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

[Chas]

Ok, I am making a claim that the results of the experiment indicate no deific involvement is required for amino acids to polymerise under conditions thought to simulate those of the primaeval Earth.

As evidence for this claim, I submit the results of the experiment.

The conserved laws of nature are a requirement for amino acids to polymerize under conditions thought to simulate those of primeval Earth. I submit that until you show there is no deific involvement required for the conservation of the laws of nature, it follows you cannot credibly claim the results of the experiment indicate no deific involvement.

If A is a requirement of B and B is a requirement of C, then A is a requirement of C.

A = Deific Involvement
B = Conserved Laws of nature
C = Results of the Experiment.

Until you show A is or is not a requirement of B, you can't say anything about whether C requires or does not require A. Your claim has no foundation.

Do we also have to prove no leprechaun involvement? Sprite involvement? Pixie involvement?

No, Heywood, that is not the way it works.