Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[daws101]

By looking at the evidence in our solar system,there is plenty of evidence suggesting I am right.

There's evidence that life can't evolve on Earth, because of the 2nd Law?

Your argument is devolving in this thread.

I am showing it never happened keep up.

no you just wish it didn't!
the dogma infused pseudoscience you constantly spew is not evidence.
looking around our solar system proves you're talking out your ass.
your specious argument fully formed plants vs unfinished planets.is based on an assumtion that on this planet and this planet alone something other then natural processes are or were at work..
that's nonsense

 

[daws101]

I am showing it never happened keep up.

You've shown nothing, except your lack of education.

Another one reduced to rhetoric

your answer proves you have no clue what rhetoric is.

 

[daws101]

By looking at the evidence in our solar system,there is plenty of evidence suggesting I am right.

Erm, compared to when it first formed (when the solar system was a literal wrecking ball of debris slamming into itself), it is now quite calm and collect. Next.

Your posts are getting more and more less coherent. Meteor showers,the earth does not show near the impacts as other planets.

Nor are there any friendly environments out there other than earth.

Meteor Crater in Arizona


this "Nor are there any friendly environments out there other than earth." is conjecture not only is it specious, it's wilfully ignorant.
it's a classic slapdick dodge.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So, your evidence that I am presenting conjecture is an article that actually verifies that what I was saying is true? Facepalm time.

Simian immunodeficiency virus (SIV) is real, dude. You have been corrected. Are you going to acknowledge it, or are you going to sink even further into the quagmire of your own denial?

That is your sides faulting reasoning because something is similar they must be the same. Same argument as Dna similarity.

bullshit!
Humans share the most similarities with the bonobos, and then chimpanzees. Mice share many genes, but not 98%.

It's important to remember that DNA similarities will be relatively high within the mamalian class simply because DNA is largely a recipe for protein manufacture. Since mammals all use similar proteins, they're going to be using similar DNA. It's also helpful to remember that DNA is not destiny. There are also epigenes, RNA and mDNA to consider.

One of the stronger arguments for common descent comes from endogenous retroviruses (or ERVs) that appear in exactly the same place within closely related species. ERVs are ancient deactivated viruses that made it into the germ-line and was therefore carried by all future generations. Since the insertion of an ERV in the germ line is a rare occurance and having the same ERV occur in the same place on the chromosome in different species is damn near impossible, you can calculate relatedness based on how many ancient ERVs you can find between species.

So far, based on multiple lines of evidence (including the two cited here) common descent continues to stand up.

Can someone clarify something for me about genetic similarity and evolution? - Yahoo! Answers

Starting with bullshit remains bullshit dummy.

The graph at the top of this post shows his results. Notice that the similarity hovers around 70% for all chromosomes except the Y chromosome. The size of the “slice” affects the result a bit, but really not much. In the end, this leads Dr. Tomkins to conclude:

Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. While chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary timescales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor.

Is this the last word on the subject? Most certainly not. I think it is probably the best comparison attempt made so far. Also, the fact that the Y chromosome has a remarkably low level of similarity compared to the other chromosomes is consistent with another study. In addition, the results essentially agree with Dr. Buggs’s analysis, which was based on a completely different strategy. At the same time, however, there is a huge discrepancy between this analysis and Dr. Wood’s analysis. In addition, as we learn more about genomes and how they work, we will probably find better ways to compare the genomes of different organisms.

For right now, however, it seems clear that humans and chimpanzees are not nearly as genetically similar as most evolutionists would have us believe.

Human and Chimp DNA Only 70% Similar, At Least According to This Study | Proslogion

Y chromosome further evidence that human-chimp DNA similarity is in 70% range
Posted on December 31, 2010 by Denyse

Not 98% or 99%, as every motor mouth on Hoax TV can tell you, between 9-11 hair fixes. A friend writes to say:

In 2008 I made the prediction (based on data available from the draft chimpanzee genome) that the human and chimpanzee genomes were about 70% the same overall. This has now been confirmed for the Y chromosome in a detailed study.

The study found

As expected, we found that the degree of similarity between orthologous chimpanzee and human MSY sequences (98.3% nucleotide identity) differs only modestly from that reported when comparing the rest of the chimpanzee and human genomes (98.8%)15. Surprisingly, however, >30% of chimpanzee MSY sequence has no homologous, alignable counterpart in the human MSY, and vice versa (Supplementary Fig. 8 and Supplementary Note 3). In aggregate, the consequence of gene loss and gain in the chimpanzee and human lineages, respectively, is that the chimpanzee MSY contains only two-thirds as many distinct genes or gene families as the human MSY, and only half as many protein-coding transcription units (Table 1).

He cautions that the authors of the Nature paper do not think that their findings for the Y chromosome are true for the whole genome. Perhaps not, but it is nice to see sane people working on genetic similarity issues for once. The paper is: Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content, Nature 463, 536-539 (28 January 2010) | doi:10.1038/nature08700
- See more at: Y chromosome further evidence that human-chimp DNA similarity is in 70% range | Signs of the Times

Y chromosome further evidence that human-chimp DNA similarity is in 70% range | Signs of the Times

 

[Youwerecreated]

Erm, compared to when it first formed (when the solar system was a literal wrecking ball of debris slamming into itself), it is now quite calm and collect. Next.

Your posts are getting more and more less coherent. Meteor showers,the earth does not show near the impacts as other planets.

Nor are there any friendly environments out there other than earth.

Meteor Crater in Arizona


this "Nor are there any friendly environments out there other than earth." is conjecture not only is it specious, it's wilfully ignorant.
it's a classic slapdick dodge.

Compare the number of impacts,Daws you are to stupid to discuss the issues with.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh no orogenicman thanking daws for a post further evidence of his ignorance.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Have a good day I will return when someone takes on my earlier questions.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Oh and similarity does not prove ancestry. Thank you for wasting my time.

 

[orogenicman]

You are quoting from Answers In Genesis, and actually expect us to have a straight face when we read it? You do realize, of course, that Answers in Genesis does no peer reviewed science, and nothing on their web site is recognized as science by the scientific community, right? You didn't know this? Huh.

 

[daws101]

That is your sides faulting reasoning because something is similar they must be the same. Same argument as Dna similarity.

bullshit!
Humans share the most similarities with the bonobos, and then chimpanzees. Mice share many genes, but not 98%.

It's important to remember that DNA similarities will be relatively high within the mamalian class simply because DNA is largely a recipe for protein manufacture. Since mammals all use similar proteins, they're going to be using similar DNA. It's also helpful to remember that DNA is not destiny. There are also epigenes, RNA and mDNA to consider.

One of the stronger arguments for common descent comes from endogenous retroviruses (or ERVs) that appear in exactly the same place within closely related species. ERVs are ancient deactivated viruses that made it into the germ-line and was therefore carried by all future generations. Since the insertion of an ERV in the germ line is a rare occurance and having the same ERV occur in the same place on the chromosome in different species is damn near impossible, you can calculate relatedness based on how many ancient ERVs you can find between species.

So far, based on multiple lines of evidence (including the two cited here) common descent continues to stand up.

Can someone clarify something for me about genetic similarity and evolution? - Yahoo! Answers

Starting with bullshit remains bullshit dummy.

The graph at the top of this post shows his results. Notice that the similarity hovers around 70% for all chromosomes except the Y chromosome. The size of the “slice” affects the result a bit, but really not much. In the end, this leads Dr. Tomkins to conclude:

Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. While chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary timescales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor.

Is this the last word on the subject? Most certainly not. I think it is probably the best comparison attempt made so far. Also, the fact that the Y chromosome has a remarkably low level of similarity compared to the other chromosomes is consistent with another study. In addition, the results essentially agree with Dr. Buggs’s analysis, which was based on a completely different strategy. At the same time, however, there is a huge discrepancy between this analysis and Dr. Wood’s analysis. In addition, as we learn more about genomes and how they work, we will probably find better ways to compare the genomes of different organisms.

For right now, however, it seems clear that humans and chimpanzees are not nearly as genetically similar as most evolutionists would have us believe.

Human and Chimp DNA Only 70% Similar, At Least According to This Study | Proslogion

Y chromosome further evidence that human-chimp DNA similarity is in 70% range
Posted on December 31, 2010 by Denyse

Not 98% or 99%, as every motor mouth on Hoax TV can tell you, between 9-11 hair fixes. A friend writes to say:

In 2008 I made the prediction (based on data available from the draft chimpanzee genome) that the human and chimpanzee genomes were about 70% the same overall. This has now been confirmed for the Y chromosome in a detailed study.

The study found

As expected, we found that the degree of similarity between orthologous chimpanzee and human MSY sequences (98.3% nucleotide identity) differs only modestly from that reported when comparing the rest of the chimpanzee and human genomes (98.8%)15. Surprisingly, however, >30% of chimpanzee MSY sequence has no homologous, alignable counterpart in the human MSY, and vice versa (Supplementary Fig. 8 and Supplementary Note 3). In aggregate, the consequence of gene loss and gain in the chimpanzee and human lineages, respectively, is that the chimpanzee MSY contains only two-thirds as many distinct genes or gene families as the human MSY, and only half as many protein-coding transcription units (Table 1).

He cautions that the authors of the Nature paper do not think that their findings for the Y chromosome are true for the whole genome. Perhaps not, but it is nice to see sane people working on genetic similarity issues for once. The paper is: Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content, Nature 463, 536-539 (28 January 2010) | doi:10.1038/nature08700
- See more at: Y chromosome further evidence that human-chimp DNA similarity is in 70% range | Signs of the Times

Y chromosome further evidence that human-chimp DNA similarity is in 70% range | Signs of the Times

so typical attemting to back up bulshit with more bullshit
both sources are bias and based on the same false premise 'god did it."
therefore anything, opinion results speculation is also false by definition.
you must enjoy having your ass handed to you.
it's sunday so you're all jesused up and got no one to blow!

 

[daws101]

Your posts are getting more and more less coherent. Meteor showers,the earth does not show near the impacts as other planets.

Nor are there any friendly environments out there other than earth.

Meteor Crater in Arizona


this "Nor are there any friendly environments out there other than earth." is conjecture not only is it specious, it's wilfully ignorant.
it's a classic slapdick dodge.

Compare the number of impacts,Daws you are to stupid to discuss the issues with.

no need slapdick 8 th grade science already proved your ignorance.

 

[daws101]

Oh and similarity does not prove ancestry. Thank you for wasting my time.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I am showing it never happened keep up.

You've shown nothing, except your lack of education.

Another one reduced to rhetoric

Your lack of education is clear.
Especially when it comes to science.
Sad.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You are quoting from Answers In Genesis, and actually expect us to have a straight face when we read it? You do realize, of course, that Answers in Genesis does no peer reviewed science, and nothing on their web site is recognized as science by the scientific community, right? You didn't know this? Huh.

You ignore those posts anyways why won't you address my questions ?

ID and have peer review articles and yet you reject them so what was your point again ? They were introduced as evidence and ignored by the judge in the Dover trial.

I will ignore the rhetoric and wait for responses to my questions.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You've shown nothing, except your lack of education.

Another one reduced to rhetoric

Your lack of education is clear.
Especially when it comes to science.
Sad.

Then why are you reduced to rhetoric Genius ?
Sad indeed.

 

[orogenicman]

Another one reduced to rhetoric

Your lack of education is clear.
Especially when it comes to science.
Sad.

Then why are you reduced to rhetoric Genius?
Sad indeed.

Because it is better than being reduced to rhetoric dumbass?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Another one reduced to rhetoric

Your lack of education is clear.
Especially when it comes to science.
Sad.

Then why are you reduced to rhetoric Genius ?
Sad indeed.

Pointing out your lack of education is rhetoric? LOL!

I was going to buy my kids some cotton candy.
Then I remembered your claim that the 2nd Law means more complexity
is impossible on Earth.
I told them to be satisfied with their CO2 and H2O, sugar is impossible.

 

[Beachboy]

How, then, is creationism—as opposed to “naturalism,” defined as “a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted”—scientific? Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define “scientific.” Too often, “science” and “naturalism” are considered one and the same, leaving creationist views out by definition. Such a definition requires an irrational reverence of naturalism. Science is defined as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” Nothing requires science, in and of itself, to be naturalistic. Naturalism, like creationism, requires a series of presuppositions that are not generated by experiments. They are not extrapolated from data or derived from test results. These philosophical presuppositions are accepted before any data is ever taken. Because both naturalism and creationism are strongly influenced by presuppositions that are neither provable nor testable, and enter into the discussion well before the facts do, it is fair to say that creationism is at least as scientific as naturalism.

Is creationism scientific?

"Creationism" is based on the fiction of the Bible, and has no substantiation from another source. Science requires verification of facts from more than one credible source of information.

No question about it.
Evolution is verified scientific fact based on many respected sources.
See the movie Inherit the Wind, you can understand in about two hours.

The Evolution vs. Creationism argument is at the center of the Jerome Lawrence-Robert E. Lee Broadway play Inherit the Wind. Lawrence and Lee's inspiration was the 1925 "Monkey Trial," in which Tennessee schoolteacher John Scopes was arrested for teaching Darwin's theory of evolution in violation of state law. Scopes deliberately courted arrest to challenge what he and his supporters saw as an unjust law, and the trial became a national cause when The Baltimore Sun, represented by the famed (and atheistic) journalist H. L. Mencken, hired attorney Clarence Darrow to defend Scopes. The prosecuting attorney was crusading politician William Jennings Bryan, once a serious contender for the Presidency, now a relic of a past era. While Bryan won the case as expected, he and his fundamentalist backers were held up to public ridicule by the cagey Darrow. In both the play and film versions of Inherit the Wind, the names and places are changed, but the basic chronology was retained, along with most of the original court transcripts.
​

 

[eots]

Oh and similarity does not prove ancestry. Thank you for wasting my time.

“Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”


― Albert Einstein

 

[eots]

ITS SCIENCE BITCH !

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjpCKZ7cEoY]Mind Science Kept Hidden Documentary.WE ARE VIBRATIONAL BEINGS.Law of attraction/vibes - YouTube[/ame]