Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Youwerecreated]

Anyone with any training at all in biological evolution and genetics (and at least one hemisphere of their brain functioning) knows that it doesn't happen by chance. Natural selection is not random. This has been pointed out ad infinitum to you, but you seem completely happy to recite the creationist play book verbatim and ignore anything contrary to it.

No one (not even the guy - Francis whatshisname - the Christian evangelist scientist who lead the team that sequenced the first human genome) in the scientific community is claiming that it is anything other than a natural process. There are no magic spells being recited, no bearded sky daddies waving magic wands over the Earth to get the biochemistry of life set in motion. Because that is what it is, biochemistry working on time scales from nanoseconds to millennia. There is nothing unambiguous about this. There are mountains of data to support it. All you appear to have is Alan Jackson songs on youtube. How sad is that?

Breaking news, I am a creationist.

Biblical creationists agree with evolutionists on much of the ideas of natural selection, except the idea that natural selection leads from molecules to man evolution.

the only speciation that has ever been observed is in a population that produced distinct populations was because they rarely interbreed usually because of geographic isolation or other factors.

Speciation has never been observed to turn one kind of an animal into another. Lions and tigers are both members of the cat kind, they are considered different species because of their geographic isolation but it is possible to breed the two.

An adaptation is a physical trait that is inherited characteristic that gives an organism the ability to survive in a certain environment.

Evolutionists look at a characteristics and assume that they were produced through a gradual series of changes and call it an adaptation to a given environment. The problem with this scenario are the amount of time for such changes and lack the mechanism to cause the changes.

No Alan Jackson is not all we have.

Just to be clear, you were wrong about your claim that the 2nd Law prevents evolution?

Yes you were wrong, no you were not.

Simple answer.

I don't believe I was wrong because I am finding out that the earth is a closed system not an open system.

 

[Hollie]

In your view would we exist if it were not for random chance ? or do you believe everything exists because of an intelligent designer ?

By all means explain how we got here if neither of the two choices I supplied apply to your view.

It looks like we got here from the Big Bang. Whether that was designed by a god is not known at this time. To presume you know for a fact (even though you have none) that an invisible god exists and is punishing children by disfiguring them because of what some alleged people did way back when in some mythical garden is pure arrogance, if not outright lunacy. Or do you actually have any real proof?

So you can't prove how we got here nor can I. I take the belief in a creator on the basis of faith just as you take the view we came here through the big bang on faith. Neither view is science ok. You believe there is evidence to infer naturalism I see evidence that infers purposeful design. We see the same evidence and have different interpretations of the evidence.

Curious though, I see these kind of comments all the time by people who doubt creation ever happened but then come back with a similar comment to yours.

Why would a loving and just God allow what is currently going on in this world. Is it that you want to believe but can't imagine God allowing all the bad things going on in this world ? or is it because you can't answer the questions so you deliberately slap at a creationist ? because we have no doubt the creator exists, and will do everything he promises, and are content with waiting for him to take action.

Your comment about seeing the same evidence is comedy gold. Your cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya and christian ministries hardly qualifies as reliable evidence. Similarly, cutting and pasting verses from the bibles is evidence of only your ability to cut and paste.

 

[orogenicman]

So much for yours ! you can spin it all you like but the the genetic code is the genetic language for all living organisms. You sure did avoid the questions.

The DNA story

The Genetic Language

Home ? Language and Genetics ? Max Planck Institute for Psycholinguistics

Translating the genetic code

The genetic code - the language of genetics

Now this is funny because I agree with these folks. They know this code did not happen by chance through natural processes.

Scientists claim aliens put secret genetic code in human DNA | Blastr

Anyone with any training at all in biological evolution and genetics (and at least one hemisphere of their brain functioning) knows that it doesn't happen by chance. Natural selection is not random. This has been pointed out ad infinitum to you, but you seem completely happy to recite the creationist play book verbatim and ignore anything contrary to it.

No one (not even the guy - Francis whatshisname - the Christian evangelist scientist who lead the team that sequenced the first human genome) in the scientific community is claiming that it is anything other than a natural process. There are no magic spells being recited, no bearded sky daddies waving magic wands over the Earth to get the biochemistry of life set in motion. Because that is what it is, biochemistry working on time scales from nanoseconds to millennia. There is nothing unambiguous about this. There are mountains of data to support it. All you appear to have is Alan Jackson songs on youtube. How sad is that?

Breaking news, I am a creationist.

No kidding? And here I was thinking that you were a Nobel-winning biologist. You have my sympathy.

Biblical creationists agree with evolutionists on much of the ideas of natural selection, except the idea that natural selection leads from molecules to man evolution.

It is known that there are several camps in the creationist cult. None of them have a clue as to what evolution really is. For instance, none of them, as your statement above readily admits, understand that evolution is not about the origin of life. Evolution is an explanation of the diversity of life. However life came about, it evolves.

the only speciation that has ever been observed is in a population that produced distinct populations was because they rarely interbreed usually because of geographic isolation or other factors.

Speciation has never been observed to turn one kind of an animal into another. Lions and tigers are both members of the cat family, they are considered different species because of their geographic isolation but it is possible to breed the two.

Proving yet again how very little creationists understand about evolution. If a cat could, for instance, evolve into a dog, that would REFUTE evolution, not support it. Come on, surely your creationists play book has itself evolved in the past ten years. You mean to tell me that they are still trying to push this nonsense?

An adaptation is a physical trait that is a inherited characteristic that gives an organism the ability to survive in a certain environment.

Evolutionists look at a characteristics and assume that they were produced through a gradual series of changes and call it an adaptation to a given environment. The problem with this scenario are the amount of time for such changes and lack the mechanism to cause the changes.

So your problem is that you not only reject natural selection, but believe that the Earth is only 10,000 years. Oh my. You have serious issues, dude.

No Alan Jackson is not all we have.

Coulda fooled me.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Breaking news, I am a creationist.

Biblical creationists agree with evolutionists on much of the ideas of natural selection, except the idea that natural selection leads from molecules to man evolution.

the only speciation that has ever been observed is in a population that produced distinct populations was because they rarely interbreed usually because of geographic isolation or other factors.

Speciation has never been observed to turn one kind of an animal into another. Lions and tigers are both members of the cat kind, they are considered different species because of their geographic isolation but it is possible to breed the two.

An adaptation is a physical trait that is inherited characteristic that gives an organism the ability to survive in a certain environment.

Evolutionists look at a characteristics and assume that they were produced through a gradual series of changes and call it an adaptation to a given environment. The problem with this scenario are the amount of time for such changes and lack the mechanism to cause the changes.

No Alan Jackson is not all we have.

Just to be clear, you were wrong about your claim that the 2nd Law prevents evolution?

Yes you were wrong, no you were not.

Simple answer.

I don't believe I was wrong because I am finding out that the earth is a closed system not an open system.

The Earth receives no matter or energy?

Where did you find that out?

 

[orogenicman]

The genetic code is exactly what it is called. Now will you provide any code that was not produced through intelligence ?

Your question is a red herring. The genetic "code" is a human construct created by human scientists in order to decipher what is going on inside of the DNA molecule. That is all it is. There are no angels in heaven typing out the four amino acids that make up DNA on a heavenly DNA typewriter, dude. It is a complex dance of chemical reactions that is quantifiable, repeatable, and completely and utterly natural.

Is the genetic code the blue print that gets translated to form an organism yes or no ?

A blueprint that Watson and Crick invented in order to make sense of the chemical structure of DNA. Before these two gentlemen, no one understood how DNA was put together, much less how it worked.

You're argument is juvenile. I have mountains of evidence and the community that agree with me.

You have diddly squat.

 

[orogenicman]

In your view would we exist if it were not for random chance ? or do you believe everything exists because of an intelligent designer ?

By all means explain how we got here if neither of the two choices I supplied apply to your view.

It looks like we got here from the Big Bang. Whether that was designed by a god is not known at this time. To presume you know for a fact (even though you have none) that an invisible god exists and is punishing children by disfiguring them because of what some alleged people did way back when in some mythical garden is pure arrogance, if not outright lunacy. Or do you actually have any real proof?

So you can't prove how we got here nor can I. I take the belief in a creator on the basis of faith just as you take the view we came here through the big bang on faith. Neither view is science ok. You believe there is evidence to infer naturalism I see evidence that infers purposeful design. We see the same evidence and have different interpretations of the evidence.

Curious though, I see these kind of comments all the time by people who doubt creation ever happened but then come back with a similar comment to yours.

Why would a loving and just God allow what is currently going on in this world. Is it that you want to believe but can't imagine God allowing all the bad things going on in this world ? or is it because you can't answer the questions so you deliberately slap at a creationist ? because we have no doubt the creator exists, and will do everything he promises, and are content with waiting for him to take action.

You have Alan Jackson. I have Neil:

 

[Hollie]

... because we have no doubt the creator exists, and will do everything he promises, and are content with waiting for him to take action.

Oh my. A bible thumping, hair-on-fire, Endtimes 'awaitin, death cultist.

 

[Bumberclyde]

In your view would we exist if it were not for random chance ? or do you believe everything exists because of an intelligent designer ?

By all means explain how we got here if neither of the two choices I supplied apply to your view.

It looks like we got here from the Big Bang. Whether that was designed by a god is not known at this time. To presume you know for a fact (even though you have none) that an invisible god exists and is punishing children by disfiguring them because of what some alleged people did way back when in some mythical garden is pure arrogance, if not outright lunacy. Or do you actually have any real proof?

So you can't prove how we got here nor can I. I take the belief in a creator on the basis of faith just as you take the view we came here through the big bang on faith. Neither view is science ok. You believe there is evidence to infer naturalism I see evidence that infers purposeful design. We see the same evidence and have different interpretations of the evidence.

Curious though, I see these kind of comments all the time by people who doubt creation ever happened but then come back with a similar comment to yours.

Why would a loving and just God allow what is currently going on in this world. Is it that you want to believe but can't imagine God allowing all the bad things going on in this world ? or is it because you can't answer the questions so you deliberately slap at a creationist ? because we have no doubt the creator exists, and will do everything he promises, and are content with waiting for him to take action.

I don't take the BB on faith, it's science that showed the BB, you know, that pesky little proof your god theory lacks. And until you can provide some proof that a scientist can back up properly (no quacks), god is merely a THEORY. The FACTS show that man has yet to figure out the who and why of the BB.

 

[eots]

It looks like we got here from the Big Bang. Whether that was designed by a god is not known at this time. To presume you know for a fact (even though you have none) that an invisible god exists and is punishing children by disfiguring them because of what some alleged people did way back when in some mythical garden is pure arrogance, if not outright lunacy. Or do you actually have any real proof?

So you can't prove how we got here nor can I. I take the belief in a creator on the basis of faith just as you take the view we came here through the big bang on faith. Neither view is science ok. You believe there is evidence to infer naturalism I see evidence that infers purposeful design. We see the same evidence and have different interpretations of the evidence.

Curious though, I see these kind of comments all the time by people who doubt creation ever happened but then come back with a similar comment to yours.

Why would a loving and just God allow what is currently going on in this world. Is it that you want to believe but can't imagine God allowing all the bad things going on in this world ? or is it because you can't answer the questions so you deliberately slap at a creationist ? because we have no doubt the creator exists, and will do everything he promises, and are content with waiting for him to take action.

I don't take the BB on faith, it's science that showed the BB, you know, that pesky little proof your god theory lacks. And until you can provide some proof that a scientist can back up properly (no quacks), god is merely a THEORY. The FACTS show that man has yet to figure out the who and why of the BB.

Until you can create life from non living substances or show me a creature of one species giving birth naturally to a creature of another species all you have is a theory

 

[orogenicman]

So you can't prove how we got here nor can I. I take the belief in a creator on the basis of faith just as you take the view we came here through the big bang on faith. Neither view is science ok. You believe there is evidence to infer naturalism I see evidence that infers purposeful design. We see the same evidence and have different interpretations of the evidence.

Curious though, I see these kind of comments all the time by people who doubt creation ever happened but then come back with a similar comment to yours.

Why would a loving and just God allow what is currently going on in this world. Is it that you want to believe but can't imagine God allowing all the bad things going on in this world ? or is it because you can't answer the questions so you deliberately slap at a creationist ? because we have no doubt the creator exists, and will do everything he promises, and are content with waiting for him to take action.

I don't take the BB on faith, it's science that showed the BB, you know, that pesky little proof your god theory lacks. And until you can provide some proof that a scientist can back up properly (no quacks), god is merely a THEORY. The FACTS show that man has yet to figure out the who and why of the BB.

Until you can create life from non living substances or show me a creature of one species giving birth naturally to a creature of another species all you have is a theory

In other words, you are saying that unless we can show you something that would REFUTE evolution, you aren't going to believe in evolution. Brilliant move, Einstein. As for the first part of your challenge, stay tuned.

 

[Bumberclyde]

I don't take the BB on faith, it's science that showed the BB, you know, that pesky little proof your god theory lacks. And until you can provide some proof that a scientist can back up properly (no quacks), god is merely a THEORY. The FACTS show that man has yet to figure out the who and why of the BB.

Until you can create life from non living substances or show me a creature of one species giving birth naturally to a creature of another species all you have is a theory

In other words, you are saying that unless we can show you something that would REFUTE evolution, you aren't going to believe in evolution. Brilliant move, Einstein. As for the first part of your challenge, stay tuned.

You, so you actually believe that the only reason that there's life on earth is because a god put it there? And put humans intact like the bible says? FUCKING WOW!!! All along I was debating with an imbecile!!!
Unless of course, you have ANY proof of the story of creation as per the bible..

 

[orogenicman]

Until you can create life from non living substances or show me a creature of one species giving birth naturally to a creature of another species all you have is a theory

In other words, you are saying that unless we can show you something that would REFUTE evolution, you aren't going to believe in evolution. Brilliant move, Einstein. As for the first part of your challenge, stay tuned.

You, so you actually believe that the only reason that there's life on earth is because a god put it there? And put humans intact like the bible says? FUCKING WOW!!! All along I was debating with an imbecile!!!
Unless of course, you have ANY proof of the story of creation as per the bible..

WTF? How you got that out of my posts is a big mystery. Care to explain?

 

[Youwerecreated]

It looks like we got here from the Big Bang. Whether that was designed by a god is not known at this time. To presume you know for a fact (even though you have none) that an invisible god exists and is punishing children by disfiguring them because of what some alleged people did way back when in some mythical garden is pure arrogance, if not outright lunacy. Or do you actually have any real proof?

So you can't prove how we got here nor can I. I take the belief in a creator on the basis of faith just as you take the view we came here through the big bang on faith. Neither view is science ok. You believe there is evidence to infer naturalism I see evidence that infers purposeful design. We see the same evidence and have different interpretations of the evidence.

Curious though, I see these kind of comments all the time by people who doubt creation ever happened but then come back with a similar comment to yours.

Why would a loving and just God allow what is currently going on in this world. Is it that you want to believe but can't imagine God allowing all the bad things going on in this world ? or is it because you can't answer the questions so you deliberately slap at a creationist ? because we have no doubt the creator exists, and will do everything he promises, and are content with waiting for him to take action.

I don't take the BB on faith, it's science that showed the BB, you know, that pesky little proof your god theory lacks. And until you can provide some proof that a scientist can back up properly (no quacks), god is merely a THEORY. The FACTS show that man has yet to figure out the who and why of the BB.

I can make the same claim. It's this simple, everyone is affected in how they interpret evidence by our presuppositions. I know I was once on your side then came to this side. Anyone who says they are not affected by their presuppositions are not being honest.

There is evidence to support design, enough for it to be a theory.It just gets rejected because there is no direct evidence of God himself but wait there is no evidence of a mechanism for how everything just arose without direction.

 

[eots]

Until you can create life from non living substances or show me a creature of one species giving birth naturally to a creature of another species all you have is a theory

In other words, you are saying that unless we can show you something that would REFUTE evolution, you aren't going to believe in evolution. Brilliant move, Einstein. As for the first part of your challenge, stay tuned.

You, so you actually believe that the only reason that there's life on earth is because a god put it there? And put humans intact like the bible says? FUCKING WOW!!! All along I was debating with an imbecile!!!
Unless of course, you have ANY proof of the story of creation as per the bible..

the story of creation as per the bible..would seem to hold so clues as to the nature of existence..but contains inaccuracies if taken literally..I dont think science has even come close to understanding the nature of existence it understands some of the physics and mechanics of the life process and exsistence

 

[Youwerecreated]

I don't take the BB on faith, it's science that showed the BB, you know, that pesky little proof your god theory lacks. And until you can provide some proof that a scientist can back up properly (no quacks), god is merely a THEORY. The FACTS show that man has yet to figure out the who and why of the BB.

Until you can create life from non living substances or show me a creature of one species giving birth naturally to a creature of another species all you have is a theory

In other words, you are saying that unless we can show you something that would REFUTE evolution, you aren't going to believe in evolution. Brilliant move, Einstein. As for the first part of your challenge, stay tuned.

You are forgetting one thing, even if scientists discover a way to create life all you did was show it could only be accomplished through intelligence.

Thank you !

 

[Youwerecreated]

In other words, you are saying that unless we can show you something that would REFUTE evolution, you aren't going to believe in evolution. Brilliant move, Einstein. As for the first part of your challenge, stay tuned.

You, so you actually believe that the only reason that there's life on earth is because a god put it there? And put humans intact like the bible says? FUCKING WOW!!! All along I was debating with an imbecile!!!
Unless of course, you have ANY proof of the story of creation as per the bible..

WTF? How you got that out of my posts is a big mystery. Care to explain?

Agreed lol he is the imbecile.

 

[Bumberclyde]

You, so you actually believe that the only reason that there's life on earth is because a god put it there? And put humans intact like the bible says? FUCKING WOW!!! All along I was debating with an imbecile!!!
Unless of course, you have ANY proof of the story of creation as per the bible..

WTF? How you got that out of my posts is a big mystery. Care to explain?

Agreed lol he is the imbecile.

I was replying to the post that you also replied to, sorry, if I fucked that up.

So You, the reply is for you, what say you?

 

[Hollie]

Until you can create life from non living substances or show me a creature of one species giving birth naturally to a creature of another species all you have is a theory

In other words, you are saying that unless we can show you something that would REFUTE evolution, you aren't going to believe in evolution. Brilliant move, Einstein. As for the first part of your challenge, stay tuned.

You are forgetting one thing, even if scientists discover a way to create life all you did was show it could only be accomplished through intelligence.

Thank you !

Actually no, clueless. The attempts so far to spark life are being done with an acknowledgment of conditions on the planet as they existed in the distant past. As you believe the planet is only 6,000 years old, that is an obvious difficulty for you.

 

[Hollie]

So you can't prove how we got here nor can I. I take the belief in a creator on the basis of faith just as you take the view we came here through the big bang on faith. Neither view is science ok. You believe there is evidence to infer naturalism I see evidence that infers purposeful design. We see the same evidence and have different interpretations of the evidence.

Curious though, I see these kind of comments all the time by people who doubt creation ever happened but then come back with a similar comment to yours.

Why would a loving and just God allow what is currently going on in this world. Is it that you want to believe but can't imagine God allowing all the bad things going on in this world ? or is it because you can't answer the questions so you deliberately slap at a creationist ? because we have no doubt the creator exists, and will do everything he promises, and are content with waiting for him to take action.

I don't take the BB on faith, it's science that showed the BB, you know, that pesky little proof your god theory lacks. And until you can provide some proof that a scientist can back up properly (no quacks), god is merely a THEORY. The FACTS show that man has yet to figure out the who and why of the BB.

I can make the same claim. It's this simple, everyone is affected in how they interpret evidence by our presuppositions. I know I was once on your side then came to this side. Anyone who says they are not affected by their presuppositions are not being honest.

There is evidence to support design, enough for it to be a theory.It just gets rejected because there is no direct evidence of God himself but wait there is no evidence of a mechanism for how everything just arose without direction.

Sorry, clueless. There is no testable evidence to support magical design just as there is no testable evidence for your magical gawds.

 

[orogenicman]

Until you can create life from non living substances or show me a creature of one species giving birth naturally to a creature of another species all you have is a theory

In other words, you are saying that unless we can show you something that would REFUTE evolution, you aren't going to believe in evolution. Brilliant move, Einstein. As for the first part of your challenge, stay tuned.

You are forgetting one thing, even if scientists discover a way to create life all you did was show it could only be accomplished through intelligence.

Thank you !

Recreating in the laboratory the natural conditions that existed when life first appeared does take intelligence, human intelligence. Since they were the natural conditions that exited 4 billion years ago, when there was no life on the planet, you're going to have a hard time convincing anyone that a magic sky daddy waved his magic wand and sparked into existence the first life forms into existence. Particularly when we prove that it can be done naturally. And most particularly since you have no evidence that said magic sky daddy even exists.