Verifiable evidence for creationism?

[shunyadragon]

I said it many times. Do I have to explain it once more? It's explained in Genesis which isn't a science book, but science backs it up. So far, science has backed it up from eternal universe to there was a beginning. Then we have the creation in 7 days. The reason why evolutionary origins made up their own hypotheses was to argue against creation. So, the people who started this argument was the first evos. Evos even sound like evil.

I read through the thread and found it wandering here, there and everywhere, but I found no verifiable objective evidence for Creationism no matter how you define it. Methodological Naturalism cannot falsify the nature of spiritual worlds beyond our physical existence, nor their relationship with our physical world.

There is no objective verifiable evidence by scientific methods, nor does scientific evidence backs up a literal interpretation of Genesis.

No science has not objectively verified nor falsified that our physical existence has a beginning. There are theories and hypothesis that support a beginning of our universe from a singularity, but there are other viable theories and hypothesis that support other theories like cyclic universe and origins of universes from massive black holes, and the possibility of multiverses. It cannot be falsified that our physical existence has an absolute beginning with no other potential theory or hypothesis that demonstrates the possibility of an eternal Quantum world beyond our universe, and all possible universes.

There is no falsifiable hypothesis nor theory the definitively determines that the mind does not arise from the brain. As in previous threads it was clear you had to qualify your claim with an argument from ignorance ( a fallacy in science and logic.) that, since you claim science cannot fully explain the relationship between the mind and the brain to your satisfaction, therefore . . .

Therefore, there is no verifiable objective falsifiable evidence for Creationism in any form regardless of the definition cited.

I define Creationism is simply the belief the God created our physical existence. There are a variety of different versions of this belief. From the perspective of the Baha'i Faith Creation is by the natural methods described by science. Science does not know all that there is to know concerning Creation, but it is compatible with the natural laws and methods described as the nature of our physical existence and the origins of our physical existence. In the Baha'i view our physical existence is an eternal existence Created with the attributes of God, like everything has a shadow when there is a light source. God is the light Source of Creation and, as the shadow our physical existence has always eternally existed as reflecting the attributes of the eternal 'Source,' God.

Evil is remaining stoically in the darkness of the cave avoiding the light of science at the distant entrance of the cave, and clinging blindly in ancient mythology as the explanation for the origins of our nature of our physical existence.

The light of science can only cast a shadow when there is objective verifiable evidence to support science.

 

[james bond]

I read through the thread and found it wandering here, there and everywhere, but I found no verifiable objective evidence for Creationism no matter how you define it. Methodological Naturalism cannot falsify the nature of spiritual worlds beyond our physical existence, nor their relationship with our physical world.

There is no objective verifiable evidence by scientific methods, nor does scientific evidence backs up a literal interpretation of Genesis.

No science has not objectively verified nor falsified that our physical existence has a beginning. There are theories and hypothesis that support a beginning of our universe from a singularity, but there are other viable theories and hypothesis that support other theories like cyclic universe and origins of universes from massive black holes, and the possibility of multiverses. It cannot be falsified that our physical existence has an absolute beginning with no other potential theory or hypothesis that demonstrates the possibility of an eternal Quantum world beyond our universe, and all possible universes.

There is no falsifiable hypothesis nor theory the definitively determines that the mind does not arise from the brain. As in previous threads it was clear you had to qualify your claim with an argument from ignorance ( a fallacy in science and logic.) that, since you claim science cannot fully explain the relationship between the mind and the brain to your satisfaction, therefore . . .

Therefore, there is no verifiable objective falsifiable evidence for Creationism in any form regardless of the definition cited.

I define Creationism is simply the belief the God created our physical existence. There are a variety of different versions of this belief. From the perspective of the Baha'i Faith Creation is by the natural methods described by science. Science does not know all that there is to know concerning Creation, but it is compatible with the natural laws and methods described as the nature of our physical existence and the origins of our physical existence. In the Baha'i view our physical existence is an eternal existence Created with the attributes of God, like everything has a shadow when there is a light source. God is the light Source of Creation and, as the shadow our physical existence has always eternally existed as reflecting the attributes of the eternal 'Source,' God.

Evil is remaining stoically in the darkness of the cave avoiding the light of science at the distant entrance of the cave, and clinging blindly in ancient mythology as the explanation for the origins of our nature of our physical existence.

The light of science can only cast a shadow when there is objective verifiable evidence to support science.

You continue to repeat the same words as your argument, so it tells me that your brain is limited. You cannot contribute to black holes, BBT, Stephen Hawking nor biological ToE. You do not understand how humans evolved from fishes nor chimpanzee-like-apes. I do not see an "evolution" of your ideas nor see further examples of your thinking.

The huge problem with Methodological Naturalism is that it is unfounded; It is the result of the epistemology of empirical philosophies or logical positivism. It is a methodology which does not establish the ontological principles of the world. Those who subscribe to MN cannot see nor understand intelligent design in nature nor contemplate intelligence itself beyond that of brain functions.

For example, you you bring up Genesis again and we have discussed that already. Your brain cannot process other science that has been brought up besides Genesis. Thus, you complain that this topic is all over the place because your brain in limited.

As for the material as that which you only see and accept, there is the immaterial in a mind that controls our brain and spirit that causes our bodies to live.

Briefly, my thinking is you can't find it because it's outside that which is material and your brain can't accept it or process it. I already explained through a complex explanation that our world is like that of the Matrix world. What you perceive as reality or worldview is all inside your brain; The mind which is immaterial in mine! My example, in another thread -- Now That I Understand The Bible Better, I Dislike The Sacrireligious More Than The Irreligious , was if I am experiencing nausea of upset because of watching a movie that violates my moral values and principles, then if that is my brain causing my malaise, then I should be able to take a pain-reliever and become fine again. There is no drug like that. Instead, I have to get simple therapy by getting my complaints out of my system by telling someone or by some other method such as exercise to blow my steam off. There is no pill to help blow off steam that I know of. There is a tranquilizer or Prozac type medicine, but that is to put one to sleep and avoid the pain or chemicals to control that which exacerbates anger. In addition to this, there is psychological therapy that is prescribed. Thus, this is evidence that it is the immaterial mind that controls our worldview and not that of the material brain. Our mind is not something that we can find using medical equipment that most are familiar with. Instead, the people who insist it's the brain doing the work claim that the mind is just the output of the brain. The evidence is against that theory. We can't change a career criminal, murderer or evil-doer by an operation or from them taking strong medicine. It is therapy or psychological counseling that they need in addition to drugs which chemically prevent their anger to escalate out of control or help prevent them from acting on their impulses.

I don't even want to get into Philosophy of Science and Karl Popper's ideas on falsifiability. This is more evidence of yout indoctrination in science which limits actual science to explore more of the world. You notice that falsifiability does not pop up until I pointed out to you that Stephen Hawking argues the Multiverse in order to counter fine tuning. This Stephen Hawking believes in a time machine that can travel forward in time as well as back in time. What happens if he goes back to the time he was born and accidentally shoots himself. Does he just disappear then and we get no Hawkening Radiation? Do you even see that we have to have parallel universes so that Hawkening in his time machine can travel through a wormhole to go back to the past? If all this is confusing you, which I believe it is, then you should read A Brief History of Time and A Briefer History of Time. Please read more so you can converse on more difficult topics.

Lastly, the material brain vs theories of the immaterial mind that was in control, was addressed by Karl Marx to the atheists that he wants to contol. This is the mind-body problem. Maybe you should read some Marx and how he addressed the mind-body problem and then get back to us so that you'll have better arguments in the future and can argue a wider amount of topics. Another is Baruch Spinoza. He had even weirder views of the immaterial world as described in the Bible. He is someone who has read the Bible and understood in detail. I'm sure there are other philosophers and scientists that atheists like to follow and quote. If you like Methodological Naturalism, then look up Alvin Plantinga. He should be able to expand your thinking on MN.

 

[shunyadragon]

You continue to repeat the same words as your argument, so it tells me that your brain is limited. You cannot contribute to black holes, BBT, Stephen Hawking nor biological ToE. You do not understand how humans evolved from fishes nor chimpanzee-like-apes. I do not see an "evolution" of your ideas nor see further examples of your thinking.

The huge problem with Methodological Naturalism is that it is unfounded; It is the result of the epistemology of empirical philosophies or logical positivism. It is a methodology which does not establish the ontological principles of the world. Those who subscribe to MN cannot see nor understand intelligent design in nature nor contemplate intelligence itself beyond that of brain functions.

For example, you you bring up Genesis again and we have discussed that already. Your brain cannot process other science that has been brought up besides Genesis. Thus, you complain that this topic is all over the place because your brain in limited.

As for the material as that which you only see and accept, there is the immaterial in a mind that controls our brain and spirit that causes our bodies to live.

Briefly, my thinking is you can't find it because it's outside that which is material and your brain can't accept it or process it. I already explained through a complex explanation that our world is like that of the Matrix world. What you perceive as reality or worldview is all inside your brain; The mind which is immaterial in mine! My example, in another thread -- Now That I Understand The Bible Better, I Dislike The Sacrireligious More Than The Irreligious , was if I am experiencing nausea of upset because of watching a movie that violates my moral values and principles, then if that is my brain causing my malaise, then I should be able to take a pain-reliever and become fine again. There is no drug like that. Instead, I have to get simple therapy by getting my complaints out of my system by telling someone or by some other method such as exercise to blow my steam off. There is no pill to help blow off steam that I know of. There is a tranquilizer or Prozac type medicine, but that is to put one to sleep and avoid the pain or chemicals to control that which exacerbates anger. In addition to this, there is psychological therapy that is prescribed. Thus, this is evidence that it is the immaterial mind that controls our worldview and not that of the material brain. Our mind is not something that we can find using medical equipment that most are familiar with. Instead, the people who insist it's the brain doing the work claim that the mind is just the output of the brain. The evidence is against that theory. We can't change a career criminal, murderer or evil-doer by an operation or from them taking strong medicine. It is therapy or psychological counseling that they need in addition to drugs which chemically prevent their anger to escalate out of control or help prevent them from acting on their impulses.

I don't even want to get into Philosophy of Science and Karl Popper's ideas on falsifiability. This is more evidence of yout indoctrination in science which limits actual science to explore more of the world. You notice that falsifiability does not pop up until I pointed out to you that Stephen Hawking argues the Multiverse in order to counter fine tuning. This Stephen Hawking believes in a time machine that can travel forward in time as well as back in time. What happens if he goes back to the time he was born and accidentally shoots himself. Does he just disappear then and we get no Hawkening Radiation? Do you even see that we have to have parallel universes so that Hawkening in his time machine can travel through a wormhole to go back to the past? If all this is confusing you, which I believe it is, then you should read A Brief History of Time and A Briefer History of Time. Please read more so you can converse on more difficult topics.

Lastly, the material brain vs theories of the immaterial mind that was in control, was addressed by Karl Marx to the atheists that he wants to contol. This is the mind-body problem. Maybe you should read some Marx and how he addressed the mind-body problem and then get back to us so that you'll have better arguments in the future and can argue a wider amount of topics. Another is Baruch Spinoza. He had even weirder views of the immaterial world as described in the Bible. He is someone who has read the Bible and understood in detail. I'm sure there are other philosophers and scientists that atheists like to follow and quote. If you like Methodological Naturalism, then look up Alvin Plantinga. He should be able to expand your thinking on MN.

I am very familiar with Plantinga, and I do disagree with Plantinga on his misrepresentation of Darwin and the basis for the science of evolution. Also he does not share your view that a literal Genesis is supported by science.

The bottom line as per the subject of the thread you have not provided objective verifiable evidence to support your Creationist beliefs in a literal Genesis, and supported by science.

Still waiting . . .

 

[leibowde84]

He picked out this song specifically because of his acid trips.

What leads you to believe this besides it merely being named after a song by the Beatles? You must have some kind of inside knowledge. Just provide your evidence or admit that your claim here is ludicrous.

 

[shunyadragon]

look in the mirror and call yourself an accident....
does that seem correct?
all that complexity coming together over centuries.....in spite of the improbability....
and there you are...looking at some accident?

and then look about you...
billions of copies, each one unique
each one forming a unique spirit
and the results end up in a box, in the ground

Eternal darkness is physically real.

choose

This reflects an unfortunate misconception of the nature of our physical existence, life, the evolution of life, and the nature of all natural events. Nothing in the natural scenario considers anything accidental nor by chance,

accident - an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause.

By the way the complexity of life in terms of the science of evolution has been adequately explained. Unfortunately none of the proposal of the argument for design by the Discovery Institute have every been falsified by scientific methods as an hypothesis nor as a theory of design.

This does not mean God does not exist nor is God the Creator. I believe God exists and God Creates by natural methods like those discovered by science. The problem comes when many theists propose that God Created by mythical methods as described in ancient scripture, and make misguided poor arguments against the science of evolution and the history of our physical existence.

 

[Thief]

This reflects an unfortunate misconception of the nature of our physical existence, life, the evolution of life, and the nature of all natural events. Nothing in the natural scenario considers anything accidental nor by chance,

accident - an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause.

By the way the complexity of life in terms of the science of evolution has been adequately explained. Unfortunately none of the proposal of the argument for design by the Discovery Institute have every been falsified by scientific methods as an hypothesis nor as a theory of design.

This does not mean God does not exist nor is God the Creator. I believe God exists and God Creates by natural methods like those discovered by science. The problem comes when many theists propose that God Created by mythical methods as described in ancient scripture, and make misguided poor arguments against the science of evolution and the history of our physical existence.

clean your mirror....then speak reflections

You know the Creator by His creation

 

[shunyadragon]

clean your mirror....then speak reflections

You know the Creator by His creation

clean your mirror....then speak reflections

You know the Creator by His creation

Nonsense!!!!

This reflects an unfortunate misconception of the nature of our physical existence, life, the evolution of life, and the nature of all natural events. Nothing in the natural scenario considers anything accidental nor by chance,

accident - an event that happens by chance or that is without apparent or deliberate cause.

By the way the complexity of life in terms of the science of evolution has been adequately explained. Unfortunately none of the proposal of the argument for design by the Discovery Institute have every been falsified by scientific methods as an hypothesis nor as a theory of design.

This does not mean God does not exist nor is God the Creator. I believe God exists and God Creates by natural methods like those discovered by science. The problem comes when many theists propose that God Created by mythical methods as described in ancient scripture, and make misguided poor arguments against the science of evolution and the history of our physical existence.

 

[Thief]

I am very familiar with Plantinga, and I do disagree with Plantinga on his misrepresentation of Darwin and the basis for the science of evolution. Also he does not share your view that a literal Genesis is supported by science.

The bottom line as per the subject of the thread you have not provided objective verifiable evidence to support your Creationist beliefs in a literal Genesis, and supported by science.

Still waiting . . .

Man as a species.....Day Six
Day Seven...no more will be created
THEN Chapter Two

which is not a retelling of Chapter One

as story of selection
isolation
manipulation
anesthesia
surgery
genetic manipulation
experiment to be sure the alteration took hold
release into the environment

 

[shunyadragon]

Man as a species.....Day Six
Day Seven...no more will be created

Based on ancient Babylonian mythology.

 

[leibowde84]

Man as a species.....Day Six
Day Seven...no more will be created
THEN Chapter Two

which is not a retelling of Chapter One

as story of selection
isolation
manipulation
anesthesia
surgery
genetic manipulation
experiment to be sure the alteration took hold
release into the environment

So, how do you explain all of the species that have come about after human beings?

 

[james bond]

I am very familiar with Plantinga, and I do disagree with Plantinga on his misrepresentation of Darwin and the basis for the science of evolution. Also he does not share your view that a literal Genesis is supported by science.

The bottom line as per the subject of the thread you have not provided objective verifiable evidence to support your Creationist beliefs in a literal Genesis, and supported by science.

Still waiting . . .

smh. As usual, you have not been able to keep up. We have reached the Science of the Gaps argument from the BBT. I already stated that the God of the Gaps concept was stolen from Christianity to use against Christians in arguing the BBT. Now that fine tuning was discovered by quantum physicists, the argument has been turned around as Science of the Gaps. Stephen Hawking has proposed multiverses and black holes for his hypothesis. He had the black hole as a tiny point in his youtube.

All of this arose out of Genesis. While we are discussing actual science, you want to discuss philosophy of science and then claim science. This is why you're not being taken seriously because you cannot discuss science which is the basis of you argument. I brought the all swans are white argument against your falsifiability statement. In reality, science does not look for the black swan. In our case, atheists claim they do not look for the not God when the claim is there is no place where there is not God. However, we have found it in the BBT. The creationists have God, intelligence, design, fine tuning theory, General Relativity and Genesis (7-day creation) to back up their argument. The atheist scientists have black holes and Hawking Radiation and quantum physics for their argument. Obviously, there is no falsifiability as much of this is theoretical on Hawking's side. There won't be a peer-review for years to come unless of some breakthrough. Still waiting...

 

[Thief]

So, how do you explain all of the species that have come about after human beings?

after?

you mean the various appearances of form?

 

[leibowde84]

after?

you mean the various appearances of form?

No, new species have been discovered since humans came about. But, your excerpt from Genesis claims that Humans were the last creation. So, either evolution allowed these new species to come about or Genesis was wrong and God created new species after humans. So, which one is it?

 

[shunyadragon]

smh. As usual, you have not been able to keep up. We have reached the Science of the Gaps argument from the BBT. I already stated that the God of the Gaps concept was stolen from Christianity to use against Christians in arguing the BBT. Now that fine tuning was discovered by quantum physicists, the argument has been turned around as Science of the Gaps. Stephen Hawking has proposed multiverses and black holes for his hypothesis. He had the black hole as a tiny point in his youtube.

It remains that your argument is based on the fallacy of an 'appeal for ignorance,' and no objective verifiable evidence is forthcoming to falsify your version of Creationism based on ancient mythology.

 

[leibowde84]

smh. As usual, you have not been able to keep up. We have reached the Science of the Gaps argument from the BBT. I already stated that the God of the Gaps concept was stolen from Christianity to use against Christians in arguing the BBT. Now that fine tuning was discovered by quantum physicists, the argument has been turned around as Science of the Gaps. Stephen Hawking has proposed multiverses and black holes for his hypothesis. He had the black hole as a tiny point in his youtube.

All of this arose out of Genesis. While we are discussing actual science, you want to discuss philosophy of science and then claim science. This is why you're not being taken seriously because you cannot discuss science which is the basis of you argument. I brought the all swans are white argument against your falsifiability statement. In reality, science does not look for the black swan. In our case, atheists claim they do not look for the not God when the claim is there is no place where there is not God. However, we have found it in the BBT. The creationists have God, intelligence, design, fine tuning theory, General Relativity and Genesis (7-day creation) to back up their argument. The atheist scientists have black holes and Hawking Radiation and quantum physics for their argument. Obviously, there is no falsifiability as much of this is theoretical on Hawking's side. There won't be a peer-review for years to come unless of some breakthrough. Still waiting...

But, you do see that both sides of this coin are using hypotheses and not scientific theories, right? I agree that science might not have the answers yet, but they have ideas of what the answers MIGHT be. Creationists have nothing more, as God, intelligent design, and fine tuning theory are merely hypotheses as well. So, you are merely pointing out that, when it comes to the unknown, there are two ways to go ... supernatural forces like God as an answer or natural forces and explanations like multiverse. As for black holes, there is scientific consensus that they do exist, but they cannot be directly seen, as they give off no light. But, we can see objects moving around them. So, they are in a much more evidenced class.

God is merely an explanation for what we can't yet explain, though. So, there is no scientific evidence for God. It seems like you want to use a lack of scientific understanding or a lack of current scientifically proven answers as evidence for God, but that would be ludicrous.

If direct visual evidence is necessary for Black Holes, why wouldn't direct visual evidence be required for God?

 

[Thief]

No, new species have been discovered since humans came about. But, your excerpt from Genesis claims that Humans were the last creation. So, either evolution allowed these new species to come about or Genesis was wrong and God created new species after humans. So, which one is it?

I have no problem with evolution or the diversity of species

the chemistry has been changing from the first twitch of life
It will continue to do so

the garden event was a tweak of the formation of Man
(not a twitch)

 

[james bond]

But, you do see that both sides of this coin are using hypotheses and not scientific theories, right? I agree that science might not have the answers yet, but they have ideas of what the answers MIGHT be. Creationists have nothing more, as God, intelligent design, and fine tuning theory are merely hypotheses as well. So, you are merely pointing out that, when it comes to the unknown, there are two ways to go ... supernatural forces like God as an answer or natural forces and explanations like multiverse. As for black holes, there is scientific consensus that they do exist, but they cannot be directly seen, as they give off no light. But, we can see objects moving around them. So, they are in a much more evidenced class.

God is merely an explanation for what we can't yet explain, though. So, there is no scientific evidence for God. It seems like you want to use a lack of scientific understanding or a lack of current scientifically proven answers as evidence for God, but that would be ludicrous.

If direct visual evidence is necessary for Black Holes, why wouldn't direct visual evidence be required for God?

Haven't I said this several times in my posts? The biased human nature of atheist science is they won't peer-review the spiritual nature of God. Fine tuning is part of quantum mechanics, so they peer-review it. One of the reasons some scientists want to drop falsifiability in the review is the subject of black holes, multiverses, dark energy, dark matter, wormholes, time travel to name a few. What about the spiritual nature of the mind and body? We can discuss the latter. There's one thread here -- What is the default position in the mind-body problem? . Are you in? I noticed it when I logged on and haven't finished reading the thread yet. Or are you another internet atheist?

The creation scientists have explained God. Yet, every evidence they provide, the atheists have stolen in a sense of replaced it with their own. I've explained God of the Gaps how it was a term created by Christian scientists to not refer to God when they are stuck with something to explain something or behavior which occurs in science. I said that atheists stole it when discussing the BBT. And lo and behold, you were the one who brought up God of Gaps when we were discussing BBT. I was LMAO, but didn't want to say anything to detract from our serious discussion as quantum physics is not an easy subject. What about shunyadragon's naturalism. Maybe he will be claiming everything we do not see, but science discusses is natural ha ha. Falsifiability occurs in nature, but we do not look for it is scientific exploration (which I have brought up). An unicorn is falsifiable. Unicorns do not exist. That's the truth statement. Once someone finds one or it occurs in nature as a species, then it has been falsified. Maybe you can get some of this through his head cause he sets discussion back to the OP .

I didn't say direct visual evidence is necessary for an unseen black holes or God. In the case of God, there is historical reporting, but God was seen as anthropomorphic by the observer. I was just pointing out that people believe in black holes when they haven't been peer reviewed yet. I think even Polymath257 thought they were real already until JB looked into the matter.

 

[leibowde84]

Haven't I said this several times in my posts? The biased human nature of atheist science is they won't peer-review the spiritual nature of God. Fine tuning is part of quantum mechanics, so they peer-review it. One of the reasons some scientists want to drop falsifiability in the review is the subject of black holes, multiverses, dark energy, dark matter, wormholes, time travel to name a few. What about the spiritual nature of the mind and body? We can discuss the latter. There's one thread here -- What is the default position in the mind-body problem? . Are you in? I noticed it when I logged on and haven't finished reading the thread yet. Or are you another internet atheist?

The creation scientists have explained God. Yet, every evidence they provide, the atheists have stolen in a sense of replaced it with their own. I've explained God of the Gaps how it was a term created by Christian scientists to not refer to God when they are stuck with something to explain something or behavior which occurs in science. I said that atheists stole it when discussing the BBT. And lo and behold, you were the one who brought up God of Gaps when we were discussing BBT. I was LMAO, but didn't want to say anything to detract from our serious discussion as quantum physics is not an easy subject. What about shunyadragon's naturalism. Maybe he will be claiming everything we do not see, but science discusses is natural ha ha. Falsifiability occurs in nature, but we do not look for it is scientific exploration (which I have brought up). An unicorn is falsifiable. Unicorns do not exist. That's the truth statement. Once someone finds one or it occurs in nature as a species, then it has been falsified. Maybe you can get some of this through his head cause he sets discussion back to the OP .

I didn't say direct visual evidence is necessary for an unseen black holes or God. In the case of God, there is historical reporting, but God was seen as anthropomorphic by the observer. I was just pointing out that people believe in black holes when they haven't been peer reviewed yet. I think even Polymath257 thought they were real already until JB looked into the matter.

Respectfully, I think the problem with using God as an explanation for anything scientific is that God cannot be verified using the scientific method. Theoretical physics and hypotheses associated with it are often not yet supported with verifiable evidence ... I agree wholeheartedly. But, the hope is that, some day, they will be verified using experimentation and observation. Until that is the case, these hypotheses are not scientific theories, they are theoretical.

When there is verifiable evidence for God that is reproduced with experimentation and observation, the situation will change.

 

[james bond]

Respectfully, I think the problem with using God as an explanation for anything scientific is that God cannot be verified using the scientific method. Theoretical physics and hypotheses associated with it are often not yet supported with verifiable evidence ... I agree wholeheartedly. But, the hope is that, some day, they will be verified using experimentation and observation. Until that is the case, these hypotheses are not scientific theories, they are theoretical.

When there is verifiable evidence for God that is reproduced with experimentation and observation, the situation will change.

Only because the atheist scientists won't peer-review with their "atheist" scientific method. This is why they are atheist scientists.

 

[leibowde84]

Only because the atheist scientists won't peer-review with their "atheist" scientific method. This is why they are atheist scientists.

The scientific method is not "atheist". It is merely a method that requires verifiable, demonstrable evidence. If there is no verifiable, demonstrable evidence for something, then it cannot be considered a "scientific theory". That is why the multiverse hypothesis, for example, is not a scientific theory.