Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Youwerecreated]

Did you read the part that references "the common ancestor"?

Yes,what is the common ancestor ? how can they confirm that claim ?

We can begin with a site that takes an approach which includes graphs and pictures to… how shall we say… “provide a beginners narrative” to evolution.

While I understand that you reject any evidence provided by the relevant science community that even hints at an earth older than 6,000 years or the fossil record, your being in denial of reality is no reason for anyone else to accept your lurid conspiracy theories involving many of the life sciences being fabricated.

Overview of Hominin Evolution | Learn Science at Scitable

All else is mere speculation of one form or another.

Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions have done comparatively little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of religious dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress. I will nominate you as the poster child for "lack of progress".

“Scientific” facts may be conceptually inferior to “absolute” facts. But since there really are no such things as “absolute” facts, that would be the equivalent of claiming that horses are inferior to unicorns.

I will ask you again what is the nearest ancestor ? how can they make such a claim without mapping the genome of this nearest ancestor ?

 

[orogenicman]

Yes,what is the common ancestor ? how can they confirm that claim ?

We can begin with a site that takes an approach which includes graphs and pictures to… how shall we say… “provide a beginners narrative” to evolution.

While I understand that you reject any evidence provided by the relevant science community that even hints at an earth older than 6,000 years or the fossil record, your being in denial of reality is no reason for anyone else to accept your lurid conspiracy theories involving many of the life sciences being fabricated.

Overview of Hominin Evolution | Learn Science at Scitable

All else is mere speculation of one form or another.

Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions have done comparatively little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of religious dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress. I will nominate you as the poster child for "lack of progress".

“Scientific” facts may be conceptually inferior to “absolute” facts. But since there really are no such things as “absolute” facts, that would be the equivalent of claiming that horses are inferior to unicorns.

I will ask you again what is the nearest ancestor ? how can they make such a claim without mapping the genome of this nearest ancestor ?

Neanderthal genomics and the evolution of modern humans

A High-Coverage Genome Sequence from an Archaic Denisovan Individual

 

[orogenicman]

No, if I thought you were a woman you would have had much more respect from me. You were the one that made this personal with your childish insults.

Now let's get back on topic.

Wow, are you delusional about EVERYTHING? You are the one who made it personal, asshole. Speaking of getting back on topic, when you find a bunny rabbit in the Cambrian, let me know. Speaking of getting back on topic, are you going to meet me in the field? Or do you not have the cahones for it?

Whatever nitwit.

I can't wait to hear this .why do I need to find a bunny in Cambrian ?

Because THAT would refute evolution. Well? Get on with it, bricks for brains.

 

[LittleNipper]

Please see the following: http://www.rae.org/pdf/revev2.pdf

 

[orogenicman]

Please see the following: http://www.rae.org/pdf/revev2.pdf

Well, absolutely none of that is correct. What's worse, Douglas B. Sharp, the author, has taught the creation-evolution subject for over 15 years at Mount Hope Bible Training Institute. He is not a geologist, nor a scientist, has no academic background in science, and has published no scholarly work. Thirdly, when your paper quotes the bible and uses the bible as a scientific reference, you know the author has lost his friggin mind. Fourth, neither this paper, nor any of the other papers written by the various creationists on that site have been submitted for peer review in any scientific publication.

So this begs the question, why, exactly, should we be reading it?

And finally, I have been trying for at least four years to get creationists to go into the field with me so we can examine the geologic evidence first hand. To date, none have ever taken me up on the offer. Gee, I wonder why?

But if you want to see how some of his arguments fare in the scientific community, I give you this as an example:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/armor.html

 

[Kat3eWhit]

Now you can understand why so many believe in design and creation over naturalism.

 

[orogenicman]

Now you can understand why so many believe in design and creation over naturalism.

Why? Because so many people are delusional?

 

[Hollie]

Yes,what is the common ancestor ? how can they confirm that claim ?

We can begin with a site that takes an approach which includes graphs and pictures to… how shall we say… “provide a beginners narrative” to evolution.

While I understand that you reject any evidence provided by the relevant science community that even hints at an earth older than 6,000 years or the fossil record, your being in denial of reality is no reason for anyone else to accept your lurid conspiracy theories involving many of the life sciences being fabricated.

Overview of Hominin Evolution | Learn Science at Scitable

All else is mere speculation of one form or another.

Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions have done comparatively little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of religious dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress. I will nominate you as the poster child for "lack of progress".

“Scientific” facts may be conceptually inferior to “absolute” facts. But since there really are no such things as “absolute” facts, that would be the equivalent of claiming that horses are inferior to unicorns.

I will ask you again what is the nearest ancestor ? how can they make such a claim without mapping the genome of this nearest ancestor ?

I will direct you once again to the linked article that addresses your wall of denial / self-imposed ignorance regarding our human ancestry.

Science technology does not currently allow the gene mapping of 4 million year old remains. It's possible that there may never be a method to do so. However, as you are convinced as to a 6,000 year old earth, even if "they" do discover a method of gene mapping such ancient remains, you would be forced to invent even more bizarre conspiracy theories.

With a historical perspectivs, (in the religious extremist case, a hysterical perspective), "they", (scientists), have managed to shine the glaring light of facts and truth into the dark recesses of the creationist mindset promoting fear and ignorance. All of the data presented to you offers rational explanations to what your extremist position insists is magic and supernaturalism.

 

[Hollie]

No, if I thought you were a woman you would have had much more respect from me. You were the one that made this personal with your childish insults.

Now let's get back on topic.

Wow, are you delusional about EVERYTHING? You are the one who made it personal, asshole. Speaking of getting back on topic, when you find a bunny rabbit in the Cambrian, let me know. Speaking of getting back on topic, are you gouing to meet me in the field? Or do you not have the cahones for it?

Whatever nitwit.

I can't wait to hear this .why do I need to find a bunny in Cambrian ?

And you wonder why your time spent at the Harun Yahya madrassah is met with ridicule?

Come on, scour the "Living fossils" site for more of your silliness.

 

[Youwerecreated]

We can begin with a site that takes an approach which includes graphs and pictures to… how shall we say… “provide a beginners narrative” to evolution.

While I understand that you reject any evidence provided by the relevant science community that even hints at an earth older than 6,000 years or the fossil record, your being in denial of reality is no reason for anyone else to accept your lurid conspiracy theories involving many of the life sciences being fabricated.

Overview of Hominin Evolution | Learn Science at Scitable

All else is mere speculation of one form or another.

Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions have done comparatively little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of religious dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress. I will nominate you as the poster child for "lack of progress".

“Scientific” facts may be conceptually inferior to “absolute” facts. But since there really are no such things as “absolute” facts, that would be the equivalent of claiming that horses are inferior to unicorns.

I will ask you again what is the nearest ancestor ? how can they make such a claim without mapping the genome of this nearest ancestor ?

Neanderthal genomics and the evolution of modern humans

A High-Coverage Genome Sequence from an Archaic Denisovan Individual

you think this answers the questions ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Wow, are you delusional about EVERYTHING? You are the one who made it personal, asshole. Speaking of getting back on topic, when you find a bunny rabbit in the Cambrian, let me know. Speaking of getting back on topic, are you going to meet me in the field? Or do you not have the cahones for it?

Whatever nitwit.

I can't wait to hear this .why do I need to find a bunny in Cambrian ?

Because THAT would refute evolution. Well? Get on with it, bricks for brains.

Sorry, if you have not been paying attention I have already done that.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Please see the following: http://www.rae.org/pdf/revev2.pdf

Well, absolutely none of that is correct. What's worse, Douglas B. Sharp, the author, has taught the creation-evolution subject for over 15 years at Mount Hope Bible Training Institute. He is not a geologist, nor a scientist, has no academic background in science, and has published no scholarly work. Thirdly, when your paper quotes the bible and uses the bible as a scientific reference, you know the author has lost his friggin mind. Fourth, neither this paper, nor any of the other papers written by the various creationists on that site have been submitted for peer review in any scientific publication.

So this begs the question, why, exactly, should we be reading it?

And finally, I have been trying for at least four years to get creationists to go into the field with me so we can examine the geologic evidence first hand. To date, none have ever taken me up on the offer. Gee, I wonder why?

But if you want to see how some of his arguments fare in the scientific community, I give you this as an example:

Creationist Arguments: A Neandertal in Armor?

Sites like this should be avoided this why you get your ass handed to you.

 

[orogenicman]

Whatever nitwit.

I can't wait to hear this .why do I need to find a bunny in Cambrian ?

Because THAT would refute evolution. Well? Get on with it, bricks for brains.

Sorry, if you have not been paying attention I have already done that.

Sure you have.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Now you can understand why so many believe in design and creation over naturalism.

With that kind of thinking you should go to vegas.

 

[orogenicman]

Please see the following: http://www.rae.org/pdf/revev2.pdf

Well, absolutely none of that is correct. What's worse, Douglas B. Sharp, the author, has taught the creation-evolution subject for over 15 years at Mount Hope Bible Training Institute. He is not a geologist, nor a scientist, has no academic background in science, and has published no scholarly work. Thirdly, when your paper quotes the bible and uses the bible as a scientific reference, you know the author has lost his friggin mind. Fourth, neither this paper, nor any of the other papers written by the various creationists on that site have been submitted for peer review in any scientific publication.

So this begs the question, why, exactly, should we be reading it?

And finally, I have been trying for at least four years to get creationists to go into the field with me so we can examine the geologic evidence first hand. To date, none have ever taken me up on the offer. Gee, I wonder why?

But if you want to see how some of his arguments fare in the scientific community, I give you this as an example:

Creationist Arguments: A Neandertal in Armor?

Sites like this should be avoided this why you get your ass handed to you.

Yes, I am quite certain that you creationists avoid it like the plague. Poor things.

 

[orogenicman]

I will ask you again what is the nearest ancestor ? how can they make such a claim without mapping the genome of this nearest ancestor ?

Neanderthal genomics and the evolution of modern humans

A High-Coverage Genome Sequence from an Archaic Denisovan Individual

you think this answers the questions ?

You think it doesn't? Have at it, bubba.

 

[Youwerecreated]

We can begin with a site that takes an approach which includes graphs and pictures to… how shall we say… “provide a beginners narrative” to evolution.

While I understand that you reject any evidence provided by the relevant science community that even hints at an earth older than 6,000 years or the fossil record, your being in denial of reality is no reason for anyone else to accept your lurid conspiracy theories involving many of the life sciences being fabricated.

Overview of Hominin Evolution | Learn Science at Scitable

All else is mere speculation of one form or another.

Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions have done comparatively little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of religious dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress. I will nominate you as the poster child for "lack of progress".

“Scientific” facts may be conceptually inferior to “absolute” facts. But since there really are no such things as “absolute” facts, that would be the equivalent of claiming that horses are inferior to unicorns.

I will ask you again what is the nearest ancestor ? how can they make such a claim without mapping the genome of this nearest ancestor ?

I will direct you once again to the linked article that addresses your wall of denial / self-imposed ignorance regarding our human ancestry.

Science technology does not currently allow the gene mapping of 4 million year old remains. It's possible that there may never be a method to do so. However, as you are convinced as to a 6,000 year old earth, even if "they" do discover a method of gene mapping such ancient remains, you would be forced to invent even more bizarre conspiracy theories.

With a historical perspectivs, (in the religious extremist case, a hysterical perspective), "they", (scientists), have managed to shine the glaring light of facts and truth into the dark recesses of the creationist mindset promoting fear and ignorance. All of the data presented to you offers rational explanations to what your extremist position insists is magic and supernaturalism.

Then your theory is not scientific and is pretty much screwed. Your theory is built on vivid imaginations not science most importantly faith.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Because THAT would refute evolution. Well? Get on with it, bricks for brains.

Sorry, if you have not been paying attention I have already done that.

Sure you have.

Come up with a mechanism to add a completely new gene to the genome in primates ?

So apes were once human and just were suffering devolution

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well, absolutely none of that is correct. What's worse, Douglas B. Sharp, the author, has taught the creation-evolution subject for over 15 years at Mount Hope Bible Training Institute. He is not a geologist, nor a scientist, has no academic background in science, and has published no scholarly work. Thirdly, when your paper quotes the bible and uses the bible as a scientific reference, you know the author has lost his friggin mind. Fourth, neither this paper, nor any of the other papers written by the various creationists on that site have been submitted for peer review in any scientific publication.

So this begs the question, why, exactly, should we be reading it?

And finally, I have been trying for at least four years to get creationists to go into the field with me so we can examine the geologic evidence first hand. To date, none have ever taken me up on the offer. Gee, I wonder why?

But if you want to see how some of his arguments fare in the scientific community, I give you this as an example:

Creationist Arguments: A Neandertal in Armor?

Sites like this should be avoided this why you get your ass handed to you.

Yes, I am quite certain that you creationists avoid it like the plague. Poor things.

No, I have been refuting his material for many years.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Neanderthal genomics and the evolution of modern humans

A High-Coverage Genome Sequence from an Archaic Denisovan Individual

you think this answers the questions ?

You think it doesn't? Have at it, bubba.

So you are suggesting neanderthals are the nearest ancestor ?

Here let me help you out,neanderthals are human are you suggesting they bred with apes ?