What is science?

A/ Yes this is true about the scientific method. What you must realise is that this method can be used by any scientist not just those who prefer an evolutionary way of thinking, those who wish to use this method to build upon a framework or presupposition. (The world is natural, God made the world etc). Two different frameworks to build upon it is no difference.B/ Correct again. Alot of people think creation is not falisible but this is very illogical. If you think it is wrong then of course it is falsible. If it wasnt then it would be the truth correct?. Both evolution and creation are falsible and have both problems with theories. They both contradict each other. But neither are proven fact.C/ Actually there are many things in science that can be proven. For example the law of gravity. However when it comes to historical science one cannot prove 100%. This goes for both evolution and creation. Practical science can be proven. Some medicines can heal some sicknesses etc. All this is everyday science that one can prove. But we are talking about theories about what happened about the past and one cannot prove this things apart from theories and evidence interpretation (Both historical forms evolution and creation have this problem).D/ Yes its true it must be logical however when creation conflicts with evolution. Many people automatically think creation is false because it conflicts with what evolution has already proven whereas they both found the same evidence just interpreted differently. Creation cannot be proved wrong by what evolution has found and vice versa.SCIENCE OF ONE RELIGION VS THE SCIENCE OF THE OTHER.

quote:

---

Likewise, the evolutionary model makes predictions about what the fossil record should look like. If the record doesn't look that way the the evolutionary model is falsified (tested and found to be in error).

---

PUNTUATED EQUILIBRIUM anyone?. If the fossil record is the only means available for using the scientific method to observe macro evolution, and if that record provides nothing observable that corresponds with the theory, then isnt the evolutionists left holding a groundless theory?. Without convincing evidence from the fossils the theory of evolution would have no basis for grounding itself in the scientific method and would be left in the realms of faith. True or false? (A bit off topic im sorry,Actually a topic on puntuacted equilibrium sounds like a great idea)