What is the difference between a claim being "scientifically true" and simply true? Or does "scientifically true" just mean "made it through the peer-review process"?
You seem to think that when one interprets evidence, one never needs to determine what is not the case. When you look at the evidence [for evolution], you are determining that *having been created yesterday* is not the best explanation for that evidence. Otherwise, your interlocutor could simply do the same thing to you, i.e. shift the burden of proof such that you have to prove that "the world was created yesterday" is not true. This is why shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy, because both sides can do it, and it therefore does not advance the discussion or show which claim is true.
-A8
Scientifically true IS different than "true". 1000 years from now, someone may discover something that proves a current theory is false, but for the next 1000 years, that theory will be scientifically true until proven false. For instance, it was "scientifically true" that maggots spontaneously generated from meat...for a looooong time. That is, until it was proven to be a false notion years later. ID has no and can have no factual scientific backing....without time travel. It's a baseless hypothesis that has not been proven in any manner....so it's not even up to anyone to DISprove it (don't have to prove the negative of something that has not been proven).
When you look at the evidence [for evolution], you are determining that *having been created yesterday* is not the best explanation for that evidence.
Not in the slightest. I'm determining that it's a false hypothesis on the basis of the zero evidence provided that it's a valid hypothesis. As a scientist, I don't need to disprove the yet-to-be-proven hypothesis....you need to PROVE that hypothesis, so that I can poke scientific holes in your data to disprove it.
This is why shifting the burden of proof is a fallacy, because both sides can do it, and it therefore does not advance the discussion or show which claim is true.
There's a difference between the scientific method and logic 101, but since you're claiming logic-knowledge, I will have to point you to the ARGUMENTUM AD IGNORANTIAM fallacy (P is true, because it has not been proven false). Thank you, play again. I don't NEED to prove creation DIDN'T happen yesterday. YOU need to prove that it DID happen yesterday so I can disprove it. The burden of proof was NEVER on me for me to shift it.
However, I CAN scientifically prove that creation didn't happen yesterday because I have FDA regulated, calibrated clocks (with date) and everything that would've been created yesterday was here BEFORE yesterday.