Pranking Christian call show

[Statler Waldorf]

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Bad Writer]

Name one person out of the top individuals in the scientific community that's accepts Creationism as a science. The fact that they don't is all the evidence I need to back up my claim. 15% of the scientific community may still believe in a creator, but they hold these views outside of their scientific obligations.

---

Also, the analogies are valid because they both compare nons.

[Rahul]

“Creation Science is not science"

It has not produced a single testable hypothesis. Since I can't link you to something that doesn't exist (the non-existent testable Creationism hypothesis), in order to counter you must link me to the existing testable Creationism hypothesis.

Ain't science. All it does is spend it's time refuting true science.

[Esquilax]

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.

Oh, okay! Let's play this game, then!

Good science is uniformly recognized to have a few basic preconditions attached to it, so let's do a nice big run through and see what we find, shall we?

Is creationism testable? Bear in mind that testable means generating original hypotheses that can be tested absent the presence of some other competing branch of science: can you give a single example of a creationist hypothesis that isn't a response to an evolutionary/old earth/factual claim? Just one creationist claim that doesn't begin "if X- X in this case being something that isn't creationism- is true..."

Is creationism falsifiable? Well? Do you guys accept falsifiability at all? Ever? No! The practice, in cases where creationist claims are falsified, where they can be tested at all, is to either ignore the counter-evidence outright, or to look for some weasel room around it. Not once, in my entire experience of looking into creationist claims, have I ever seen a single one of them look at a counter argument, no matter the evidence, and admit that they were wrong, or that their argument doesn't pan out. Not once. In essence, the creationist response to being proved wrong is "that doesn't prove anything."

Does creationism hold any explanatory power? No, not in the slightest, because "god" as an answer doesn't tell us anything about how creation occurred, which is the real purview of science. The what is only the first step, but it's also the step creationists are happy to stop at! "How did the universe begin?" "Godidit!" "Okay, how did god do it?" "HOW DARE YOU QUESTION GOD! HE DOESN'T HAVE TO EXPLAIN THINGS TO YOU!"

Is creationism peer reviewed? Stat, I'll hand this over to you, in the process doing something that must be very strange to you: keeping an open mind. Can you provide a single mainstream, peer reviewed scientific work about creationism that's actually been accepted? Just one? Anything at all? Bear in mind, I'll be checking.

Well, that's pretty conclusive, really...

[Zen Badger]

Lulz.

They actually caught that rather quickly, and then dismissed it with true Christian charity and grace, I was impressed. This reminds me of the time when a group of evolutionists tried to forge a creation research article in order to get it published in the creation peer-reviewed journals and it got rejected by each one of them for bad scientific methodology. Epic fail. .

Still waiting for the backstory to this SW.
And creation science is still the ultimate oxymoron.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

As someone who is in the academic community in the UK, and also being engaged to a scientist who is a member of one of the worlds highest impacting microbiology teams, I'm yet to meet one person who thinks creation 'science' is a science.

Creationism doesn't feature in any research department I know of, well, except theology, but that's not a real subject anyway.

[Rahul]

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.

*grimaces* Statler doesn't understand what science is.

Holy shit. He really doesn't understand what qualifies as science. Isn't he like old...er than me?

I mean I'm kinda old. Gonna be 40 next year. He really doesn't understand what makes something science and makes other shit just made up nonsense.

That just fucking freaks me out sometimes. Sorry. It hits me hard sometimes when I run into people like that. Most of the time I mask my reaction or just gloss over it.

Other times I just get really shocked.

[Napoléon]

Sure I understand it; it’s just not that clever. I am sorry if that hurts your feelings.

My feels are perfectly fine.

Your assertion that they 'dealt with it rather quickly' is simply fucking deluded and laughable, s'all I'm sayin'. She spent about half a minute reading out the prank before registering what it was (in fact she didn't even realise it herself), then proceeded to read out another prank message and didn't bat an eyelid.

Yeah bro, they caught on reaaaal quick.

Also, to say they dealt with it with quote: 'true christian grace', is also a fucking retarded, patronising and incredibly arrogant thing to say. They dealt with it the same way I'd expect any other presenter to deal with a prank call. What the fuck are you talking about true christian grace? Are you serious? You're so far up your own arse you can't see daylight.

Oh and one more thing bro, get off your damn comedy pedestal, no one said this was comedy genius, it's a prank call, what the fuck were you expecting.

[Statler Waldorf]

[Bad Writer]

All you've proven with this novel of a post is that Christians are experts at apologetics. Also, regarding the Scientific community as a Big Boys' club proves how ignorant you are trying to remain by trying to convince others that science has it out for God. There would have to be a god first for them to be out for him, and, as it currently stands, the evidence is quite lacking in the god department.

Also, if the Scientists really are in a club of their own, they get to decide what's science and what's not. Seeing as they don't regard Creationism as a science, your argument is still falling flat.