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

[Heywood]

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.

Abiogenesis is not demonstrated....yet you appear to accept that claim. Intelligent design of lineages of life have been demonstrated....yet you appear to reject the claim that our lineage of life could be the product of intelligent design.

Your apparent positions are wholly inconsistent with what you just wrote.

The whole point of the thread on belief and knowledge in the philosophy section was to show that such statements like you wrote above.....are just silly.

---

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.

I cannot speak for Stimbo, he can/will do that himself.

However, your argument postulates something that is unnecessary. The experiment would look the same with or without god. So adding god is pointless. Unless, you can show that god is necessary for the experiments to behave the way they do, your point is mute.

Also, your argument allows for any mythical being to exist to maintain the symmetries.

Finally, adding some mythical being doesn't explain anything. You're answering a mystery with a bigger mystery.

The results of the experiments require conserved laws of nature. Laws of nature are about something other than themselves. The law of conservation of momentum conserves momentum....it does not conserve itself. What is required is something which conserves laws of nature and also conserves itself. Conserving laws of nature and also conserving itself is a quality of God. Does that prove God's existence? It does not. I does prove that something with some of God's attributes must exist in order for the experiments to behave the way they do.

Considering the possibility of God here is not pointless because it adds a necessary requirement for the experiments to behave the way they do.