No, it isn't no matter how much you repeat that. Where are the repeated and verifiable observations? Where is the experimental data? Creation has to be taken on faith because there is only ONE source for it - a religious writing.
and refusing to go into the inherently fallable nature of inductive reasoning and then defending the choices science makes on the basis of this fallable reasoning is just flat ceding the argument to the creationists because you are too lazy or arrogant to do some difficult homework.
Get a grip.
I've illustrated the words and how they are used in science and they have failed because they don't meet your stringent standards. I've gone along with the semantic games of reasoning and the fallacies. But you've kept getting your panties in a bunch because the standards and definitions weren't pure enough for you.
When I have presented research, they met the audience standards. When I have educated patients, it met their standards. When I have taught classes at the university, it met the student's standards. There was no misunderstanding or confusion. There was none of this harping of 'it all depends on what the meaning of proof is.'
If anything, your harping on the nature of unattainability of pure theoretical proof is a part of the greater misunderstanding - nothing can be proved so anything can be taught would be the reaction. But please, continue using your pure definitions while I will continue to use the definitions of my education, experience, and that of fellow researchers.
Repeated and varifiable observations proved that all stoplights have a grue indicator. Masses of repeated and verifiable observations of the rapture of everyday existence as manifested in the glorious stars in the heaven, and rainbows, and flowers, and exquisite snowflakes, and the glorious word of God, far more numerous and observed than anything that ever happened in a science lab, prove the existence of God as the Prime Mover.
Creation has to be taken on faith because there is only ONE source for it - a religious writing.
Science has to be taken on faith because there is no prime source for it--a tangible sacred text anyone with a mind to can find and read. By contrast, science is just a bunch of constantly changing gobbeldy-gook the fundamentals of which two scientists describe alike.
That is inaccurate. My panties are in a bunch not because the word "proof" is being used impurely. It is being used wrongly. And as such, is endemic of the feeble defenses most scientists put up at school board meetings, because they haven't thought very hard about what they are saying, but simply assume that because they are scientists they will sweep this creationist rabble away with flick of their well-tuned mind.
"Proof", by any reasonable stretch of the lay meaning of the word, does not mean: "subject to question". And that is exactly the point that needs to be driven home at school board meetings about science--that scientific ideas are always subject to question.
This is elitest junk food for the mind. "Ordinary humans are just too stupid to understand the uncertainties of science, so we'll just say we've proved it, so that these heyseeds from the creationist institute will shut up and go away." Fat chance.
Again, I urge you not to bring this philosophic Rube Goldberg contraption of supposed "proof" to the table when serious issues like the continuing scientific education of our children is at stake.