Pranking Christian call show

[Statler Waldorf]

Keep apologizing then because you are way off the mark yet again. If I understand you correctly (though no one here can ever assume that) what you're saying is:

Indeed, I stopped assuming that you’ve comprehended me a while ago.

Creationism=science
And
Science=methodology used to understand the natural universe
Then
Creationism=methodology used to understand the natural universe

You are equivocating terms that cannot be equal. Creationism is anything but natural, but nice try attempting to mask its actual premise, that is, creation.

You’re way off on this one. There is nothing in the definition of science requiring a natural explanation, science does not presuppose naturalism it merely presupposes general uniformity. All that is required is that you’re employing a methodology in order to explain the natural Universe. Creationism does explain the natural Universe.

P1. Any methodology that explains the natural universe is science.
P2. Creationism is a methodology that explains the natural Universe.
C. Therefore, creationism is science.

Valid and sound!

So your presupposition of a creator has a firm foundation? It's based on observable facts that would lead you to think that this universe was created? Or is it just that you want your fictional 2000 year old book to be true?

It’s a presupposition. The very act of “observing the facts” requires it. Scientists have numerous such presuppositions; they are not established by science itself. I have no idea why you keep acting as if all truth claims are established by science; inductive reasoning is weaker than deductive logic.

There is a method to science, and presupposing is not part of it. It asks questions about things it doesn't know or things it may want to know more about, but it never states from the beginning that such an idea is already factual.

Really? Then scientifically demonstrate that…

- Reality exists
- Reality is knowable
- Your senses accurately perceive reality
- Your memory is generally reliable
- Inductive reasoning works
- There is regularity in Nature
- There has always been regularity in Nature
- There will continue to be regularity in Nature
- Matter does not exit and re-enter existence
- Contradictions do not exist
- Causality exists
- The scientist’s ability to reason is trustworthy
- Other minds perceive reality the same as yours does.

But, if you want to put up creationism as your hypothesis, go right ahead. See how far that gets you in the Scientific Method. Publish your works. Let us know when you win the Nobel Prize for proving that a creator god exists.

It’s no wonder you hate creationism so much, you’re completely ignorant of what it even is.

SW: You still have not proven your premise, so your argument has no logic. You claim that a creator can be determined, both you and I know that this cannot be proven. So, your a priori assumptions are merely unsupported premises.

Do you not know what a presupposition is? God’s existence is a logical necessity, you do not reason to it, but you must reason from it in order to reason at all.