If Christianity and God are not testable, they are not scientific. Simple as that.

And of course they are not, because they are carefully defined to be unfalsifiable and therefor useless. This is the basics of science.

(February 20, 2016 at 12:56 pm)AAA Wrote: The computer code for Microsoft office is probably similar to the code for Microsoft excel, but they were both designed.

And you know that, because ....?

99 percent. I didn't bother to look it up previously, since it doesn't matter, but now I did. Do you know how much 99 percent amounts to?

(February 20, 2016 at 12:49 pm)robvalue Wrote: The origin of life? That's abiogenesis,  not evolution. There is no theory about abiogenesis yet. When there is, it will be testable or it won't be a theory.

I'm surprised you're asking us to tell you what science is.

Falsifiable, testable models. That's science. That is the difference between evolution and magical explanations.

Everything you just said is not science. It's looking at stuff and jumping to conclusions. This is why we have trouble believing you're actually a science student.

How will it be testable?????????????????????????????? You can't just say that. For the 554595th time, lets look at a hypothetical example. We pressurize a lot of amino acids in the lab and they link to form a polypeptide. Have we just demonstrated how it happened? We demonstrated that it CAN happen. Now lets say that I link amino acids together purposefully in the lab. Did I just prove intelligent design? No, I only demonstrated that it CAN happen. We will never be able to say which one DID happen. 

And biological phenomena are not science? it's just "stuff" in your mind. You seem to be under the delusion that science and atheism are synonyms. Because even gene regulation isn't science (implied by you) if it is interpreted to have been put there purposefully and at one time.

 Here's what I'm getting from what you are saying. Materialists don't have an explanation yet, but when we do it will be scientific.

(February 20, 2016 at 12:57 pm)robvalue Wrote: If Christianity and God are not testable, they are not scientific. Simple as that.

And of course they are not, because they are carefully defined to be unfalsifiable and therefor useless. This is the basics of science.

How is evolution falsifiable?

(February 20, 2016 at 1:05 pm)AAA Wrote: How is evolution falsifiable?

It doesn't matter. You are making a supernatural claim. An intelligent designer, focussed on humans. That's in need of evidence. Evolution only comes up with natural explanations. Such as adapting to the environment.

(February 20, 2016 at 12:59 pm)abaris Wrote:

(February 20, 2016 at 12:56 pm)AAA Wrote: The computer code for Microsoft office is probably similar to the code for Microsoft excel, but they were both designed.

And you know that, because ....?

99 percent. I didn't bother to look it up previously, since it doesn't matter, but now I did. Do you know how much 99 percent amounts to?

Less than that. And do you know how much change that is? Also, we don't share the same regulator mechanisms, which is one of the more difficult things to explain by evolution.

The funny thing is, if god designed us, who designed god? Unless, and here's where it falls apart, he magically came into existence.

(February 20, 2016 at 1:08 pm)abaris Wrote:

(February 20, 2016 at 1:05 pm)AAA Wrote: How is evolution falsifiable?

It doesn't matter. You are making a supernatural claim. An intelligent designer, focussed on humans. That's in need of evidence. Evolution only comes up with natural explanations. Such as adapting to the environment.

It does matter, because you guys have been prancing about how intelligent design is unfalsifiable and therefore unscientific. If evolution is too, then you've got a problem.

(February 20, 2016 at 1:11 pm)Jello Wrote: The funny thing is, if god designed us, who designed god? Unless, and here's where it falls apart, he magically came into existence.

Nobody wins in an infinite regress.

(February 20, 2016 at 12:35 pm)AAA Wrote:

(February 20, 2016 at 8:14 am)Stimbo Wrote: By testing for, and examining, such evidence as would be expected from whatever phenomenon is under investigation. You are seriously misunderstanding what observation means in a scientific context. It doesn't mean you have to be able to see the cause with your own eyes or else it isn't true.

Thank you for saying that. We look at what would be expected if either hypothesis were true. Now go look back at my other response to you, and tell me which one has better predictive power.

Well, clearly not Intelligent Design, because it tells you nothing about how to distinguish between designed organisms non-designed ones, nor anything about the designer or how it did the designing.