Stump the Christian?

[Anima]

How about 27 books/letters and other historical references describing actual events (see, no Bible proves Bible). 

I believe the threshold for historical evidence is seven independent sources referencing the event or person in question. Of those seven 3 to 5 are to be primary sources (meaning they were there) and the rest may be secondary sources (someone else referred to them or it).

So letters of apostles would be one primary, records of the Romans would be a secondary primary, and records of Herod's administration would be third primary, and records of the Sanhedrin serve as a fourth primary, and letters of person who are not apostles would be a fifth primary. After that there are a vast quantity of secondary references.

[Jackalope]

M-Theory (despite the name), is currently a hypothesis, not a scientific theory.

The "Big Bang" Theory is absolutely testable and falsifiable.

Your classification system needs work.

Interesting.  I would like to hear how you would test it for falseness.  To my knowledge there is supporting observation evidence of the theory.  But this is not the same as being testable of falsifiable.

The theory makes (by implication) several predictions of what we ought to observe.  If we have the capability of making those observations, and what we observe is not what was predicted, viola the theory is falsified.

As an example, the theory implies what we ought to observe regarding the uniformity of the cosmic microwave background.  Had the observations not conformed to the predicted, the theory would have been falsified.  The observations do match, however.

[Ravenshire]

I am not attempting to prove the existence of God--merely defend the idea that it is reasonable to believe in the God of Christianity.

It is not reasonable to believe anything on the basis of unverifiable claims. That is why religion fails. It can not provide evidence for it's claims.

[Ravenshire]

No.  They can't be investigated let alone refuted.  You don't get to concoct unfalsifiable premises and then treat that as 'reasonable'.

Because you can't test them does not mean they are unfalsifiable. A statement is falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false. You know they are not baseless--you are very familiar with the arguments. Again, you might not like the quality of the evidence or believe an alternate theory, but following the evidence we have is quite 'reasonable'. 

I have never before read a statement so full of bullshit and willful ignorance. Not even GC has ever gotten this bad.

Steve, you have no understanding whatsoever about how science works. It would be best if you simply stopped. It's better to remain quiet and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. Of course, it's too late for you.

[Ravenshire]

We are not talking about science, we are talking about historical events -- huge difference. 

Bullshit! History is a "soft science."

[Randy Carson]

You really have no understanding of evolution, at all, do you?

He said that evolution theory claims all life came from nothing. Of course he has no clue.

What existed just prior to the Big Bang?

[FatAndFaithless]

What existed just prior to the Big Bang?

No idea, the Big Bang theory describes what happened immediately after the Planck time, since we can't measure further back than that.

So, we dunno. And neither do you.

[Randy Carson]

Then why is it known as the Theory of Evolution and not the Law of Evolution?

I've never heard of the "theory of gravity"...but the Law of Gravity I know.

And now it's your ignorance on display for the whole forum.
Gravity. It's a law and a theory!

Would you like to talk about germ theory as well? Or do you thing illnesses are demon possession?!?

Do you christer ass-hats even understand how the term "theory" is used in the scientific community?

The Wiki article to which Equislax referred me says that theories can be disproven. So, I'm just trying to see how firm the theory of evolution really is.

[abaris]

Of course you will go to the miracles do not happen. You have to prove that they can't possibility have happened so you would have to prove that God does not exists--which you cannot, so...where is the unreasonableness (flaw in logic)? 

No, I don't. Supernatural claims defying the laws of nature - the burden of proof is on you, that they actually did happen.

[Longhorn]

What existed just prior to the Big Bang?

No idea, the Big Bang theory describes what happened immediately after the Planck time, since we can't measure further back than that.

So, we dunno. And neither do you.

.....but that won't stop him from pretending he does, will it now?