[arguing that creationism is real science]
P1. Any methodology that explains the natural universe is science.
Valid and sound!
54 comments
P1. Any methodology that explains the natural universe is science.
FTFY. M*****ology words are easily mixed up, hope this helps. If you're not sure, spell out the little bits of the word, or ask your teacher.
P1. Any methodology that explains the natural universe is science. does not explain the natural universe, rather it tries to insert the supernatural into any unknowns. is not science.
There, I fixed it for you.
1. The world was created by people pissing it into existence.
Except that there is no methodology to creationism, just an unsupported conclusion that explains nothing and is contradicted by the continued emergence of new species and the very nature of the solar system. (Earth is nowhere close to being the center of the universe and is considerably older than biblical claims.) It is nothing more than a fanciful narrative.
Also the scientific method requires solid evidence and consistent results for a conclusion to be considered valid and even then there are no absolutes. New evidence and observations are taken continuously into account an the conclusion is updated or revised accordingly.
Sounds just like Distind's point for removing the forums from the page and stripping the name from us! I'm more disgruntled about forgetting my password and getting locked out of my account, though.
Even a cursory reading of the KJV Bible seems to confirm the legitimacy of the science of creationism. Shock horror, there may be something to Statler's theory.
Note: For all you science fans, there's also an interesting article in the Bible which deals with ursapueremicideology with excellent experimental data and a demonstration of an interesting working example of glabervatesludibrium which ought to appeal to keen glabervatesludibriumologists.
Your error is in P3, where you make the incredible point that creationism explains the natural universe. No, it offers a very poor explanation for a supernatural creation of life on earth. Nothing to do with the universe.
Chump.
Hey, Madman? You forgot some stuff.
Most people on the forums don't even participate on the mainpage anymore.
Forumites trashed the mainpage and bragged how they were no longer part of that mess.
Distind owns the FSTDT brand and can do whatever the hell he wants with it.
The forums are dissolving under their own hubris. The last new member signed up around two weeks ago, never posted, and never came back after their first day there. People are leaving, fewer regulars are posting, and you can chart the slow death of the forums.
But I supposes that's all Distind's fault instead of "Wow, we gave the crazies their way and now they're acting even crazier and because they're acting so damned crazy normal people want nothing to do with us."
Amirite?
It should be noted that the people who were so vocal about attacking Distind and saying they wanted him gone don't post very much anymore. It's almost as if they only showed up to harass Distind and then lost interest once their chew toy was gone. Only one of them posts with anything resembling regularity and then she only does so to try and pick fights with other members.
The trouble is that any methodology that explains the natural universe isn't necessarily science. Anyone pulling an idea out of their ass and then defending it against actual logic isn't science.
Secondly creationism attempts to use supernatural explanations to explain the natural universe, which also isn't science. Real science doesn't rely on miracles for explanations.
1. philosophers of science have been trying hard to define "science" for decades; scientists have been rolling their eyes and getting on with doing science instead of wasting their time helping the philoso-geeks.scientist.
Well, it may be what's called a "valid syllogism" in formal logic, but there is a thing called a "truth value" that you're neglecting/ignorant of. Statements that are syllogistically valid are not automatically true. Not by a long shot.
P1. Any methodology... Er... mythology that explains the natural universe is science. mythology that explains the natural Universe.
Now the question is, which creation story?
http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/creation.html
Prove me wrong. Are you sure you want to continue with this line of reasoning?
P1. Any methodology that explains the natural universe is science.
Yeah, see... that's where you've got an error. It needs to be a Methodology that doesn't require things from outside the natural Universe as part of the explanation.
P1. Any methodology that explains the natural universe is science.
Creationism describes nothing.
It can not be used as a methodology as it always has the same answer, an answer that can not be independently corroborated - god!
You're not science until you have been published in a scientific journal and been peer reviewed. Yes, I know, it's kinda the same thing, but these dolts don't realize that they are being scrutinized during the peer reviewing process, poor things.
Explaining is not everything, dearie. It has to hold water to be given the entry pass into Science.
C. Therefore, creationism is science.
Valid and sound!
Well, since Waldi's whacky logic can be used for the Theory of Evolution and come up with the same result, it's back to square one.
P2. Creationism isnt a methodology that explains the natural universe. It is an unsupported claim that demands mysticism in place of the natural world.
Sorry, but your P1 and C are not any good either, but I didnt feel like typing more than a couple of sentences to explain the stupidity of those statements. They are so stupid that it isnt worth the time.
P1. Any methodology that explains the natural universe is science.
Any "methodology" that tries to explain anything without supporting evidence is called a hypothesis at best.
P2. Creationism is a methodology that explains the natural Universe.
Unfortunately about as well as my dog plays Beethoven's 9th on a harmonica.
C. Therefore, creationism is science.
"C"? After P1 and P2? Ironic.
No:
* Any methodology that seeks to explain the natural universe in purely naturalistic terms is science. If you try to explain nature by recourse to things outside of nature, you aren't practicing science.
Validity: Pass. Soundness: Fail.
There is areason syllogisms are a form of informal fallacy.
The conclusion can be true, even if the major, and minor premises are false.
Let me try...
Nellie is an elephant.
A logically sound argument. But fallacious
P1. Any methodology thea depends on GODDIDDITT is not science.
P2. Creationism depends on GODDIDDITT for it's methodology.
C. Therefore creationism is a big steaming pile of fail.
Big load of crap!
except taht creationism doesn't explain ANYTHING--it simply abandons any attempt at crafting an explanation by writing whatever you can't explain off as "It happened by magic, at the direction of my invisible friend. You know, teh one with all the neat superpowers."
valid but unsound. the major premise is false. it includes theories that have been disproven and ones with no evidence to support them. i would agree with categorizing creationism that way, but the problem is that it makes for a confused taxonomy, at least imho.
if you extended science (as you've defined it) with the differntia of validity, where would creationism find itself then?
"P1. Any methodology that explains the natural universe is science.
Valid and sound!"
1- John E. Jones was personally appointed to the Federal bench by George Dumbya Bush, in turn voted in - twice - by the likes of you , Waldorf Wordsalad.
2- Judge John E. Jones III is a Conservative Christian . Just like Dumbya and you .
3- Judge Jones concluded that (un)'Intelligent Design' - Creationism by Stealth - [i]isn't[/i] science.
4- ?????
5- We on Planet Reality can't hear you over the sound of Evolution's validity .
This is science:
1)Question
This is most forms of creationism:
1)Question
@MadmanJohnson & #1588484:
This is not the time, nor the place. Act like adults, please.
P1. PSOne.
No PlayStation 4 for you at Xmas, Waldorf Wordsalad.
In case you have never taken a logic class let me give you a quick lesson. There is a difference between validity and truth.
An argument can be one hundred percent valid and be absolute bullshit at the same time.
P1. If Statler Waldorf is a creationist then he is a crock-a-duck
This argument is completely valid but not sound. Unless of course you are a crock-a-duck.
You can also replace creationism in your argument with various other branches of quackery and make things such as astrology into science.
Now go crack open a logic book and try again.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
