Pranking Christian call show

[Statler Waldorf]

You're mad that I didn't answer you directly in the other thread? Playing the martyr card was something I thought you accused others of, but I never thought you'd actually be the pot calling the kettle black.

No, I am not mad at all; It was the only card you had left to play. I just do not owe you anything.

SW, you dodge questions every chance you get, like honestly answering whether or not the Scientific Theory HAD to be made by a Creationist. And you accuse me of invoking an argument from ignorance. Now we've moved beyond pot/kettle tactics and have moved into projection territory.

Yes, it had to be formulated by a creationist, and it was.

You twist words and ideas, so don't get your panties in a twist when people don't much want to address the bullshit you spray out of your mouth.

I actually reduce your arguments to absurdity; it’s an effective form of argumentation. If you do not like it, then present arguments that cannot be reduced to absurdity.

The funniest thing I've heard this week. "Using the scientific method to..." in regards to creationism. There is NOTHING about Creationism that is scientific AT ALL. PRovide me one example where, say, the Discovery Institute [which is the one that propagates this silly bullshit as a claim to science yet fails to ever do such] used a method that is actually entirely in line with the scientific method. ONE. That's all I ask.

The Discovery Institute is not a creationist organization; so all you have done is illuminate your ignorance on the subject. I’ve already given numerous examples of scientific predictions made by creationists that were completely accurate. Couple this with the fact that the scientific method itself was first formulated by a creationist and it’s quite clear that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

One single time where they postulated a theory actually using the scientific method, that was not rejected by the scientific community.

I already gave numerous examples, try to keep up please.

GOOD LUCK. I don't envy you this task. Not at all.

The task I already completed before you jumped in here? Done.

Here’s a task for you. Justify the assumptions that must be true in order for the scientific method to be used while using only a purely natural and material view of reality. Good luck.

Only once the hypothesis/theory has survived every known attempt to disprove it can it be considered scientific fact, [b]and even then it is always constantly at risk of being proven wrong if indeed it is wrong[/b[

You’ve obviously watched too many movies. I am sorry, but science does not operate the way Hollywood says it does. You’ve just proven my point with the above statement. Even if a theory is widely accepted by the scientific community it is perfectly capable of being wrong, and the history of science has taught us that it often is. I will repeat myself for emphasis; scientific facts have never been and will never be determined by majority opinion or consensus.

Creation "science" isn't science because it comes with a presupposition; that there must be a god, and that he must have created everything. There is no proof to this but it makes the claim anyway. It is already false science; it has preconception bias and bases its theories on unfalsifiable and unprovable claims. THIS. IS. NOT. SCIENCE.

More ignorance. Scientists are allowed to have presuppositions; in fact ALL scientists have them. As long as they are properly identified there is nothing wrong with this. You’re committing the No True Scotsman fallacy by arbitrarily inventing a qualifier that is not in reality in the definition of science. If you want, I can explain to you what presuppositions all scientists have since it’s obvious you were unaware that they even possessed any.

No he's not, he's merely stating the obvious; the creation science is anything but scientific.

Says the guy who thought the Discovery Institute was a creationist organization.

THAT much is certainly true!

Obviously you’re not intellectually honest enough to quote me in context. Here’s the full quote for others to see.

“I think you are operating under a fundamental misunderstanding of what Creation Science is. Creationists do not postulate scientific theories and seek scientific evidence in order to establish who the Creator is. That is a philosophical question that we already have the answer to. We are merely learning about His creation through the scientific method. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and it is valid science.”- SW

Or anything else for that matter.

We’ve actually learned a lot thus far.

In other words you're picking and choosing what science you consider valid and interjecting it with your own presuppositions wherever you see fit. That's not using the scientific method. It's using your own bullshit claims and calling it science.

More ignorance. The scientific method requires an interpretive scheme. We’re interpreting the evidence consistently with our interpretive scheme, as are you with yours. The only difference is that our interpretive scheme actually makes sense and yours is fatally inconsistent with your presuppositions.

Yes there is, and no it is not.

Baseless assertion.

Calling a pile of bull shit a chocolate pie doesn't make it a chocolate pie; it's still bull shit.

Calling a chocolate pie dung does not make it dung either. You’ve provided no justification for your assertions that Creation Science is not science. All you’ve done is rather efficiently demonstrated your lack of knowledge on the subject in general.