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

[Esquilax]

I'm not claiming that at all. I am claiming that Stimbo can't just say there is no indication of God in the experiment until he rules out indications of God in all elements of the experiment. Stimbo is just taking it as axiomatic that conserved symmetries are not an indication of God when he has no idea why symmetries are conserved in the first place. He then concludes that none of the elements of the experiment indicate the presence of God. His conclusion is one of his axioms.

The argument I am making isn't an argument for God. It is an argument that Stimbo has no justification for the claim he made and the logic by which he arrives at his conclusion is fatally flawed.

Claims that are not demonstrated are irrational to accept. You are asking that we entertain a claim that has no demonstration, while accusing us of being irrational because we won't allow you to shift the burden of proof. Way to go.