(October 10, 2013 at 5:51 am)What_the?! Wrote: ....and your answer to my question has destroyed your position.
Indeed a null hypothesis is the default position (kind of...). In this case though, the default position is 'we don't know'.
The scientific method then requires that we propose and test possible H1 hypotheses, to see if there is any evidence to support them. If there is no evidence, we return to the H0 null hypothesis until such time as a better supported H1 hypothesis comes along.
Now, if you'd said that God is a H1 hypothesis supported by tons of evidence, then I'd disagree with you but your position wouldn't be anything like as weak as you've just made it for yourself. But the fact that you claim that god is the null hypothesis shows either a complete disregard for the scientific method, or a complete absence of understanding of it.
Any god hypothesis has to be a H1 hypothesis, and cannot be null, because it seeks to offer a positive explanation for origins, and a null hypothesis - by definition - cannot do that.
You, sir/madam, have either no understanding of the scientific method, or are choosing to completely disregard it. You really need to get to understand this before posting a again, because at the moment your posts are an amusing car crash but little else.
Please explain how life started. Make sure you include all steps to the first cell.