Originally Posted By: TheFallibleFiend
" The lack of proof, of anything, is not proof... of anything"
First, science is not about proof, but disproof (that's a by-product of falsificationism). Math uses proofs. I never said that the lack of proof of anything is a proof of anything.

However, more to the point in this case, creationists have argued SPECIFICALLY that evolution is disproved by probability. They have argued SPECIFICALLY that evolution is disproved by thermodynamics. Both of those arguments are false - and it is important to understand that they are false. I have not said that evolution is supported by either probability or thermodynamics. There are other strong evidences of evolution (fossil record, genetics, biostratigraphy, homology), but if, for example, evolution really were refuted by 2LOT, then we would have a serious quandary since the evidence clearly tells us one thing and accepted natural law clearly tells us something else. Fortunately, that's not the case. The creationists have misrepresented the second law and probability. This doesn't prove evolution - never said it did. However, scientists realize that neither evolution nor abiogenesis violates any known scientific law. It also demonstrates that creationists are quick to misrepresent known science and to spread this anti-knowledge amongst themselves and others like a virus.

Cosmological undirected evolution is disproved by the improbability of the 4 forces being present right after the big bang. How can you realistically reject what I say?