Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[daws101]

It's time to get knocked on your butt with facts not the rhetoric you post. I dare any of you to listen to this whole video but those with a short attention span listen from the 52.00 minute mark, and prepare to have your theories crushed.

To what end? ID is a religious doctrine subscribed to by a tiny minority of preliterate protestant religious fruitcakes. It is not science in this or any other dimension. Period.

A Response to the evidence would be nice .don't want or need your rhetoric.

when you present some evidence, you'll get a response .
what you presented is half baked conjecture..

 

[daws101]

In that same video look at the evidence presented at 1 hour 20 minutes and 30 seconds.

Intelligent Design: Waking Up To Creation - YouTube

same bullshit different bullshitter!

 

[Youwerecreated]

Typical and predictable responses once hit with the facts lol. It sucks when you have no rebuttal and are just Reduced to rhetoric.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I will just wait til you guys respond to what has been presented.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I will just wait til you guys respond to what has been presented.

Are you going to explain how sugar violates the 2nd Law?

 

[orogenicman]

I will just wait til you guys respond to what has been presented.

Here is my response. Creationism is not an alternative theory to the biological theory of evolution. It isn't even a scientific theory. It makes no predictions, is not falsifiable, presents no original data, grossly misrepresents data supporting evolution and the researchers who do the original work. All scientific theories stand or fall on their own merits. Almost none have ever been replaced, only elaborated upon and so refined. And that is because of the very high standard required to be called a scientific theory in the first place. The charlatans who use creationism (which is a long refuted 19th century philosophical hypothesis twisted into 20th and 21st century religious dogma) as a pretense to introduce religion into our public schools are bigots and frauds who have no toleration for or consideration of the diversity of people in the U.S. and do a great disservice to the science and public whose interests they pretend to have at heart. Those who preach it are willfully dishonest, and unethical and have no place in today's discourse on scientific or educational matters, particularly where our children are concerned.

If you are going to attempt to supplant ANY scientific theory, it must stand or fall on its own merits. It isn't enough to try to disprove a theory. You must present a theory that better explains the vast array of data supporting the existing theory. "God did it" cannot and never will be able to do this because it is not scientific; rather, it is, at best, an argument from ignorance.

 

[daws101]

I will just wait til you guys respond to what has been presented.

that'll be a long wait as what you presented is not evidence for creationism
however it is excellent evidence for denial of fact.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I will just wait til you guys respond to what has been presented.

Are you going to explain how sugar violates the 2nd Law?

It don't as long as you have instructions.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I will just wait til you guys respond to what has been presented.

Here is my response. Creationism is not an alternative theory to the biological theory of evolution. It isn't even a scientific theory. It makes no predictions, is not falsifiable, presents no original data, grossly misrepresents data supporting evolution and the researchers who do the original work. All scientific theories stand or fall on their own merits. Almost none have ever been replaced, only elaborated upon and so refined. And that is because of the very high standard required to be called a scientific theory in the first place. The charlatans who use creationism (which is a long refuted 19th century philosophical hypothesis twisted into 20th and 21st century religious dogma) as a pretense to introduce religion into our public schools are bigots and frauds who have no toleration for or consideration of the diversity of people in the U.S. and do a great disservice to the science and public whose interests they pretend to have at heart. Those who preach it are willfully dishonest, and unethical and have no place in today's discourse on scientific or educational matters, particularly where our children are concerned.

If you are going to attempt to supplant ANY scientific theory, it must stand or fall on its own merits. It isn't enough to try to disprove a theory. You must present a theory that better explains the vast array of data supporting the existing theory. "God did it" cannot and never will be able to do this because it is not scientific; rather, it is, at best, an argument from ignorance.

Whoa, in evolution assumptions are made that can't be tested or observed the same as creation. Which assumptions and explanations better fit the evidence. I believe creationism better fits the evidence.

Natural processes do not just arise if so point it out to me.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I will just wait til you guys respond to what has been presented.

Are you going to explain how sugar violates the 2nd Law?

It don't as long as you have instructions.

Awesome!
Things on Earth can get more complex.
Your 2nd Law claim was incorrect.
That only took a few thousand posts. /thread

 

[Hollie]

I will just wait til you guys respond to what has been presented.

Here is my response. Creationism is not an alternative theory to the biological theory of evolution. It isn't even a scientific theory. It makes no predictions, is not falsifiable, presents no original data, grossly misrepresents data supporting evolution and the researchers who do the original work. All scientific theories stand or fall on their own merits. Almost none have ever been replaced, only elaborated upon and so refined. And that is because of the very high standard required to be called a scientific theory in the first place. The charlatans who use creationism (which is a long refuted 19th century philosophical hypothesis twisted into 20th and 21st century religious dogma) as a pretense to introduce religion into our public schools are bigots and frauds who have no toleration for or consideration of the diversity of people in the U.S. and do a great disservice to the science and public whose interests they pretend to have at heart. Those who preach it are willfully dishonest, and unethical and have no place in today's discourse on scientific or educational matters, particularly where our children are concerned.

If you are going to attempt to supplant ANY scientific theory, it must stand or fall on its own merits. It isn't enough to try to disprove a theory. You must present a theory that better explains the vast array of data supporting the existing theory. "God did it" cannot and never will be able to do this because it is not scientific; rather, it is, at best, an argument from ignorance.

Whoa, in evolution assumptions are made that can't be tested or observed the same as creation. Which assumptions and explanations better fit the evidence. I believe creationism better fits the evidence.

Natural processes do not just arise if so point it out to me.

So.... what are these assumptions that cannot be tested or observed in evolution but can be tested and observed in supernatural / magical creation?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Here is my response. Creationism is not an alternative theory to the biological theory of evolution. It isn't even a scientific theory. It makes no predictions, is not falsifiable, presents no original data, grossly misrepresents data supporting evolution and the researchers who do the original work. All scientific theories stand or fall on their own merits. Almost none have ever been replaced, only elaborated upon and so refined. And that is because of the very high standard required to be called a scientific theory in the first place. The charlatans who use creationism (which is a long refuted 19th century philosophical hypothesis twisted into 20th and 21st century religious dogma) as a pretense to introduce religion into our public schools are bigots and frauds who have no toleration for or consideration of the diversity of people in the U.S. and do a great disservice to the science and public whose interests they pretend to have at heart. Those who preach it are willfully dishonest, and unethical and have no place in today's discourse on scientific or educational matters, particularly where our children are concerned.

If you are going to attempt to supplant ANY scientific theory, it must stand or fall on its own merits. It isn't enough to try to disprove a theory. You must present a theory that better explains the vast array of data supporting the existing theory. "God did it" cannot and never will be able to do this because it is not scientific; rather, it is, at best, an argument from ignorance.

Whoa, in evolution assumptions are made that can't be tested or observed the same as creation. Which assumptions and explanations better fit the evidence. I believe creationism better fits the evidence.

Natural processes do not just arise if so point it out to me.

So.... what are these assumptions that cannot be tested or observed in evolution but can be tested and observed in supernatural / magical creation?

1.Macroevolution has never been observed except in the case where someone does not know the difference between microadaptations and macroevolution.

2. Where do you get the new genetic information ? we know over time organisms lose genetic information.

When reproducing you breed out genetic information you don't breed in genetic information. With all the populations and generations of flies that exp mutations whether occurring naturally or induced there has never been a new trait passed on to the group through mutations. The only way it happens is through selective breeding.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Are you going to explain how sugar violates the 2nd Law?

It don't as long as you have instructions.

Awesome!
Things on Earth can get more complex.
Your 2nd Law claim was incorrect.
That only took a few thousand posts. /thread

Explain to me where you get the new genetic information to increase complexity ? I still believe your argument hits a snag because the what you consider increasing in complexity is just a natural process being guided by the genetic data.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It don't as long as you have instructions.

Awesome!
Things on Earth can get more complex.
Your 2nd Law claim was incorrect.
That only took a few thousand posts. /thread

Explain to me where you get the new genetic information to increase complexity ? I still believe your argument hits a snag because the what you consider increasing in complexity is just a natural process being guided by the genetic data.

I still believe your argument hits a snag

You just admitted that things can get more complex on Earth, despite your earlier claim.

How is that my argument hitting a snag?

 

[Hollie]

Whoa, in evolution assumptions are made that can't be tested or observed the same as creation. Which assumptions and explanations better fit the evidence. I believe creationism better fits the evidence.

Natural processes do not just arise if so point it out to me.

So.... what are these assumptions that cannot be tested or observed in evolution but can be tested and observed in supernatural / magical creation?

1.Macroevolution has never been observed except in the case where someone does not know the difference between microadaptations and macroevolution.

2. Where do you get the new genetic information ? we know over time organisms lose genetic information.

When reproducing you breed out genetic information you don't breed in genetic information. With all the populations and generations of flies that exp mutations whether occurring naturally or induced there has never been a new trait passed on to the group through mutations. The only way it happens is through selective breeding.

1. This is the problem you face when your knowledge comes from creation ministries. There is an abundant collection of transitional fosills . This has been explained, delineated and provided to you tediously and frequently.

2. This has also been explained, delineated and provided to you tediously and frequently. Reproduction does not exclusively "breed out" genetic information.

You should actually learn something of the science you're hoping to vilify.

 

[daws101]

I will just wait til you guys respond to what has been presented.

Are you going to explain how sugar violates the 2nd Law?

It don't as long as you have instructions.

you spent how much on higher education?

 

[daws101]

Whoa, in evolution assumptions are made that can't be tested or observed the same as creation. Which assumptions and explanations better fit the evidence. I believe creationism better fits the evidence.

Natural processes do not just arise if so point it out to me.

So.... what are these assumptions that cannot be tested or observed in evolution but can be tested and observed in supernatural / magical creation?

1.Macroevolution has never been observed except in the case where someone does not know the difference between microadaptations and macroevolution.

2. Where do you get the new genetic information ? we know over time organisms lose genetic information.

When reproducing you breed out genetic information you don't breed in genetic information. With all the populations and generations of flies that exp mutations whether occurring naturally or induced there has never been a new trait passed on to the group through mutations. The only way it happens is through selective breeding.

selective breeding refines or adds desired traits. please present any actual genetic evidence that proves a net loss of genetic information.

 

[orogenicman]

I will just wait til you guys respond to what has been presented.

Here is my response. Creationism is not an alternative theory to the biological theory of evolution. It isn't even a scientific theory. It makes no predictions, is not falsifiable, presents no original data, grossly misrepresents data supporting evolution and the researchers who do the original work. All scientific theories stand or fall on their own merits. Almost none have ever been replaced, only elaborated upon and so refined. And that is because of the very high standard required to be called a scientific theory in the first place. The charlatans who use creationism (which is a long refuted 19th century philosophical hypothesis twisted into 20th and 21st century religious dogma) as a pretense to introduce religion into our public schools are bigots and frauds who have no toleration for or consideration of the diversity of people in the U.S. and do a great disservice to the science and public whose interests they pretend to have at heart. Those who preach it are willfully dishonest, and unethical and have no place in today's discourse on scientific or educational matters, particularly where our children are concerned.

If you are going to attempt to supplant ANY scientific theory, it must stand or fall on its own merits. It isn't enough to try to disprove a theory. You must present a theory that better explains the vast array of data supporting the existing theory. "God did it" cannot and never will be able to do this because it is not scientific; rather, it is, at best, an argument from ignorance.

Whoa, in evolution assumptions are made that can't be tested or observed the same as creation. Which assumptions and explanations better fit the evidence. I believe creationism better fits the evidence.

Natural processes do not just arise if so point it out to me.

Well, gee, your response is to make claims and then don't support them? Lame, dude. Lame. What unsupported assumptions does evolution make that cannot be tested or observed? Be specific.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So.... what are these assumptions that cannot be tested or observed in evolution but can be tested and observed in supernatural / magical creation?

1.Macroevolution has never been observed except in the case where someone does not know the difference between microadaptations and macroevolution.

2. Where do you get the new genetic information ? we know over time organisms lose genetic information.

When reproducing you breed out genetic information you don't breed in genetic information. With all the populations and generations of flies that exp mutations whether occurring naturally or induced there has never been a new trait passed on to the group through mutations. The only way it happens is through selective breeding.

selective breeding refines or adds desired traits. please present any actual genetic evidence that proves a net loss of genetic information.

Yes, and I have stated this before why has it not sank in. Purebred dog,let's use the boxer they only have the genetic data to produce the traits of a boxer I ask you why ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Are you going to explain how sugar violates the 2nd Law?

It don't as long as you have instructions.

you spent how much on higher education?

A lot more than you.