Atheist 1: 1 piece of evidence in favor creation. GO!
Me: Dr. Humphrey’s model of planetary of magnetic fields has been very successful.
Atheist 2: Successful? At what being a huge joke?
Me: it looks like my impression of both of you is the same as your impression of my comment.
Atheist 2: Nothing form Humphreys is used by the scientific community.
Me: Define “scientific community.”
Atheist 2: The global community of scientists. It numbers in the millions but doe snot include anything related to “creation science”.
Me: In essence, you are excluding creationist scientists without due consideration by definition. This goes against the spirit of what you atheists claim to be objective inquiry. It only goes to show that you are as much of a dogmatist as I am.
Despite Humphrey’s predictions being accurate (with the exception of Jupiter due to Humphrey’s underestimation of the effect its size would have on its magnetic field), and most of the predictions of the dynamo theory being accurate, you refuse to give consideration to Humphrey’s due to your inability to follow the evidence where it leads. Your honesty is greatly appreciated.
Atheist 2: We exclude them and always will because creationist is not science.
Me: Only because of the way you define your term. Are you prepared to discard atheism as well since it is not a scientific position?
Atheist 2: We never said atheism is a scientific position. It’s a lack of belief in a god or gods.
Me: Many atheists hold it as a scientific position. I have trolls that come on my page and say things like, “Science>Religion” all the time. That, however, is not relevant.
You are rejecting creationism because it doesn’t fit into your definition of science. Are you prepared to reject atheism since it doesn’t fit into your definition either? If you are not prepared to leave your atheism due to it not being scientific, you are displaying intellectual hypocrisy when you refuse to acknowledge Creationism.
Atheist 2: It’s how science works. if it’s anything other than Methodological Naturalism it’s not science.
Me: Even the presumption of methodological naturalism is questionable. There is no way to demonstrate that the cause for an effect is natural nor is it even possible to demonstrate that there was a cause for the effect via empirical means. Are you prepared to reject causation since it is not scientific?
Atheist 2: Which types of causation?
Me: All of them.
Atheist 2: If it occurs in nature it’s natural
Me: That begs both begs the question and asserts the consequent. Two fallacies in one statement. One that is implicit and one that is explicit. I’m impressed.
Atheist 2: Natural is anything that occurs in nature. That’s why we say homosexuality is natural.
Me: Now we have a case of big, fat question begging. Do you reject logic too?
Atheist 2: Logic cannot be used to tell us anything about reality.
Me: Wow. I’m through with this conversation. Your plethora of inferences that you made in this conversation shows that you do not believe what you are telling me. Therefore, I cannot believe anything else you say seriously at this point. There is no reasoning with someone who rejects logic. Farewell.