(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.

SW-

You seem to be demanding that creationism is a legitimate discipline under the umbrella we call science, but then you say let the best science win, as if it is competing for supremacy over that same umbrella? This is either confusing or wrong. Clarify, please?

Obviously something that cannot be proven to exist is actually completely in line with science. There's nothing crazy about that, of course.

(August 30, 2013 at 7:56 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Obviously something that cannot be proven to exist is actually completely in line with science. There's nothing crazy about that, of course.

This is really the main point, to be sure. But what I addressed above, his explanation depending, is just...well...

(August 30, 2013 at 7:48 pm)Captain Colostomy Wrote: SW-

You seem to be demanding that creationism is a legitimate discipline under the umbrella we call science, but then you say let the best science win, as if it is competing for supremacy over that same umbrella? This is either confusing or wrong. Clarify, please?

I am using the term science to mean the methodology of understanding the natural Universe; so by desiring for the best science to win I want the ideas that are supported by the best science (methodology and conceptual scheme) to take precedence over those that are based upon poorly conducted science regardless of what the implications of those ideas are. Creationism is science; it’s a methodology used to understand the natural Universe. I apologize for the confusion.

(August 30, 2013 at 7:56 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Obviously something that cannot be proven to exist is actually completely in line with science. There's nothing crazy about that, of course.

You act as if we use science to test all existential and truth claims, I am sorry but that is ridiculous. Science presupposes that numerous claims are true a priori. To assert that somehow creationists are not allowed to do what every other scientist is allowed to do is fallacious special pleading. You do not like creationists, I get it; that has no bearing on whether or not creationism is science though.

(August 30, 2013 at 8:31 pm)Captain Colostomy Wrote: This is really the main point, to be sure. But what I addressed above, his explanation depending, is just...well...

It’s equally perplexing as to why you and BWS seem to think that creationists are trying to somehow prove God exists through some sort of inductive scientific inquiry. That’s a matter of deduction and not the goal of creationism at all.

(September 3, 2013 at 4:43 pm)Statler Waldorf Wrote: Creationism is science; it’s a methodology used to understand the natural Universe. I apologize for the confusion.

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:

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.

SW Wrote:You act as if we use science to test all existential and truth claims, I am sorry but that is ridiculous. Science presupposes that numerous claims are true a priori. To assert that somehow creationists are not allowed to do what every other scientist is allowed to do is fallacious special pleading. You do not like creationists, I get it; that has no bearing on whether or not creationism is science though.

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?

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.

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.

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.

(September 3, 2013 at 5:30 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: 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.

Quote: 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!

Quote: 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.

Quote: 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.

Quote: 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.

(September 4, 2013 at 3:39 pm)sarcasticgeographer Wrote: 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.

Congratulations, Statler. You have convincingly demonstrated the viability of calling your position a pseudoscience.

Cookie?

Why? Just why?