Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[daws101]

An organism that evolved into a sightless organism.

Is that more complex than its ancestor which could see?

That would be devolution not evolution. You still can't prove the organism was the product of devolution nor whether it was always like that.

You're are basing an argument conjecture which is what the theory of evolution is in a nut shell.

YWC just proved that he doesn't even know what the term "devolution" means let alone understand the concepts of evolution. But to give YWC his due credit he is doing a magnificent job at destroying his own credibility thus saving us all the time and trouble.

it's what he does best!
next he'll rationalize it and claim "you" aren't intelligent enough to understand it .

 

[daws101]

That would be devolution not evolution.

Scientifically, explain the difference.

You still can't prove the organism was the product of devolution nor whether it was always like that.

Find some examples living outside of caves and your silly point might have some merit.

You're are basing an argument conjecture which is what the theory of evolution is in a nut shell

Can you try that again, in English?

They may be the result bad genetics.

They may be in their environment because they are blind. They are having a hard time surviving that is why they are endangered.

You're making your point off conjecture by not knowing if they have always been that way or a product of devolution.

Do you know they have very little data on this species ,and you are trying to make an argument solely on this species being blind ?

They may be in their environment because they are blind.

Right. The blind salamanders just happened to find their way to a cave.
Did they use little canes? Seeing eye dogs?

I think you should just sit there, you're being stupid again.

you left out this little gem:"They are having a hard time surviving that is why they are endangered."-YWC..

 

[daws101]

You really are so biased it clouds your thinking. look up devolution and follow the conversation nitwit.

Take your own advice and discover that you misused the term "devolution" because you erroneously assumed it to mean the opposite of evolution.

Evolution

The gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form

Devolution

Descent or degeneration to a lower or worse state.

Yep they are the opposite. Is that not what Todd was inferring with his blind salamander species ?

WOW SLAPDICK ! BLIND SALAMANDERS like all other life forms that live in lightless environments they evolved to thrive in that environment .
their blindness is not a degradation or devolution, (where the fuck did you get that idea?)
it's an adaptation to conditions like all evolution.
visible light sensing organs are useless in a lightless environment.
an easy analogy: use it or lose it.
life forms living in lightless condition are as complex and healthy as their "seeing" counterparts.

 

[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.

Gee, even more utter and complete rubbish.

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

That is correct and it will one day give off no more energy, it's been figured mathematically at 5 billion years from now.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

If you understood how hard it would be for a new trait to arise from a mutation, and spread through the whole population, you would see the impossibility of punctuated equilibrium.

The current mutation rate is to slow and traits from mutations do not spread through the complete population as the theory claims.

Things were created as they are and if any new trait arises it is because the genetic information was already present in the Genome.

 

[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.

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.

Once again natural processes and cycles exist but it is because of of programmed information. If a natural process or cycle arose, it would do so because it was being guided.

 

[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.

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

It don't,it was mathematically figured. The theory of the universe coming to equilibrium exists because there are some that believe the universe has no choice but to reach equilibrium because of the 2nd law.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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"?

It don't,it was mathematically figured. The theory of the universe coming to equilibrium exists because there are some that believe the universe has no choice but to reach equilibrium because of the 2nd law.

It don't,it was mathematically figured.

Great. Show me the calculation.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

When the sun is no more and the universe experiences maximum entropy what will this open system do ?

If you can't see the effects of the 2nd law right now all around you,you're blind.

 

[eots]

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.

that is correct and it will one day give off no more energy, it's been figured mathematically at 5 billion years from now.

give or take a few billion ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

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

It don't,it was mathematically figured. The theory of the universe coming to equilibrium exists because there are some that believe the universe has no choice but to reach equilibrium because of the 2nd law.

It don't,it was mathematically figured.

Great. Show me the calculation.

Couldn't locate the calculation but look up the theory of the Big Crunch and the Big Rip..

The one I read said 5 billion years, hell they don't know, just throwing figures out there.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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

It don't,it was mathematically figured. The theory of the universe coming to equilibrium exists because there are some that believe the universe has no choice but to reach equilibrium because of the 2nd law.

It don't,it was mathematically figured.

Great. Show me the calculation.

Time: How long does the sun have left? - Bing Videos

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It don't,it was mathematically figured. The theory of the universe coming to equilibrium exists because there are some that believe the universe has no choice but to reach equilibrium because of the 2nd law.

It don't,it was mathematically figured.

Great. Show me the calculation.

Time: How long does the sun have left? - Bing Videos

I could explain the difference between the Sun and the Universe, but I'm afraid it might go over your head.

 

[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.

Gee, even more utter and complete rubbish.

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

That is correct and it will one day give off no more energy, it's been figured mathematically at 5 billion years from now.

The sun obeys the laws of thermodynamics because it is a closed system. The Earth, however, is not a closed system. It gains energy - from the sun. And when the sun dies, and it will eventually, it won't matter if the Earth then becomes a closed system - it won't because it will be destroyed when the sun dies. And that is something else entirely.

 

[Hollie]

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.

If you understood how hard it would be for a new trait to arise from a mutation, and spread through the whole population, you would see the impossibility of punctuated equilibrium.

The current mutation rate is to slow and traits from mutations do not spread through the complete population as the theory claims.

Things were created as they are and if any new trait arises it is because the genetic information was already present in the Genome.

Standard fundie Christian boilerplate, thoroughly debunked and discarded.


CB101.2: Mutations and new features.

Claim CB101.2:
Mutations only vary traits that are already there. They do not produce anything new.

Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 103.
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 51.



Response:
1. Variation of traits is production of novelty, especially where there was no variation before. The accumulation of slight modifications is a basis of evolution.


2. Documentation of mutations producing new features includes the following: • the ability of a bacterium to digest nylon (Negoro et al. 1994; Thomas n.d.; Thwaites 1985);
• adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment (Francis and Hansche 1972; 1973; Hansche 1975);
• the ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose (Hall 1981; Hall and Zuzel 1980);
• evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga (Boraas 1983; Boraas et al. 1998);
• modification of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol (Lin and Wu 1984);
• evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars (Hartley 1984);

There is evidence for mutations producing other novel proteins: • Proteins in the histidine biosynthesis pathway consist of beta/alpha barrels with a twofold repeat pattern. These apparently evolved from the duplication and fusion of genes from a half-barrel ancestor (Lang et al. 2000).

Laboratory experiments with directed evolution indicate that the evolution of a new function often begins with mutations that have little effect on a gene's original function but a large effect on a second function. Gene duplication and divergence can then allow the new function to be refined. (Aharoni et al. 2004)


3. For evolution to operate, the source of variation does not matter; all that matters is that heritable variation occurs. Such variation is shown by the fact that selective breeding has produced novel features in many species, including cats, dogs, pigeons, goldfish, cabbage, and geraniums. Some of the features may have been preexisting in the population originally, but not all of them were, especially considering the creationists' view that the animals originated from a single pair.

 

[daws101]

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.

If you understood how hard it would be for a new trait to arise from a mutation, and spread through the whole population, you would see the impossibility of punctuated equilibrium.

The current mutation rate is to slow and traits from mutations do not spread through the complete population as the theory claims.

Things were created as they are and if any new trait arises it is because the genetic information was already present in the Genome.

Standard fundie Christian boilerplate, thoroughly debunked and discarded.


CB101.2: Mutations and new features.

Claim CB101.2:
Mutations only vary traits that are already there. They do not produce anything new.

Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 103.
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 51.



Response:
1. Variation of traits is production of novelty, especially where there was no variation before. The accumulation of slight modifications is a basis of evolution.


2. Documentation of mutations producing new features includes the following: • the ability of a bacterium to digest nylon (Negoro et al. 1994; Thomas n.d.; Thwaites 1985);
• adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment (Francis and Hansche 1972; 1973; Hansche 1975);
• the ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose (Hall 1981; Hall and Zuzel 1980);
• evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga (Boraas 1983; Boraas et al. 1998);
• modification of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol (Lin and Wu 1984);
• evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars (Hartley 1984);

There is evidence for mutations producing other novel proteins: • Proteins in the histidine biosynthesis pathway consist of beta/alpha barrels with a twofold repeat pattern. These apparently evolved from the duplication and fusion of genes from a half-barrel ancestor (Lang et al. 2000).

Laboratory experiments with directed evolution indicate that the evolution of a new function often begins with mutations that have little effect on a gene's original function but a large effect on a second function. Gene duplication and divergence can then allow the new function to be refined. (Aharoni et al. 2004)


3. For evolution to operate, the source of variation does not matter; all that matters is that heritable variation occurs. Such variation is shown by the fact that selective breeding has produced novel features in many species, including cats, dogs, pigeons, goldfish, cabbage, and geraniums. Some of the features may have been preexisting in the population originally, but not all of them were, especially considering the creationists' view that the animals originated from a single pair.

two humans are not a viable beginning for the human race..
just how many babies could eve produce before she ran out of eggs or hit menopause
not to mention did adam lose his testosterone at the same rate as modern men.?

 

[eots]

If you understood how hard it would be for a new trait to arise from a mutation, and spread through the whole population, you would see the impossibility of punctuated equilibrium.

The current mutation rate is to slow and traits from mutations do not spread through the complete population as the theory claims.

Things were created as they are and if any new trait arises it is because the genetic information was already present in the Genome.

Standard fundie Christian boilerplate, thoroughly debunked and discarded.


CB101.2: Mutations and new features.

Claim CB101.2:
Mutations only vary traits that are already there. They do not produce anything new.

Source:
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 103.
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, 51.



Response:
1. Variation of traits is production of novelty, especially where there was no variation before. The accumulation of slight modifications is a basis of evolution.


2. Documentation of mutations producing new features includes the following: • the ability of a bacterium to digest nylon (Negoro et al. 1994; Thomas n.d.; Thwaites 1985);
• adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment (Francis and Hansche 1972; 1973; Hansche 1975);
• the ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose (Hall 1981; Hall and Zuzel 1980);
• evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga (Boraas 1983; Boraas et al. 1998);
• modification of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol (Lin and Wu 1984);
• evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars (Hartley 1984);

There is evidence for mutations producing other novel proteins: • Proteins in the histidine biosynthesis pathway consist of beta/alpha barrels with a twofold repeat pattern. These apparently evolved from the duplication and fusion of genes from a half-barrel ancestor (Lang et al. 2000).

Laboratory experiments with directed evolution indicate that the evolution of a new function often begins with mutations that have little effect on a gene's original function but a large effect on a second function. Gene duplication and divergence can then allow the new function to be refined. (Aharoni et al. 2004)


3. For evolution to operate, the source of variation does not matter; all that matters is that heritable variation occurs. Such variation is shown by the fact that selective breeding has produced novel features in many species, including cats, dogs, pigeons, goldfish, cabbage, and geraniums. Some of the features may have been preexisting in the population originally, but not all of them were, especially considering the creationists' view that the animals originated from a single pair.

two humans are not a viable beginning for the human race..
just how many babies could eve produce before she ran out of eggs or hit menopause
not to mention did adam lose his testosterone at the same rate as modern men.?

with cloning technology the possibilities are endless...

 

[HUGGY]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuGkMu751K8]Dylan, B Springsteen -All Along The Watchtower-Forever Young - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Youwerecreated]

It don't,it was mathematically figured.

Great. Show me the calculation.

Time: How long does the sun have left? - Bing Videos

I could explain the difference between the Sun and the Universe, but I'm afraid it might go over your head.

Have at it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Gee, even more utter and complete rubbish.

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

That is correct and it will one day give off no more energy, it's been figured mathematically at 5 billion years from now.

The sun obeys the laws of thermodynamics because it is a closed system. The Earth, however, is not a closed system. It gains energy - from the sun. And when the sun dies, and it will eventually, it won't matter if the Earth then becomes a closed system - it won't because it will be destroyed when the sun dies. And that is something else entirely.

Agreed, but clearly the earth is affected by the 2nd law.