Why creationism is not a valid scientific hypothesis.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is still a bacteria the same as a person with an extra toe or finger is still a human. No evolution there, just a variety.

Originally posted by C Hess
That's about the dumbest thing you've written yet. To say that this new species of bacteria
is still "just" a bacteria, is the equivalent of saying that a new species of mammal is still
"just" a eukaryota. It's a horribly ignorant thing to say, and I think I can therefore safely
return to my simply-pointing-out-when-you're-wrong-mode.

Originally posted by C Hess
Let me explain how science works, just so we're clear.

You have scientific facts, that would include both the natural laws and physical objects like
fossils. These are facts, since only a mad man could deny their accuracy/existence.

Then you have scientific evidence. That would be observations that anyone can make, and
thereby verify. An observation ...[text shortened]... 's a very useful and solid theory at this point, and only
religious literalists yet oppose it.

Originally posted by Eladar
Let me tell you how science works. You make a reproducible experiment. If you can do that then people will understand that the this experiment works. If it is useful, it will be used.

There you have it, science.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Maybe, it would be more accurate to say that this different variety of bacteria is comparable to a different variety of dog or a different variety of cat.

Let's not go off-topic completely, please.

I would like to see how RJHinds refute the first postings of this thread, showing that creationism isn't science.

Remember the title of this thread: "Why creationism is not a valid scientific hypothesis."
Let's concentrate on this...

Originally posted by C Hess
What "people" understand or not is irrelevant. If the model (hypothesis or theory) allows
scientists to make successful predictions, start new scientific branches and if it can
explain all as of yet collected evidence, it can be considered an essential truth, and indeed
only someone ignorant or a fool would still argue against it.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
Let's not go off-topic completely, please.

I would like to see how RJHinds refute the first postings of this thread, showing that creationism isn't science.

Remember the title of this thread: "[b]Why creationism is not a valid scientific hypothesis."
Let's concentrate on this...[/b]

Originally posted by RJHinds
The evolution model has shown not to make successful predictions that lead to truth. However, truth is being stumbled over and discovered inspite of the hinderance of the evolution model.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Creationism is becoming just as valid a scientific hypothesis as the evolution hypothesis, because more scientists are using the creation belief as a scientific philosophy in using the hypothetical-deductive method in the study of all branches of science.

The creationism model is a more comprehensive model because it include the origin and cause for the o ...[text shortened]... n model has nothing to say. I believe the creation model is more accurate and credible as well.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
And how would you relate this statement of yours to the points one to five in the initial postings?

Start with point 1, continue with point 2, and so on.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No time for that.

Originally posted by C Hess
What "people" understand or not is irrelevant. If the model (hypothesis or theory) allows
scientists to make successful predictions, start new scientific branches and if it can
explain all as of yet collected evidence, it can be considered an essential truth, and indeed
only someone ignorant or a fool would still argue against it.

Originally posted by Eladar
If you have to make an assumption about the existence of God and having to reject a miracle, then it is not science.

Your definition of science is simply how one works science into your religious beliefs.

Originally posted by RJHinds
No time for that.