Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Youwerecreated]

Funny, they get their butts handed to them ,and the person that handed them their butts ,they are gonna mock his background.

It might scare you mental midgets concerning my background in science.

Just keep on making a silent fool of yourselves.

 

[Hollie]

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.

I will ignore your pretentious and childish attempts to side-step and avoid the many challenges to your religious claims that you are unable to address.

You’re obviously befuddled regarding peer review. Having a gaggle of creationist edit and spell check documents written by their fellow creationist is not meeting the standards of legitimate peer review.

As an epistemological method or philosophy, science has every right to demand religious fundamentalist claims are held to the same standards science holds itself to-- hypothesis, experimentation, falsification, peer review, etc. in order for an assertion to be considered valid. This is fair because science has stringent demands it holds against itself, and its goal is to arrive at truth as best as possible by vigorous methods-- which are open to any who cares to repeat them.

Religious fundamentalists on the other hand, has this "faith, not proof" standard, so by their own standards religionists must give equal weight to all claims based upon faith as being just as likely true as the religionist's own professed beliefs-- even science! ". If creationist find this unacceptable, then they must decide why religious beliefs are exempt from standards they demand science is required to adhere to.

 

[Hollie]

Funny, they get their butts handed to them ,and the person that handed them their butts ,they are gonna mock his background.

It might scare you mental midgets concerning my background in science.

Just keep on making a silent fool of yourselves.

I believe what is scary is your self-claimed science background that simply does not appear in any of your writing. Your lack of a meaningful science vocabulary suggests your supposed science background is fraudulent.

 

[daws101]

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

like all zealots you've misinterpreted einstein use of that word ..

 

[daws101]

its science bitch !

mind science kept hidden documentary.we are vibrational beings.law of attraction/vibes - youtube

it's pseudoscience bitch!

 

[daws101]

Funny, they get their butts handed to them ,and the person that handed them their butts ,they are gonna mock his background.

It might scare you mental midgets concerning my background in science.

Just keep on making a silent fool of yourselves.

THIS ONE should get a prize for best disconnection from reality.

 

[Hollie]

Funny, they get their butts handed to them ,and the person that handed them their butts ,they are gonna mock his background.

It might scare you mental midgets concerning my background in science.

Just keep on making a silent fool of yourselves.

THIS ONE should get a prize for best disconnection from reality.

Ywc is suffering from Baghdad Bob Syndrome

Remember Baghdad Bob? (Saddam’s propaganda mouthpiece who was convinced that his fantasies were more real than the US armored forces plowing through Baghdad). The Baghdad Bob syndrome is not so unusual for fundie zealots.

 

[orogenicman]

Funny, they get their butts handed to them ,and the person that handed them their butts ,they are gonna mock his background.

It might scare you mental midgets concerning my background in science.

Just keep on making a silent fool of yourselves.

THIS ONE should get a prize for best disconnection from reality.

Ywc is suffering from Baghdad Bob Syndrome

Remember Baghdad Bob? (Saddam’s propaganda mouthpiece who was convinced that his fantasies were more real than the US armored forces plowing through Baghdad). The Baghdad Bob syndrome is not so unusual for fundie zealots.

Didn't Fox news hire him as O'Reilly's PR man?

 

[Youwerecreated]

THIS ONE should get a prize for best disconnection from reality.

Ywc is suffering from Baghdad Bob Syndrome

Remember Baghdad Bob? (Saddam’s propaganda mouthpiece who was convinced that his fantasies were more real than the US armored forces plowing through Baghdad). The Baghdad Bob syndrome is not so unusual for fundie zealots.

Didn't Fox news hire him as O'Reilly's PR man?

I knew it, another libtard to go along with daws,and hollie.

 

[Hollie]

Ywc is suffering from Baghdad Bob Syndrome

Remember Baghdad Bob? (Saddam’s propaganda mouthpiece who was convinced that his fantasies were more real than the US armored forces plowing through Baghdad). The Baghdad Bob syndrome is not so unusual for fundie zealots.

Didn't Fox news hire him as O'Reilly's PR man?

I knew it, another libtard to go along with daws,and hollie.

You knew it? Actually, you know very little. The comment about your syndrome and lack of connection to a reality based worldview derives from self-contradicting / refuting argumentation and appeals to fear and ignorance.

 

[orogenicman]

Ywc is suffering from Baghdad Bob Syndrome

Remember Baghdad Bob? (Saddam’s propaganda mouthpiece who was convinced that his fantasies were more real than the US armored forces plowing through Baghdad). The Baghdad Bob syndrome is not so unusual for fundie zealots.

Didn't Fox news hire him as O'Reilly's PR man?

I knew it, another libtard to go along with daws,and hollie.

So, you will be defending Bagdad Bob, eh? What are you, his bag handler (and I don't mean suitcases)?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Didn't Fox news hire him as O'Reilly's PR man?

I knew it, another libtard to go along with daws,and hollie.

You knew it? Actually, you know very little. The comment about your syndrome and lack of connection to a reality based worldview derives from self-contradicting / refuting argumentation and appeals to fear and ignorance.

Don't include me in your shortcomings.

 

[Hollie]

I knew it, another libtard to go along with daws,and hollie.

You knew it? Actually, you know very little. The comment about your syndrome and lack of connection to a reality based worldview derives from self-contradicting / refuting argumentation and appeals to fear and ignorance.

Don't include me in your shortcomings.

You're more befuddled than usual. Your choice to spend every waking moment in trembling fear of angry, hateful gawds is your own shortcoming.

On the other hand, I'll seek knowledge and enlightenment as science explores and discovers.
Let me guess. Because you believe the bibles have primacy over the claims of those evil, atheist evilutionist scientists, you remain convinced the earth is really flat, right?

 

[Bumberclyde]

So why did god need 6 days? He a lazy mofo? In I Dream of Jeannie, she would just snap her fingers. Is god not as powerful as Jeannie?

 

[daws101]

Ywc is suffering from Baghdad Bob Syndrome

Remember Baghdad Bob? (Saddam’s propaganda mouthpiece who was convinced that his fantasies were more real than the US armored forces plowing through Baghdad). The Baghdad Bob syndrome is not so unusual for fundie zealots.

Didn't Fox news hire him as O'Reilly's PR man?

I knew it, another libtard to go along with daws,and hollie.

golly guys, slapdick learned a new word....!

 

[daws101]

Didn't Fox news hire him as O'Reilly's PR man?

I knew it, another libtard to go along with daws,and hollie.

So, you will be defending Bagdad Bob, eh? What are you, his bag handler (and I don't mean suitcases)?

you forgot fluffer!
ywc is real HANDY that way!

 

[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?

When I hear someone is a creationist, I know I can make them believe almost anything I want. I can sell them the Brooklyn Bridge!

"Creationism" is based on the fiction of the Bible, and has no substantiation from any other source. That's what makes it fiction. Science requires verification of facts from more than one credible source of information. While believers in Creationism are usually poorly educated, I would not throw out Christianity just because of the creationism flaw. There are some good ideas to be had in the Bible, starting with the Golden Rule. Great advice as a way to live your life.

See the movie Inherit the Wind, you can understand the truth of science and evolution in about two hours.
​

​

 

[daws101]

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?

When I hear someone is a creationist, I know I can make them believe almost anything I want. I can sell them the Brooklyn Bridge!

"Creationism" is based on the fiction of the Bible, and has no substantiation from any other source. That's what makes it fiction. Science requires verification of facts from more than one credible source of information. While believers in Creationism are usually poorly educated, I would not throw out Christianity just because of the creationism flaw. There are some good ideas to be had in the Bible, starting with the Golden Rule. Great advice as a way to live your life.

See the movie Inherit the Wind, you can understand the truth of science and evolution in about two hours.
​

​

one of my favorite films.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So why did god need 6 days? He a lazy mofo? In I Dream of Jeannie, she would just snap her fingers. Is god not as powerful as Jeannie?

Gods creation might be considered supernatural to you and I but what God created he did it through his natural ability. If you ask me God put a little thought in to his creation.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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?

When I hear someone is a creationist, I know I can make them believe almost anything I want. I can sell them the Brooklyn Bridge!

"Creationism" is based on the fiction of the Bible, and has no substantiation from any other source. That's what makes it fiction. Science requires verification of facts from more than one credible source of information. While believers in Creationism are usually poorly educated, I would not throw out Christianity just because of the creationism flaw. There are some good ideas to be had in the Bible, starting with the Golden Rule. Great advice as a way to live your life.

See the movie Inherit the Wind, you can understand the truth of science and evolution in about two hours.
​

​

Poorly educated ? Many Creationists have attended secular schools so do you blame the institutions ?