(August 28, 2013 at 6:18 pm)Maelstrom Wrote: 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!
(August 28, 2013 at 6:50 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: 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.
Quote: 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.
Quote: 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.
Quote: 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.
(August 28, 2013 at 7:02 pm)Captain Colostomy Wrote: 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.