Spectrum
You are not in a position to say the Creator doesn't exist because you know you don't know that.
I didn't.
I said "We all know one cannot prove something that does not exist does not exist". This is demonstrably true, as in "prove my purple invisible quantum kangaroo is not real". You can't. Nobody can.
I did say it's theists 'job' to prove god. That's different to saying god doesn't exist.
Science means knowledge. If one cannot prove something (like the theory of gravity), one cannot be said to truly 'know' that thing. Thus god is not a subject for science, as one cannot prove god, QED.
Theists don't need proof to make an investigation valid to them. A theist can (stereotypical example but you'll get my point) argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, and their arguments in that frame of reference (i.e. angels dancing on sewing apparatus) can be valid to those of like mind without proof.
A scientist cannot undertake a longitudinal study of the eco-biology of tooth fairies. Even colleagues who really really wanted fairies to exist would have to point out the person undertaking the study had no proof and was researching here-say.
If there is incontrivertible evidence for evolution and, I'm not talking adaptation,
We better start at the beginning and have you define 1/ what evolution is and 2/ what would prove evolution to you, as in the broad scope of general evolutionary theory.
then my belief is that a Creator programmed a senquence of rules or laws, a framework if you like for organic matter to evolve from simple to more complex to animated.
I concede that god could have 'blown on the dice' in such a way as to get a double six, but lack proof of god or proof even that humans are the double six (i.e. the purpose (or even dolphin) of god's creation). If god did set up things so 'this' happened, I see no proof that we are the focus. Maybe we are the result of god-designed processes, just as wood shavings are part of a carpenter-designed process, but no more the focus of the effort than the wood shavings are. Maybe god set things up to make something else and we are just industrial waste.
This isn't nearly as silly as it may sound and could explain LOTS, but humans see themselves at the centre of everything even if they are not, so us being a byproduct of no especial interest to god is not a popular idea.
so finely tuned that a little more mass here a little less gravity there and non of this would have been possible
What do you know about the anthropic principle?
Let me put it another way; do you realise every puddle of water praises the god of puddles, and marvels at how exactly its environment fits it, and how if its environment was a tiny bit different, it wouldn't fit?
If our existence was not possible (or some other existence was possible) through a change of physical constants, we a/ wouldn't know about it as we wouldn't exist, or b/ if we existed in another set of physical constants that allowed existence (obviously we wouldn't be 'we' but I think you'll follow the argument) we would ALSO assume this other range of physical constants was the only one where 'we' ('one'? multiple realities require new personal pronouns) could exist.
Blind evolution is about pot luck randomness. How many times the word random comes up with evolutionists to create something better when it should be the word instruction?
I think we better define evolution and see what would prove evolution to you and continue from there; those last two sentences show a possible lack of appreciation over what evolution even is. RANDOM? Who told you the progress of evolution is directed by RANDOM processes? Some change might be random, but that is provable in real time. The SELECTION of what features survive is so non random as to defy belief.
So Abaddon what do you think?
I think this might be an interesting conversation and look forward to you defining what you think evolution is (not a trick question I promise you) and what would prove it to you ( a question of obvious usefulness).
