If God Ever Stopped Intervening In Nature....

Terrible example of the point you try to get across.What is called 'white' by humans is light with a range of wavelenghts of light reflected from the paint. What we call black is a lack of humanly detected wavelenghts not being reflected from the paint.Luckily we can test wavelenghts by measuring them! I think you should rethink it.A. ‘White ’ is ‘true’, then ‘Black’ must be wrong.
B. ‘Black' is ‘true’ then ‘White ’ must be wrong.
C.or both ‘White’ and ‘Black’ are wrong.Add D, E , F and GD: Both 'White' and 'Black' are right.
E: Maybe both are wrong.
F: Maybe both are right in some instances and both wrong in some instances.
G: Maybe both are wrong and there's another answer.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

So, JRTjr01, you forgot about G?

Credibilty gone completely JRTjr01.Even twelve years olds know the difference between the atomic weights and numbers. You don't.

That's not any scientific method at all. I think that Hugh Ross was not telling the truth to you. The scientific method starts with observation. Then why?Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

If you can determine somehow that the footage was a man in a suit, you still can't rule out a real Bigfoot existing somewhere.The question is: How would you go about determining a real Bigfoot from a false Bigfoot?Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

No, he didn't. For example, it doesn't matter whether the sea started salty or not (initial conditions) , the sea still is salty today.I suggest that you drop your bogus creationist 'scientific method'. It's bogus. An obvious lie about the scientific method.

Oh, I can. When I look at those black rocks in the Drakensberg and study them, I don't set initial conditions. I don't start identifying a frame of reference. I look at the rocks first. In the field. Under microscopes. In machines.etc. Then I start with hypotheses.Your so-called "scientific method" is bogus. Yes, I have. People advocating magic global floods during the last few thousand years are ridiculously stupid.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Nope. That's not the first step in the scientific method.

I can't find that last part anywhere in the link you provided.The closest I got to it was right at the end: Metaphysics is not the same as physics. So, could you specifically refer to where you got physics from that link you provided?

So, the link you provided doesn't come even remotely close to what you claimed it said?You're a creationist thinking that all people are as uninformed as you are.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Dear TRTjr01Thanks again for your comments.I think that you lied about the link you provided.May the FSM touch you with a Holy Noodley Appendage and steer you away from the sin of telling untruths about links.I hope the Holy FSM touches you with a Holy Noodly Appendage so that you can realise that the untruths you tell on the Net will be caught out and shown to the whole world.Yours sincerelyPressieNB Hope are are blessed by the Holy FSM before it's too late for youEdited by Pressie, : No reason given.