RE: Scientific Debate: Why I assert that Darwin's theory of evolution is false
November 3, 2014 at 4:37 pm
(November 3, 2014 at 1:18 pm)Chas Wrote:(November 3, 2014 at 1:12 pm)Heywood Wrote: 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.
The way it works is you make a claim and then the burden of proof is on you to support that claim. For some reason you think atheists are immune to having a burden of proof....but they are not. Stimbo made a claim and the argument above shows he did not satisfy the burden of proof of substantiating his claim.
