Quote:
Quote by: rez  Let's use your thread "Proof for Creationists" as an example. Is it not applicable?
A theory is a broad hypothesis that has been extensively tested and supported over time and that explains a broad range of scientific facts with a high degree of reliability.
Step 3: Make a testable prediction
Step 4: Experiment or observe
Step 5: Modify the hypothesis as necessary and repeat steps 3 and 4.
It does not matter. The natural world is complex, and many times people who discredit scientific claims can not even recall the steps within the scientific method. They fail the very first chapter of science!
I thought thats how the scientific method works? Scientists used Darwin's Theory, to develop the Theory of Evolution.
You obviously know the answer to this. The difference between common experience and science is that science uses generalization to make a prediction that can be tested. |
Okay, let's use the post I made that you selected as an example (which is the worse one I ever made - almost).
In that post I presented two more generalizations ( links ) that creationists could add to their other generalizations. The fosil footprints of humans and dinosaurs that are impressed on the same rock. And a link about some mayan pottery which contianed art that showed people and dinosaurs together. The creationist could use those sources along with other information they have to try to prove that Noah could have had a dinosaur on his boat. However that was not a "science" idea at all, it would have been another creationist idea instead. Para-science is not science. All they would need to do is to test the idea out on Christians and if they believe it then it would become their perception of a fact.
Anything called science that has a pre-estabished objective would leave out some evidence and use only the evidence that supports the objective and that is what Creationism does. Some evolutionists might be guilty of doing that also. If the shoe don't fit, you must aquit as a famous lawyer once said. So a smart scientist would not use a shoe that does not fit. But a critic might dig up the shoe and holler "wait just on moment". Thus, it become debatable.
However none of that has to do with what I said about the "natural world".