Originally Posted by LindaLou
OK, let's look here at what's being said. RAZD stated:

Quote
The problem with proving there wasn't a flood is that you cannot prove a negative. You can't prove that pink unicorns don't exist, for example, because you have not seen all of the universe. This is why science sticks with theory as an explanation of evidence, but held tentatively and discarded when invalidated.

Example:
(1) observation: no pink unicorns have been observed.
(2) theory: there are no pink unicorns.
(3) invalidation test: find a pink unicorn.

Note that theories are often stated as assumed truths in order to form invalidation tests, but this doesn't mean that they are true.


RAZD is making a point about how scientific theory works. He has shown you the logical steps in this. I don't see any logical fallacies in what he has said; what I see is that you object to his word choice, which is a personal preference but not a falsification of what he has said.

(1) observation: no abiogenesis has been observed.
(2) theory: there is no abiogenesis.
(3) invalidation test: find abiogenesis.

Bet she'll "see a logical fallacy" now!

Dark Matter + Dark Energy = Dark Truth

"We find that such evidence demonstrates that the ID argument is dependent upon setting a scientifically unreasonable burden of proof for the theory of evolution." - Judge Jones Kitzmiller case
http://www.talkreason.org/articles/Falsify.cfm

"To Compel A Man To Furnish Funds For The Propagation Of Ideas He Disbelieves And Abhors Is Sinful And Tyrannical." - Thomas Jefferson

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?" - Thomas Jefferson