(August 28, 2013 at 7:58 pm)Captain Colostomy Wrote: If we are using a horse racing analogy, I would add that it isn't a current race, but a rebroadcast of an older one...only with you and athiests overdubbing the original voices. Thing is, you're still betting on a lame horse that lost by furlongs decades ago. Your rereading of the script won't change the video.
That’s a very poor example, not only has creationism been viewed as scientific historically, but the very first modern scientists were nearly all creationists. Since the formulation of the scientific method there has been no alteration in the definition of science that would exclude creationists today. What this really comes down to is one side trying to silence all opposition, which is always a sign of weakness. Let the best science win.
Quote: So, I'm not betting on this outcome now...because the results are ancient history.
Yes, and historically creationism was always accepted as scientific. Engaging in self-serving revisionism proves nothing.
(August 28, 2013 at 8:00 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: LOL @ intelligent design =/= creationism.
…so an agnostic can be a creationist? Yes or no?
