I'm quite familiar with the scientific method and am aware that it's very effective when applied to a measurable reality. This, however, in no way indicates that science is the exclusive route to meaningful knowing. Most of the fundamental suppositions of science, including laws and principles of nature are generalizations arrived at through mere induction and may be much less constant than most people who place their faith in science might imagine. There is no reason to believe that science can penetrate the phenomenal skin of reality without coming up with bizarre behaviors that present science with paradoxes that on discovery become predictable but defy true explaining because all theories are incomplete. All science is incompletely descriptive and therefore inadequate to explain even the most basic aspects of existence without misrepresentation. All science is subject to major paradigm shifts that recontextualiuze outdated theories and show them to be misrepresentative. There is no reason to believe that anything in science contradicts the possibility of God. The scientist is no more qualified to answer the God question because he is a scientist than is the plumber because he is a plumber or the pimp because he is a pimp. What is it with you scientism types and the lack of understanding when it comes to science. you cant be that dense. i suspect you just choose willful ignorance because it allows you to rationalize nonsense.
Why would God show "himself" just because we request that God do so? God does what God wants to do, not what we want God to do.
can you imagine the ignorance of someone, who claims to have credits in science education,who still asks for proof of a negitive. Russell's teapot, sometimes called the Celestial teapot, Cosmic teapot or Bertrand's teapot, is an analogy first coined by the philosopher Bertrand Russell (1872â1970) to illustrate the idea that the philosophic burden of proof lies upon a person making scientifically unfalsifiable claims rather than shifting the burden of proof to others, specifically in the case of religion. Russell wrote that if he claimed that a teapot were orbiting the sun somewhere in space between the Earth and Mars, it would be nonsensical for him to expect others not to doubt him on the grounds that they could not prove him wrong. Russell's teapot is still referred to in discussions concerning the existence of God and has drawn some criticism for comparing the unfalsifiablility of a teapot to God.
Your post seems like a non sequitur. I don't require that science prove the non-existence of God. I say that God is outside science's ambit and that the lack of scientific proof of God is irrelevant.
That's nice. The assumption is that because God doesn't manifest in ways that you readily understand means that God doesn't exist. Perhaps God is manifesting all the time and you're just not noticing.
You asked a pseudoscientific question. Now you are adding pseudoscientific statements. It is physically impossible for biological life to violate the laws of physics of which (the increase of) entropy is a property. There's your legitimate answer. I suggest you don't answer with even more pseudoscience.
Your argument for a God it seems, is no more than the making of spurious criticism against science. Unless you include make-believe, the scientific method has already been shown to be the only route to that meaningful knowledge of reality which you mention.
Appears designed does not mean evidence of a designer or creator, no matter how much you wish it did. There is evidence the earth appears flat too. There is no scientific evidence for the idea of a creator. Simply because the idea is completely unscientific. Seems you evangelical creationist types really have been fooled into not caring what your argument is , whether it's pseudoscience, or absurdity, or linking to other threads where you've already made idiots of yourselves. Apparently any response, no matter how trite and ridiculous, is good enough for that religious belief.
its a common creationist tactic to make shit up and twist scientists words to make them fit what they are indoctrinated to believe. jem seems to be a master at this tactic but he is far from original. in the Kitzmiller vs Dover Board of Education trial the creationists lead witness was a man named micheal behe. the is one of the fathers of the intelligent idea and has written a book called Darwin's Black Box claiming the human cells are too complicated to have evolved so an intelligent designer (the christian god)must have designed them. during the trial he did what jem does all the time. he found a statement by an expert cell biologist who said the human flagellem looks designed and used that partial statement just like jem does. "see i told you so a leading scientist says cells look designed". well in this case the leading scientist had a chance to respond and said no way and proceded to make behe look like an idiot. his testimony is at the end of this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=ky1F-4pKJ98 he is debunked starting at about 9:00 in this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muOeA56jecY&feature=related jem, and others,really should listen to these videos. something just might get through that shield of willful ignorance.