Scientific theory and scientific method: Are they applicable to God?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
But you can conduct extensive analysis of matter and life, and record their complexity and complicaton respectively. Thus, you can prove that matter and life did not arise by accident, or random chance, but is the product of an extremely wise, knowledgable, intelligent, and exceedingly powerful Designer.

Recognizing complexity IS the problem. Rainbows are effing complex . . . . to 16th century people. For them a powerful Designer must have designed them.

Its not so complex now.

We've only recently decoded the human genome and are still in the early stages of space exploration. There are a lot of things about life and the universe that are complex and mysterious . . . . so far. But they wont be in the future. There is no need to postulate for the existence of a supernatural god.

Yes, a "God of the gaps" is lame.

Originally posted by Templares
Recognizing complexity IS the problem. Rainbows are effing complex . . . . to 16th century people. For them a powerful Designer must have designed them.

Its not so complex now.

We've only recently decoded the human genome and are still in the early stages of space exploration. There are a lot of things about life and the universe that are complex and mysterious . . . . so far. But they wont be in the future. There is no need to postulate for the existence of a supernatural god.

We've just now decoded the human genome (this is a rhetorical question). We sent people to the moon 40 years ago and we are still only in the early stages of space exploration (another rhetorical question). I think your statements do more to reinforce my reasoning that life, matter, and energy (considering all of their multitudinous complexity and complication) cannot exist without God.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
We've [b]just now decoded the human genome (this is a rhetorical question). We sent people to the moon 40 years ago and we are still only in the early stages of space exploration (another rhetorical question). I think your statements do more to reinforce my reasoning that life, matter, and energy (considering all of their multitudinous complexity and complication) cannot exist without God. [/B]

Life, matter, and energy is part of God.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Life, matter, and energy is part of God.

Meaning?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Meaning?

Meaning is also part of God. So is evolution, and everything else a part of God.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
By all means, explain how Intelligent Design qualifies as a scientific theory when it is not testable, correctable, falsifiable, and does not make any predictions about the natural world or its phenomena.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
We've [b]just now decoded the human genome (this is a rhetorical question). We sent people to the moon 40 years ago and we are still only in the early stages of space exploration (another rhetorical question). I think your statements do more to reinforce my reasoning that life, matter, and energy (considering all of their multitudinous complexity and complication) cannot exist without God. [/B]

There is nothing we can't do now that we want to. The restraints are entirely economic and political.

-Arthur C. Clarke

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Meaning is also part of God. So is evolution, and everything else a part of God.

You did not answer the question.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You did not answer the question.

Your question was meaningless. One word does not make an intelligent question.

Intelligent Design Is a scientific theory. It is falsifieable because it relies on the idea of a young earth. The Young Earth possibilty has been debunked. It relies on having a TOTAL lack of fossil evidence, but we have fossil evidence. ID is a scientific theory that has been falsified. If christians were scientists, they would have abandoned ID long ago just like scientists abandoned the flat earth model long ago. ID is dead.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Your question was meaningless. One word does not make an intelligent question.

You make questions regularly that you fail time and again to substantiate. I just proved that.

Originally posted by Jbill311
Intelligent Design Is a scientific theory. It is falsifieable because it relies on the idea of a young earth. The Young Earth possibilty has been debunked. It relies on having a TOTAL lack of fossil evidence, but we have fossil evidence. ID is a scientific theory that has been falsified. If christians were scientists, they would have abandoned ID long ago just like scientists abandoned the flat earth model long ago. ID is dead.

You do not have any fossil evidence linking any two species together, let alone the millions that should exist.

Originally posted by Jbill311
Intelligent Design Is a scientific theory. It is falsifieable because it relies on the idea of a young earth. The Young Earth possibilty has been debunked. It relies on having a TOTAL lack of fossil evidence, but we have fossil evidence. ID is a scientific theory that has been falsified. If christians were scientists, they would have abandoned ID long ago just like scientists abandoned the flat earth model long ago. ID is dead.

But that is why ID is no longer a scientific theory. Christians refuse to accept that ID has been falsified.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
You do not have any fossil evidence linking any two species together, let alone the millions that should exist.

I have shown you at least two, but all you did was insult me in return.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I have shown you at least two, but all you did was insult me in return.

I refuted those. You couldn't even tell me what two species they linked.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But that is why ID is no longer a scientific theory. Christians refuse to accept that ID has been falsified.

Prove it.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I refuted those. You couldn't even tell me what two species they linked.

ARCHAEOPTERYX

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Prove it.

It would be a waist of my time, because you would only "refute it". I guess "refute it" means "ignore it" to you.

Why do you even bother addressing what he posts, he is taking the piss.