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

[Heywood]

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.

Thats a non-sequitur and wrong.

Conservation of momentum is a byproduct of translational invariance. No one has to inforce it. Look up Noether's theorem before you spout nonsense about physical laws.

You are right about many laws of nature being consequences of symmetries. I have mentioned Noether's theorem on this forum a long time ago and I am familiar with it.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-24945-po...#pid635067

Noether's theorem doesn't disprove the argument because one could say instead of a particular law of nature being conserved, what conserves this or that symmetry. I figured the argument would be more understandable if made in terms of conservation of laws of nature rather than in terms of conservation of symmetries. I dumbed down the argument for the audience is all.

---

That's only true for gnostic atheists, as has been said about a milion times. Agnostic atheists claim there's no evidence for god, but if he were to show up, we would change our stance.

You on the other hand make a positive claim. Yo say, there's a god, so from where I am standing, the burden of proof is on you. Convince me with evidence, but not from the bible. I've read that book too and it only confirmed my position.

Yes I believe in God....but I am not arguing that here. What I am arguing here is that Stimbo's claim lacks any foundation. You and others are trying to move the goal post here to bolster Stimbo's 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?

The problem with Stimbo's claim is he assumes God is absent in every element of the experiment and then concludes God is absent in every element of the experiment. I challenge his question begging by asking how it is he knows God is not involved with conserving the laws of nature(which is an element 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.

Was this meant as a joke?

Negative....it is Deontic Logic.

Mally proposed five informal principles:

(i) If A requires B and if B requires C, then A requires C.
(ii) If A requires B and if A requires C, then A requires B and C.
(iii) A requires B if and only if it is obligatory that if A then B.
(iv) The unconditionally obligatory is obligatory.
(v) The unconditionally obligatory does not require its own negation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deontic_logic