Pranking Christian call show

[Captain Colostomy]

I don't appreciate you suggesting I'm intellectually dishonest, SW, all because I don't see merit in your argument. Since I won't be blowing you kisses and throwing flowers at you, I guess feel free to lump me with whomever you damn well please.

[Statler Waldorf]

Why creationism isn't science

A blog? I am sorry, we do not deem what is scientific and what is not scientific based upon what a blog says (especially one completely lacking all citations and references). You’ll have to do better. You’ll have to demonstrate why there is something within the actual definition of “science” that must exclude creationism. Get to it!

This is a useless move against SW.

Providing a link to what some shmuck thinks on his blog? Yes, that is useless against me, the fact that you think it has merit is rather telling about you.

If you try to bring actual evidence to the table, he may or may not read it, say a few flippant words about the link, and then proceed to shove one of his own down your throat, saying that since you presented an elephant, that he can push his own on you.

Fair is fair, if you’re going to toss elephants, I am going to toss them back.

After you read his elephant, the fact that you go about disagreeing with it makes him think you didn't read it.

No, the fact that you brought up numerous points that were clearly refuted in my “elephant” proves you either didn’t read it or didn’t comprehend what you did read.

Conclusion: evidence vs. Waldork is counter productive, as he won't face up to it honestly.

Someone’s blog != Evidence

It’s scary that you think it does.

I don't appreciate you suggesting I'm intellectually dishonest, SW, all because I don't see merit in your argument. Since I won't be blowing you kisses and throwing flowers at you, I guess feel free to lump me with whomever you damn well please.

My apologies if I offended you, but it’s no mystery which pony you’re pulling for in this race.

[Captain Colostomy]

I don't appreciate you suggesting I'm intellectually dishonest, SW, all because I don't see merit in your argument. Since I won't be blowing you kisses and throwing flowers at you, I guess feel free to lump me with whomever you damn well please.

My apologies if I offended you, but it’s no mystery which pony you’re pulling for in this race.

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.

So, I'm not betting on this outcome now...because the results are ancient history.

[rexbeccarox]

LOL @ intelligent design =/= creationism.

[Statler Waldorf]

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.

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.

LOL @ intelligent design =/= creationism.

…so an agnostic can be a creationist? Yes or no?

[Captain Colostomy]

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....

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.

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.

Lemme guess...your response will be 'neigh'? :p

[Bad Writer]

Let the best science win? How is this even a competition when there's only one kind of science?

[Captain Colostomy]

Let the best science win? How is this even a competition when there's only one kind of science?

He worded that poorly earlier, Sparty. He meant let the best hypothesis win. Of course, creationism is antagonistic to a proven theory, so his gaffe...and argument, are moot.

[sarcasticgeographer]

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.

You have stipulated that creationism is a science and here is my final hatchet to your position.

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.

[Bad Writer]

I predict a "neigh" from the opposition.