(February 20, 2016 at 8:18 am)Stimbo Wrote:(February 20, 2016 at 12:24 am)AAA Wrote: Yeah, but according to stimbo it isn't science unless you can do it in a lab. Also if you made a protein in a lab, what would that prove? That it CAN happen. It doesn't necessarily provide evidence that it did. Similarly if I constructed a protein intentionally, what would that prove? That it CAN happen. It doesn't provide evidence that intelligent design is true does it? So empirical science cannot be applied to historical events. However, keep in mind that I am not the one limiting science to empiricism, that would be stimbo. I think that they are both scientific hypothesis.
No, don't fucking strawman me. It's not because you assert it cannot be tested in a lab that makes it not scientific; it's that it is carefully crafted to be untestable altogether. Unfalsifiable = unscientific. Why is that so hard?
Right now, I want somebody to give me a definition of science that simultaneously excludes intelligent design as scientific while permitting naturalistic explanations of the origin of life to be scientific.
