually have to show how evolution doesn't agree with the observations.
If our very existanece proves evolution then our very exitence proves that existence is because of a giant ant regurgitating matter.
Our very existence is not required to prove evolution as a fact. We, however, are "an" observation; which includes us in ALL observations; which then goes to show that our existence is indeed a
part of the proof for evolution being a fact of reality. But it is not required by any means.
However, if we're going to use a methodology such as your promises... then a giant ant regurgitating matter could quite possibly be your next "logical" step.