Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Youwerecreated]

You lied about correcting me, and I'm getting tired of mocking your idiocy, so you may be right.

You are embarrassed and have to react like hollie would,don't worry I am use to it. Now can you start responding to my questions.

I respond to your lies and falsehoods. I counter your falsehoods with facts. That is why you react with such pith and vinegar.

I've been a positive influence on you. I've noticed a marked reduction in your cutting and pasting of falsified "quotes". After you were repeatedly exposed as a fraud for your cut and pasted lies, you did learn that those lies were a simple matter to debunk.

No hollie, I know enough to speak for myself, I just copy and paste out of convenience when I have to keep repeating the same things over and over until it sinks in.

 

[newpolitics]

I have always claimed to believe in Micro-evolution, and the better term for it was micro-adaptations. Did you slip and hit your head ?

That's strange when you always claimed evolution was false. You're quite befuddled.

Anyone can visit the creationist thread to show you're are mistaken or deliberately lying.

I've been to that thread. I've partaken in it. Nowhere in it have you, nor anyone else, shown your position to be sound or valid, or Hollie's to be the opposite. It's humorous to witness your victorious posturing when you succeeded nowhere in proving your supernatural claims, nor disproving the scientific claims with respect to evolution in the 1200+ pages of that thread.

 

[Youwerecreated]

LOL!

Tell me again how the 2nd Law disproves evolution.

I have, your theory violates the 2nd law I never said my theory violates the 2nd law. Over time that the universe existed the entropy level would have increased to a point complexity and order could have never arose.

What happens to earth when the universe reaches equilibrium ?

Complete and utter rubbish.

Really ? because the 2nd law calls for equilibrium to come to the universe about the time of the sun losing it's energy. Both happen to be theories.

Yes the universe suffered entropy for to long for life to arise on earth when it supposedly did.

 

[newpolitics]

I have, your theory violates the 2nd law I never said my theory violates the 2nd law. Over time that the universe existed the entropy level would have increased to a point complexity and order could have never arose.

What happens to earth when the universe reaches equilibrium ?

Complete and utter rubbish.

Really ? because the 2nd law calls for equilibrium to come to the universe about the time of the sun losing it's energy. Both happen to be theories.

Yes the universe suffered entropy for to long for life to arise on earth when it supposedly did.

And You know this... how? Please demonstrate.

Claims are easy to make. Backing them up is another thing altogether. Let's see it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How strange that ywc now claims to believe in evolution... now that it's convenient because his earlier denial as to the mechanism has been shot down in flames.

I have always claimed to believe in Micro-evolution, and the better term for it was micro-adaptations. Did you slip and hit your head ?

That's strange when you always claimed evolution was false. You're quite befuddled.

The one befuddled is yourself because I am speaking of macro-evolution. You don't understand the difference with all the lessons you have gotten from me by now.

 

[orogenicman]

I have always claimed to believe in Micro-evolution, and the better term for it was micro-adaptations. Did you slip and hit your head ?

That's strange when you always claimed evolution was false. You're quite befuddled.

The one befuddled is yourself because I am speaking of macro-evolution. You don't understand the difference with all the lessons you have gotten from me by now.

Which I addressed and you conveniently ignored.

 

[Youwerecreated]

THe OP is a strawman because naturalism is not considered "scientific." Science can only take place within a naturalistic framework, by definition, because the natural what is detectable, testable, and therefore able to be theorized . This is known as methodological naturalism, which doesn't make any claims about reality. The OP fails to make this distinction, and therefore is fueling a debate based on this ambiguity. It is arguing against metaphysical naturalism, which is a strawman, since science does not claim what metaphysical naturalism claims, which is that the natural universe is all that actually exists. Two totally different things. To reiterate, the OP attempts to pigeon hole all naturalism into "metaphysical naturalism" and call this scientific, when science makes no claims about the composition of reality, it merely tests what is available, which is the natural universe, and hence, necessarily abides by methodological naturalism, which doesn't claim that the natural universe is all that exists, but is bound to it for its methodology to work.

A little intellectual honesty would be nice from the creationists around here, please.

Hmm so you put naturalism in the same category as creationism but deny the evidence of a designer and believe that origins was not result of design but natural processes. Kinda contradicting yourself there.

 

[orogenicman]

I have, your theory violates the 2nd law I never said my theory violates the 2nd law. Over time that the universe existed the entropy level would have increased to a point complexity and order could have never arose.

What happens to earth when the universe reaches equilibrium ?

Complete and utter rubbish.

Really ? because the 2nd law calls for equilibrium to come to the universe about the time of the sun losing it's energy. Both happen to be theories.

Yes the universe suffered entropy for to long for life to arise on earth when it supposedly did.

Gee, even more utter and complete rubbish.

The sun is ALWAYS losing energy. That is not theory. That is observed fact. Next.

 

[newpolitics]

I have always claimed to believe in Micro-evolution, and the better term for it was micro-adaptations. Did you slip and hit your head ?

That's strange when you always claimed evolution was false. You're quite befuddled.

The one befuddled is yourself because I am speaking of macro-evolution. You don't understand the difference with all the lessons you have gotten from me by now.

There is no appreciable difference between micro and macro evolution, since the two are arbitrarily and subjectively defined and this ambiguity, again on the creationist side, lends its to moving the goal posts in debate whenever it is convenient for them to do so. This is a clever ad hoc distinction invented by creationists to deal with changes that we can detect in the laboratory, and that they can't refute. The fact is, speciation events have been detected in laboratories, which is "macro-evolution". Most importantly, with respect to the claims of only "micro-evolution" being genetically possible, you would need to provide a genetic regulatory mechanism that would act as a barrier to evolution only going as far as the "micro" level for this distinction to be possible, and also, a sufficient reason for this barrier to exist. You haven't yet done either of these things, other than macro-evolution would refute your position. When does the genome that is changing due to genetic drift "know" that it is has reached its limit as far as micro-evolution, and therefore has to stop before reaching a macro-evolutionary change, according to your framework? You have yet to explain this.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That's strange when you always claimed evolution was false. You're quite befuddled.

Anyone can visit the creationist thread to show you're are mistaken or deliberately lying.

I've been to that thread. I've partaken in it. Nowhere in it have you, nor anyone else, shown your position to be sound or valid, or Hollie's to be the opposite. It's humorous to witness your victorious posturing when you succeeded nowhere in proving your supernatural claims, nor disproving the scientific claims with respect to evolution in the 1200+ pages of that thread.

I am not refuting real science, only pseudoscience. Yes I have I have dealt with the origins of life, and showed the faulty reasoning on Dna similarity. I have also dealt with the problems of the evolution mechanisms.

Your response had nothing to do with the post you quoted.

 

[newpolitics]

Anyone can visit the creationist thread to show you're are mistaken or deliberately lying.

I've been to that thread. I've partaken in it. Nowhere in it have you, nor anyone else, shown your position to be sound or valid, or Hollie's to be the opposite. It's humorous to witness your victorious posturing when you succeeded nowhere in proving your supernatural claims, nor disproving the scientific claims with respect to evolution in the 1200+ pages of that thread.

I am not refuting real science, only pseudoscience. Yes I have I have dealt with the origins of life, and showed the faulty reasoning on Dna similarity. I have also dealt with the problems of the evolution mechanisms.

Your response had nothing to do with the post you quoted.

I realize that you think you have deal with it, but you haven't, only in the usual creationist way of faulty logic, bad argumentation, and zero evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Complete and utter rubbish.

Really ? because the 2nd law calls for equilibrium to come to the universe about the time of the sun losing it's energy. Both happen to be theories.

Yes the universe suffered entropy for to long for life to arise on earth when it supposedly did.

And You know this... how? Please demonstrate.

Claims are easy to make. Backing them up is another thing altogether. Let's see it.

Well let's see, since the time the universe has come in to existence supposedly, the universe has been experiencing entropy with an increase. The more disorder over time the less chance for order to be restored and you needed order for life to arise naturally.

This is exactly why creation makes more sense with the available evidence because creation was done through order and according to the 2nd law has been heading towards disorder ever since creation.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That's strange when you always claimed evolution was false. You're quite befuddled.

The one befuddled is yourself because I am speaking of macro-evolution. You don't understand the difference with all the lessons you have gotten from me by now.

There is no appreciable difference between micro and macro evolution, since the two are arbitrarily and subjectively defined and this ambiguity, again on the creationist side, lends its to moving the goal posts in debate whenever it is convenient for them to do so. This is a clever ad hoc distinction invented by creationists to deal with changes that we can detect in the laboratory, and that they can't refute. The fact is, speciation events have been detected in laboratories, which is "macro-evolution". Most importantly, with respect to the claims of only "micro-evolution" being genetically possible, you would need to provide a genetic regulatory mechanism that would act as a barrier to evolution only going as far as the "micro" level for this distinction to be possible, and also, a sufficient reason for this barrier to exist. You haven't yet done either of these things, other than macro-evolution would refute your position. When does the genome that is changing due to genetic drift "know" that it is has reached its limit as far as micro-evolution, and therefore has to stop before reaching a macro-evolutionary change, according to your framework? You have yet to explain this.

Bullshit ? especially if you add the evidence for Punctuated Equilibrium. The terms were produced by evolutionists and for a reason. Don't give me your bate and switch copout answer.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I've been to that thread. I've partaken in it. Nowhere in it have you, nor anyone else, shown your position to be sound or valid, or Hollie's to be the opposite. It's humorous to witness your victorious posturing when you succeeded nowhere in proving your supernatural claims, nor disproving the scientific claims with respect to evolution in the 1200+ pages of that thread.

I am not refuting real science, only pseudoscience. Yes I have I have dealt with the origins of life, and showed the faulty reasoning on Dna similarity. I have also dealt with the problems of the evolution mechanisms.

Your response had nothing to do with the post you quoted.

I realize that you think you have deal with it, but you haven't, only in the usual creationist way of faulty logic, bad argumentation, and zero evidence.

The faulty logic is not mine.

 

[newpolitics]

Really ? because the 2nd law calls for equilibrium to come to the universe about the time of the sun losing it's energy. Both happen to be theories.

Yes the universe suffered entropy for to long for life to arise on earth when it supposedly did.

And You know this... how? Please demonstrate.

Claims are easy to make. Backing them up is another thing altogether. Let's see it.

Well let's see, since the time the universe has come in to existence supposedly, the universe has been experiencing entropy with an increase. The more disorder over time the less chance for order to be restored and you needed order for life to arise naturally.

This is exactly why creation makes more sense with the available evidence because creation was done through order and according to the 2nd law has been heading towards disorder ever since creation.

Okay. I can agree with your first sentence, but you have completely failed in demonstrating how life couldn't have arisen naturally, because you are implicitly and arbitrarily assigning time values to entropy's increase of value, and saying abiogenesis necessarily would have happened after this point. How do you know this, since you have no objective quantitative measure of the increase of entropy, or how little is required for life to begin? You have a long way to go here.

 

[newpolitics]

The one befuddled is yourself because I am speaking of macro-evolution. You don't understand the difference with all the lessons you have gotten from me by now.

There is no appreciable difference between micro and macro evolution, since the two are arbitrarily and subjectively defined and this ambiguity, again on the creationist side, lends its to moving the goal posts in debate whenever it is convenient for them to do so. This is a clever ad hoc distinction invented by creationists to deal with changes that we can detect in the laboratory, and that they can't refute. The fact is, speciation events have been detected in laboratories, which is "macro-evolution". Most importantly, with respect to the claims of only "micro-evolution" being genetically possible, you would need to provide a genetic regulatory mechanism that would act as a barrier to evolution only going as far as the "micro" level for this distinction to be possible, and also, a sufficient reason for this barrier to exist. You haven't yet done either of these things, other than macro-evolution would refute your position. When does the genome that is changing due to genetic drift "know" that it is has reached its limit as far as micro-evolution, and therefore has to stop before reaching a macro-evolutionary change, according to your framework? You have yet to explain this.

Bullshit ? especially if you add the evidence for Punctuated Equilibrium. The terms were produced by evolutionists and for a reason. Don't give me your bate and switch copout answer.

Punctuated Equilibrium is not some embedded defeater for evolution within the theory itself, as you wish it to be. It is an apt description for the facts we see, and you have no evidence to preclude it is a possibility.

 

[newpolitics]

THe OP is a strawman because naturalism is not considered "scientific." Science can only take place within a naturalistic framework, by definition, because the natural what is detectable, testable, and therefore able to be theorized . This is known as methodological naturalism, which doesn't make any claims about reality. The OP fails to make this distinction, and therefore is fueling a debate based on this ambiguity. It is arguing against metaphysical naturalism, which is a strawman, since science does not claim what metaphysical naturalism claims, which is that the natural universe is all that actually exists. Two totally different things. To reiterate, the OP attempts to pigeon hole all naturalism into "metaphysical naturalism" and call this scientific, when science makes no claims about the composition of reality, it merely tests what is available, which is the natural universe, and hence, necessarily abides by methodological naturalism, which doesn't claim that the natural universe is all that exists, but is bound to it for its methodology to work.

A little intellectual honesty would be nice from the creationists around here, please.

Hmm so you put naturalism in the same category as creationism but deny the evidence of a designer and believe that origins was not result of design but natural processes. Kinda contradicting yourself there.

You obviously didn't understand anything of what I wrote. It's hard to respond to you, therefore. Which naturalism are we talking about? You need to make a distinction between metaphysical naturalism and methodological naturalism. If it is metaphysical naturalism you are referring to, then this is not considered more scientific, and your OP fails definitionally. It is merely incidental that many scientists are metaphysical naturalists, but that is not logically connected to the idea that metaphysical naturalism is more "scientific" itself. If by naturalism you are referring to methodological naturalism, then you're OP also fails, since there are no truth claims being made bout the constitution of reality by methodological naturalism, only about what can be studied. It is also tautological that methodological naturalism is considered scientific, since by definition, since science can only study what is in the natural universe. If it could study the supernatural, it would cease to be the supernatural. However, this form of naturalism is not a worldview, as is metaphysical naturalism. So, either way, you're OP fails, no matter which form of naturalism you pick. I don't expect you to understand this, and I may not have explained it extremely clearly, but basically, you are not defining what form of naturalism you are referring to in the OP. I suspect it is metaphysical naturalism, the belief that only the natural exists, in which case, it is not considered more scientific. You are conflating methodological and metaphysical naturalism to make your point, which is a basic category mistake. OP fail.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I have, your theory violates the 2nd law I never said my theory violates the 2nd law. Over time that the universe existed the entropy level would have increased to a point complexity and order could have never arose.

What happens to earth when the universe reaches equilibrium ?

Complete and utter rubbish.

Really ? because the 2nd law calls for equilibrium to come to the universe about the time of the sun losing it's energy. Both happen to be theories.

Yes the universe suffered entropy for to long for life to arise on earth when it supposedly did.

Where does the 2nd Law give a time frame for the universe to "come to equilibrium"?

 

[orogenicman]

Really ? because the 2nd law calls for equilibrium to come to the universe about the time of the sun losing it's energy. Both happen to be theories.

Yes the universe suffered entropy for to long for life to arise on earth when it supposedly did.

And You know this... how? Please demonstrate.

Claims are easy to make. Backing them up is another thing altogether. Let's see it.

Well let's see, since the time the universe has come in to existence supposedly, the universe has been experiencing entropy with an increase. The more disorder over time the less chance for order to be restored and you needed order for life to arise naturally.

This is exactly why creation makes more sense with the available evidence because creation was done through order and according to the 2nd law has been heading towards disorder ever since creation.

You are completely flummoxed with regard to thermodynamics, aren't you?

"The second law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of an isolated (closed) system never decreases, because isolated systems spontaneously evolve toward thermodynamic equilibrium—the state of maximum entropy."

Again, the universe is a closed system, one where the 2nd law of thermodynamics applies. The same cannot be said for terrestrial life forms because they are not closed (isolated) systems. You eat, you breath, you eliminate waste, the Earth receives energy from outside (in the form of sunlight). Neither you nor the Earth are closed systems. Your body is continuously renewed, you constantly grow new cells to replace dying ones. That's why you must eat food and drink water, to provide more energy and raw materials for these renewal processes. The universe cannot do this because it has all the matter and energy it will ever have and has ever had.

 

[daws101]

I can see you're infuriated that anyone would challenge your posted youtube video.

Screeching about a zealot and a conspiracy theorist is really pointless and only serves to define your having no argument to present.

I find it equally interesting how you and your blogger both like to characterize anyone challenging your theories as being "angry" when in fact ..it is your blogger spewing out the name calling and obvious anger and David Berlinski who engages in a calm reasoned debate...you like to call others conspiracy theorist but almost every rebuttal of yours suggest some conspiratorial motives for all that question your theory..its intresting to see how seems to mirror the behavior of christian fudamantalist

A "calm, reasoned debate", does not indicate that Berlinski has anything valid or factual to offer.

I think your need to believe in conspiracy theories colors your ability to operate in the rational world.

Maybe if you actually presented evidence instead of just floating conspiracy theories....

to eots there is no difference...