[Fester Chugabrew]

You and your ilk would like to make "falsifiability" the test of ID, as if ID must be falsifiable to be scientific. I am saying that is not true. It is possible for statements and pursuits to be scientific without being falsifiable. I know it's a hard pill to swallow. Deal with it.

I am also saying that, just because God is not currently subject to direct observation does not mean all mention or use of such a paradigm must be ruled as unscientific. Another bitter pill to swallow. Your mind may not be capable of that kind of expansion, but deal with that too.

[CarolinaGuitarman]

"You and your ilk would like to make "falsifiability" the test of ID, as if ID must be falsifiable to be scientific."

Not only that, but if it isn't falsifiable, if any and every conceivable piece of evidence could be supported by it, then it is completely worthless, whether you wanted to call it science or theology or philosophy.

"It is possible for statements and pursuits to be scientific without being falsifiable."

Not if they're theories.

"I am also saying that, just because God is not currently subject to direct observation does not mean all mention or use of such a paradigm must be ruled as unscientific."

Yes it does. Doesn't mean it's wrong, just that it cannot be science.

"Your mind may not be capable of that kind of expansion, but deal with that too."

Sit down, take a deep breath. Feel better?

[blowfish]

I am also saying that, just because God is not currently subject to direct observation does not mean all mention or use of such a paradigm must be ruled as unscientific.

Yes we know you're saying that. You've said things like that over and over. It's still completely false. But I'm sure you'll keep right on saying them.

[blowfish]

It is possible for statements and pursuits to be scientific without being falsifiable. I know it's a hard pill to swallow.

I usually find obvious falsehoods hard to swallow, but that's just me, I guess.