Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Actually the burden of proof is on you since you have to prove that my premises are indeed false. Too just assert they are means nothing. I set up the valid syllogism, now the ball is in your court to demonstrate that either one of the premises are false.

Really? Seriously? That's what you're going with here?
That's now how the burden of proof works, Statler.
You created an unsupported premise and it was refuted for being as such. In order for your premise to be anything other than total rubbish, you actually need to have it backed up with something other than your word that it's true.

Also, my original statement still stands:

You set up a valid logical syllogism based on a faulty and erroneous premise that lacks empirical evidence, just like all creationists. Lethe's answer to your statements is not wrong and moreover you never addressed her actual statement as she made it. Your attempt at misdirection to address the issue that she has been brought up is showing once more.

You've done nothing to actually make a case to prove Lethe wrong about the reply she had against your post.

Again, a case of ignorance or dishonesty is displayed in your post. I am unsure which one it is right now. I have never seen this argument used before, and I am thinking the reason for that is because it stinks. So the fact that I have a cell phone proves the Earth is old? Laughable.

Many and perhaps all sciences are interrelated and have practical applications. Physics is a big one and is responsible for many of the technological innovations we have today along with chemistry in terms of many of the high tech electronics we have today - such as computer chips and electromagnetism and radio waves and orbital dynamics and relativity.
The thing about a good scientific theory is that it is not only backed through empirical and repeatable studies but that it can also make testable predictions.
How this relates to creationism is that many of the scientific tests and predictions that make a cell phone work, a computer work, an orbital telecommunications system work, a space probe to successfully launch on earth and land on an asteroid or comet zipping through space at thousands of kilometers per hour, and allow a nuclear power plant to work is the exact same science that goes into proving things like the age of the earth and the universe.

The fact that you think this concept is laughable only shows your contempt and disregard for anything that goes against your rather inane beliefs about the world in which we live.

Actually if we all believed in Evolution there would be no need for modern medicine. To the contrary, we would just let people with bad genetics die, or we would sterilize them so they could not pass these bad genes on. That’s why it comes as no surprise that the worst regimes of the 20th century were heavily influenced by Darwinian Theory. Many of Darwin’s own relatives were part of the Eugenics movement of the early 20th century.

Apparently willing ignorance in science also translates to willing ignorance in history.
Darwinian theory isn't a thing. It's a word used by creationists to describe things they think are godless but it otherwise doesn't exist.
You're thinking of evolutionary theory, which is a science wholly specific to describing the process of speciation among living creatures. It does not have social applications.

As to Evolutionary Theory being an important factor in making scientific predictions, the viewpoint is a total farce. It’s a religious belief system that is far too flexible to have real relevance to modern day science. Let’s see whether some well known atheists agree with you or me on the subject.

Whether or not atheists agree with me is irrelevant. You're avoiding the point.
More importantly, I find it interesting that instead of attempting to make a point using, I don't know, evolutionary biology in medicine to prove your point, you resorted to quote mining.
I don't care about what these people think and given the quotations and lack of linking or a bibliography, I can't even be sure that you're using these quotes in the proper context.
All you've given me is your word that evolutionary theory is wrong and a bunch of questionably related quotes that altogether do nothing to make a point of any kind, let alone provide evidence of any kind to your point.

So on the contrary, you can’t point to one area of Science that does not owe its very foundations to Young Earth Creationists. Just think how advanced we would be now if we still allowed them to work freely and did not persecute them? We’d probably have time machines by now haha.

... and... so what? How is this related to Evolutionary Biology in medicine being an invalid science that can make no testable predictions? Eh... whatever. Let's talk about your red herring since you obviously can provide no reality-based evidence that Evolutionary Biology is unimportant to medicine.
I find it adorable that you can find scientists, even important ones in the distant past, who were Y-E creationists by today's standards whose contributed science has nothing to do with the concept or philosophies or what can be jokingly called 'science' behind Y-E creationism nor have any foundations in anything other than the search for truth by people who also happen to be Y-E creationists during the time they lived.
In short, creationism has nothing to do with science except in a historical context.
There is a reason, after all, why people who do actual science, in any science, from anywhere in any cultural background around the world, are rarely if ever creationists.
This is because that kind of willing ignorance is incompatible with the search for truth. The two are mutually exclusive.