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

[Mister Agenda]

Negative.

For it to happen you have to have unchanging Laws of Nature. Laws of Nature are about something other than themselves. The law of conservation of momentum is about conserving momentum and not about conserving itself. In order for the Law of conservation of momentum to be conserved, something must exist which conserves it. That something could very well be God.

There are many ways in which the laws of nature could conceivably change without preventing abiogenesis from occurring...but there are many more conceivable ways in which the laws of nature could change that would disallow it.

Maybe the laws of nature have already changed, and once allowed abiogeneis, but now no longer do.

'Unchanging laws of nature' is a made-up standard. There's nothing about the God hypothesis that leads to unchanging natural laws. Presumably a powerful-enough god could change them at will, and might minutely tweak them regularly. And if we found evidence that a natural law had changed slightly, there would be many theists instantly jumping on it as evidence of God adjusting the dial of the universal constants. A point that supports the same scenario if reversed isn't really a point.

---

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.

In the same sense that if one cannot show there is no Leprechaun or Astral Vampire involvement, you can't say anything about whether C requires or does not require A?

Edit: I acknowledge being ninja'd by Chad.