Actually lots of stuff proves evolution. As you have been repeated shown on the thread you started. That's why scientists all over the world, not only accept it, but look towards how it all started. That is abiogenesis. How does life evolve from non life--we had a lot of the pieces of the puzzle...now we have examples of the building blocks coming from a blend of natural elements and energy. For most biologists, even creationist ones like Francis Collins--evolution was has been proven for some time. But they always hold that god had to be behind the start of it. Most scientists know that many things formerly attributed to invisible entities like gods or demons are now attributed to natural forces (things like tornados, for example). We have long sensed that this was true of abiogenesis--as well--each step of the puzzle allows us to learn more. Defaulting to "goddidit" is a dead end. It's useless for furthering understanding. And this means there's a decent chance that there is some sort of beginning life forms on Mars. So it's celebretory.
I think it's time you admit you are a creationist. To not do so, is dishonest--especially after Dr. A. defended you. And your lack of curiosity or even basic understanding on the subject confirms it. You hear what you need to hear and see what you need to see to justify the beliefs you want to have.
And you chastize those who take an extra effort to help you learn because they believed you were sincere in your inquiry.
I'm not sure your "intelligent designer" condones deception.
Y'know, articulett, I bet if you paid more attention to what I actually said rather than what you think I said and stopped applying silly double standards, I think that would get along alot better and possibly come to respect eachother. You accuse me of ignoring the vast store of information offered to me by you and other posters, yet you don't seem to take the time to even glance at my posts before denouncing them as creationist clap-trap.
Since geoman correctly intepreted what I was asking in my question, I hope you read his post and took the time to thoroughly absorb and understand it. Nevertheless, I will try to explain the intent of my question in my own words.
My intent was to point out the inconsistency with which information is disseminated in the forum as a whole, above the level of individual posters. As I pointed out, a thread was recently posted with the hopes of answering some of jesus_freak's questions abot the science of evolution in which his initial question was:
How did life start? I know you will say evolution has nothing to do with the begining of life, but at some point non life had to evolve into life. Is that fair?
which he followed up with:
Ok here is another question then...
When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
both of were met with a resound "abiogenesis is not evolution" argument from the other posters, which strangely included drkitten who is also claiming here that somehow my objection to equation of abiogenesis with evolution makes me a creationist despite her rather emphatic posts against such an equation in the aforementioned thread. For people who are so interested in honesty (which in this case means that the same person should not use the same data to support two contradictory conclusions), you seem to be applying a gross double standard when you accuse me of seeing only what I what to see in the post while you collectively either affirm or deny the the equation of abiogenesis with evolution simply because the affirmation allows you to claim that the title reproduction of the Miller-Urey experiment proves that evolution is real, while the denial allows you to avoid tough questions about how the lack of a definite pathway for abiogenesis (although there are many candidate pathways) effects the underpinning of evolution.
My personal belief (although it is irrelevant to my critique of the inconsistencies in the dissemination) is that abiogenesis and evolution are two separate issues in biology. Since two componenets of the definiton of life are 1) that life replicates itself and 2) that life evolves, if abiogenesis is defined as an emergence of self-replicating (i.e., living) organisms from non-self-replicating (i.e., non-living precursors), abiogenesis by definition excludes evolution, which only happens in living organisms. I realize that such a formulation assumes not only that if something is alive then it evolves (which is in the defintion) but also that if something evolves then it is alive. In other words, life and evolution are logically biconditional (i.e., something is alive if and only if it evolves or evolution is a neccesary but not sufficient condition for life). You can feel free to pick at my definitions and conclusions drawn thereof, but please refrain from calling me a creationist simply because you disagree with or misunderstand me.
Now that I have delineated my understanding of abiogenesis and its relation to evolution which is at least in part corroberated by TalkOrigins in the seciton of the
Index to Creationist Claims on abiogenesis (labeled CB on the page), especially
CB090: Evolution without biogenesis and some correspondence in the
archive that speak of confusion of abiogenesis with evolution or other forms of that phrase, I would like to re-emphasize its irrelevance to my critique. Regardless of what I belive about the relationship between abiogenesis and evolution, the information was still conveyed inconsistently, seemingly to support evolution despite the internal contradiction in the logic. This appears equally as devious as my alleged pretense of being confused while trying to advocate a creationist postion, yet you insist that it is acceptable for you to perform in defense of evolution.
belief background is, he has a point ; many threads here have to repeat ad nauseam that the theory of evolution is not disproven by lack of proof for abiogenesis, so equally we evilutionists ought not to say that evidence for abiogenesis is evidence for evolution. Against creationism possibly, but that's different. 
