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

[Esquilax]

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.

Then you also have no idea how claims work, or the burden of proof. Stimbo's "claim," such as it was, was that the experiment registered no involvement from a deity. The absence of detectable god involvement is the support for that claim. Your response was to basically whine that absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, apparently missing that in a situation in which no god was present, no evidence is what you would expect to find, and what was found in the results of the experiment.

If someone provides a lack of detectable evidence for a thing, which does resolve a burden of proof, you can't come back and say "oh yeah, well what if nobody can detect the evidence but it's totally still there, huh?!" as if that's a rebuttal that even makes sense, because how would you know?

That is, in a very literal sense, you making shit up to cover for your own complete failure to render a cogent point.