"Natural Selection" Is Flawed...

[BuckToothMoron]

It matters because these same people bring this same ignorance to the table when deciding on how to vote, and therefore all the laws that everyone must live by. It gives a dangerous amount of power to ignorance, and it's easily avoided. If their nonsensical beliefs remained within their own bubble, I'd have no problem with it. But the facts are that said ignorance does not remain I isolated to the viewholder.

Yet you cant produce one fact that proves evolution started life. You can only show proof of evolution existing as a process dependent on the existence of life.

No credible student of science has ever stated tha evolution started life. It's nosensicle at just a casual glance. No life= no evolution. You alone make this claim. And I agree that it is absurd.

No the implication is that evolution started life. The story goes something like this. One day evolution talked some dirt into becoming alive and replicating itself. Evolution continued to coax this life into changing to adapt to an environment so it would stay alive.

Until you can point to where life spontaneously generates itself you have no proof there is not a master engineer.

Only a student of futility would endeavor to pursue proof of nonexistence. Science focuses on the understanding of what can be proven to exist. And as for a "creator", no evidence, or proof exists...

Humans dont have the ability to prove everything which is where your argument fails. There is no one to correct them being wrong as science has proven to be on countless occasions. There is proof there is a creator. I already cited the existence of fractals as proof.

Sorry, I missed your "factual" proof of a creator. Will you please repost or direct me to your post where it exist. I also never claimed that humans do have the ability to prove everything, so I'm not sure why you are employing that straw man argument.

It seems apparent we have exhausted this line of discussion. This is the typical conclusion when debating or discussing this topic with a theologically based thinker such as yourself rather than a scientifically based thinker. They run dry on substance and resort to,philosophy.

 

[Asclepias]

Yet you cant produce one fact that proves evolution started life. You can only show proof of evolution existing as a process dependent on the existence of life.

No credible student of science has ever stated tha evolution started life. It's nosensicle at just a casual glance. No life= no evolution. You alone make this claim. And I agree that it is absurd.

No the implication is that evolution started life. The story goes something like this. One day evolution talked some dirt into becoming alive and replicating itself. Evolution continued to coax this life into changing to adapt to an environment so it would stay alive.

Until you can point to where life spontaneously generates itself you have no proof there is not a master engineer.

Only a student of futility would endeavor to pursue proof of nonexistence. Science focuses on the understanding of what can be proven to exist. And as for a "creator", no evidence, or proof exists...

Humans dont have the ability to prove everything which is where your argument fails. There is no one to correct them being wrong as science has proven to be on countless occasions. There is proof there is a creator. I already cited the existence of fractals as proof.

Sorry, I missed your "factual" proof of a creator. Will you please repost or direct me to your post where it exist. I also never claimed that humans do have the ability to prove everything, so I'm not sure why you are employing that straw man argument.

It seems apparent we have exhausted this line of discussion. This is the typical conclusion when debating or discussing this topic with a theologically based thinker such as yourself rather than a scientifically based thinker. They run dry on substance and resort to,philosophy.

Its back a couple of pages. You claimed science (which was invented by humans) focuses on the understanding of what can be proven to exist. If you dont focus on the entire picture you miss a lot of things which science has done repeatedly. Therefore there is no strawman. You made the claim. I just addressed it.

I'm an engineer so by nature I think scientifically. However, since I am also a complete human I dont turn a blind eye to the things I dont understand like an ostrich burying its head in the sand.

 

[Asclepias]

No the implication is that evolution started life. The story goes something like this. One day evolution talked some dirt into becoming alive and replicating itself. Evolution continued to coax this life into changing to adapt to an environment so it would stay alive.

Until you can point to where life spontaneously generates itself you have no proof there is not a master engineer.

Only a student of futility would endeavor to pursue proof of nonexistence. Science focuses on the understanding of what can be proven to exist. And as for a "creator", no evidence, or proof exists...

Humans dont have the ability to prove everything which is where your argument fails. There is no one to correct them being wrong as science has proven to be on countless occasions. There is proof there is a creator. I already cited the existence of fractals as proof.

No you didn't cite proof. You asserted a belief. If you can conclusively connect fractals to a creator youd have proof. The foundation of science is founded on the admission of ignorance, and pushed forward by the pursuit of knowledge. Furthermore it demands of itself peer review and scrutiny; from where it's conclusions are backed by demonstrable proof. Not belief. No faith required...

Yes I did cite proof. Fractals. Fractals are not a belief. They exist. The fact that they follow a mathematical pattern show that someone with engineering skills created life. If you were an engineer you would understand this.

Correlation/causation fallacy. You're relying on the God of the gaps to save your assertion. He can't...

Youre relying on the naive and fraudulent logic that you cant prove a negative. There is no such thing as god per say. However there is obviously a creator.

 

[Vastator]

Only a student of futility would endeavor to pursue proof of nonexistence. Science focuses on the understanding of what can be proven to exist. And as for a "creator", no evidence, or proof exists...

Humans dont have the ability to prove everything which is where your argument fails. There is no one to correct them being wrong as science has proven to be on countless occasions. There is proof there is a creator. I already cited the existence of fractals as proof.

No you didn't cite proof. You asserted a belief. If you can conclusively connect fractals to a creator youd have proof. The foundation of science is founded on the admission of ignorance, and pushed forward by the pursuit of knowledge. Furthermore it demands of itself peer review and scrutiny; from where it's conclusions are backed by demonstrable proof. Not belief. No faith required...

Yes I did cite proof. Fractals. Fractals are not a belief. They exist. The fact that they follow a mathematical pattern show that someone with engineering skills created life. If you were an engineer you would understand this.

Correlation/causation fallacy. You're relying on the God of the gaps to save your assertion. He can't...

Youre relying on the naive and fraudulent logic that you cant prove a negative. There is no such thing as god per say. However there is obviously a creator.

I relyed on no such thing. And what's more if what you claim is true were obvious, you would be able to produce incontrovertible evidence to support your claim. I'm always willing to revise my opinion in light of new evidence. Additionally I reserve levying an opinion on a matter without evidence.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

No credible student of science has ever stated tha evolution started life. It's nosensicle at just a casual glance. No life= no evolution. You alone make this claim. And I agree that it is absurd.

No the implication is that evolution started life. The story goes something like this. One day evolution talked some dirt into becoming alive and replicating itself. Evolution continued to coax this life into changing to adapt to an environment so it would stay alive.

Until you can point to where life spontaneously generates itself you have no proof there is not a master engineer.

Only a student of futility would endeavor to pursue proof of nonexistence. Science focuses on the understanding of what can be proven to exist. And as for a "creator", no evidence, or proof exists...

Humans dont have the ability to prove everything which is where your argument fails. There is no one to correct them being wrong as science has proven to be on countless occasions. There is proof there is a creator. I already cited the existence of fractals as proof.

No you didn't cite proof. You asserted a belief. If you can conclusively connect fractals to a creator youd have proof. The foundation of science is founded on the admission of ignorance, and pushed forward by the pursuit of knowledge. Furthermore it demands of itself peer review and scrutiny; from where it's conclusions are backed by demonstrable proof. Not belief. No faith required...

Yes I did cite proof. Fractals. Fractals are not a belief. They exist. The fact that they follow a mathematical pattern show that someone with engineering skills created life. If you were an engineer you would understand this.

Actually, I am an engineer, and the fact that fractals can be described mathematically does not prove the existence of God, nor does it disprove the Big Bang theory, or evolution. If you choose to believe in creationism, I have no issue with it, but I contend that creationism is a theory and there is no physical proof. Btw- I also feel the same way about the BIG Bang theory. They are both theories with little or no physical evidence. However there is abundant evidence for evolution. Which again is a theory of change rather than creationism, despite your baseless claim it is a theory of creation of life.

 

[Asclepias]

Humans dont have the ability to prove everything which is where your argument fails. There is no one to correct them being wrong as science has proven to be on countless occasions. There is proof there is a creator. I already cited the existence of fractals as proof.

No you didn't cite proof. You asserted a belief. If you can conclusively connect fractals to a creator youd have proof. The foundation of science is founded on the admission of ignorance, and pushed forward by the pursuit of knowledge. Furthermore it demands of itself peer review and scrutiny; from where it's conclusions are backed by demonstrable proof. Not belief. No faith required...

Yes I did cite proof. Fractals. Fractals are not a belief. They exist. The fact that they follow a mathematical pattern show that someone with engineering skills created life. If you were an engineer you would understand this.

Correlation/causation fallacy. You're relying on the God of the gaps to save your assertion. He can't...

Youre relying on the naive and fraudulent logic that you cant prove a negative. There is no such thing as god per say. However there is obviously a creator.

I relyed on no such thing. And what's more if what you claim is true were obvious, you would be able to produce incontrovertible evidence to support your claim. I'm always willing to revise my opinion in light of new evidence. Additionally I reserve levying an opinion on a matter without evidence.

I did produce incontrovertible evidence. I cited fractals and their patterns. Are you claiming there is no mathematical pattern or that fractals dont exist?

 

[Asclepias]

No the implication is that evolution started life. The story goes something like this. One day evolution talked some dirt into becoming alive and replicating itself. Evolution continued to coax this life into changing to adapt to an environment so it would stay alive.

Until you can point to where life spontaneously generates itself you have no proof there is not a master engineer.

Only a student of futility would endeavor to pursue proof of nonexistence. Science focuses on the understanding of what can be proven to exist. And as for a "creator", no evidence, or proof exists...

Humans dont have the ability to prove everything which is where your argument fails. There is no one to correct them being wrong as science has proven to be on countless occasions. There is proof there is a creator. I already cited the existence of fractals as proof.

No you didn't cite proof. You asserted a belief. If you can conclusively connect fractals to a creator youd have proof. The foundation of science is founded on the admission of ignorance, and pushed forward by the pursuit of knowledge. Furthermore it demands of itself peer review and scrutiny; from where it's conclusions are backed by demonstrable proof. Not belief. No faith required...

Yes I did cite proof. Fractals. Fractals are not a belief. They exist. The fact that they follow a mathematical pattern show that someone with engineering skills created life. If you were an engineer you would understand this.

Actually, I am an engineer, and the fact that fractals can be described mathematically does not prove the existence of God, nor does it disprove the Big Bang theory, or evolution. If you choose to believe in creationism, I have no issue with it, but I contend that creationism is a theory and there is no physical proof. Btw- I also feel the same way about the BIG Bang theory. They are both theories with little or no physical evidence. However there is abundant evidence for evolution. Which again is a theory of change rather than creationism, despite your baseless claim it is a theory of creation of life.

You cant describe fractals any other way than mathematically. I dont believe in creationism or god. I believe life was created and evolution worked its process on life. You keep trying to pigeon hole my belief as creationism because you cant comprehend what i am saying obviously.

 

[Vastator]

No you didn't cite proof. You asserted a belief. If you can conclusively connect fractals to a creator youd have proof. The foundation of science is founded on the admission of ignorance, and pushed forward by the pursuit of knowledge. Furthermore it demands of itself peer review and scrutiny; from where it's conclusions are backed by demonstrable proof. Not belief. No faith required...

Yes I did cite proof. Fractals. Fractals are not a belief. They exist. The fact that they follow a mathematical pattern show that someone with engineering skills created life. If you were an engineer you would understand this.

Correlation/causation fallacy. You're relying on the God of the gaps to save your assertion. He can't...

Youre relying on the naive and fraudulent logic that you cant prove a negative. There is no such thing as god per say. However there is obviously a creator.

I relyed on no such thing. And what's more if what you claim is true were obvious, you would be able to produce incontrovertible evidence to support your claim. I'm always willing to revise my opinion in light of new evidence. Additionally I reserve levying an opinion on a matter without evidence.

I did produce incontrovertible evidence. I cited fractals and their patterns. Are you claiming there is no mathematical pattern or that fractals dont exist?

I made no such claim.

 

[Vastator]

No you didn't cite proof. You asserted a belief. If you can conclusively connect fractals to a creator youd have proof. The foundation of science is founded on the admission of ignorance, and pushed forward by the pursuit of knowledge. Furthermore it demands of itself peer review and scrutiny; from where it's conclusions are backed by demonstrable proof. Not belief. No faith required...

Yes I did cite proof. Fractals. Fractals are not a belief. They exist. The fact that they follow a mathematical pattern show that someone with engineering skills created life. If you were an engineer you would understand this.

Correlation/causation fallacy. You're relying on the God of the gaps to save your assertion. He can't...

Youre relying on the naive and fraudulent logic that you cant prove a negative. There is no such thing as god per say. However there is obviously a creator.

I relyed on no such thing. And what's more if what you claim is true were obvious, you would be able to produce incontrovertible evidence to support your claim. I'm always willing to revise my opinion in light of new evidence. Additionally I reserve levying an opinion on a matter without evidence.

I did produce incontrovertible evidence. I cited fractals and their patterns. Are you claiming there is no mathematical pattern or that fractals dont exist?

The existence of the natural, no matter how wonderous, or mysterious implys the existence of the supernatural.

 

[Asclepias]

Yes I did cite proof. Fractals. Fractals are not a belief. They exist. The fact that they follow a mathematical pattern show that someone with engineering skills created life. If you were an engineer you would understand this.

Correlation/causation fallacy. You're relying on the God of the gaps to save your assertion. He can't...

Youre relying on the naive and fraudulent logic that you cant prove a negative. There is no such thing as god per say. However there is obviously a creator.

I relyed on no such thing. And what's more if what you claim is true were obvious, you would be able to produce incontrovertible evidence to support your claim. I'm always willing to revise my opinion in light of new evidence. Additionally I reserve levying an opinion on a matter without evidence.

I did produce incontrovertible evidence. I cited fractals and their patterns. Are you claiming there is no mathematical pattern or that fractals dont exist?

I made no such claim.

Thats good. Now we are getting somewhere. You cant dispute that fractals are real and that they display a mathematical pattern. The basis of life as we know it is based on mathematical patterns. That didnt just spontaneously happen. Since we cant prove there is no creator we have to allow that its possible that science has once again missed the boat in its quest prove their is no element of creating involved in life appearing.

 

[Asclepias]

Yes I did cite proof. Fractals. Fractals are not a belief. They exist. The fact that they follow a mathematical pattern show that someone with engineering skills created life. If you were an engineer you would understand this.

Correlation/causation fallacy. You're relying on the God of the gaps to save your assertion. He can't...

Youre relying on the naive and fraudulent logic that you cant prove a negative. There is no such thing as god per say. However there is obviously a creator.

I relyed on no such thing. And what's more if what you claim is true were obvious, you would be able to produce incontrovertible evidence to support your claim. I'm always willing to revise my opinion in light of new evidence. Additionally I reserve levying an opinion on a matter without evidence.

I did produce incontrovertible evidence. I cited fractals and their patterns. Are you claiming there is no mathematical pattern or that fractals dont exist?

The existence of the natural, no matter how wonderous, or mysterious implys the existence of the supernatural.

Thats a great opinion but since you cant prove it then it will just remain an opinion. Personally I dont see anything supernatural about it. Its math.

 

[Vastator]

Correlation/causation fallacy. You're relying on the God of the gaps to save your assertion. He can't...

Youre relying on the naive and fraudulent logic that you cant prove a negative. There is no such thing as god per say. However there is obviously a creator.

I relyed on no such thing. And what's more if what you claim is true were obvious, you would be able to produce incontrovertible evidence to support your claim. I'm always willing to revise my opinion in light of new evidence. Additionally I reserve levying an opinion on a matter without evidence.

I did produce incontrovertible evidence. I cited fractals and their patterns. Are you claiming there is no mathematical pattern or that fractals dont exist?

The existence of the natural, no matter how wonderous, or mysterious implys the existence of the supernatural.

Thats a great opinion but since you cant prove it then it will just remain an opinion. Personally I dont see anything supernatural about it. Its math.

Math doesn't create anything. It is a method by which things are measured.

 

[Asclepias]

Youre relying on the naive and fraudulent logic that you cant prove a negative. There is no such thing as god per say. However there is obviously a creator.

I relyed on no such thing. And what's more if what you claim is true were obvious, you would be able to produce incontrovertible evidence to support your claim. I'm always willing to revise my opinion in light of new evidence. Additionally I reserve levying an opinion on a matter without evidence.

I did produce incontrovertible evidence. I cited fractals and their patterns. Are you claiming there is no mathematical pattern or that fractals dont exist?

The existence of the natural, no matter how wonderous, or mysterious implys the existence of the supernatural.

Thats a great opinion but since you cant prove it then it will just remain an opinion. Personally I dont see anything supernatural about it. Its math.

Math doesn't create anything. It is a method by which things are measured.

Thanks for pointing out the flaw in your logic.

Who or what is doing the measuring?

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Only a student of futility would endeavor to pursue proof of nonexistence. Science focuses on the understanding of what can be proven to exist. And as for a "creator", no evidence, or proof exists...

Humans dont have the ability to prove everything which is where your argument fails. There is no one to correct them being wrong as science has proven to be on countless occasions. There is proof there is a creator. I already cited the existence of fractals as proof.

No you didn't cite proof. You asserted a belief. If you can conclusively connect fractals to a creator youd have proof. The foundation of science is founded on the admission of ignorance, and pushed forward by the pursuit of knowledge. Furthermore it demands of itself peer review and scrutiny; from where it's conclusions are backed by demonstrable proof. Not belief. No faith required...

Yes I did cite proof. Fractals. Fractals are not a belief. They exist. The fact that they follow a mathematical pattern show that someone with engineering skills created life. If you were an engineer you would understand this.

Correlation/causation fallacy. You're relying on the God of the gaps to save your assertion. He can't...

Youre relying on the naive and fraudulent logic that you cant prove a negative. There is no such thing as god per say. However there is obviously a creator.

So you're an engineer. Scary! Point of fact- many unsophisticated phonies like to tout that it is a logical law that you can't prove a negative, which is untrue. I can prove that 2 + 2 does NOT equal 5. Here is an article on the subject which might enlighten you.
https://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

To address an early point you had on what is a credible source - I will accept any source as credible if it is published and peer reviewed. It's obvious that you did a search to find a source, and upon finding none, you resorted to asking me to defining credible. Well now I have, and you're fucked.

 

[Asclepias]

Humans dont have the ability to prove everything which is where your argument fails. There is no one to correct them being wrong as science has proven to be on countless occasions. There is proof there is a creator. I already cited the existence of fractals as proof.

No you didn't cite proof. You asserted a belief. If you can conclusively connect fractals to a creator youd have proof. The foundation of science is founded on the admission of ignorance, and pushed forward by the pursuit of knowledge. Furthermore it demands of itself peer review and scrutiny; from where it's conclusions are backed by demonstrable proof. Not belief. No faith required...

Yes I did cite proof. Fractals. Fractals are not a belief. They exist. The fact that they follow a mathematical pattern show that someone with engineering skills created life. If you were an engineer you would understand this.

Correlation/causation fallacy. You're relying on the God of the gaps to save your assertion. He can't...

Youre relying on the naive and fraudulent logic that you cant prove a negative. There is no such thing as god per say. However there is obviously a creator.

So you're an engineer. Scary! Point of fact- many unsophisticated phonies like to tout that it is a logical law that you can't prove a negative, which is untrue. I can prove that 2 + 2 does NOT equal 5. Here is an article on the subject which might enlighten you.
https://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

To address an early point you had on what is a credible source - I will accept any source as credible if it is published and peer reviewed. It's obvious that you did a search to find a source, and upon finding none, you resorted to asking me to defining credible. Well now I have, and you're fucked.

Wow. Either you misunderstood my post or you confused yourself. Thanks for agreeing with me that you can in fact prove a negative.

My daughter is scientist and she has informed me that peer review is actually a political game. Anything can be peer reviewed but that doesnt make it credible.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Youre relying on the naive and fraudulent logic that you cant prove a negative. There is no such thing as god per say. However there is obviously a creator.

I relyed on no such thing. And what's more if what you claim is true were obvious, you would be able to produce incontrovertible evidence to support your claim. I'm always willing to revise my opinion in light of new evidence. Additionally I reserve levying an opinion on a matter without evidence.

I did produce incontrovertible evidence. I cited fractals and their patterns. Are you claiming there is no mathematical pattern or that fractals dont exist?

The existence of the natural, no matter how wonderous, or mysterious implys the existence of the supernatural.

Thats a great opinion but since you cant prove it then it will just remain an opinion. Personally I dont see anything supernatural about it. Its math.

Math doesn't create anything. It is a method by which things are measured.

Vastator- we have been duped into debating with a idiot, and you know what that means, we either have to sink to his level, or concede he is the bigher idiot. I concede.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

No you didn't cite proof. You asserted a belief. If you can conclusively connect fractals to a creator youd have proof. The foundation of science is founded on the admission of ignorance, and pushed forward by the pursuit of knowledge. Furthermore it demands of itself peer review and scrutiny; from where it's conclusions are backed by demonstrable proof. Not belief. No faith required...

Yes I did cite proof. Fractals. Fractals are not a belief. They exist. The fact that they follow a mathematical pattern show that someone with engineering skills created life. If you were an engineer you would understand this.

Correlation/causation fallacy. You're relying on the God of the gaps to save your assertion. He can't...

Youre relying on the naive and fraudulent logic that you cant prove a negative. There is no such thing as god per say. However there is obviously a creator.

So you're an engineer. Scary! Point of fact- many unsophisticated phonies like to tout that it is a logical law that you can't prove a negative, which is untrue. I can prove that 2 + 2 does NOT equal 5. Here is an article on the subject which might enlighten you.
https://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

To address an early point you had on what is a credible source - I will accept any source as credible if it is published and peer reviewed. It's obvious that you did a search to find a source, and upon finding none, you resorted to asking me to defining credible. Well now I have, and you're fucked.

Wow. Either you misunderstood my post or you confused yourself. Thanks for agreeing with me that you can in fact prove a negative.

My daughter is scientist and she has informed me that peer review is actually a political game. Anything can be peer reviewed but that doesnt make it credible.

Fine, just sight one bloody source, any source. There is no source other than fools like you which claim evolutionary theory deals with the creation of life from nothing. You know it now, but refuse to acknowledge your mistake.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

No you didn't cite proof. You asserted a belief. If you can conclusively connect fractals to a creator youd have proof. The foundation of science is founded on the admission of ignorance, and pushed forward by the pursuit of knowledge. Furthermore it demands of itself peer review and scrutiny; from where it's conclusions are backed by demonstrable proof. Not belief. No faith required...

Yes I did cite proof. Fractals. Fractals are not a belief. They exist. The fact that they follow a mathematical pattern show that someone with engineering skills created life. If you were an engineer you would understand this.

Correlation/causation fallacy. You're relying on the God of the gaps to save your assertion. He can't...

Youre relying on the naive and fraudulent logic that you cant prove a negative. There is no such thing as god per say. However there is obviously a creator.

I relyed on no such thing. And what's more if what you claim is true were obvious, you would be able to produce incontrovertible evidence to support your claim. I'm always willing to revise my opinion in light of new evidence. Additionally I reserve levying an opinion on a matter without evidence.

I did produce incontrovertible evidence. I cited fractals and their patterns. Are you claiming there is no mathematical pattern or that fractals dont exist?

The fact they exist does not prove creationism.

 

[Asclepias]

Yes I did cite proof. Fractals. Fractals are not a belief. They exist. The fact that they follow a mathematical pattern show that someone with engineering skills created life. If you were an engineer you would understand this.

Correlation/causation fallacy. You're relying on the God of the gaps to save your assertion. He can't...

Youre relying on the naive and fraudulent logic that you cant prove a negative. There is no such thing as god per say. However there is obviously a creator.

I relyed on no such thing. And what's more if what you claim is true were obvious, you would be able to produce incontrovertible evidence to support your claim. I'm always willing to revise my opinion in light of new evidence. Additionally I reserve levying an opinion on a matter without evidence.

I did produce incontrovertible evidence. I cited fractals and their patterns. Are you claiming there is no mathematical pattern or that fractals dont exist?

The fact they exist does not prove creationism.

Of course it doesnt. I never said it proved creationism. I said it proved someone or something created life and set the process of evolution in motion.

 

[Asclepias]

Yes I did cite proof. Fractals. Fractals are not a belief. They exist. The fact that they follow a mathematical pattern show that someone with engineering skills created life. If you were an engineer you would understand this.

Correlation/causation fallacy. You're relying on the God of the gaps to save your assertion. He can't...

Youre relying on the naive and fraudulent logic that you cant prove a negative. There is no such thing as god per say. However there is obviously a creator.

So you're an engineer. Scary! Point of fact- many unsophisticated phonies like to tout that it is a logical law that you can't prove a negative, which is untrue. I can prove that 2 + 2 does NOT equal 5. Here is an article on the subject which might enlighten you.
https://departments.bloomu.edu/philosophy/pages/content/hales/articlepdf/proveanegative.pdf

To address an early point you had on what is a credible source - I will accept any source as credible if it is published and peer reviewed. It's obvious that you did a search to find a source, and upon finding none, you resorted to asking me to defining credible. Well now I have, and you're fucked.

Wow. Either you misunderstood my post or you confused yourself. Thanks for agreeing with me that you can in fact prove a negative.

My daughter is scientist and she has informed me that peer review is actually a political game. Anything can be peer reviewed but that doesnt make it credible.

Fine, just sight one bloody source, any source. There is no source other than fools like you which claim evolutionary theory deals with the creation of life from nothing. You know it now, but refuse to acknowledge your mistake.

You are free to pick any source you like. Evolutionary theory basically says that DNA alters itself to adapt to the environment. The claim is that evolution disproves the existence of a creator.