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

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Only in as much as ID fails the method.

Your hypothesis cannot be substantiated. You only have assumptions- assumptions that something intelligent must have designed it, and assumptions that the evidence shows it. You have NO evidence, only questions.

Such a thing has absolutely no place at all in the science classroom. None.

The only reason you believe so is your total perversion of what and what is not scientific. This cannot be reasonably argued with you because you display absolutely no reason in this area, much as the fanatic dpes. This is a pitiful quality.

And you have no assumptions or bias with respect to evolutionary theory?

MURDERER

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I have a Bible that proves that Jesus never killed anyone, do you have a book that does this for the first Buddha?

I have a book that states that pink elephants can fly, but it does not follow from this that there are such things as pink elephants, nor does it follow from this that if there were such a thing as pink elephants, that they could indeed fly.

Bottom line: The only thing that The Bible is evidence of is that ink sticks to paper. Try again.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is a book from the first century that says Jesus, as a boy, killed another boy, and then resurrected him.

There are many books that say many things but the Bible is the final authority on the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.

Yes Darth Voldemort you are right. the bible is bullhish

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
There are many books that say many things but the Bible is the final authority on the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.

And so **** what?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
There are many books that say many things but the Bible is the final authority on the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.

OK, show proof... Substantiate your claim.

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.

Do you know what scientific theory is?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
OK, show proof... Substantiate your claim.

Prove what?

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
And you have no assumptions or bias with respect to evolutionary theory?

Evolutionary theory has a ton of evidence supporting it. ID remains entirely an unsupported hypothesis. Bottom line.

Prove God exists right now right here.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Prove what?

Prove this...

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
There are many books that say many things but the Bible is the final authority on the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.

Stop using childish tactics.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
There are many books that say many things but the Bible is the final authority on the life and ministry of Jesus Christ.

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The only thing that The Bible is evidence of is that ink sticks to paper. Try again.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Do you know what scientific theory is?

Apparently, you do not:

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.

Darth Voldemort you are my friend, no?

Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I have a book that states that pink elephants can fly, but it does not follow from this that there are such things as pink elephants, nor does it follow from this that if there were such a thing as pink elephants, that they could indeed fly.

Bottom line: The only thing that The Bible is evidence of is that ink sticks to paper. Try again.

So that huge, thick-skinned, pink creature with the white tusks (oh, I had those removed so that he could not gore me), trunk, wings (actually I had the wings removed so that he could not fly away) is not an elephant? Well I be a tree sittin' in front of a fat man's yard on groundhog's day, I could've made a fortune.

(Babar my pet elephant on his birthday with his friends)

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
So that huge, thick skinned pink creature with the white tusks (oh, I had those removed so that he could not gore me), trunk, wings (actually I had the wings removed so that he could not fly away) is not an elephant? Well I be a tree sittin' in front of a fat man's yard on groundhog's day, I could've made a fortune.

(Babar my pet elephant on his birthday with his friends)

If it's pink then it's not an elephant, and you my friend are on drugs, problemo solved.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Who invented scientific theory? Is scientific theory an absolute? But atheists claim that there are no absolutes. The scientific method is applicable in everyday life so it can be used for anything right? Can a Christian use the scientific method to substantiate the existence of the transcendent God? Why or why not? I believe so. I believe that they are applicable to God. They may not provide a photo of God, but they corroborate His existence nontheless.

[B]Observation: The universe, planets, stars, earth, fundamental forces, cells, life, etc. are very complicated.

Question: Why are they so complicated? How do they exist? Why do they exist?

Hypothesis: The universe, planets, stars, earth, fundamental forces, cells, life, etc. are very complicated because they were designed by Someone Who possesses sufficient wisdom, knowledge, intelligence, and power to create them.

Prediction: If the hypothesis is correct, THEN if those things are analyzed they should reveal, show, or evince evidence of design.

Experiment or Observation: Analyze the universe, planets, stars, earth, fundamental forces, cells, life, etc.

Conclusion: The universe, planets, stars, earth, fundamental forces, cells, life, etc. are very complicated because they were designed by Someone Who possesses sufficient wisdom, knowledge, intelligence, and power to create them hypothesis is supported. [/B]

Don't cry my friend.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Evolutionary theory has a ton of evidence supporting it. ID remains entirely an unsupported hypothesis. Bottom line.

Evolutionary theory is not science. Nevertheless, does it have a ton of evidence supporting macroevolution? No? That's because there isn't any.

Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Evolutionary theory is not science. Nevertheless, does it have a ton of evidence supporting macroevolution? No? That's because there isn't any.