Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[daws101]

Open system.

Earth is a closed system.

http://www.uvm.edu/~cmehrten/courses/earthhist/Earth Closed System.pdf

A closed system allows energy in and out. Which is why a tree can turn simple molecules, CO2 and H2O into complex molecules like sugars and cellulose. No violation of the 2nd Law here.

The argument is that life would have never formed in a disordered system and that means no chance of evolution.not the evolution that would result in all the diversity of life according to theory.

major bullshit.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The argument is that life would have never formed in a disordered system

I know, because of the 2nd Law. LOL!

Come on, you're putting us on. You can't really be this stupid.

Don't confuse "stupid" and "desperate."

YWC is desperate, desperate to prove that what is irrefutable, somehow is false. What I don't understand is, if he needs for this all to be the creation of god, why not simply say that god used evolution to to make the species? Why this silly attempt to deny fully established evidence?

It is simple fact that life evolves. Sometimes it evolves in an intelligent manner, we have documented protists who consume other protists and incorporate DNA sequences, thus evolving through assimilation. Observed fact. There is no rational argument against the reality of evolution.

 

[Hollie]

The argument is that life would have never formed in a disordered system

I know, because of the 2nd Law. LOL!

Come on, you're putting us on. You can't really be this stupid.

Don't confuse "stupid" and "desperate."

YWC is desperate, desperate to prove that what is irrefutable, somehow is false. What I don't understand is, if he needs for this all to be the creation of god, why not simply say that god used evolution to to make the species? Why this silly attempt to deny fully established evidence?

It is simple fact that life evolves. Sometimes it evolves in an intelligent manner, we have documented protists who consume other protists and incorporate DNA sequences, thus evolving through assimilation. Observed fact. There is no rational argument against the reality of evolution.

The issue faced by ywc is not resolved by allowing evolution to have been a mechanism of the gods. He is confronted with the undeniable evidence (by rational people), of an ancient earth. That is in direct opposition to his insistence for a literal genesis tale. There is no way to reconcile the two vastly different timelines.

 

[orogenicman]

I bet if you took your car with a full tank of gas, and just parked it outside with the key in the ignition ,that car would never start itself.

I am sure you would go along with that logic but go against that logic by thinking chemicals left to themselves would fully develop a cell that produced all life.

Is what you believe rational ?

Wow, you REALLY need to take a chemistry class, because, damn!

Nah I don't,whip that magic on me.

That you choose to remain ignorant on these issues is entirely your problem.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The issue faced by ywc is not resolved by allowing evolution to have been a mechanism of the gods. He is confronted with the undeniable evidence (by rational people), of an ancient earth. That is in direct opposition to his insistence for a literal genesis tale. There is no way to reconcile the two vastly different timelines.

I can't do much to help him rectify a literal Genesis tale; the closest I could get would be the idea that a day to god is a million years to man, or something.

Once people grasped chemistry, and the fact that isotopes decay, then the presence of certain elements in the atmosphere or in surface bombardment (such as by gamma rays) meant that we can glean the relative age of things.

Carbon-14 decays by low energy b - radiation emission to nitrogen 14 with a half-live of 5730 years. Since an item that is underground or fossilized is not subjected to the introduction of the carbon 14, the rate of decay can give us a good idea of the age of things.

Oh, I know YWC will complain that Carbon-14 rates in the atmosphere vary, and thus it isn't accurate - BUT should the variation throw the date of a rock off by a full million years, it is irrelevant to a 4.6 billion year time line - it doesn't even affect the decimal.

Sorry - the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, this isn't a guess, it isn't conjecture, it's fact.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The argument is that life would have never formed in a disordered system

I know, because of the 2nd Law. LOL!

Come on, you're putting us on. You can't really be this stupid.

Don't confuse "stupid" and "desperate."

YWC is desperate, desperate to prove that what is irrefutable, somehow is false. What I don't understand is, if he needs for this all to be the creation of god, why not simply say that god used evolution to to make the species? Why this silly attempt to deny fully established evidence?

It is simple fact that life evolves. Sometimes it evolves in an intelligent manner, we have documented protists who consume other protists and incorporate DNA sequences, thus evolving through assimilation. Observed fact. There is no rational argument against the reality of evolution.

I don't believe I am desperate, you might want to reconsider.


Possible Sites for the Origin of Life

There are many different theories about where the origin of life occurred. These theories range from life beginning in deep sea thermal vents to bacterial life arriving from other places in the universe, among others. Some of these theories are more credible than others, yet all provide an interesting explanation for life's beginnings.

Significance of Water

Everyone knows that liquid water is essential for humans to survive. In fact, it is essential in the chemistry of all biological systems. Water (chem window: give link to water module) provides the medium in which the transport of molecules can occur in reactions. Because water is necessary for all life, scientists look for evidence of liquid water wherever they search for life, whether it is somewhere on Earth, or even somewhere else in our solar system or beyond. In fact, astronomers are currently examining the satellites of Jupiter, Europa and Ganymeade, and Titan, one of Saturn's satellites, to see if they contain liquid water and the conditions which may give rise to life as we know it.

Hot link to web sites

Before we look to see where life may have begun elsewhere in the universe, let's look at where, or how, life might have begun on the earth.

Thermal Vents

One current theory is that life originated deep beneath the surface of the ocean at deep sea hydrothermal vents. These hydrothermal vents were first discovered in 1979. Soon after, scientists made an exciting discovery. These vents release hot gaseous substances from the center of the earth at temperatures in excess of 572oF. Previously scientists were sure that life could not exist, deep beneath the surface of the ocean. After the discovery of hydrothermal vents, they found ecosystems thriving in the depths of the ocean. These ecosystems contained various types of fish, worms, crabs, bacteria and other organisms which had found a way to survive in a cold, hostile environment without energy input from sunlight. Because life had been found to exist where it previously was thought unable to, many scientists began to ask questions as to whether or not this was where life may have originated on the earth.

On the molecular level, the chances of life originating at deep sea thermal vents is not likely. It is known that organic molecules are unstable at high temperatures, and are destroyed as quickly as they are produced. It has been estimated that life could not have arisen in the ocean unless the temperature was less than 25oC, or 77oF.

Supporters of this theory claim that the organic molecules at the thermal vents are not formed in 300oC temperatures, but rather in a gradient formed between the hydrothermal vent water, and the extremely cold water, 4oC (39.2oF), which surrounds the vent at the bottom of the ocean.

The temperatures at this gradient would be suitable for organic chemistry to occur. Debates still remain, however, as to the gradient's effectiveness in producing organic compounds.

Extra Terrestrial Sources

Panspermia
In the early twentieth century, a Swedish chemist named Svente Arrhenius developed a theory called panspermia. Arrhenius' theory accounted for life's origins by simply stating that life did not originate on the Earth, but originated elsewhere in the universe. He believed that cellular life reached the Earth hiding inside a meteor which hit the Earth long ago. Newly uncovered evidence suggests that this might be possible, since an organism inside a meteor (Picture of impactor) would be safe from the high levels of radiation in space, and would be kept at a relatively low temperature. The odds of an organism surving inside a meteor for thousands of years, however, are not high. It is even less likely that organisms would be able to withstand the high energy impacts of bolides into the Earth or other planetary objects. Most scientists today do not look at this hypothesis as a very likely origin of life on the earth. However, it is considered possible, at least for now, and so is still a candidate for life's origin on earth.

Frozen Ocean
Three billion years ago, the Sun which lights our solar system was thirty percent less luminous than it is today. Mant people believe that if the Earth's atmosphere was the same then as it is today, the oceans would be frozen. But recently, Jeffrey Bada of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography has proposed that the oceans would not completely freeze. Instead, he calculates that only the top 300 meters of the ocean would freeze over.


You might think that icy cold water trapped under hundreds of meters of ice would not be beneficial to life beginning, but in fact it is advantageous in many aspects. One advantage is that the layer of ice would provide a protective shield by preventing ultra-violet light, which enters the earth's atmosphere and destroys organic compounds, from reaching the developing molecules. Another advantage is that it would provide safety from the devestating effects of impact frustration. ( Definition Box -Impact frustration is a theory which says that life may potentially have arisen many times, but was wiped out due to severe bolide impacts) The water beneath the ice would be cold, allowing for organic molecules to survive over much longer periods of time. These organic molecules could have been provided by the hydrothermal vents still prevalent on the ocean floor today. With a sufficient supply of organic molecules safe from ultra-violet radiation and bolide impact frustration, many believe that this was the environment allowing life to get a foothold on a hostile earth.

With a barrier between the atmosphere and the ocean, the debate concerning the composition of the atmosphere becomes much less significant. All of the components needed for organic syntheses such as the Strecker synthesis would be provided and kept stable, while the bottom of the ocean would provide a place for organics to gather and react. Following this reasoning, the atmospheric composition may only be important after life came out of the water, when life had already begun.

Possible Sites for the Origin of Life

 

[Youwerecreated]

Funny on youtube no one knows what the earth was like when life began.

Answer:
Earth 3.5 billion years ago, was nothing like what it is today. No plants, animals, nothing. Volcanoes erupted poisonous gases, methane and ammonia was in the atmosphere, and it would have been impossible to breathe. The Earth was also only one continent (until it was later broken up into several, which is another topic). Acidic rain, and deadly thunderstorms occurred for several millions of years. This is a shot in the dark, but it most likely (as we have no actual idea of what it *looked* like) resembled Mars. Lifeless, and unlivable. By the way, I find it odd that if the earth is 4 billion years old, and Mars is just as old, why there is no life on Mars (at least nothing like Earth's life), but there is life on the Earth. Kind of an interesting question huh?

What was earth like 3.5 billion years ago

 

[Youwerecreated]

Pictures of planets forming

https://www.google.com/search?q=pic...KKrMyQHcwoGYCg&ved=0CC0QsAQ&biw=1600&bih=1071


Pictures of mars and the moon.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pic...Bs2ayQH2-oCgAw&ved=0CC0QsAQ&biw=1600&bih=1071

Hmm, mars and the moon are as old as the earth what happened ? why is there no life on them ?

 

[Hollie]

Funny on youtube no one knows what the earth was like when life began.

Answer:
Earth 3.5 billion years ago, was nothing like what it is today. No plants, animals, nothing. Volcanoes erupted poisonous gases, methane and ammonia was in the atmosphere, and it would have been impossible to breathe. The Earth was also only one continent (until it was later broken up into several, which is another topic). Acidic rain, and deadly thunderstorms occurred for several millions of years. This is a shot in the dark, but it most likely (as we have no actual idea of what it *looked* like) resembled Mars. Lifeless, and unlivable. By the way, I find it odd that if the earth is 4 billion years old, and Mars is just as old, why there is no life on Mars (at least nothing like Earth's life), but there is life on the Earth. Kind of an interesting question huh?

What was earth like 3.5 billion years ago[/QUOTE
Mars does not have a magnetic field as the earth does. Mars does not have the gravitational field as the earth does. With very little atmospheric shielding, the surface of mars is subject to intense radiation.

I recall we learned this in 8th grade. Your madrassah needs to update it's science standards.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Pictures of planets forming

https://www.google.com/search?q=pic...KKrMyQHcwoGYCg&ved=0CC0QsAQ&biw=1600&bih=1071


Pictures of mars and the moon.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pic...Bs2ayQH2-oCgAw&ved=0CC0QsAQ&biw=1600&bih=1071

Hmm, mars and the moon are as old as the earth what happened ? why is there no life on them ?

Mars must have more disorder...........

 

[orogenicman]

The issue faced by ywc is not resolved by allowing evolution to have been a mechanism of the gods. He is confronted with the undeniable evidence (by rational people), of an ancient earth. That is in direct opposition to his insistence for a literal genesis tale. There is no way to reconcile the two vastly different timelines.

I can't do much to help him rectify a literal Genesis tale; the closest I could get would be the idea that a day to god is a million years to man, or something.

Once people grasped chemistry, and the fact that isotopes decay, then the presence of certain elements in the atmosphere or in surface bombardment (such as by gamma rays) meant that we can glean the relative age of things.

Carbon-14 decays by low energy b - radiation emission to nitrogen 14 with a half-live of 5730 years. Since an item that is underground or fossilized is not subjected to the introduction of the carbon 14, the rate of decay can give us a good idea of the age of things.

Oh, I know YWC will complain that Carbon-14 rates in the atmosphere vary, and thus it isn't accurate - BUT should the variation throw the date of a rock off by a full million years, it is irrelevant to a 4.6 billion year time line - it doesn't even affect the decimal.

Sorry - the Earth is 4.6 billion years old, this isn't a guess, it isn't conjecture, it's fact.

The age of the Earth isn't determined using carbon 14. It is determined using Uranium-lead isotopic ratios.

 

[eots]

Funny on youtube no one knows what the earth was like when life began.

Answer:
Earth 3.5 billion years ago, was nothing like what it is today. No plants, animals, nothing. Volcanoes erupted poisonous gases, methane and ammonia was in the atmosphere, and it would have been impossible to breathe. The Earth was also only one continent (until it was later broken up into several, which is another topic). Acidic rain, and deadly thunderstorms occurred for several millions of years. This is a shot in the dark, but it most likely (as we have no actual idea of what it *looked* like) resembled Mars. Lifeless, and unlivable. By the way, I find it odd that if the earth is 4 billion years old, and Mars is just as old, why there is no life on Mars (at least nothing like Earth's life), but there is life on the Earth. Kind of an interesting question huh?

What was earth like 3.5 billion years ago

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEUjQCCcCeA]Photos of Phobos Monolith, Mars Moon. Featuring Buzz Aldrin - YouTube[/ame]

 

[orogenicman]

Mars lost most it's atmosphere when its interior dynamo failed, taking most of its water with it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Funny on youtube no one knows what the earth was like when life began.

Answer:
Earth 3.5 billion years ago, was nothing like what it is today. No plants, animals, nothing. Volcanoes erupted poisonous gases, methane and ammonia was in the atmosphere, and it would have been impossible to breathe. The Earth was also only one continent (until it was later broken up into several, which is another topic). Acidic rain, and deadly thunderstorms occurred for several millions of years. This is a shot in the dark, but it most likely (as we have no actual idea of what it *looked* like) resembled Mars. Lifeless, and unlivable. By the way, I find it odd that if the earth is 4 billion years old, and Mars is just as old, why there is no life on Mars (at least nothing like Earth's life), but there is life on the Earth. Kind of an interesting question huh?

What was earth like 3.5 billion years ago[/QUOTE
Mars does not have a magnetic field as the earth does. Mars does not have the gravitational field as the earth does. With very little atmospheric shielding, the surface of mars is subject to intense radiation.

I recall we learned this in 8th grade. Your madrassah needs to update it's science standards.

Yep there are no planets set up for life like this one.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Pictures of planets forming

https://www.google.com/search?q=pic...KKrMyQHcwoGYCg&ved=0CC0QsAQ&biw=1600&bih=1071


Pictures of mars and the moon.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pic...Bs2ayQH2-oCgAw&ved=0CC0QsAQ&biw=1600&bih=1071

Hmm, mars and the moon are as old as the earth what happened ? why is there no life on them ?

Mars must have more disorder...........

I wonder why.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Pictures of planets forming

https://www.google.com/search?q=pic...KKrMyQHcwoGYCg&ved=0CC0QsAQ&biw=1600&bih=1071


Pictures of mars and the moon.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pic...Bs2ayQH2-oCgAw&ved=0CC0QsAQ&biw=1600&bih=1071

Hmm, mars and the moon are as old as the earth what happened ? why is there no life on them ?

Mars must have more disorder...........

I wonder why.

'Cause you're an idjit.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Mars must have more disorder...........

I wonder why.

'Cause you're an idjit.

And you're Naive !

 

[Hollie]

Funny on youtube no one knows what the earth was like when life began.

Answer:
Earth 3.5 billion years ago, was nothing like what it is today. No plants, animals, nothing. Volcanoes erupted poisonous gases, methane and ammonia was in the atmosphere, and it would have been impossible to breathe. The Earth was also only one continent (until it was later broken up into several, which is another topic). Acidicu rain, and deadly thunderstorms occurred for several millions of years. This is a shot in the dark, but it most likely (as we have no actual idea of what it *looked* like) resembled Mars. Lifeless, and unlivable. By the way, I find it odd that if the earth is 4 billion years old, and Mars is just as old, why there is no life on Mars (at least nothing like Earth's life), but there is life on the Earth. Kind of an interesting question huh?

What was earth like 3.5 billion years ago

Mars does not have a magnetic field as the earth does. Mars does not have the gravitational field as the earth does. With very little atmospheric shielding, the surface of mars is subject to intense radiation.

I recall we learned this in 8th grade. Your madrassah needs to update it's science standards.

Yep there are no planets set up for life like this one.

Throwing in a veiled reference to your designer gawds does nothing to support any claim that your gawds magically *poofed* the planet into existence. Secondly, there is nothing to suggest that there are no other planets capable of supporting life. The galaxy we are a part of is, kinda' big.

Your mind-numbing allegience to the maintenance of fear, ignorance and superstition is really creepy.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Mars does not have a magnetic field as the earth does. Mars does not have the gravitational field as the earth does. With very little atmospheric shielding, the surface of mars is subject to intense radiation.





Throwing in a veiled reference to your designer gawds does nothing to support any claim that your gawds magically *poofed* the planet into existence. Secondly, there is nothing to suggest that there are no other planets capable of supporting life. The galaxy we are a part of is, kinda' big.

Your mind-numbing allegience to the maintenance of fear, ignorance and superstition is really creepy.

Your God of naturalism poofed it in to existence right ? now that isn't creepy, that is weird. Ironic you believe in miraculous events and I believe in a creator that used his natural ability.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Our moon

Google Image Result for http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/imgcat/hires/a16_m_3021.gif

Pictures of the earth,yeah we are not unique at all.

https://www.google.com/search?q=pic...ntal%2Fearth%2Fgeophysics%2Fearth.htm;400;321