(August 29, 2013 at 6:56 pm)Captain Colostomy Wrote: The analogy was fine, albeit tongue in cheek. What's poor is your attitude on accepting the better horse won. Claiming the broken down nag you spent the rent on had a long history of winning is silly for two reasons...one-because that was in the past, and two-because your horse had no real competition at the time.
You seem to be confounding the issue. Whether you’ve won the race or not is debatable but irrelevant, it does not magically prove that my horse was never a horse to begin with or ceases to be a horse. You may not accept the scientific creation model, that’s completely fine; however, that does not mean it’s unscientific. Again, there has been no altering of the definition of science to somehow exclude creationists from the community, they have always been and still remain scientists.
Quote: Creationism has a compound fractured leg, SW...real scientists have the x-rays to prove it. The only reason it hasn't been put down is emotional outcries from anachronistic gamblers such as yourself.
Real scientists? I smell the No True Scotsman fallacy! Creationism is still science, whether you like it or not- you’ve provided no reason to disqualify it as such. It is interesting that you claimed creationism is not falsifiable, but now you seem to be asserting that it has been falsified.
Quote: Lemme guess...your response will be 'neigh'? :p
Cute.
(August 29, 2013 at 6:59 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Let the best science win? How is this even a competition when there's only one kind of science?
There’s not only one kind of science. You just wish there were because you cannot win the debate upon merits. “I can win any debate! As long as it’s only me at the debate table!”
Captain Colostomy Wrote: He worded that poorly earlier, Sparty. He meant let the best hypothesis win.
Nope. Let the best science win.
Quote: Of course, creationism is antagonistic to a proven theory, so his gaffe...and argument, are moot.
You act as if there is merely one theory called, “creationism”, that’s amusing.
(August 29, 2013 at 7:33 pm)sarcasticgeographer Wrote: SW: The infinite regress would be tremendous to prove a creator, because if you assume that a creator created the universe, then you must assume something created the creator.Why would I have to assume that?
Quote: You have stipulated that creationism is a science and here is my final hatchet to your position.
You have my attention…
Quote: Occam's razor would show that your complex and fallacious examples are too abstract for empirical research. Let us not even mention that you are begging the question by stating that a creator created the universe. To prove creationism would be a huge obstacle, since you only beg the question.
That’s ironic you tried to invoke Occam’s razor considering the fact that William of Occam was a creationist. It’s also ironic since Occam’s razor is an interpretive principle that is assumed to be valid by scientists even though you claim that scientists are not allowed to assume anything a priori. Occam’s razor is only used for pragmatic purposes when examining two theories that are otherwise completely equal in their explanatory power. That’s not the case here though because the Creation model is superior in explanatory power to the Naturalistic model. Couple that with the fact that you did nothing to demonstrate that the creation model was indeed more complex (and unnecessarily so) but rather you merely asserted that it was and you’ve got yourself a broken hatchet.