I am at my computer science class and I felt like brainstorming.
Proving a negative. That's what most theists require us to do when they say "Prove there is no God!". That is not how it works.
Everybody knows that the burden of proof lies on the one who makes the claim. I will not go into detail on this, because it is plainly obvious, we have allot of threads and most people here understand the scientific method.
However, you can disproof something, but, to disproof it, you have to proove something else that is in contradiction with the current claim and has significantly more evidence than the other.
1. Newtons theory of gravity. Einstein discovers relativity. Einstein completes newtons theory and restructures it.
2. Theory that storks are bringing babies from the sky at the doorstep. Actual evidence that supports the theory of birth overwhelms the first, thus completely nullifiing it.
3. The theory that explains how the universe came into being at the Big-Bang. Black-hole genesis theory. Time-space folding. Quantum instability. Others that I am not familliar with ( hope I did not invent them ). They have equal, insufficient evidence to decide which is the valid one, but all of them are possible.
Proving a negative is not how it works. Proving something else, that makes the reffered theory obsolete, is how you can disproove it, by creating a conflict with it.
What is your oppinion on this matter? The battle of observation and thought is strong in this one.