[OnyxCougar]

Originally Posted by Kitsune

You seem to fully expect that something can not be considered "science" until it is duplicated in a laboratory and that is simply not how the field works.

NOAA website glossary (bold emphasis mine)
science - a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways

Yes, that is the way it works.

Originally Posted by Kitsune

Many fields in the sciences deal with energy, matter, and systems well outside of our physical grasp because of size, time, and dangers. That does not make them any less "science".

That is wholly dependant upon what we're talking about. I'm not going to make that broad of stroke.

Generate a sun in a laboratory. Touch the sun with your own hands. You can't. All we know of the sun and the burning hydrogen mass are its after effects, a full eight minutes after they have been occured. We can measure the heat once it strikes our planet, we can measure the residual radio waves, and we can view the spectrum coming off of it.

Yes. We can. These are observable, measurable quantities.

Our universe is much like this -- we didn't see it begin, we won't see it end, but we can measure the energy, content, and how it interacts.

Absolutely right! That's science!

Based on what we know from measurements done in a lab with these particles, we can form a theory of how it all came to be and how it might all end. There is nothing wrong with that, there is nothing "un-science" about that.

Absolutely right. Forming theories from observed facts is scientific.

It is just as I can observe changes in the fossil record and hypothesize about how life changes.

Here's where we hit shaky ground. The "fossil record" does not change. It is a bunch of bones lying in layers of dirt. They don't move. They don't change. They also do NOT prove anything except they died. And maybe not even at that spot. Somehow, though, scientists want me to believe that we can prove evolution by bones in the dirt. Sorry. Not buying it.

Just because I will never see it change before my eyes because of my short life span does not make my theory any less "science".

Sure it does. If you can't OBSERVE it, if you can't MEASURE it, if you can't DUPLICATE it, it's NOT science. Let's check that definition again: science - a method of learning about the physical universe by applying the principles of the scientific method, which includes making empirical observations, proposing hypotheses to explain those observations, and testing those hypotheses in valid and reliable ways.

Pulling a guess out of a, uh, black hole isn't science -- you are correct. But formulating a theory based on research, measurements, and observations is exactly how the entire field works. You seem to imply that you think evolution and the "big bang" theory are founded on nothing more than wild imagination.

That's exactly what it's founded on.

People that have issues with theories seem to be unhappy that they cannot get hard, physical evidence that they can see with their own eyes. In truth, science doesn't have a lot of truths, but it does have a lot of theories. We've never seen the electron clouds of an atom and we cannot measure the speed and location of many particles to get an exact model. Currently science seems certain we never will, but we can develop good theories that fit our needs. Theories are not facts, theories can be changed, theories can be modified, theories can be challenged. They are all works in progress, most of them destined to never be completed or accepted as "fact". Yet, none of these aspects remove these studies from the sciences or make them any less important.

But you see, scientists believe evolution is a fact, based on this theory. Remember the post someone made about the different portions of the brain named after different animal types? People all over the world are being told that evolution happened. Period. In fact, scientists can't prove any of it happened. It is JUST as much of a "theory" as the "theory" that a God named Yahweh created the world is 6 literal days. It is equally as good of a theory that we're in the Matrix, all part of a computer program.

Neither side can conclusively prove they are right and the other wrong. Try to teach the bible or Matrix theory in school as "just a theory" alongside evolution and watch the flames. Why is that?

Why is it ok to advance one theory and call it science but advance a different theory with JUST AS MUCH EVIDENCE and call it religion?? Aren't they BOTH religion? Both are unprovable. Both are simply theories. Right?

If you want an easy answer that you aren't permitted to question, change, or update, please look to your bible.

Obviously you haven't studied this issue very deeply. The churches around the world take different stances regarding the creation/evolution debate. This debate has more ramifications within the church than it does in the secular world. This has everything to do with the fallibility of God and the bible itself.

But do not suggest that just because you can't see it with your own eyes it isn't science.

I don't suggest it, the definition of science itself does.

If you remove the theories that cannot be directly observed, you're removing a massive amount of important information that is crucial to our current understanding of how our world and how the universe works.

You mean how some people THINK it MAY work. Theories are NOT facts, Kitsune. That statement alone shows how much people (including yourself)simply accept some (if not all) of these theories as FACT, and THAT is what I have a problem with.