Who Is Your Creator message forum

 

Forum: Who Is Your Creator message forum
This forum is locked and posting is not allowed
Author
Comment
View Entire Thread
Read again

To reiterate, a hypothesis was based on the the fact that gravity has been proven to occur by direct real time observation, i.e. empirical evidence. (Gravity itself is NOT the hypothesis.)

Since you are obviously not aware of it, this process is referred to as the 'Scientific Method.'

(The following is from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html)

The Scientific Method
a. Make observations.
b. Form a testable, unifying hypothesis to explain these observations.
“By "testable", we mean the predictions must include examples of what is likely be observed if the hypothesis is true and of what is unlikely to be observed if the hypothesis is true. A hypothesis that can explain all possible data equally well is not testable, nor is it scientific. A good scientific hypothesis must rule out some conceivable possibilities, at least in principle.”
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html
c. Deduce predictions from the hypothesis.
d. Search for confirmations of the predictions; if the predictions are contradicted by empirical observation, go back to step (2).

Also, your attempt to be condesending is tiresome ("my dear" in subject line and continual useage of it). Please stick to an unemotional exchange.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

---
It is a FACT that it fell and an hypothesis is based on that fact.
---

My dear, gravity is not a "hypothesis", it is a *theory*. The *theory* of gravity. Surely you know the scientific definition of a theory.

What happens if you're on the space shuttle and you drop the apple from your hand? Because it does not necessarily "fall", therefore has the "hypothesis of gravity" now been disproven? The theory of gravity, in and of itself, covers a LOT of other things other than apples falling - it also relates to time, mass, weight, etc.

But getting back to the point, you're saying that "true science" needs "facts". OK. An apple falling down is a replicable *fact*. Without getting too quantum on this, ok, sure, let's say it is. Therefore gravity is a "true science". OK.

There is a "fact" that DNA can mutate by various means. Therefore, evolution is a "true science". Yes? Is that the conclusion you're begging me to draw?

Email