Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Toddsterpatriot]

I was mocking the stupidity of man and you proved my point

You are the best example of that stupidity on this thread.

You are falling in the category with daws.

Don't you just hate it when I bring you back to reality by comparing other planets and exposing the many flaws in your Ideological science.

Reality? Your claim that the 2nd Law makes evolution impossible?
The claim that the older the Earth is, the more difficult evolution is, because an older Earth is more disordered?

I prefer the real reality, not your scientifically confused "reality".

 

[orogenicman]

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...

I was mocking the stupidity of man and you proved my point

You should not be so hard on yourself.

 

[orogenicman]

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...

Why? Of all the planets in the solar system, ours may or may not be the only place where life exists, but it is also one of the most dangerous places for life to exist. Why would a loving, benevolent deity create such a hostile world and place his "loving children" on it?

 

[daws101]

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQfdl7y-blE

Or these people:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht_ZpSuJ6A4

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

I guess you,daws and hollie suffer from comprehension problems. I said other than the evil man does to fellow man and this imperfect world. The imperfect world would cover natural disasters no ? and pestilence,and all the other things not so pleasant because after all it's an IMPERFECT WORLD!

If this world (created by your god) is imperfect, it implies one of two things or both:

1) Your god is not perfect, not omnipotent; and/or
2) Your god has malevolent intent, and is not a benevolent, loving god.

In which case, why would you worship such a malevolent deity?

maybe he's just impotent ..( rimshot)

 

[orogenicman]

Maybe it simply doesn't exist.

 

[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...

Why? Of all the planets in the solar system, ours may or may not be the only place where life exists, but it is also one of the most dangerous places for life to exist. Why would a loving, benevolent deity create such a hostile world and place his "loving children" on it?

"That's a pretty odd statement." Uncensored2008

below is my answer to that same statement
quote: Originally Posted by daws101 View Post
really? how?
consider all the flaws and weaknesses in humans...then read the statement again.
even you should get it.

Uncensored2008's response
"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." Uncensored2008


what do you think? rational or irrational?

 

[daws101]

Maybe it simply doesn't exist.

I guess you I and hollie are all going to hell for heresy !

 

[orogenicman]

Getting back to the OP, the biological theory of evolution is one of the most successful if not the most successful scientific theories ever. But it isn't simply evolution that creationists attack. They attack astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, physics, chemistry, geoscience, and even medical science. In other words, they accept the products of science while unabashedly reject the science behind those products. So it isn't simply7 evolution they have an issue with. They have an issue with all of science. And is would be rather simple thing to simply ignore the noise except that many of these people are very rich (because they've stolen from their flock) and are very influential, and frankly, understand how to influence the preliterate masses, who are their primary audience. And so it falls on the scientists to do more to get the word out and set the record straight. Fortunately, the media has decided to ignore the issue altogether, and so a lot of their arguments aren't getting the press they used to get.

The fact is that there is no "controversy" to teach. Evolution is the bedrock of modern biology, anthropology, geology, paleontology, and other disciplines. And unless or until something else comes along that better explains the very large mountain of data that exists, it will continue to exist in this capacity.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Not only that there is not one planet like earth In our solar system. Awfully convenient that only this planet would have formed to where it could support life. Then you need more miracles like nonliving matter converting in to life. That is a stretch of the imagination.

This planet possesses physical characteristics that set it apart from others in this solar system. That has nothing to do with convenience and nothing to do with any gawds. It has to do with physical sciences we understand.

So...yes. It was convenient that the planet is in the particular location it is, relative to the sun and other planets. It's also not so convenient that the planet rotates about it's axis and has the convenience of an atmosphere that generates convection currents. Those conditions combine to create swirling winds we call twisters. How inconvenient that the planet has land masses (plates), that move. That tectonic plate shifting causes earthquakes.

How inconvenient that the planet was in just the wrong place 65 million years ago when it was impacted by a large object striking in the Yucatan.

To ascribe your gawds as the magic hand-wavers who *poofed* those characteristics into existence is just silly. Or possibly, it's all true and your designer gawds are just hopelessly inept designers.

you did notice that ywc amended his bullshit from: "no other planet" to "no other planet in this solar system.."
in a failed attempt to appear correct.

I didn't want to give you any wiggle room. Why was just this one planet in our solar system formed differently from the rest ? Why is this planet bursting with life and no other in the solar system ?We can see a long ways and still no planet anything like this one.

All I can do is pray for some of you, that your eyes may some day will open.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

The bible is historical,literal,and mataphoric. You have to cross reference scriptures to get sometimes the true meaning. The bible is cleverly put together to show it's critics the fools that they are. Example,hollie, earlier referring to a flat earth.

Give me evidence that refutes genesis please.

Australopithecus afarensis, 3.6-2.9 million years ago.

You can keep telling yourself this nonsense but man truly is limited ,you will find that out someday.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

The bible is historical,literal,and mataphoric. You have to cross reference scriptures to get sometimes the true meaning. The bible is cleverly put together to show it's critics the fools that they are. Example,hollie, earlier referring to a flat earth.

Give me evidence that refutes genesis please.

cross reference two different bibles only serves to highlight the flaws , contradictions in both compendiums..
btw what is MATAPHORIC?
A mata that has a tendency?

PHORIC

: having (such) a bearing or tendency <thanatophoric>

Typo.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQfdl7y-blE

Or these people:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ht_ZpSuJ6A4

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

I guess you,daws and hollie suffer from comprehension problems. I said other than the evil man does to fellow man and this imperfect world. The imperfect world would cover natural disasters no ? and pestilence,and all the other things not so pleasant because after all it's an IMPERFECT WORLD!

If this world (created by your god) is imperfect, it implies one of two things or both:

1) Your god is not perfect, not omnipotent; and/or
2) Your god has malevolent intent, and is not a benevolent, loving god.

In which case, why would you worship such a malevolent deity?

Nope, all it shows is he fulfilled his promise to Adam and Eve.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You are the best example of that stupidity on this thread.

You are falling in the category with daws.

Don't you just hate it when I bring you back to reality by comparing other planets and exposing the many flaws in your Ideological science.

Reality? Your claim that the 2nd Law makes evolution impossible?
The claim that the older the Earth is, the more difficult evolution is, because an older Earth is more disordered?

I prefer the real reality, not your scientifically confused "reality".

Your side has it backwards. Your side believes we started with chaos went to order. Really how it was ,we started with perfection and went slowly to disorder and we continue on that road til judgment day.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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

I was mocking the stupidity of man and you proved my point

You should not be so hard on yourself.

I am because I allow myself to sometimes get out of line while discussing these issues.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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...

Why? Of all the planets in the solar system, ours may or may not be the only place where life exists, but it is also one of the most dangerous places for life to exist. Why would a loving, benevolent deity create such a hostile world and place his "loving children" on it?

Oh brother

 

[Youwerecreated]

I guess you,daws and hollie suffer from comprehension problems. I said other than the evil man does to fellow man and this imperfect world. The imperfect world would cover natural disasters no ? and pestilence,and all the other things not so pleasant because after all it's an IMPERFECT WORLD!

If this world (created by your god) is imperfect, it implies one of two things or both:

1) Your god is not perfect, not omnipotent; and/or
2) Your god has malevolent intent, and is not a benevolent, loving god.

In which case, why would you worship such a malevolent deity?

maybe he's just impotent ..( rimshot)

Really ? I have 8 children.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Getting back to the OP, the biological theory of evolution is one of the most successful if not the most successful scientific theories ever. But it isn't simply evolution that creationists attack. They attack astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, physics, chemistry, geoscience, and even medical science. In other words, they accept the products of science while unabashedly reject the science behind those products. So it isn't simply7 evolution they have an issue with. They have an issue with all of science. And is would be rather simple thing to simply ignore the noise except that many of these people are very rich (because they've stolen from their flock) and are very influential, and frankly, understand how to influence the preliterate masses, who are their primary audience. And so it falls on the scientists to do more to get the word out and set the record straight. Fortunately, the media has decided to ignore the issue altogether, and so a lot of their arguments aren't getting the press they used to get.

The fact is that there is no "controversy" to teach. Evolution is the bedrock of modern biology, anthropology, geology, paleontology, and other disciplines. And unless or until something else comes along that better explains the very large mountain of data that exists, it will continue to exist in this capacity.

There are some in the scientific community already calling for a new theory. what say you ?

 

[orogenicman]

Getting back to the OP, the biological theory of evolution is one of the most successful if not the most successful scientific theories ever. But it isn't simply evolution that creationists attack. They attack astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology, physics, chemistry, geoscience, and even medical science. In other words, they accept the products of science while unabashedly reject the science behind those products. So it isn't simply7 evolution they have an issue with. They have an issue with all of science. And is would be rather simple thing to simply ignore the noise except that many of these people are very rich (because they've stolen from their flock) and are very influential, and frankly, understand how to influence the preliterate masses, who are their primary audience. And so it falls on the scientists to do more to get the word out and set the record straight. Fortunately, the media has decided to ignore the issue altogether, and so a lot of their arguments aren't getting the press they used to get.

The fact is that there is no "controversy" to teach. Evolution is the bedrock of modern biology, anthropology, geology, paleontology, and other disciplines. And unless or until something else comes along that better explains the very large mountain of data that exists, it will continue to exist in this capacity.

There are some in the scientific community already calling for a new theory. what say you ?

I say that they are one out of millions. I'd say they are irrelevant. Look. Here's how it works. Who has to prove what to whom? The person making the extraordinary claim has the burden of proving to the experts and to the community at large that his or her belief has more validity than the one almost everyone else accepts. You have to lobby for your opinion to be heard. Then you have to marshal experts on your side so you can convince the majority to support your claim over the one they have always supported. Finally, when you are in the majority, the burden of proof switches to the outsider who wants to challenge you with his or her unusual claim. Evolutionists had the burden of proof for half a century after Darwin, but now the burden of proof is on creationists. It is up to creationists to show why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is right, and it is not up to the evolutionists to defend evolution. The burden of proof is on the Holocaust deniers to prove the Holocaust did not happen, not on Holocaust historians to prove that it did. The rationale for this is that mountains of evidence prove that both evolution and the Holocaust are facts. In other words, it is not enough to have the evidence. You must convince others of the validity of your evidence. And when you are an outsider this is the price you pay, regardless of whether you are right or wrong.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

This planet possesses physical characteristics that set it apart from others in this solar system. That has nothing to do with convenience and nothing to do with any gawds. It has to do with physical sciences we understand.

So...yes. It was convenient that the planet is in the particular location it is, relative to the sun and other planets. It's also not so convenient that the planet rotates about it's axis and has the convenience of an atmosphere that generates convection currents. Those conditions combine to create swirling winds we call twisters. How inconvenient that the planet has land masses (plates), that move. That tectonic plate shifting causes earthquakes.

How inconvenient that the planet was in just the wrong place 65 million years ago when it was impacted by a large object striking in the Yucatan.

To ascribe your gawds as the magic hand-wavers who *poofed* those characteristics into existence is just silly. Or possibly, it's all true and your designer gawds are just hopelessly inept designers.

you did notice that ywc amended his bullshit from: "no other planet" to "no other planet in this solar system.."
in a failed attempt to appear correct.

I didn't want to give you any wiggle room. Why was just this one planet in our solar system formed differently from the rest ? Why is this planet bursting with life and no other in the solar system ?We can see a long ways and still no planet anything like this one.

All I can do is pray for some of you, that your eyes may some day will open.

Why was just this one planet in our solar system formed differently from the rest ?

Formed differently? The mechanism of formation was different how, exactly?

Why is this planet bursting with life and no other in the solar system ?

Liquid water, ozone layer, magnetic field.
And we have the 2nd Law on our side.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are falling in the category with daws.

Don't you just hate it when I bring you back to reality by comparing other planets and exposing the many flaws in your Ideological science.

Reality? Your claim that the 2nd Law makes evolution impossible?
The claim that the older the Earth is, the more difficult evolution is, because an older Earth is more disordered?

I prefer the real reality, not your scientifically confused "reality".

Your side has it backwards. Your side believes we started with chaos went to order. Really how it was ,we started with perfection and went slowly to disorder and we continue on that road til judgment day.

Your side believes we started with chaos went to order.

It's amazing how orderly things can get when you apply a bit of energy.
Look at how disordered liquid water and carbon dioxide gas are compared to a nice orderly cellulose structure. Amazing. Just takes a bit of sunlight.