Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Youwerecreated]

This planet is unique in terms of the limited timeframe that we have been searching.

Why do you think unique=gawds?

Compared to the other planets, why do you think it doesn't infer a creator ?

If you believe our Earth infers a designer, I must say that your designer isn't a very good one.

So you rather be on mars ?

Like I said you are seeing the imperfections of his creation from the fall of man.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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

You seem to have a need to deny certain facts in order to cling to your interpretation of ancient texts.

Why would I cling to it ? I have no reason to doubt the scriptures and the creator of the Universe.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Other than the evil man does to his fellow man this planet brings a lot of joy even in this imperfect world.

 

[Hollie]

Other than the evil man does to his fellow man this planet brings a lot of joy even in this imperfect world.

How generous of you to speak on behalf of all those people killed and maimed via floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, earthquakes, etc.

It was your gawds who created the conditions underwhich these disasters occur.

 

[Hollie]

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

You seem to have a need to deny certain facts in order to cling to your interpretation of ancient texts.

Why would I cling to it ? I have no reason to doubt the scriptures and the creator of the Universe.

You don't doubt a flat earth?

 

[orogenicman]

Compared to the other planets, why do you think it doesn't infer a creator ?

If you believe our Earth infers a designer, I must say that your designer isn't a very good one.

So you rather be on mars ?

Like I said you are seeing the imperfections of his creation from the fall of man.

You're "religion is based on axiomatic reasoning, not subject to objective proof, personified as God, omnipotent throughout time and space. According to this paradigm, Man need not strive to obtain knowledge from any source other than religion for all is given by God; submission to this God will make all known which man needs in his life, and the rest on a "need to now basis" will be revealed to him in the after world. This is a lazy system for man need not strive to find truth, but it is handed down from above: All things are known to God and all man needs to do is apply and follow these laws which are made known by individual revelation from God to man. "

- Dr. James Conkin, Professor Emeritus, University of Louisville, 2002

And the problem with individual revelation, as Thomas Paine noted, is that:

"Revelation is necessarily limited to the first communication-- after that it is only an account of something which that person says was a revelation made to him; and though he may find himself obliged to believe it, it can not be incumbent on me to believe it in the same manner; for it was not a revelation made to ME, and I have only his word for it that it was made to him".

Now, farmer Bob may be the most honest, God-fearing man anyone has ever known, but we still need unambiguous evidence that the virgin Mary appeared to him in his corn field.

 

[The Irish Ram]

All you are saying here is that science is self-correcting. Welcome to the scientific method. Isn't it so much better than the non-self-correcting, non-falsifiable dogmatic statement that "God did it"?

By the way, nine times out of ten, the laws of physics, once determined, are not repealed. Einstein didn't replace Newton. He expanded on Newton's discoveries. There is an explanation for flight. It is called the theory of flight. That theory has enabled man to build airplanes, hang gliders, and rocket ships to the Moon and beyond. And just like the theory of flight explains the fact of flight, the theory of evolution explains the fact of evolution. And theory of evolution has advanced biology and medical science far beyond what would be possible without it. Modern medicine is a living testament to the fact of evolution.

Evolution happens to populations, not individuals. A Neanderthal woman did not magically give birth to a fully formed Homo sapiens sapiens. That just doesn't happen. Moreover, it is not clear at all that we are direct descendants of Neanderthals. It is highly probable that Neanderthals are a divergent species. Meaning that modern humans and Neanderthal likely descended from a common earlier species. DNA analysis indicates that some living human populations have Neanderthal genetic material while others do not. This would not be the case if all humans were descended from Neanderthal.

And your argument assumes that humans aren't evolving today. We certainly are. We are living longer, and growing larger than ever before.

And finally, I have a question for you. From what web site did you copy and paste your creationist response? Do you understand the rules here about plagiarism?

God is the same yesterday today and tomorrow. He doesn't have to rely on correction. The number of dimensions He created doesn't change. Our discovery of them does.

Man kept adapting his equations on flight till he found one that worked. They used physics. They didn't invent physics in order to fly. They discovered what was already in existence and worked with it.

Theories might explain facts. If they did explain the facts of flight or evolution they would be the Law of flight, the Law of evolution.
A theory is a belief that hasn't been proven or established as law. Law however has been established by science as immutable. Until now, we never questioned the 1st and 2nd LAW of thermodynamics. Turns out now they've decided something can possibly, come from nothing, maybe.

Newton knew who's law's he was discovering. Einstein bumbled along with help from the past and his present. And our present thinkers say maybe Einstein was wrong, not only about dimensions, but also the belief that nothing can be faster than the speed of light. < On that he was immutable. And we bought it because we had nothing better to oppose the idea. We've thought our way clear to seeing things differently in our age.

Adaption happens to populations to survive their habitat. They don't switch species. You proved my point by claiming it is not clear, at all, that we are direct descendants of Neanderthal. Because what I was taught in science class was that they were sure of it. Sure enough to replace Creationism with their monkeys.
That their monkey chart no longer applies shows how fragile our science is. In fact, if what they taught me was true, we should all have traces of Neanderthal DNA. The fact that they have found it in some individuals, but not all makes science think that a few modern women had sex with some Neanderthals in a camp nearby. In other words, she was slumming, not evolving.

Not only does my argument assume that we are no longer evolving, but some notables in the science field believe we are now, devolving. Where in the evolutionary ladder do we recognize a turning point in evolution? Darwin never mentioned one. The concept is contrary to the theory of evolution itself, and yet, here we are.

We live longer due to technological advancements. We haven't evolved into healthier human beings. We fix hearts now, control the pressure of our blood, take vitamins. And yes, we certainly have grown larger. Our utensils have evolved into shovels.

The Europeans thought for sure that the children of the people that migrated to America were being poisoned by the food and sea life they were consuming here and that they would evolve into savages like the ones that were here when the immigrants arrived. The immigrants offspring were much bigger and stronger than the Europeans. Turns out it was rich soil.

And finally, I study to show myself approved. If you think there is a web sight out there that I stole my response from, charge me before the powers that be and bring your proof. I'll give them a list of books that developed my beliefs and my response.

_______________________________________________

In the game of energy, and thermodynamics, you can't even break even.~ plagiarized from Isaac Asimov.

"God is the same yesterday today and tomorrow"

Nonsense. If that were true Moses would have come down from the Mountain with something more credible than stone tablets that any stone cutter of the time could have fashioned. A God that existed now as then would have provided something proving he is a god of now as then. Maybe a titanium tablet with today's graphics and font in the language of that period..maybe ALL of the languages of that period. But no.. it was a hokey work of chiseled rock. You god is a loser....a no talent loser. Or maybe the real answer is that Moses was a fraud. Maybe the people of the period were just the stupid precursors to what is now the moder day Christian and Jew. AKA gulible morons.

Apparently you think pond scum is a more credible scenerio.

God provided the blue print for the Universe, and the dimensions He used to create it. That you can't find it in Genesis while others can, is not God's problem. You just haven't evolved enough to understand it. Perhaps your mama went slumming.

Does your monkey brain know why Moses got tablets and Adam didn't?

My God told me what will happen tomorrow. Did your god Darwin share the future with you, primordial soupy?

 

[orogenicman]

Other than the evil man does to his fellow man this planet brings a lot of joy even in this imperfect world.

That is a rather naïve claim. I'm not so sure Mother Earth was bringing joy to these people:



Or these people:



But it sure looked like the people cared for one another, and not being evil in any way.

 

[orogenicman]

God is the same yesterday today and tomorrow. He doesn't have to rely on correction. The number of dimensions He created doesn't change. Our discovery of them does.

Man kept adapting his equations on flight till he found one that worked. They used physics. They didn't invent physics in order to fly. They discovered what was already in existence and worked with it.

Theories might explain facts. If they did explain the facts of flight or evolution they would be the Law of flight, the Law of evolution.
A theory is a belief that hasn't been proven or established as law. Law however has been established by science as immutable. Until now, we never questioned the 1st and 2nd LAW of thermodynamics. Turns out now they've decided something can possibly, come from nothing, maybe.

Newton knew who's law's he was discovering. Einstein bumbled along with help from the past and his present. And our present thinkers say maybe Einstein was wrong, not only about dimensions, but also the belief that nothing can be faster than the speed of light. < On that he was immutable. And we bought it because we had nothing better to oppose the idea. We've thought our way clear to seeing things differently in our age.

Adaption happens to populations to survive their habitat. They don't switch species. You proved my point by claiming it is not clear, at all, that we are direct descendants of Neanderthal. Because what I was taught in science class was that they were sure of it. Sure enough to replace Creationism with their monkeys.
That their monkey chart no longer applies shows how fragile our science is. In fact, if what they taught me was true, we should all have traces of Neanderthal DNA. The fact that they have found it in some individuals, but not all makes science think that a few modern women had sex with some Neanderthals in a camp nearby. In other words, she was slumming, not evolving.

Not only does my argument assume that we are no longer evolving, but some notables in the science field believe we are now, devolving. Where in the evolutionary ladder do we recognize a turning point in evolution? Darwin never mentioned one. The concept is contrary to the theory of evolution itself, and yet, here we are.

We live longer due to technological advancements. We haven't evolved into healthier human beings. We fix hearts now, control the pressure of our blood, take vitamins. And yes, we certainly have grown larger. Our utensils have evolved into shovels.

The Europeans thought for sure that the children of the people that migrated to America were being poisoned by the food and sea life they were consuming here and that they would evolve into savages like the ones that were here when the immigrants arrived. The immigrants offspring were much bigger and stronger than the Europeans. Turns out it was rich soil.

And finally, I study to show myself approved. If you think there is a web sight out there that I stole my response from, charge me before the powers that be and bring your proof. I'll give them a list of books that developed my beliefs and my response.

_______________________________________________

In the game of energy, and thermodynamics, you can't even break even.~ plagiarized from Isaac Asimov.

"God is the same yesterday today and tomorrow"

Nonsense. If that were true Moses would have come down from the Mountain with something more credible than stone tablets that any stone cutter of the time could have fashioned. A God that existed now as then would have provided something proving he is a god of now as then. Maybe a titanium tablet with today's graphics and font in the language of that period..maybe ALL of the languages of that period. But no.. it was a hokey work of chiseled rock. You god is a loser....a no talent loser. Or maybe the real answer is that Moses was a fraud. Maybe the people of the period were just the stupid precursors to what is now the moder day Christian and Jew. AKA gulible morons.

Apparently you think pond scum is a more credible scenerio.

God provided the blue print for the Universe, and the dimensions He used to create it. That you can't find it in Genesis while others can, is not God's problem. You just haven't evolved enough to understand it. Perhaps your mama went slumming.

Does your monkey brain know why Moses got tablets and Adam didn't?

My God told me what will happen tomorrow. Did your god Darwin share the future with you, primordial soupy?

Indeed, you can find almost anything in the Book of Genesis? Why? Because God is so clever to have written such a book? No. You can find almost anything in that book because people see what they want to see.

 

[Hollie]

"God is the same yesterday today and tomorrow"

Nonsense. If that were true Moses would have come down from the Mountain with something more credible than stone tablets that any stone cutter of the time could have fashioned. A God that existed now as then would have provided something proving he is a god of now as then. Maybe a titanium tablet with today's graphics and font in the language of that period..maybe ALL of the languages of that period. But no.. it was a hokey work of chiseled rock. You god is a loser....a no talent loser. Or maybe the real answer is that Moses was a fraud. Maybe the people of the period were just the stupid precursors to what is now the moder day Christian and Jew. AKA gulible morons.

Apparently you think pond scum is a more credible scenerio.

God provided the blue print for the Universe, and the dimensions He used to create it. That you can't find it in Genesis while others can, is not God's problem. You just haven't evolved enough to understand it. Perhaps your mama went slumming.

Does your monkey brain know why Moses got tablets and Adam didn't?

My God told me what will happen tomorrow. Did your god Darwin share the future with you, primordial soupy?

Indeed, you can find almost anything in the Book of Genesis? Why? Because God is so clever to have written such a book? No. You can find almost anything in that book because people see what they want to see.

.

 

[daws101]

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

NOTE: nowhere does this paper infer, mention, hint that god was responsible...

 

[daws101]

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.

bullshit!
major false assumption .. there is no way you or anybody could know that.

the analogy that best suits your douchebaggery :is you've peeked out your window at your neighbors house and nobody's home,and closed the curtain and from that you decide that the house is empty and always has been...

 

[daws101]

Here is what characterizes your rants as pseudoscience as a front to nothing more than religious belief :

You display an indifference to facts;

Your "research" is invariably sloppy;

You are indifferent to criteria of valid evidence;

You rely heavily on subjective validation;

Your arguments always achieve a reduction to absurdity if pursued far enough;

Your creation science has produced no practical real world applications;

You attempt to persuade with rhetoric, propaganda, and misrepresentation rather than valid evidence;

You argue from ignorance, an elementary fallacy;

You make extraordinary claims and advance fantastic theories that contradict what is known about nature;

You often appeal to the ancient human habit of magical thinking;

Now that you know what your problems are, what are you going to do about them? My suggestion is for you to put your bible down and takes some real college courses.

bump!

 

[Uncensored2008]

If you believe our Earth infers a designer, I must say that your designer isn't a very good one.

That's a pretty odd statement...

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why would I cling to it ? I have no reason to doubt the scriptures and the creator of the Universe.

You have all reason to doubt that your scripture is literal - virtually all evidence refutes the Genesis account of creation.

Allegory is the only way one can rectify the Bible with observed reality.

 

[daws101]

If you believe our Earth infers a designer, I must say that your designer isn't a very good one.

That's a pretty odd statement...

really? how?
consider all the flaws and weaknesses in humans...then read the statement again.
even you should get it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Apparently you think pond scum is a more credible scenerio.

God provided the blue print for the Universe, and the dimensions He used to create it. That you can't find it in Genesis while others can, is not God's problem. You just haven't evolved enough to understand it. Perhaps your mama went slumming.

Does your monkey brain know why Moses got tablets and Adam didn't?

My God told me what will happen tomorrow. Did your god Darwin share the future with you, primordial soupy?

Since God told you what will happen tomorrow, can you let me in on a couple of hot stock tips? Or maybe the winning lotto numbers?

You know, if it's not too much trouble?

 

[daws101]

One more time and let it sink in.

How Great Thou Art by Alan Jackson - YouTube

try this instead.[ame=http://youtu.be/IHmTqoLjlXo]XTC - Dear God - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Uncensored2008]

really? how?
consider all the flaws and weaknesses in humans...then read the statement again.
even you should get it.

This is why I call you an idiot, Daws - you are just the other side of the same coin that is YWC. You discard all fact that interferes with the rigid dogma that you base your views on.

Life on this planet is a marvel - a wonder that shines as beacon in the void of space for as far as we can probe. The closest known planet that has the mass and distance from a star as Earth - so as to be possible to house what we classify as life, is 22 light years away - and then the planet would need a spinning core to create the magnetic field that life depends on.

You have a political hatchet to grind against Republicans - but humans as a species are far from flawed or weak, we represent the most successful adaptation of life to the environment in the history of this planet. No other creature has ever thrives and molded it's environment to ensure the propagation of the species the way humans have.

The fact that there is no cosmic goat herder who sends his son to be nailed to a cross, hardly precludes the possibility of an intelligence behind life and our perception of it.

"What is, is so much more than we can imagine." - Dr. Lisa Randall - Chair of Physics, Harvard University.

 

[daws101]

really? how?
consider all the flaws and weaknesses in humans...then read the statement again.
even you should get it.

This is why I call you an idiot, Daws - you are just the other side of the same coin that is YWC. You discard all fact that interferes with the rigid dogma that you base your views on.

Life on this planet is a marvel - a wonder that shines as beacon in the void of space for as far as we can probe. The closest known planet that has the mass and distance from a star as Earth - so as to be possible to house what we classify as life, is 22 light years away - and then the planet would need a spinning core to create the magnetic field that life depends on.

You have a political hatchet to grind against Republicans - but humans as a species are far from flawed or weak, we represent the most successful adaptation of life to the environment in the history of this planet. No other creature has ever thrives and molded it's environment to ensure the propagation of the species the way humans have.

The fact that there is no cosmic goat herder who sends his son to be nailed to a cross, hardly precludes the possibility of an intelligence behind life and our perception of it.

"What is, is so much more than we can imagine." - Dr. Lisa Randall - Chair of Physics, Harvard University.

funny but it's you who come off "sounding" like YWC.
wow! the the continuously false assumption that i'm an idiot...

btw I never disregard facts...this: "but humans as a species are far from flawed or weak, we represent the most successful adaptation of life to the environment in the history of this planet. No other creature has ever thrives and molded it's environment to ensure the propagation of the species the way humans have.
almost other creatures on this planet are perfectly adapted to their environments."-UC08 however is not a fact it's a half truth.
we are very destructive generalists. our "molding" of the environment has done more to threaten all life on this planet than any other cause.
the paradox is we could could choose to do it differently .
The rest of your post is a wishful thinking kind of bigotry.