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

[Esquilax]

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.

Aww, how cute! Heywood's never heard of methodological naturalism! So every time he talks about science, I guess we can safely just ignore him until he takes a fucking remedial science class!