[Gordongekko909]

You could certainly argue for the non-existence of a thing, but you probably wouldn't get too far with it. I could argue, for example, that time travel is impossible. 'course, I'd be disproven the second it actually happened and was observed. This is why people generally don't argue for the non-existence of stuff. Aside from the usual problems associated with proving a negative, new things keep showing up all the time.

Generally, though, the burden of proving the existence of a thing is on the party positing the existence of that thing. It makes a lot more sense to prove the existence of something by showing people one, than to attempt to prove the non-existence of something by searching each and every four-dimensional zone of space-time in all of the universe that ever was and ever will be, and then submitting an affidavit claiming that the thing was not found.

[sully777]

Therefore, you cannot prove the non-existence of God or evolution. You can only point out failed results through experimentation that may lead to a conclusion that one idea is a failure while the other is a success.

And they call me a hell-bound heathen for thinking such things.