Yes, the thread lives on. However, Statler's argument is deader than disco...he just hasn't the heart to throw out the leisure suit yet.

Ah, I see the issue with this entire post.

SW, you think that since there are scientists that are creationists, that creationism is a science. Non-sequitur notwithstanding, you're just beating a dead horse with this tripe.

Also, I really appreciate your attempt at twisting my words. I never said that science proposes absolute fact, but it does have to make some assumptions based on observations to come up with any theories. Whether or not these theories are complete is up to new evidence we uncover in years to come.

TL;DR. Sorry, Stat.

You're holding a candle whose flame has long been snuffed. Continued harping that it is still lit doesn't necessitate further responses from me...those more learned than I have already shed enough light on creationism's weaknesses.

Hell, you may as well be pushing a flat earth.

(September 9, 2013 at 8:25 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Ah, I see the issue with this entire post.

SW, you think that since there are scientists that are creationists, that creationism is a science. Non-sequitur notwithstanding, you're just beating a dead horse with this tripe.

That’s not my argument.

Quote: Also, I really appreciate your attempt at twisting my words. I never said that science proposes absolute fact, but it does have to make some assumptions based on observations to come up with any theories. Whether or not these theories are complete is up to new evidence we uncover in years to come.

You see the problem is, I have your words available to me, and you specifically stated that scientists presuppose nothing. Now, after I presented over a dozen presuppositions that all scientists possess you’re now walking that claim back. The point is, you cannot discount creationism as a science simply for possessing presuppositions when you’re allowing other sciences to possess presuppositions. The real kicker is that the creationists’ ultimate presupposition makes sense of all of the other presuppositions held by other scientists, it’s a far more cogent conceptual scheme.

(September 9, 2013 at 8:44 pm)Captain Colostomy Wrote: TL;DR. Sorry, Stat.

One sentence was too long for you to read?

Quote: You're holding a candle whose flame has long been snuffed.

Fallacy of the faulty analogy.

Quote: Continued harping that it is still lit doesn't necessitate further responses from me...those more learned than I have already shed enough light on creationism's weaknesses.

You’ve pointed to nothing in the actual definition of the term science that would disqualify creationism, so it still stands as a science today.

Quote: Hell, you may as well be pushing a flat earth.

Fallacy of the faulty analogy.

Creationists practicing science are not practicing something called creation science. You made that part up.

Hypotheses are proposed, and then they are proven and become theories. Did your hypothesis that god created the universe ever become a proven theory? That's an accomplishment that would warrant the Nobel Prize...and yet this hasn't happened yet. By all means, SW, get cracking on that one.

(September 10, 2013 at 5:24 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Creationists practicing science are not practicing something called creation science. You made that part up.

Creationists practicing creation science are still practicing science; stop with the false distinctions.

Quote: Hypotheses are proposed, and then they are proven and become theories.

Science does not deal with proof, it uses induction.

Quote: Did your hypothesis that god created the universe ever become a proven theory?

That’s a presupposition, much like “Natural laws have been regular in the past.” Creationists develop hypotheses and test them.

Quote: That's an accomplishment that would warrant the Nobel Prize...and yet this hasn't happened yet. By all means, SW, get cracking on that one.

Something has to win the Nobel Prize to be considered great science? I could have a field day with that silly made up criteria.

I think proving the existence of a deity by means of science would certainly turn a few heads. However, you would need to first demonstrate that your god exists. After that any presupposition of his meddling in the creation of the universe can properly be explored. You'll have to come up with some mechanism by which this god creates, of course, if you're going to do this scientifically. After all, like you said, science deals with testing hypotheses (thank you for correcting me on that one).