[Relambrien]

Originally Posted by Lucky11

What amuses me is that while we can't positively prove their is a God, "science" can't prove their isn't.

I'm assuming that because science can't prove God doesn't exist, you believe God exists? That's what it sounds like to me. If that's the case, please look at this:

Originally Posted by devonin in Logical Fallacy and You!

Argumentum ad Ignorantiam or Appeal to ignorance - The argument that a statement is true simply because it has never been proven false, or that it is false simply because it has never been proven true. NOTE: This does not mean that any time someone points out the lack of proof for something, that they are commiting this fallacy. It is only fallacious to point to lack of evidence if you use that to -CONCLUDE- that the argument is false/true. Pointing out a lack of evidence in general is just good debate.

You believe that because science cannot disprove God, that God exists, which is wrong. At least, that's the impression I got from the part of your post I quoted above. If that wasn't the impression you wanted to give, please feel free to clarify.

Originally Posted by Lucky11

One thing science can't and won't explain is the supernatural. Science has always been to observe, test , theorize, and then hopefully prove. I say hopefully because in the end a theory is just an educated guess based on what we believe will happen.

Do you even know the definition of a scientific theory? There's a difference between a "hypothesis" and a "theory." A "hypothesis" isn't so much an "educated guess" but more of a "tentative explanation." It's an explanation or a prediction based on current knowledge, which can be tested.

If a hypothesis is tested and supported by several, and I mean -several-, experiments, it becomes a theory. A "theory" is a hypothesis supported by large amounts of evidence. A "law" goes even further, to the point where any other explanation is all but impossible (such as gravity). While new information may lead to the law being disproven, it is extremely unlikely that will be the case.

So no, a theory is not an educated guess. A hypothesis is more than an educated guess, even.

Originally Posted by Lucky11

Now for those who say their isn't any such thing as a God i would have to say prove it and good luck cause you will need it. But to those who believe there is a God it is not up to you to prove there is or really its not necessary for you to prove it that s the freedom of faith.

So let's take these examples:

Person A: There is no supernatural or divine being.
Person B: Prove it.
Person A: Uhh...

and...

Person A: There is a supernatural being.
Person B: Prove it.
Person A: I don't have to, because I have freedom of faith!

See the problem? While the burden of proof does lie with the person who brings up an argument, you aren't exempt from providing evidence to support your side simply because you have freedom of faith. You can believe whatever you want, but you can't avoid presenting evidence and expect people to believe you, or take you seriously.

Originally Posted by Lucky11

Now before I go I will say that, while not necessarily having a place in this thread, evolution is as much a system of faith as any religion. Evolution is just a theory, IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN.

No, but by the definition of a theory, it has mountains of evidence that support it. Proof is difficult in most scientific situations, but evidence which makes any other system highly unlikely is quite common. Of course, anything divine is inherently impossible to disprove, simply because it cannot be observed and therefore cannot be proven to exist or not to exist.

Originally Posted by Lucky11

Yet because scientist refuse to except a God, they have to constantly change their hypothesis to fit new evidence.

Welcome to Scientific Method 101. Today we'll learn the point of science: to explain phenomena and relationships using data currently available as best as possible. Science is -supposed- to change with new evidence. Of course it would be a heck of a lot easier to say "God did it," but then that isn't observable and therefore not scientifically feasible.

Originally Posted by Lucky11

Most amazingly the same evidence most scientist use to further their theory's of evolution, even scientist can't agree with each other on how it was accomplished, is used by those who believe in a creation existence.

...Umm, what?

Originally Posted by Lucky11

I use the word scientist loosely because it is misleading anyone who uses science is a scientist and both sides use science but everyone will get the picture.

"Science" is a process by which people use a logical process to observe an event and determine characteristics or values associated with the event. In other words, the scientific method. You're only a scientist if you use the scientific method. For your reference, here's the general outline of the scientific method. It can get more complex, but this is the general idea:

1) State a problem or question
2) Hypothesize a possible solution to the problem or answer to the question
3) Design an experiment to test the hypothesis in relation to the problem or question
4) Observe and record the results of the experiment.
5) If the data supports the hypothesis, publish in a scientific journal. If not, revise the hypothesis and experiment again.

Originally Posted by Lucky11

If someone would like to really discuss this issue I think a new thread should be opened an if so i would be pleased to respond.

This thread is titled "God" I think it fits just fine in here.