Pranking Christian call show

[Bad Writer]

Then why does nobody here agree with you, SW? Either we're all correct that you have, in fact, demonstrated jack shit, or we're all a bunch of dumb fucks and don't really know what qualifies as real science.

[Statler Waldorf]

Then why does nobody here agree with you, SW? Either we're all correct that you have, in fact, demonstrated jack shit, or we're all a bunch of dumb fucks and don't really know what qualifies as real science.

If you took this debate on over to ChristianForums.org you’d be the only one who viewed creation science as unscientific; so I am not sure what you’re trying to prove with that point. I am not saying you’re dumb, but it is clear that nobody to date has presented an argument proving creationism is not science. I have demonstrated that it certainly does fit the definition of science, so by all merits I am winning this debate.

[Captain Colostomy]

Statler, claiming victory is not the same as winning the debate. I imagine this comes from some deep rooted psychological need to be right. (Because it ain't coming from a deep seated need to understand the subject at hand).

[Statler Waldorf]

Statler, claiming victory is not the same as winning the debate. I imagine this comes from some deep rooted psychological need to be right. (Because it ain't coming from a deep seated need to understand the subject at hand).

You claiming that I merely claimed victory and did not in fact win the debate is not the same as me actually only claiming victory and not winning the debate! I gave reasons as to why I have won the debate, I demonstrated that creationism completely falls within the definition of science. What have you all done? Merely asserted that it does not because, “Creationists believe in God!” Science does not presuppose naturalism (it only presupposes general uniformity), so that is not going to cut it. The truth of the matter is I caught you all parroting a tired old canard that atheists love to assert but none can actually back up.

[Captain Colostomy]

It's a measure of conceit to judge yourself the victor. Debates are rendered meaningless thisaway.

[Doubting Thomas]

Creationism doesn't fit the definition of science. Science doesn't start with a conclusion and then fit all evidence to prove that conclusion. But that's exactly what "creation science" does. They always start with the idea of biblical creationism being the only explanation of our existence and then fit all data to match that conclusion. Anything that doesn't fit is discarded even if it disproves the idea, and anything that remotely supports the idea is loudly touted as truth. This is not how science works.

And frankly, all "creation science" arguments boil down to once you take out the "life looks designed to me, therefore it was designed" arguments is nothing more than attacks on evolution, as if destroying evolutionary theory means that creationism wins by default. Again, this is not science.

You claiming that creationism is science and declaring yourself the winner is nothing more than your own delusion of grandeur.

[Bad Writer]

Oh come now. He has to have won SOMETHING. Do you suppose we can let him go home with at least a bag of chips?

[Statler Waldorf]

It's a measure of conceit to judge yourself the victor. Debates are rendered meaningless thisaway.

If you were being intellectually honest you’d judge me the victor as well. The opposition has provided no counter-argument demonstrating that creationism does not fit the definition of science. Until they do so, my argument stands un-refuted.

Creationism doesn't fit the definition of science. Science doesn't start with a conclusion and then fit all evidence to prove that conclusion.

What are you talking about? Scientists are allowed to possess axioms, and evidence can only be interpreted consistently with one’s own axioms, this is basic level stuff. You’re obviously just grasping at straws.

But that's exactly what "creation science" does.

That’s what all science does.

They always start with the idea of biblical creationism being the only explanation of our existence and then fit all data to match that conclusion.

No, they merely allow for deductive proof to trump inductive reasoning which is something all scientists do because it is logical. The fact you do not like their ultimate axiom is irrelevant.

Anything that doesn't fit is discarded even if it disproves the idea, and anything that remotely supports the idea is loudly touted as truth.

Examples needed.

This is not how science works.

According to? You?

And frankly, all "creation science" arguments boil down to once you take out the "life looks designed to me, therefore it was designed" arguments is nothing more than attacks on evolution, as if destroying evolutionary theory means that creationism wins by default. Again, this is not science.

I think you’re confusing Intelligent Design with Creationism, creationists do not merely use the teleological argument. Not only this, but you seem unaware of the importance of disjunctive reasoning which is ironic considering it is precisely the reasoning Darwin used to try to first establish his theory. Is Darwinism therefore unscientific?

You claiming that creationism is science and declaring yourself the winner is nothing more than your own delusion of grandeur.

It fits the definition of science, so therefore it is science. That’s pretty simple. The fact you do not like creationism is utterly irrelevant.

[Foxaèr]

It fits the definition of science, so therefore it is science. That’s pretty simple. The fact you do not like creationism is utterly irrelevant.

Why creationism isn't science

[Bad Writer]

It fits the definition of science, so therefore it is science. That’s pretty simple. The fact you do not like creationism is utterly irrelevant.

Why creationism isn't science

This is a useless move against SW. 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. After you read his elephant, the fact that you go about disagreeing with it makes him think you didn't read it.

Conclusion: evidence vs. Waldork is counter productive, as he won't face up to it honestly.