Creation science II

That's not how science works though. You don't come up with something you'd like to test and then go see if it's true. First you gather data, then, with that data, you make a hypothesis, then you make a prediction with that hypothesis, then you test that prediction, and if it's correct, you make another prediction, or, if it's false, you adjust or discard your hypothesis.So you see, you don't start with something you want to prove, you start with data.So, by your own admission, it's not science, thanks for clearing that up.

---

I hunt for the truth

Yes there is, you even admitted as much."Evolutionists" started out with data, then formed there hypothesis, made predictions, tested them and they turned out to be correct. That's scienceCreationists started out (again, by your own admission) with a thing they wanted to prove, and they're searching for evidence to support their beliefs. That's not science. Evolution isn't about the origin of life, not is this thread about evolution. WRONG. You gather data, and only THEN come up with the hypothesis, that's how science works. So, again, by your own admission, creation science isn't science. They've concluded that it's true because of what the evidence shows. No, it's not, since there's actually evidence for "macroevolution" and there isn't any evidence for "creation". And the second law is not applicable to Earth, since Earth is an open system. Go read up on what thermodynamics actually says, before making such false statements. Indeed, are you finally going to provide it? No, you haven't. You've asserted time and again that it's science, nowhere have you even given a hint of evidence that it actually is. Like I said, it's not difficult. Let's start it out simple. Answer this question in your own words: "What is creation science?". After you've done that, we can move on. Please, no jabs at evolution or anything else, just tell me in your own words what you think creation science is, and we'll take it from there. I don't want to be directed, I've read most of it already anyway. I want to discuss this with you, not read what some website says about it. Just give me your own words and thoughts, not something you copied off of a website or out of a book, I'm not doing that either. Great, then let's start with an answer to that question: "What is creation science?". In your own words please, we'll move along after that has been cleared.

---

I hunt for the truth

Kelly, let's settle this once and for all.Answer me this question first, after that we'll go on to the next question."In your own words, what is creation science?"I have asked this question several times now, and you haven't answered it yet. Are you saying you can't say what creation science is? If that is the case, how can you argue that it IS science at all?

---

I hunt for the truth

Thank you Kelly.So, for now we'll go with this defintion: Now for question number two."Again in your own words, what are the methods used by creation science to test if the evidence confirms their model?"Note that "The same methods as regular science" is NOT the answer here, as using the same methods on the smae evidence can only ever give the same results.For example.I have a piece bone (not fossilized). One hypothesis says that the bone is 100 years old, the other says it's 10.000 years old. It is agreed that the best way to test it is to use carbon dating. The piece of bone is carbon dated by the first scientist, and the age the test gives is 7,500 years old. The test is repeated by the other scientist, and again it's 7,500 years old. Both hypothesis were wrong, but the test will give the same result, no matter what, since their methods were the same.So, in short, if creation science is using the same methods on the same evidence that regular science is using the exact same methods on, then they can NEVER get any other results from eachother.Oh, and take your time in asnwering, there's no time limit.

---

I hunt for the truth