Scientific Debate: Why I assert that Darwin's theory of evolution is false

[Whateverist]

As far as we know there is and has never been a new organism that created itself because that organism would first have to have the conscience to know that it is, in fact, creating itself. There has also never been any successful experiments that have proven that organic life can be created from inorganic materials.

I only included and bolded the bit I disagree with. But first of all kudos to you for trying to weave as much knowledge of the world around us into your worldview. For that is what the scientific method has done better than any other approach is to distill what can be known about the world around us through observation.

From my perspective you are saddled with an enormous handicap by virtue of your need to filter what can be observed directly through the religious filter you accept a priori. But I see you struggling mightily to bring the world that can be observed directly into alignment with those a priori beliefs. And you've managed to reconcile a great deal more than many we get through here. So kudos to you.

If you'd like me to elaborate on why I bolded the part I did I'm happy to do so.

---

Then it must also stand to reason that since there's never been any scientific proof that god exists, he must not exist.

Also, hasn't this topic cropped up a hundred times already?

1. Ok I wasn't arguing that God existed but this wasn't meant to be a religious debate and 2. If you are bored with this topic then why didn't you just ignore it?

I think DarkHorse raises a good point. If Darwin's theory must be discarded unless there is scientific proof for it, wouldn't the same criteria have to be applied to its alternative?

Apparently you don't really have a beef with evolution. It is the origins of life itself which concerns you. Evolution is mute when it comes to where life came from, only with what it does once arisen. So you may think God blinked the earliest life forms into existence or believe that life here was seeded by aliens, and still accept evolution as the best theory to account for what we observe at the microscopic level as well as in the fossil record.

Of course evolution is also compatible with the belief that the transition from inorganic to organic had entirely natural causes. But nothing about evolution is dependent on accepting abiogenesis. Perhaps it bothers you that accepting natural cause for the present forms of life somehow suggests that there must also have been a natural cause for the initial forms of life? Obviously I share that bias. But there is no reason that you must in order to redeem the explanatory value of the theory of evolution.