: I very much understand the difference between evidence and proof, without you
: having to be condescending. And a court of law can ONLY ever determine the
: best explanation for the evidence of a past set of events. The court of
: law was not AT the event. It is only told a explanations from two
: perspectives, and must decide which best fits the facts, within the bounds
: of the legal system. I don't care how you define "burden of
: proof" - I know what it is: Our court system has decided a priori to
: consider all defendants innocent until proven guilty. THAT is the basis on
: which the burden of proof is founded. That is the framework in which the
: court system works. That is why prosecution must prove the defendant
: guilty. That is exactly the process I am attempting to explain.

: No, you are are choosing to find ways to explain something that I am already
: saying, attempting to make me out to be the fool for "not
: understanding".

: Your insistence that there is no 'vital spark' to life is not well defined
: and you have given me no reason to believe it does not exist - you have
: given no example of an observable or repeatable demonstration of life
: arising from non-life.

: Ok, that's your choice. At this point, it's entirely irrelevant because no
: one has observed the requirements to refute the theory, and no one has
: observed all of life to spot a single life arising from non-life. And
: so, Science continues. Yay science!

: Evidence: every life you see see born or cloned from existing life. This is
: not proof. It is a demonstration that supports the premise of this 'vital
: spark'.

: You see how it works, every time a life is born or cloned from existing life.

: See: above.

: Why? Need of a concept doesn't dictate its truth or not. Neither has the
: evidence I've provided prove that the 'vital spark' exists. The
: observations only support the theory that it exists.

: What does what do? Life arises from life. Scientists use the laws of
: chemistry to explain the process of how and why this happens. Scientists
: have not (yet?) been able to recreate this process without using existing
: life.

: Well it would be to someone who already firmly believes in leprechauns.

: No one said you had to concede that they exist.

: To the person who believes in them, it is up to you to prove it to them, to
: change their minds.
: Otherwise, what do you care?

: I'm not telling you "the vital spark exists, damnit!"
: I'm telling you "you are free to believe it doesn't, and continue your
: life and scientific exploration of the universe under that presumption if
: you wish; likewise, my belief that it does exist is perfectly viable as
: well, and neither of us have any scientific proof to refute the other's
: position"

: Look, you and I are obviously not seeing eye to eye on this concept of
: evidence vs proof. Either I'm not explaining myself enough, or you're not
: getting what I'm saying. Or vice versa . Or, maybe we as a matter of fact
: agree, but our words are not in synch. Whatever the case, please do not
: resort to any ad hominim attack implying I'm some kind of fool or
: unintelligent because I "don't understand" some simple logic.
: I'm fine ending this conversation now (and I want it to end), in an effort to
: stop spamming HBO with this circular debate that has nothing any more to
: do with Halo.

Burden of proof falls on the party making the positive claim.

If I claimed that a teapot was in orbit of Jupiter, it would be burden of proof on me to provide evidence of this circumstance, not on you to disprove it was there or not.

You can't even provide a definition of what this 'vital spark' is in any concrete terms and yet life exists on this planet. That suggests on the face of it that it's not required, but if you can provide either a definition or evidence of its presence, I'd certainly love to hear it.