(October 27, 2015 at 8:17 am)RoadRunner79 Wrote:(October 26, 2015 at 8:54 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: Not a priori. Show me some of this science. I'll let it stand on its own merits. I have asked politely for some of this creationist science multiple times, but you are loath to produce it.
I suppose what I have been trying to get to; and will just come out and ask is what is your definition of science? What are the minimum requirements that are needed to be in your view science? I would like to nail down the goal posts, before we proceed.
TRS got it, but in a nutshell:
Start with a hypothesis that must be both plausible and falsifiable, devise an experiment that will adequately test said hypothesis, collect data.
Publish your findings to your peers. The experiments will then be reproduced, or better yet experiments using an alternate method will be run, in order to reproduce the data and findings. A self-correction process happens when these two diverge.
So---about the question that I've been asking for 21 pages now, let's see some of this creationist science. With the prolific people that you mentioned last page, you should have papers abound that demonstrate that creationists do science all the time, right?
"There remain four irreducible objections to religious faith: that it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos, that because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum servility with the maximum of solipsism, that it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression, and that it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking." ~Christopher Hitchens, god is not Great
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
PM me your email address to join the Slack chat! I'll give you a taco(or five) if you join! --->There's an app and everything!<---
