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

[Chas]

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.

The conservation laws, like all the other natural laws, are man-made descriptions of the behavior of the universe. Your continued attempts to give them some other importance has gotten really old.

Reality does not require your additional requirements.

---

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?

It has nothing to do with probability - where did you get that?

You have to explain the prior intelligence, you haven't, I reject it.