Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Captain Scarlet]

You're a funny guy Statler...nothing new in your responses but they are getting hysterical. You love to pick out fallacies and then can't wait to stick you're own in, keep it up

Kent Hovind is not part of the mainstream Creation movement

Is Ray Comfort? Oh please say he is.

If you have to set up these straw-man arguments to feel smart, by all means continue. Maybe you should try and make arguments that actually hold water.

Oh the sweet irony...so maybe you should try and make arguments at all, and some FOR creation would be a great place to start

So when you actually say, “wait for the research”, you mean, “I’ll wait for the scientists who accept my paradigm to give me a reason to doubt the results” right? That’s not science

No I don't mean that, and yes it is science. The fact the you rush like an over eager puppy and want to say "look, look god did it", isn't that impressive.

Well actually I am a professional in the scientific community, so that would make me more of an expert than you

How do you know what I do? Oh and if you are a professional scientist, that is really scary. But then Kent was a high school science teacher too, teaching in his own school after getting a doctorate in "truthology" or whatever it was.

I assure you though, soft tissue breaks down far too quickly for those fossils to be 65 million years old

Forgive me if I don't take you're assurance on this.

ID= Biblical Creationism canard

Come on Statler we weren't born yesterday. Everyone knows what IDs agenda is. What is the difference between Creation Science and ID, apart from the fact ID are too scared to mention "God did it", just in case they frighten folks away? Berlinski wants a platform to vent his incredulity from...end of.

If I did a study that examined all the Creation Journals

Yes that would be useful, go for it! See how many times you get the keyword evidence (actually followed by some). You know what they say "if a job ain't worth doing, it ain't worth doing well".

So it’s obvious it’s not granting credibility he is worried about, it’s being publicly humiliated he is really worried about

At least thats one interpretation. Another could be why give a PR platform to people who offer PR but no evidence. Mind you it could all be a BIG conspiracy. Next we will be arranging 'accidents' for 'Creation Scientists' and 'Design Theorists' to silence them and their pesky evidence.

---

I would contest that the simplest explnation is that it is not that the supernatural is by definition hidden to science, but that the supernatural doesn't exist.

Why, in your opinion, is that the simplest explanation?

Because the alternative explanation demand something(s) for which there is neither evidence nor need, and insist that thing be just a particular way for which there is again neither evidence nor need. Any explanation which is not rooted to the greatest degree practical in need and evidence is more extravagant and complex by definition than one which is.

Chuck said it more eloquently that myself rjh4.

It seems to me to have a credible alternative you would need to establish that the supernatural necesarily exists and then also provide evidence of the effects of the supernatural in the natural world (and I have provided some examples of how this can be done). Until then it is a more complicated explanation as in itself it is no different from mysticism, magic, crystal healing etc.