Could a creationist please give me a definition of the term "scientific theory" ?

Answer 1

I think you already know what the definition is, you're just looking for an opportunity to stir the pot.

Good luck to you ya mate, hope you get what you seek

Answer 2

We all know what the definition of "scientific theory" is. The term Piltdown was a scientific theory hoax in which a human skull was combined with the jaw of an ape to represent a fossil "ape man." For years it was accepted without question by the scientific community as an authentic fossil until it was proven a hoax. It doesn't just take a Creationist to know that all scientic theories aren't always scientific.

Answer 3

Do you mean pure "scientific theory" or do you mean "empirical scientific theory"? Because if you are talking empirical science, such theories must restrict themselves to phenomena that can be detected by our five senses. When creationists theorize about the origin and development of life they are often accused of being unscientific, because they are not relying on empirical sense data. This is ironic, because the non-creationists will argue that it is scientific to conclude that we live in an uncreated eternally existent universe, that life was created by random chemical processes, that speciation was the result of random mutation, and that an atom consists of electrons, protons and neutrons. These are considered to be scientific theories, though non-empirical, but the creationist or theological theories are not scientific because they are non-empirical. Give me a break.

Answer 4

SCIENTIFIC THEORY - An explanation of why and how a specific natural phenomenon occurs. A lot of hypotheses are based on theories. In turn, theories may be redefined as new hypotheses are tested.

The one who cannot think of all of various possibilities is the non-scientist. Therefore scientists who exclude God or a higher entity in their observations regarding the question of creation is doing a disservice to scientific theory.

For example, a true scientist would approach creation in this fashion. How did it all began ?
(1) in a primordial soup, by blending and evolving
(2) Made by aliens with higher intelligence
(3) made by a higher being, not aliens but someone who is omnipotent and omniscient, immortal, a constant guiding force that does not die.
(4) We simply exploded into what we are now

Of course SETI and other experiments do not prove (2) as of yet and (4) can be discounted by observation. Which leaves us with (1) and (3), both of which are still hypothesis.

Now that is SCIENTIFIC THEORY IN ACTION!

Answer 5

That depends on whether you mean a correct definition or THEIR definition. However, that's "only my theory".

Answer 6

Why do you want such a debate? You just would hate me...

Answer 7

Here u can find all u want
http://www.harunyahya.com

Answer 8

could you define definition for me please? lol