“Science is there to teach us how things work.”
Yes.
“As is. Can be reproduced. Can be observed.”
Not quite. Studying stars going nova is science without having to reproduce a stellar collapse in a lab.
What is REPEATED in the scientific method are the observations. Doesn’t mean it’s not science until we repeat what we think happened.
"Under these conditions, creationsim has as much back up as evolution.”
Well, excepting the fact that science is limited to naturalistic processes, so no magic. So what Creationism has going for it is misleading claims and gullibility.
"Can you go in a lab, make a bubble out of nuthing,”
The big bang does not say ‘out of nothing,’ and repeating it is not required, anyway.
“explode it, have it form a seemingly endless number of galaxies with Intelligent life on at least one of the planets in one of the galaxies' solar systems?”
And this would be a misleading claim, that ‘science’ has to jump through this hoop to be considered science.
"Then reproduce it again with the exact same results?”
Dude, you really are intent on misunderstanding science.
"Until then, it's not science.”
You really should not tell huge lies and pat yourself on the back.
“Its hypothesis. Its theory. It's called scientific method...look it up.”
Feel free to start any time.
