(August 1, 2013 at 8:26 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Creationism is a Science like Abstinence is a Sex Position.
In order to prove something by analogy you actually have to present something analogous, keep that in mind.
(August 1, 2013 at 8:37 pm)Walking Void Wrote: In terms of real-life application, creationism is about as deep as a puddle on a level asphalt road, and is the likeness of works found in the fantasy section of a book store or library.
Real-life application? We do not measure the merits of our scientific theories of origins by their “real-life application”, that’s absurd. Do you have anything else besides these absurd analogies that aren’t analogous?
(August 1, 2013 at 9:20 pm)FallentoReason Wrote: Oh, the irony! It's too much.
I agree, a group of people claiming to be, “the only real scientists” not being able to get their scientific ducks in a row enough to get an article published is rather hilariously ironic.
(August 2, 2013 at 12:47 am)pineapplebunnybounce Wrote: HAHAHA, no, it really isn't, lol. Which branch of science presupposes something based on no evidence, and after being told it's wrong by other branches of science repeatedly, still insists it's right despite not having found any evidence?
Name me one, just one.
All branches of science do that in some way or another, you’re ignorance is staggering.
(August 2, 2013 at 7:55 am)Napoléon Wrote: Do you even understand the joke? I bet you don't even know who the Fresh Prince is do you?
Sure I understand it; it’s just not that clever. I am sorry if that hurts your feelings.

(August 2, 2013 at 9:07 am)BadWriterSparty Wrote: Did you miss the part about praying for Carlton and Phil?
No, I caught it all, it’s just not that clever; I realize you guys all think you’re comedic geniuses but I am not impressed. Anyone could reference some old show that nobody watches anymore and get away with it for a while; I was just impressed the guy caught it and then they just paid it the little attention it deserved.
(August 2, 2013 at 2:22 pm)CapnAwesome Wrote: I love it when you guys just state something and don't even make an attempt to back up what you say as though the mere stating of it will somehow make your point.
You must have missed the fact that I was replying to a baseless assertion with my own. If you guys aren’t going to back up your assertion that “Creation Science is not science”, then I am not going to back up my assertion that it is. No special pleading in these here waters. Science is merely the methodology of understanding the natural world through observation and experimentation, and creationists apply that methodology as rigorously and honestly as anyone else. The fact that makes you angry is irrelevant.