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

[Heywood]

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.

No, what is rejected is your idea of a prior intelligence because you have no evidence for it.

No Chas, I don't need to prove a prior intelligence. What is true is this:

The probability of our lineage of life being the product of intelligent design cannot exceed the probability of a pre-existing intellect being around to produce it.

In order to reject the claim Chas, you have to have computed the probability of a pre-existing intellect being around and determined it to be at or very near 0.

How have you done this probability calculation? If you haven't how can you credibly reject the claim?

---

Trying to turn an argument against your claim into an argument about God's existence(or lack thereof) is strawmanning.

Is it?

My 'claim' that you're so proud of parading around was that no gods were necessary for the M/U results. How is that not addressing arguments for a god's existence or lack thereof? Except inasmuch as you keep capitalising the word where I never have, thus narrowing the scope to one specific deity instead of all such.

You claimed that the results of the experiment show that God is not necessary. I made an argument that there must exist something with attributes commonly ascribed to God for the experiment to behave they way they do. Really the only credible counter argument to save your position would be to argue that something which conserves itself and the laws of nature isn't necessary for the experiments to behave the way they do. You chose not to do that and instead focus on arguing that God does not exist.

Your initial claim was unsubstantiated and your defense of it was impotent.