Thank you so much for your post.

Please note that I am just a layman here, you probably knew that :) I am a programmer/analyst. I am not a scientist. I just love science.

Your post was most informational. In fact I am in shock, this throws a couple of my preconceptions of the world out of the window.

In the light of all this then, it seems to me that we should not try to squash the believers in creationism. They might have the right to exist after all.

I still don't believe in creationism of course and I don't think they could make me change my mind :)

Thank you again !

Please believe that I am not trolling!

I truly was not aware of this and I'm truly shocked!

Thank you for taking the time to explain all this.

One thing though is that, one day we might actually be able to prove that God does not exist.

We never know what sort of incredible insight future research might bring us.

I love science! :)

Agreed, this person would not be left with a lot of karma to burn ;-)

Oh I agree with you, what I know of their story seems completely wacko to me.

But a lot of the scientific hypothesis we use right now, like the earth is round, seemed completely wacko once too.

Ok ok... I know this example might be seen by most people as more then just an hypothesis ;-)

Fascinating! Some science is coming out of this whole thing :)

So creationism might not be a total waste of time after all.

Interesting ! Thank you for those links.

So, like I said in another comment, that would mean, regarding this story, that they can give PhDs to these people all they want. But that could never be seen as a PhD in a scientific field.

I agree with you :)

I understand this wiki entry might not be completely accurate. But there must be a common definition of the scientific method available somewhere.

Are you saying the "scientific community" does not have a common definition of the scientific method?? Because if so, we are screwed, and we are all wasting our time.

Would you agree?

Thank you, I get it now.

So, like I said in another comment, that would mean, regarding this story, that they can give PhDs to these people all they want. But that could never be seen as a PhD in a scientific field.

I see what you are saying. Thank you for taking the time to explain this to me.

So that would mean, regarding this story, that they can give PhDs to these people all they want. But that could never be seen as a PhD in a scientific field.

I was defining the practice of science as following the scientific method.

I thought that the scientific method used the word "evidence" for these supposedly "facts".

I understand what you are saying. That creationism is "Not even wrong". I don't know much about it and was just curious to know if we are sure that they are not predicting anything we could use to try and prove them wrong.

I was talking about the claims religions make, are they predicting anything that explains some observations that we can't otherwise explain? I know that we might not currently have ways of testing their claims, but maybe one day we will.

I think we too often use bad language when we talk about science in definite terms. I hear too often things like: "We proved that...".

We never prove anything in science, we just very very slowly disprove everything we can. And by doing so, we narrow ever so slowly the expanse of explanations to ever more useful ones.

Valtor

Is there such a thing as "scientific fact"?

I thought science was about disproving hypothesis, not proving fact. Or am I missing something?

Valtor

So what you are saying is that, the hypothesis does not make any predictions, so it is "Not even wrong" ?

I'm as far as it gets from an expert on creationism, but are we certain that it does not make any predictions that we could test to try and disprove it?

Valtor