They are completely different things, therefore you are correct - you should not have accepted that they were approximately the same. When there is extensive and varied evidence for something, validated in many ways, under varied conditions, by several researchers then we may have what you call scientific proof. However, that is a long way from an item or two of evidence.
sigurd, that is basic science methodology. We never have an absolute assurance of any scientific hypothesis or theory. A single contrary observation could overturn/negate/falsify any theory. Some have been so thoroughly confirmed that it is thought highly improbable that such an observation will arise, but science is always open to the possibility that it might.
You think it is an absurd concept. Science has delivered its advances because the practitioners of science do not think it is absurd.
If you are looking for assurances try creationism.
The Law and Science are two different fields. Comparison between the two is generally unproductive.
Yes, it is warranted. That means it is reasonable to make the claim. It does not mean the claim is right it means that there is some reason to believe the claim may be right. There is some evidence the claim is right.
Fine. I was objecting to your earlier form which I now understand was a consequence of your misunderstanding of the meaning of evidence in this context.
Irrelevant. Together these make the unwarranted, implied assumption that life can originate in only one way in only one set of environmental conditions.
I think Karl Popper has said approximately all that needs to be said on scientific methodology. Its known that scientific laws can only be disproven.
But successful communication presupposes a common language and logic and we are not (yet) able to correctly interprete each others texts.
To me texts in here seem to be written by personal enemies of mine(I hasten to add that I dont believe that actually is the case, it only
looks that way to me perhaps as a result of unsuccessful communication.)
I dont
know what your reaction to MY text is...do you (not YOU in particular) find me arrogant closeminded incompetent and lunatic as is my interpretation of reactions to my writings?
I think my def above needs correction:
Successful communication presupposes a common language, logic and manner.
That said ill return to the matter at hand, but first:
Why do you think I should consider believing in creationism? What will the effect on other readers be?
If I imply the same of you...would you be insulted? ARE YOU insulting me on purpose? Is that not against forum rules?
Now business:
Why did you ignore all numbered questions but the last two?
And yes, together they indicate something:
IF we find a situation in a gravity weak volume where conditions are sufficient for life to arise
THEN because of having gravity as a factor
it is impossible that exactly the same condition will occur on any planet under natural conditions!
How can you say that this is irrelevant? Irrelevant to what? Why, if such a situation is found, is it not evidence or proof ?
And, at last:
I have no wish what so ever to insult you...is that communicated?