Creationists, what do you consider a valid scientific method?

Answer 1

You're wasting your breath (or fingers).

They don't use logic, and will simply repeat their conclusion over and over without the use of facts or reason.

Or the new one that the Intelligent Design (what an oxymoron) crowd is fond of: "things are just too complicated to have happened by accident."

Answer 2

* Identifying a Problem
* Forming a hypothesis
* Designing and Performing Experiments
* Collecting and Analyzing Data
* Formulating Conclusions about the Hypothesis
If this is what you mean by the Scientific method I will say I think its a great method and very valid in most occasions.
You know what? Creationist don't have to believe something to understand it. I am very much open to any other theories out there and I love to learn about them. But at the end of the day I have my own belief that really doesn't change. I am completely okay with everyone else having their own opinions and beliefs I love to listen and understand them in occasions compare and and question. But you see thats just me So I say your question varies because not every creationist is like that. So really it all depends on the individual.
You cannot really classify everyone and say that we don't understand Science like some of your answers here said.
Thats being ignorant and that makes everyone just as bad...
Because in reality there are very understanding people out there regardless what they believe.
Also this method can throw off Scientists as well
I mean look at all those ghost hunters and unexplained mysteries? They cannot prove things like this even when they really happen. With or without the Science method. So all the people that have had a supernatural experience are they all insane? What can a scientist tell me about a Psychic? I mean There are somethings even scientist cannot prove or explain
just like Creationist we cannot prove there is or was a god.
But neither can it be disproved... All we have are called "Theories" not facts.
At the end of the day I say we are all on the same page.
Thats Is why I do not find it hard to understand others.
I find no purpose when people that do not understand weather scientist/athiest/creationist form separations between eachother.

Good Question by the way
Star for you.
:)

Answer 3

technology is extremely sturdy at what it does. Does it do each thing? No. Does that advise we are unfastened to brush aside what technology has spoken approximately with authority? definite, yet you're able to understand that the possibilities of you being precise go down dramatically. while you're no longer a biologist and initiate drawing conclusions on biology that contradict technology, you're practically absolute to be making a mistake. Do you play Chess? Do you play the interest following the regulations? people who attempt to undermine medical technique are like little ones attempting to win a interest of chess against a Grandmaster. it may ensue, besides the undeniable fact that it fairly is extremely no longer likely. human beings tend to settle for the end results of medical technique (the internet, all issues digital, wellness care, and so on. ) at the same time as rejecting the tree which factors it. This looks inconsistent. That reported, besides the undeniable fact that, technology is a device to degree issues. If the subject rely isn't a factor or isn't measurable we can assume the nicely-known variety of comments to be imminent. i think of Plato continues to be a sturdy examine and don't see that technology could ever have something to declare approximately it. i don't have faith that morality is in the medical realm, nor do i've got faith that it fairly is subsequently relative. technology does not declare to sound the humanities or morality.

Answer 4

Even though we might be creationists, we can still believe in science and the scientific method. It's just that the theory of evolution where the earth was created by an explosion, happened to be the perfect environment for living creatures, and all living creatures were derived from 1 cell is more unbelievable than the creation story.

Answer 5

ok uh to the people who answered above ^^^^^^^ obviously you are not creationists so speak for yourself and dont put words in other people's mouth.

i consider a valid scientific method the standard one we have now.

Answer 6

reading a book written by shepherds in the deserts of syria 2500 years ago... thats good enuff scientific method for creationists :)

Answer 7

ROFLOL, at the answers from the self appointed scientists.
They are so anxious to talk down to someone who hasn't answered, they made fools of themselves, lol.
There's not enough info to answer the question, until we know what you are interested in a scientific method to do or measure or theorize ...

Answer 8

The rhythm method.

Answer 9

Observation.

Answer 10

Somehow I don't think most know any scientific methods, whether valid or invalid.