"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit...
In which of those experiments did scientists observe a deity creating life? Why do you accept creationism when it lacks evidence, but reject abiogenesis because it lacks evidence? That seems like a double standard to me.
What other reasons?
What about a fossil with a mixture of fish and amphibian traits? What about a fish with legs?
Perhaps you could describe the criteria you have used to determine that the fossil species above are not evidence for macroevolution.
I have found the smoking gun.
ERVs...
The operative term is "can be", not "must be". A skeptic can dismiss an assertion if there is a lack of evidence. That in no way is a commandment that these assertions must be dismissed. If a scientist thinks a hypothesis has merit and is worth testing then there is nothing in Hitchens' quote...
None of those are peer reviewed scientific articles that were published in a legitimate scientific journal. Peer reviewed articles in a real journal is what counts in science, not books.
Hitchens said to dismiss assertions of truth if they lack evidence. Hypotheses are not assertions of truth, they are ideas of what could be true which need further testing.
A hypothesis is a statement that may or may not be true. An assertion is a statement that is being asserted to be true (beyond a reasonable doubt). A hypothesis and an assertion are not the same thing.
It does apply. It applies to the person making the assertion of guilt. That person must provide evidence to back their assertion of guilt or their assertion can be dismissed without evidence.
Hitchens just happened to say something that is true in a way that is memorable, as he was known for...
Piltdown Man is a fake, and it should be exposed as such. That doesn't make all of the other hominid fossils fakes. They are still evidence that needs to be dealt with.
For fossil evidence, you could describe the criteria you used to determine that the fossils we do have are not proof for macroevolution.
Moving to a different subject, if I was accused of murder but I thought there was no proof against me I could still describe what proof could be. For...