Pranking Christian call show

[Statler Waldorf]

Ah, I see what you did here. You equivocated their scientific work with a made up branch of science called "Creation Science".

No, I refuted the claim that no creationist has a degree in Biology. It was easy enough to do.

I never made such a claim...so...yeah. You're arguing for the sake of arguing at this point. Again, how does the person who formulated scientific method being a Creationist in any supports your idea that there is such a thing called Creation Science?

You’re creating a false distinction. All science prior to the rise of naturalism in the late 19th and early 20th Century was a form of “Creation Science” because scientists were merely thinking God’s thoughts after Him as Kepler would put it. You’re making these absurd claims about scientists having to adhere to the philosophy of naturalism even though there is no such requirement in science. Creationists are scientists because they learn about the natural world through experimentation and observation.

Who are you quoting there in your statement? Not me, I hope, because I never actually said that. Do you do this with every Atheist you argue with, that is, put words in their mouth? My actual words (the ones above this rebuttal statement of yours) was a direct follow on to my asking you why it's important that the person who formulated the scientific method was a creationist. My statement deals with a hypothetical; we know that an atheist didn't come up with the method, but it all still comes back to asking why it's important that this man was a creationist. We're waiting on your answer.

Well you were invoking an argument from ignorance by challenging me to prove that an atheist couldn’t have formulated the scientific method first. I already told you why it was important. All of modern science owes its very foundation to a man who viewed scripture as the infallible word of God and who rejected naturalism. This flies directly in the face of your assertion that such people are not considered scientists. Some of the greatest scientists this world has ever known were creationists.

No, no. This is a public forum, so spill the beans on your magic evidence that makes god so apparently true.

Well that would be a matter of proof and not evidence, so you’re going to have to get your story straight first. After you refused to honestly address my last post in the “one question” thread I hardly think I owe you anything.

You're making the same mistake with FC that you made with me. Creation Scientist =/= Scientists that are Creationists. Stop mincing the words we speak because we're going to make you eat them.

Stop changing your story half way through the debate. If you’re arguing that “Creation Science” is not science then why are you and FC bringing up irrelevant points? Do you really think FC has met all the scientists in the world? Appealing to merely anecdotal evidence like that proves nothing.

He's rejecting your fairy tale that you hold claim to.

Which he certainly is allowed to do, but that proves nothing.

The burden of proof remains yours, SW.

Another assertion, demonstrate why the burden of proof is mine and not yours.

You don't see the distinction here?

Nope.

Your evidence simply hasn't held up.

Wait, I thought there was no evidence? Now there is but it just hasn’t held up? Get your story straight please!

You need to prove that creationism is true by proving that god is true.

I thought we were dealing with science; now you want to talk about truth? The truth of God’s existence is a logical matter.

Do that, and you'll get a lot less naysayers.

If such naysayers do not know very basic facts (like the fact that science does not establish deductive truth) then why should I care whether they approve of my position or not?

Doesn't take much to get Statler Waldorf off on a tangent attacking evolution, does it?

It doesn’t take much to get Doubting Thomas to opine on a thread he obviously has not read. Point to one instance where I attacked evolution in this thread?

Statler: Just because a scientist happens to BELIEVE in creationism will never make creationism a scientific fact.

Whoa whoa! We’re not arguing whether or not Creation Science is a scientific fact, we’re arguing whether it’s a valid scientific discipline. You wouldn’t say, “Well that does not prove Biology is a scientific fact.” That doesn’t even make any sense. Creation science has always been and always will be a completely valid scientific discipline.

That is where you are confusing BELIEF with KNOWLEDGE and it is KNOWLEDGE that SCIENCE deals with. Belief always should belong in the realm of philosophy and then you can arm yourself with the semantics that seemingly makes your belief convincing.

Science is built upon the foundation of metaphysical and epistemological philosophies; you’re trying to argue that it must be built only upon the philosophy of naturalism, which has never been a requirement of science. There is no requirement in science that a person cannot possess a Christian philosophy concerning metaphysics and epistemology. In fact, I would argue that only a Christian philosophy of both can even make sense of our use of science.

To use an example: A scientist who encourages the BELIEF in his or her children that Santa Claus exists and is real does not make Santa Claus REAL.

Again, this is a total misunderstanding or intentional mischaracterization of my argument. I have never argued that Creation must be true because there are scientists who believe it is true. I am merely arguing that creationists are scientists because they fit the definition.

As an aside, let us posit that creationism is testable and verifiable, do you honestly think that the replication of results would all lead to one final answer? Do you honestly think that all the world religions would agree to the consensus that you are hoping for? You are arguing for only one result, and I highly doubt that an Islamic Scientist would agree with a Christian Scientist on who is the creationist.

Scientific facts are not established by consensus or even majority opinion. 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.