You are either being stupid on purpose to be aggravating, or you lack fundamental abilities to seperate "probably true" from "no evidence of being true".

>I look at speculation as boolean, meaning either you're
>speculating or you are not.

Where you would be wrong. You can speculate on the exact nature of gravity (which isn't decided) and come up with plausible answers for why it behaves the way it does on certain scales and why that isn't consistent with our current understanding. You can also speculate that gravity doesn't exist because it doesn't always line up with that understanding. One of them is being stupid, the other is not.

>Either you know or you do not.

This is the kind of rabbit hole thinking that leads to questions like, "How do I know everything isn't happening in my head and no one else exists?" They are pointless and lead to no greater understanding.

>Being that extra-terrestrial is defined as anything not from
>Earth, where do you draw the line in terms of "development of
>our planet"?

Easy, either life originated here, or it didn't and was transplanted here from extra-terrestrial sources.

>At the very least, the planet itself is
>definately affected by extra-terrestrial influence

Yea, and the stars at night are pretty, but that isn't relevant.

> - there's
>definately evidence that Earth did not create itself and
>there's "proof" to that effect.

Huh?

>Suggesting that there could
>have been no external influence, either in the process of how
>evolution works (physics of it), or specific paths it has
>taken is equally lacking in evidence as saying the reverse.

Suggesting there there has been external influence when there is no evidence of it is silly. Prove you aren't controlled by aliens, because even though I have no evidence that says you are, I think you should be able to prove to that you are not.

>In other words, you're making this argument in terms of logic
>:
>
>1) Evolution requires no extra-terrestrial influence.

So far as we know, this seems to be the case.

>2) Evolution can be observed in the development of life.

Yep.

>3) Therefore evolution is the sole development of life on
>Earth without any extra-terrestrial influence.

In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, this certainly seems the most likely, but FSM and his noodly appendages can work some craziness.

>4) Those who suggest 3 is false, contradict 1 & 2.

Those who suggest number 3 is true because there is no evidence contrary to it must have some evidence supporting it... No? Then it doesn't seem all that likely does it.