The Creationist Method

No, not really. Although you seem to be more open than your bretheren you still seem to be confused about terminology. A hypothesis is not just an "educated guess." Most people focus on the "guess" and not the "educated" part.Any claim can be open to further knowledge, but unless it is based upon real world observations it is not a hypothesis, or at least not a falsifiable one.I can claim all day long that the magical world of Harry Potter really exists and you cannot prove it wrong. Can you prove that the events of the 1990's were not caused by Voldemort's rise to power in the magical world? You seem to be under the impression that none of the "other side" understands the "Christian opinion." The flow chart parodies the literal evangelical position. If you fall into that category, I can't say that I am sorry. If not, why are you defending it? You can defend your own position, but why extend the chalice to someone who doesn't express your own framework unless you are just defending the veneer of Christianity? But, many of them do believe it is true and do not question based upon sermons. They (the ministers) do not have to even mention science if they can pass a few "facts" off as truths. One does not have tomention something in order to present veiled arguments against it. What is the difference between Biblical and literal creationists?What makes your view better? Or more real?

---

"You are metaphysicians. You can prove anything by metaphysics; and having done so, every metaphysician can prove every other metaphysician wrong--to his own satisfaction. You are anarchists in the realm of thought. And you are mad cosmos-makers. Each of you dwells in a cosmos of his own making, created out of his own fancies and desires. You do not know the real world in which you live, and your thinking has no place in the real world except in so far as it is phenomena of mental aberration." -The Iron Heel by Jack London

OK, I take it back. I suppose that if one left a supernatural entity out of the question, then a scientific hypothesis based on an interpretation of the Bible could be falsifiable. Although, of course, the "observations" would be replaced with interpretations of scripture. A little "unorthodox" but it could work.That is why we debate about Noah's flood. It is a falsifiable concept (and has been falsified), at least, until someone comes along and says "Well Goddidit" to explain away any inconsistencies pointed out about their theory or ignore the evidence against such a thing ever having occured.This doesn't mean that you can't believe in God or that God planned and executed the methods and laws we humans discover, just that the whole question of God and his supernatural doings are unfalsifiable and cannot be subjected to the scientific method. I conceded above that it is possible to test one's interpretation of the Bible against reality. The problem comes in when one tries to fit the evidence to their interpretation and ignore any of the evidence which contradicts it. That is the problem with "presuming facts where there are none." That is what the flow charts were parodying. Agreed and I see upon re-reading that you were not defending literal creationists at all. Thanks for your answer.I apologize for seeming antagonistic. I don't know what got into me or why I even took such strong issue with your post.