Pranking Christian call show

[sarcasticgeographer]

Statler: Just because a scientist happens to BELIEVE in creationism will never make creationism a scientific fact. That is where you are confusing BELIEF with KNOWLEDGE and it is KNOWLEDGE that SCIENCE deals with. Belief always should belong in the realm of philosophy and then you can arm yourself with the semantics that seemingly makes your belief convincing.

To use an example: A scientist who encourages the BELIEF in his or her children that Santa Claus exists and is real does not make Santa Claus REAL.

As an aside, let us posit that creationism is testable and verifiable, do you honestly think that the replication of results would all lead to one final answer? Do you honestly think that all the world religions would agree to the consensus that you are hoping for? You are arguing for only one result, and I highly doubt that an Islamic Scientist would agree with a Christian Scientist on who is the creationist.

It is this kind of consensus that makes the notion of creationism more suitable for Philosophy and unsuitable for the laboratory.

[Statler Waldorf]

Ah, I see what you did here. You equivocated their scientific work with a made up branch of science called "Creation Science".

No, I refuted the claim that no creationist has a degree in Biology. It was easy enough to do.

I never made such a claim...so...yeah. You're arguing for the sake of arguing at this point. Again, how does the person who formulated scientific method being a Creationist in any supports your idea that there is such a thing called Creation Science?

You’re creating a false distinction. All science prior to the rise of naturalism in the late 19th and early 20th Century was a form of “Creation Science” because scientists were merely thinking God’s thoughts after Him as Kepler would put it. You’re making these absurd claims about scientists having to adhere to the philosophy of naturalism even though there is no such requirement in science. Creationists are scientists because they learn about the natural world through experimentation and observation.

Who are you quoting there in your statement? Not me, I hope, because I never actually said that. Do you do this with every Atheist you argue with, that is, put words in their mouth? My actual words (the ones above this rebuttal statement of yours) was a direct follow on to my asking you why it's important that the person who formulated the scientific method was a creationist. My statement deals with a hypothetical; we know that an atheist didn't come up with the method, but it all still comes back to asking why it's important that this man was a creationist. We're waiting on your answer.

Well you were invoking an argument from ignorance by challenging me to prove that an atheist couldn’t have formulated the scientific method first. I already told you why it was important. All of modern science owes its very foundation to a man who viewed scripture as the infallible word of God and who rejected naturalism. This flies directly in the face of your assertion that such people are not considered scientists. Some of the greatest scientists this world has ever known were creationists.

No, no. This is a public forum, so spill the beans on your magic evidence that makes god so apparently true.

Well that would be a matter of proof and not evidence, so you’re going to have to get your story straight first. After you refused to honestly address my last post in the “one question” thread I hardly think I owe you anything.

You're making the same mistake with FC that you made with me. Creation Scientist =/= Scientists that are Creationists. Stop mincing the words we speak because we're going to make you eat them.

Stop changing your story half way through the debate. If you’re arguing that “Creation Science” is not science then why are you and FC bringing up irrelevant points? Do you really think FC has met all the scientists in the world? Appealing to merely anecdotal evidence like that proves nothing.

He's rejecting your fairy tale that you hold claim to.

Which he certainly is allowed to do, but that proves nothing.

The burden of proof remains yours, SW.

Another assertion, demonstrate why the burden of proof is mine and not yours.

You don't see the distinction here?

Nope.

Your evidence simply hasn't held up.

Wait, I thought there was no evidence? Now there is but it just hasn’t held up? Get your story straight please!

You need to prove that creationism is true by proving that god is true.

I thought we were dealing with science; now you want to talk about truth? The truth of God’s existence is a logical matter.

Do that, and you'll get a lot less naysayers.

If such naysayers do not know very basic facts (like the fact that science does not establish deductive truth) then why should I care whether they approve of my position or not?

Doesn't take much to get Statler Waldorf off on a tangent attacking evolution, does it?

It doesn’t take much to get Doubting Thomas to opine on a thread he obviously has not read. Point to one instance where I attacked evolution in this thread?

Statler: Just because a scientist happens to BELIEVE in creationism will never make creationism a scientific fact.

Whoa whoa! We’re not arguing whether or not Creation Science is a scientific fact, we’re arguing whether it’s a valid scientific discipline. You wouldn’t say, “Well that does not prove Biology is a scientific fact.” That doesn’t even make any sense. Creation science has always been and always will be a completely valid scientific discipline.

That is where you are confusing BELIEF with KNOWLEDGE and it is KNOWLEDGE that SCIENCE deals with. Belief always should belong in the realm of philosophy and then you can arm yourself with the semantics that seemingly makes your belief convincing.

Science is built upon the foundation of metaphysical and epistemological philosophies; you’re trying to argue that it must be built only upon the philosophy of naturalism, which has never been a requirement of science. There is no requirement in science that a person cannot possess a Christian philosophy concerning metaphysics and epistemology. In fact, I would argue that only a Christian philosophy of both can even make sense of our use of science.

To use an example: A scientist who encourages the BELIEF in his or her children that Santa Claus exists and is real does not make Santa Claus REAL.

Again, this is a total misunderstanding or intentional mischaracterization of my argument. I have never argued that Creation must be true because there are scientists who believe it is true. I am merely arguing that creationists are scientists because they fit the definition.

As an aside, let us posit that creationism is testable and verifiable, do you honestly think that the replication of results would all lead to one final answer? Do you honestly think that all the world religions would agree to the consensus that you are hoping for? You are arguing for only one result, and I highly doubt that an Islamic Scientist would agree with a Christian Scientist on who is the creationist.

Scientific facts are not established by consensus or even majority opinion. I think you are operating under a fundamental misunderstanding of what Creation Science is. Creationists do not postulate scientific theories and seek scientific evidence in order to establish who the Creator is. That is a philosophical question that we already have the answer to. We are merely learning about His creation through the scientific method. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and it is valid science.

[Bad Writer]

You're mad that I didn't answer you directly in the other thread? Playing the martyr card was something I thought you accused others of, but I never thought you'd actually be the pot calling the kettle black.

SW, you dodge questions every chance you get, like honestly answering whether or not the Scientific Theory HAD to be made by a Creationist. And you accuse me of invoking an argument from ignorance. Now we've moved beyond pot/kettle tactics and have moved into projection territory.

You twist words and ideas, so don't get your panties in a twist when people don't much want to address the bullshit you spray out of your mouth.

[Creed of Heresy]

The funniest thing I've heard this week. "Using the scientific method to..." in regards to creationism. There is NOTHING about Creationism that is scientific AT ALL. PRovide me one example where, say, the Discovery Institute [which is the one that propagates this silly bullshit as a claim to science yet fails to ever do such] used a method that is actually entirely in line with the scientific method. ONE. That's all I ask. One single time where they postulated a theory actually using the scientific method, that was not rejected by the scientific community.

GOOD LUCK. I don't envy you this task. Not at all.

[Creed of Heresy]

Scientific facts are not established by consensus or even majority opinion.

Uhm. Yes they are, actually... Since apparently you are clearly scientifically illiterate (seems to be a recurring theme with you creationists) , allow me to provide you with some scientific literacy. It's this thing called "peer review" and "falsifiability." A hypothesis is tested to see if it can be falsified by not just the individual or group that posited it, but by the scientific community at large, who all come at the hypothesis like sharks to blood in the water. You see, there is just as much "street cred" given to a scientist who disproves a hypothesis or theory as there is to one who proves it. Only once the hypothesis/theory has survived every known attempt to disprove it can it be considered scientific fact, and even then it is always constantly at risk of being proven wrong if indeed it is wrong. Most theories that are considered fact, however, aren't ever proven wrong; they're just modified to become more correct.

Creation "science" isn't science because it comes with a presupposition; that there must be a god, and that he must have created everything. There is no proof to this but it makes the claim anyway. It is already false science; it has preconception bias and bases its theories on unfalsifiable and unprovable claims. THIS. IS. NOT. SCIENCE.

I think you are operating under a fundamental misunderstanding of what Creation Science is.

No he's not, he's merely stating the obvious; the creation science is anything but scientific.

Creationists do not postulate scientific theories and seek scientific evidence

THAT much is certainly true!

in order to establish who the Creator is.

Or anything else for that matter.

That is a philosophical question that we already have the answer to. We are merely learning about His creation through the scientific method.

In other words you're picking and choosing what science you consider valid and interjecting it with your own presuppositions wherever you see fit. That's not using the scientific method. It's using your own bullshit claims and calling it science.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and it is valid science.

Yes there is, and no it is not. Calling a pile of bull shit a chocolate pie doesn't make it a chocolate pie; it's still bull shit.

[Statler Waldorf]

You're mad that I didn't answer you directly in the other thread? Playing the martyr card was something I thought you accused others of, but I never thought you'd actually be the pot calling the kettle black.

No, I am not mad at all; It was the only card you had left to play. I just do not owe you anything.

SW, you dodge questions every chance you get, like honestly answering whether or not the Scientific Theory HAD to be made by a Creationist. And you accuse me of invoking an argument from ignorance. Now we've moved beyond pot/kettle tactics and have moved into projection territory.

Yes, it had to be formulated by a creationist, and it was.

You twist words and ideas, so don't get your panties in a twist when people don't much want to address the bullshit you spray out of your mouth.

I actually reduce your arguments to absurdity; it’s an effective form of argumentation. If you do not like it, then present arguments that cannot be reduced to absurdity.

The funniest thing I've heard this week. "Using the scientific method to..." in regards to creationism. There is NOTHING about Creationism that is scientific AT ALL. PRovide me one example where, say, the Discovery Institute [which is the one that propagates this silly bullshit as a claim to science yet fails to ever do such] used a method that is actually entirely in line with the scientific method. ONE. That's all I ask.

The Discovery Institute is not a creationist organization; so all you have done is illuminate your ignorance on the subject. I’ve already given numerous examples of scientific predictions made by creationists that were completely accurate. Couple this with the fact that the scientific method itself was first formulated by a creationist and it’s quite clear that you have no idea what you’re talking about.

One single time where they postulated a theory actually using the scientific method, that was not rejected by the scientific community.

I already gave numerous examples, try to keep up please.

GOOD LUCK. I don't envy you this task. Not at all.

The task I already completed before you jumped in here? Done.

Here’s a task for you. Justify the assumptions that must be true in order for the scientific method to be used while using only a purely natural and material view of reality. Good luck.

Only once the hypothesis/theory has survived every known attempt to disprove it can it be considered scientific fact, [b]and even then it is always constantly at risk of being proven wrong if indeed it is wrong[/b[

You’ve obviously watched too many movies. I am sorry, but science does not operate the way Hollywood says it does. You’ve just proven my point with the above statement. Even if a theory is widely accepted by the scientific community it is perfectly capable of being wrong, and the history of science has taught us that it often is. I will repeat myself for emphasis; scientific facts have never been and will never be determined by majority opinion or consensus.

Creation "science" isn't science because it comes with a presupposition; that there must be a god, and that he must have created everything. There is no proof to this but it makes the claim anyway. It is already false science; it has preconception bias and bases its theories on unfalsifiable and unprovable claims. THIS. IS. NOT. SCIENCE.

More ignorance. Scientists are allowed to have presuppositions; in fact ALL scientists have them. As long as they are properly identified there is nothing wrong with this. You’re committing the No True Scotsman fallacy by arbitrarily inventing a qualifier that is not in reality in the definition of science. If you want, I can explain to you what presuppositions all scientists have since it’s obvious you were unaware that they even possessed any.

No he's not, he's merely stating the obvious; the creation science is anything but scientific.

Says the guy who thought the Discovery Institute was a creationist organization.

THAT much is certainly true!

Obviously you’re not intellectually honest enough to quote me in context. Here’s the full quote for others to see.

“I think you are operating under a fundamental misunderstanding of what Creation Science is. Creationists do not postulate scientific theories and seek scientific evidence in order to establish who the Creator is. That is a philosophical question that we already have the answer to. We are merely learning about His creation through the scientific method. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, and it is valid science.”- SW

Or anything else for that matter.

We’ve actually learned a lot thus far.

In other words you're picking and choosing what science you consider valid and interjecting it with your own presuppositions wherever you see fit. That's not using the scientific method. It's using your own bullshit claims and calling it science.

More ignorance. The scientific method requires an interpretive scheme. We’re interpreting the evidence consistently with our interpretive scheme, as are you with yours. The only difference is that our interpretive scheme actually makes sense and yours is fatally inconsistent with your presuppositions.

Yes there is, and no it is not.

Baseless assertion.

Calling a pile of bull shit a chocolate pie doesn't make it a chocolate pie; it's still bull shit.

Calling a chocolate pie dung does not make it dung either. You’ve provided no justification for your assertions that Creation Science is not science. All you’ve done is rather efficiently demonstrated your lack of knowledge on the subject in general.

[Doubting Thomas]

The Discovery Institute is not a creationist organization?

From Wikipedia:

The Discovery Institute is a U.S. non-profit public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design. Its Teach the Controversy campaign aims to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses alongside accepted scientific theories, positing a scientific controversy exists over these subjects.

Sure sounds like a creationist group to me. You don't see anyone but creationists advocating intelligent design or "teach the controversy."

[Bad Writer]

Still no word on how Creationism has to do with Science.

[Statler Waldorf]

The Discovery Institute is not a creationist organization?

Nope, it’s an Intelligent Design organization.

From Wikipedia:

The Discovery Institute is a U.S. non-profit public policy think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design. Its Teach the Controversy campaign aims to teach creationist anti-evolution beliefs in United States public high school science courses alongside accepted scientific theories, positing a scientific controversy exists over these subjects.

Wikipedia is a user-generated site, so that proves nothing.

Sure sounds like a creationist group to me. You don't see anyone but creationists advocating intelligent design or "teach the controversy."

Really? Do you know who the founders of the Discovery Institute are?

Here’s one for you…

Dr. David Berlinski. Since you seem to love Wikipedia, let’s see what they say about him…

“David Berlinski (born 1942) is an American philosopher, educator, and author. Berlinski is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture, the hub of the intelligent design movement. A critic of the theory of evolution, Berlinski is theologically agnostic and refuses to theorize about the origins of life.[1] He has written on philosophy, mathematics and a variety of fictional works.”

You’re asserting that the Discovery Institute is a creationist organization even though one of its founders is an agnostic who refuses to theorize about the origins of life? Get real.

Still no word on how Creationism has to do with Science.

I’ve already demonstrated that it fits the definition of science, you’ve done nothing to refute that point besides making it evident that you do not like it. I cannot help you there.

[Anomalocaris]

Doesn't take much to get Statler Waldorf off on a tangent attacking evolution, does it?

Being unevolved himself, he gets jeolous easily.