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

[Cato]

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?

[JesusHChrist]

All theistic prattling is meant to be a joke. A sick, sad, pathetic joke.

[Mister Agenda]

Evolutionists tell us we cannot see evolution taking place because it happens too slowly.

It actually does happen too slowly. Not so slowly that we can't observe it happening over decades, though.

There is much variation in bacteria. There are many mutations but they never turn into anything new.

It took about 2.5 billion years to get from bacteria to multicelled life with natural laboratories running 24/7. Why do you think bacteria not evolving into multicelled life in a petri dish within human memory is significant?

They always remain bacteria.

Bacteria are better evolved than anything else to the environmental niche they occupy. Why should they stop being bacteria? And why would you expect them to stop being bacteria on a human timescale?

Fruit flies are much more complex than already complex single-cell bacteria.

Sure. Even their individual cells are more complex, because they're eukaryotic.

In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. There is much variation in fruit flies. There are many mutations. But they never turn into anything new. They always remain fruit flies. Many years of study of countless generations of bacteria and fruit flies all over the world shows that evolution is not happening today.

Speciation has occurred in fruit flies. But even fruit fly generations are not short enough for them to evolve into a new taxonomic family on a human timescale. You're like someone claiming time doesn't pass because you can't see the hour hand move while claiming the second hand doesn't prove anything because you can't watch it turn into an hour, even after waiting a whole minute.

[Esquilax]

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.

Aww, how cute! Heywood's never heard of methodological naturalism! So every time he talks about science, I guess we can safely just ignore him until he takes a fucking remedial science class!

[Mister Agenda]

Negative.

For it to happen you have to have unchanging Laws of Nature. Laws of Nature are about something other than themselves. The law of conservation of momentum is about conserving momentum and not about conserving itself. 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.

There are many ways in which the laws of nature could conceivably change without preventing abiogenesis from occurring...but there are many more conceivable ways in which the laws of nature could change that would disallow it.

Maybe the laws of nature have already changed, and once allowed abiogeneis, but now no longer do.

'Unchanging laws of nature' is a made-up standard. There's nothing about the God hypothesis that leads to unchanging natural laws. Presumably a powerful-enough god could change them at will, and might minutely tweak them regularly. And if we found evidence that a natural law had changed slightly, there would be many theists instantly jumping on it as evidence of God adjusting the dial of the universal constants. A point that supports the same scenario if reversed isn't really a point.

---

Ok, I am making a claim that the results of the experiment indicate no deific involvement is required for amino acids to polymerise under conditions thought to simulate those of the primaeval Earth.

As evidence for this claim, I submit the results 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.

In the same sense that if one cannot show there is no Leprechaun or Astral Vampire involvement, you can't say anything about whether C requires or does not require A?

Edit: I acknowledge being ninja'd by Chad.

[Cyberman]

Min and Esq and probably some others in the vodka fog have already said this, woodpecker, but the system as it is works fine without magic external intervention. If you want to posit one knock yourself out. I'll get the popcorn.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Ok, I am making a claim that the results of the experiment indicate no deific involvement is required for amino acids to polymerise under conditions thought to simulate those of the primaeval Earth.

As evidence for this claim, I submit the results 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.

Oh dayum, how embarrassing.

[abaris]

Reading through this thread, I'm just waiting when the old argument of why there are still apes raises it's old ugly head.

I wonder why it's so hard to get that a perfectly adapted species has no reason to change into anything different. Crocodiles and gators didn't change for millions of years because they're perfect for what they're doing. Mammals on the other hand had very good reason to change. Once the competition from the Dynosaurs was gone, there were ample opportunities they didn't have before.

[Heywood]

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.

Do we also have to prove no leprechaun involvement? Sprite involvement? Pixie involvement?

No, Heywood, that is not the way it works.

The way it works is you make a claim and then the burden of proof is on you to support that claim. For some reason you think atheists are immune to having a burden of proof....but they are not. Stimbo made a claim and the argument above shows he did not satisfy the burden of proof of substantiating his claim.

[abaris]

For some reason you think atheists are immune to having a burden of proof....but they are not.

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.