hey, thats a good place to start

And I don’t really care 😂

partially true. again, since you're really into science, read some psychology paper. it is proven that humans make irrational decision and justified them later on. therefore, yes, it is irrational. but it is very upturned-attitude from you to assume somehow you are more "rational" than them

best thing i've seen the whole discussion

First off lab settings are called lab settings because often times they don’t happen naturally, second if you are referring to the Miller Urey experiment not only was it flawed but when corrected didn’t produce the expected results

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050325100541.htm

Of course they fired him because it goes against their theories

rip

ya ill find it for you

Yes burden of proof, evolution is the newer theory and has the burden of proof to irrefutably convince the older theory. You also came to the faith and religion chat attempting to fulfill your own goals with atheism and evolution putting the burden of proof once again on you as you attempt to contradict the primary point in this channel. You haven’t done so, as a matter of fact you give somewhat mediocre arguments at best and then insult those who believe in God

That’s called micro evolution and is different to macro evolution theory that you are familiar with. https://www.kolbecenter.org/should-catholics-believe-in-evolution/

Ey! whats up eggy?

Lab settings don't happen naturally. You can "prove" anything in a lab setting because you can manipulate it

also, it didnt happen spontaniously in a lab setting, someone started it

But evolution is something that couldn't have been controlled. You can make anything happen if you control it. I can control a rock by picking it up, but that doesn't mean it'll pick itself up.

If you come up with a new theory you have the burden of proof, thus newer theories have burden of proof.

It's random, meaning that lab settings don't mean anything or prove anything

he has a point tho...

I’m not arguing in bad faith, I have never pretended to believe your claims

Yes you’re right you still haven’t irrefutably proven your point. It still lies with you

Why would any of us refute out points?

if you could refute your point then its a flawed point isnt it?

It doesn't make any sense

of course

Again I’ve never pretended to entertain your notions

Why would I reword it. In the first 30 seconds of the video you sent you showed that atheism bears the burden of proof. It was atheists who first challenged the common belief so it is they that must provide irrefutable evidence for their views

Why would atheist's have to follow the burden of proof?

But there is no reason that the burden of proof applies. There's nothing to prove.

but your making a positive argument in favor of your negative

Because by default the state of people is to believe in a god or in God. If that is the default position then anything other than the default must provide irrefutable evidence for their view and so much of it that they over whelm the default to become the new default

but you then claim evolution

You say evolution exists

you must prove evolution

Ok and since everyone here believes that He does, the burden of proof is on you to irrefutably prove your point

that too

https://tenor.com/view/captain-america-avengers-endgame-old-man-i-dont-think-i-will-gif-14669627

im willing to engage

we have engaged you... i've been here for a log time being berated for not proving that god exists XD

Tu quoque