Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Hollie]

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.

You don't have the slightest clue as to what the A&E fable actually portrays.

Your gawds lied to A&E. The talking serpent told the truth. How comical that with all your bible thumping blustering, you've never actually read the tale.

 

[Hollie]

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 ?

How unremarkable that "some" calling for a new theory are fundie christians.

Their theory is predictable: "the gawds did it"

 

[Hollie]

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.

A death cult mentality. The prescription for a maladjusted personality.

 

[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 ?

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.

The creationists have done a good job pointing out all the conjecture and problems with the theory,that is why there are over 700 scientists that have openly rejected macro evolution and the modern day theory of Neo Darwinism. That is roughly 5% of scientists. Then 44% are theists and have not come out of the closet. The numbers are continuing to rise.

At least you have admitted creationist have become the outsiders. It's not the evidence that convinced people to believe darwins theory, so what was it that was convincing?

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

You are gonna deny the obvious differences now of other planets from this one ?

There is so much more than that. If you admit some of the differences why the question above. No the 2nd law would work against some of the current theories.

 

[Bumberclyde]

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.

The creationists have done a good job pointing out all the conjecture and problems with the theory,that is why there are over 700 scientists that have openly rejected macro evolution and the modern day theory of Neo Darwinism. That is roughly 5% of scientists. Then 44% are theists and have not come out of the closet. The numbers are continuing to rise.

At least you have admitted creationist have become the outsiders. It's not the evidence that convinced people to believe darwins theory, so what was it that was convincing?

Showing that Darwin was wrong still doesn't help prove creationism. Creationism has to be proven on its own. So far, no proof whatsoever, and you'd think after all this time of arguing, that creationist could come up with something better than because it's written in a book. Which is ludicrous.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Yes energy is very important to this planet. Mercury and Venus get plenty of energy from the sun and look at them. Then you have other planets getting energy not as much as Mercury and Venus. So just pumping in energy does not make the differences. It don't look so ordered on the other planets in our solar system.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

The creationists have done a good job pointing out all the conjecture and problems with the theory,that is why there are over 700 scientists that have openly rejected macro evolution and the modern day theory of Neo Darwinism. That is roughly 5% of scientists. Then 44% are theists and have not come out of the closet. The numbers are continuing to rise.

At least you have admitted creationist have become the outsiders. It's not the evidence that convinced people to believe darwins theory, so what was it that was convincing?

Showing that Darwin was wrong still doesn't help prove creationism. Creationism has to be proven on its own. So far, no proof whatsoever, and you'd think after all this time of arguing, that creationist could come up with something better than because it's written in a book. Which is ludicrous.

Proof is not completely needed as the creator says my ways are not your ways and you can go mad trying to figure out the intelligence of God. God mentions faith there is plenty of evidence to confirm he is out there just many reject the thought for their own personal reasons. Many of us our faith does not get shaken because we were warned of these days.

 

[Hollie]

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.

The creationists have done a good job pointing out all the conjecture and problems with the theory,that is why there are over 700 scientists that have openly rejected macro evolution and the modern day theory of Neo Darwinism. That is roughly 5% of scientists. Then 44% are theists and have not come out of the closet. The numbers are continuing to rise.

At least you have admitted creationist have become the outsiders. It's not the evidence that convinced people to believe darwins theory, so what was it that was convincing?

You may want to actually address reality and review the Dover trial. Creationism was once again exposed as a fraud. The drubbing taken by the christian fundies was humiliating.

 

[Hollie]

The creationists have done a good job pointing out all the conjecture and problems with the theory,that is why there are over 700 scientists that have openly rejected macro evolution and the modern day theory of Neo Darwinism. That is roughly 5% of scientists. Then 44% are theists and have not come out of the closet. The numbers are continuing to rise.

At least you have admitted creationist have become the outsiders. It's not the evidence that convinced people to believe darwins theory, so what was it that was convincing?

Showing that Darwin was wrong still doesn't help prove creationism. Creationism has to be proven on its own. So far, no proof whatsoever, and you'd think after all this time of arguing, that creationist could come up with something better than because it's written in a book. Which is ludicrous.

Proof is not completely needed as the creator says my ways are not your ways and you can go mad trying to figure out the intelligence of God. God mentions faith there is plenty of evidence to confirm he is out there just many reject the thought for their own personal reasons. Many of us our faith does not get shaken because we were warned of these days.

What a convenient excuse to defend an indefensible argument: "proof is not completely needed".

How about a little three part harmony for the religious extremist. Here we go:

Row row row your boat, gently down the stream...

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

The creationists have done a good job pointing out all the conjecture and problems with the theory,that is why there are over 700 scientists that have openly rejected macro evolution and the modern day theory of Neo Darwinism. That is roughly 5% of scientists. Then 44% are theists and have not come out of the closet. The numbers are continuing to rise.

At least you have admitted creationist have become the outsiders. It's not the evidence that convinced people to believe darwins theory, so what was it that was convincing?

You may want to actually address reality and review the Dover trial. Creationism was once again exposed as a fraud. The drubbing taken by the christian fundies was humiliating.

You don't really have any response to common sense questions so you resort to changing the subject and divide and conquer. We both know that no court is gonna stand up for God because the perverting of the constitution. One simple letter written by Jefferson gave the secularists the ammunition they needed to pervert the constitution and what our forefathers really wanted.

The forefathers did not want God removed from the public and schools. They just did not want Christianity as a state sponsored religion like it once was in England, and to allow others to openly practice their religions. something you would not get in a theocracy such as middle eastern countries.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

The creationists have done a good job pointing out all the conjecture and problems with the theory,that is why there are over 700 scientists that have openly rejected macro evolution and the modern day theory of Neo Darwinism. That is roughly 5% of scientists. Then 44% are theists and have not come out of the closet. The numbers are continuing to rise.

At least you have admitted creationist have become the outsiders. It's not the evidence that convinced people to believe darwins theory, so what was it that was convincing?

You may want to actually address reality and review the Dover trial. Creationism was once again exposed as a fraud. The drubbing taken by the christian fundies was humiliating.

Oh and Dover was about intelligent design not creationism. It has been pointed out to you how the Judge was unethical in his judgment and how he ignored evidence for intelligent design like peer reviews, evidence he allowed in.

 

[eots]

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.

The creationists have done a good job pointing out all the conjecture and problems with the theory,that is why there are over 700 scientists that have openly rejected macro evolution and the modern day theory of Neo Darwinism. That is roughly 5% of scientists. Then 44% are theists and have not come out of the closet. The numbers are continuing to rise.

At least you have admitted creationist have become the outsiders. It's not the evidence that convinced people to believe darwins theory, so what was it that was convincing?

Showing that Darwin was wrong still doesn't help prove creationism. Creationism has to be proven on its own. So far, no proof whatsoever, and you'd think after all this time of arguing, that creationist could come up with something better than because it's written in a book. Which is ludicrous.

I knew Darwin wrote a book but I never heard of the book of creationist ?

 

[eots]

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.

the creationists have done a good job pointing out all the conjecture and problems with the theory,that is why there are over 700 scientists that have openly rejected macro evolution and the modern day theory of neo darwinism. That is roughly 5% of scientists. Then 44% are theists and have not come out of the closet. The numbers are continuing to rise.

At least you have admitted creationist have become the outsiders. It's not the evidence that convinced people to believe darwins theory, so what was it that was convincing?

you may want to actually address reality and review the dover trial. Creationism was once again exposed as a fraud. The drubbing taken by the christian fundies was humiliating.

right.. Like they exposed the fraud of oj and casey anhtony

 

[Bumberclyde]

The creationists have done a good job pointing out all the conjecture and problems with the theory,that is why there are over 700 scientists that have openly rejected macro evolution and the modern day theory of Neo Darwinism. That is roughly 5% of scientists. Then 44% are theists and have not come out of the closet. The numbers are continuing to rise.

At least you have admitted creationist have become the outsiders. It's not the evidence that convinced people to believe darwins theory, so what was it that was convincing?

Showing that Darwin was wrong still doesn't help prove creationism. Creationism has to be proven on its own. So far, no proof whatsoever, and you'd think after all this time of arguing, that creationist could come up with something better than because it's written in a book. Which is ludicrous.

I knew Darwin wrote a book but I never heard of the book of creationist ?

Ever heard of the fucking bible?

 

[eots]

showing that darwin was wrong still doesn't help prove creationism. Creationism has to be proven on its own. So far, no proof whatsoever, and you'd think after all this time of arguing, that creationist could come up with something better than because it's written in a book. Which is ludicrous.

i knew darwin wrote a book but i never heard of the book of creationist ?

ever heard of the fucking bible?

yes ,but i never realized it was the sole reference and basis of intelligent design

 

[Youwerecreated]

Former evolutionist scientist rejects evolution.

Evolution is not accepted on the basis of scientific merit but as a religious preference by it's proponents.

Science has no more proven the doctrines of evolution than it has proven the existence of Peter Pan. Evolution is entirely a faith based religion; the evidences that have been fabricated to support it under the banner of science are entirely without mreit and falter under the most benign scrutiny.

It is a weak satanic deception standing in mortal opposition to the scriptures to undermine your chances for eternal salvation.

Ro 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Here's a small sampling of other evolutionists who have been delivered from the bondage of their false religious dogma.

Emeritus Professor Tyndale John Rendle-Short - From (theistic) evolution to creation
For Prof himself, educated at Cambridge and brought up with his father's writings, theistic evolution (or its variant, progressive creationism) was the natural direction for him to take. His odyssey to being chairman of one of the most effective creation science outreach ministries in the world was overseen by the Lord's hand in countless ways, both large and small.

Charlie Lieberts - (Chemist)
Charlie Liebert’s idea of a good time back in New Jersey was to drink beer with a bunch of buddies and mock Billy Graham on television. A self-described “atheistic evolutionist,” Liebert would ridicule the fact that he and his friends were “sinners.”

Dr. Gary Parker (Biologist)
"I was very consciously trying to get students to bend their religious beliefs to evolution."

LiveLeak.com - Former evolutionist scientist rejects evolution.

Video on there as well as interviews of these scientists.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Showing that Darwin was wrong still doesn't help prove creationism. Creationism has to be proven on its own. So far, no proof whatsoever, and you'd think after all this time of arguing, that creationist could come up with something better than because it's written in a book. Which is ludicrous.

I knew Darwin wrote a book but I never heard of the book of creationist ?

Ever heard of the fucking bible?

Easy now!

 

[Youwerecreated]

i knew darwin wrote a book but i never heard of the book of creationist ?

ever heard of the fucking bible?

yes ,but i never realized it was the sole reference and basis of intelligent design

It's not.

 

[Hollie]

The creationists have done a good job pointing out all the conjecture and problems with the theory,that is why there are over 700 scientists that have openly rejected macro evolution and the modern day theory of Neo Darwinism. That is roughly 5% of scientists. Then 44% are theists and have not come out of the closet. The numbers are continuing to rise.

At least you have admitted creationist have become the outsiders. It's not the evidence that convinced people to believe darwins theory, so what was it that was convincing?

You may want to actually address reality and review the Dover trial. Creationism was once again exposed as a fraud. The drubbing taken by the christian fundies was humiliating.

You don't really have any response to common sense questions so you resort to changing the subject and divide and conquer. We both know that no court is gonna stand up for God because the perverting of the constitution. One simple letter written by Jefferson gave the secularists the ammunition they needed to pervert the constitution and what our forefathers really wanted.

The forefathers did not want God removed from the public and schools. They just did not want Christianity as a state sponsored religion like it once was in England, and to allow others to openly practice their religions. something you would not get in a theocracy such as middle eastern countries.

You're hoping weak excuses will supplant yet another failure on the part of religious extremists to impose their fundamentalist beliefs upon the public school system.

The arguments made at the Dover trial by the religious lobby were appeals to partisan gawds and supernaturalism. As usual, you confuse proselytizing and your need to impose your religious beliefs on others with a coherent argument supported with facts.