Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Youwerecreated]

And of course, you know better.

It really is remarkable how you are forced to invent conspiracy theories as the means to support your extremist ideology or you launch into fits of abject denial.

There are many different dating methods employed by science. They have been presented to you on more than a couple of occasions. These methods are widely accepted by the relevant science community as reliable and accurate given geologic timescales.

Using the phrase "relevant science community" obviously excludes ID'iot creationists.

It should be a simple matter for ID'iot creationists to refute those atheistic evilutionist in connection with dating methods. Why don't the ID'iots provide their research papers for peer review? They can simultaneously refute the evilutionist nonsense of a 4.5 billion year old planet while disproving the fosill record.

The proof of a conspiracy is in the assumptions Uniformitarians make and contradictions that they hide. Please see the following: NephiCode: So How Old Are the Rocks, Anyway? ? Part II ? The Assumptions

It starts of immediately stupid.

"No geologists were present when most rocks formed, so they cannot test whether the original rocks already contained daughter isotopes alongside their parent radioisotope"

Thankfully, science can figure out so many things without having to actually be there. It is amazing. It must be like magic, to you. You should just think of it as magic. To you, us scientists and engineers are the harnessers of magic.

We are your GODS. You should pray to us.... and send money.

Observation is very important in science no ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

It starts of immediately stupid.

"No geologists were present when most rocks formed, so they cannot test whether the original rocks already contained daughter isotopes alongside their parent radioisotope"

Thankfully, science can figure out so many things without having to actually be there. It is amazing. It must be like magic, to you. You should just think of it as magic. To you, us scientists and engineers are the harnessers of magic.

We are your GODS. You should pray to us.... and send money.

"Science" cannot figure out anything. "Science" (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" is a systematic study that is used to build and organize knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. A practitioner of science is known as a scientist. The vast problem is that much of what is dished out by individuals who call themselves "scientists" is neither testable nor reliable --- but influenced assumption based on one's personal view of NATURE.

Just going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing you don't have (and haven't had), a great deal of interaction with scientists or the science community.

You have had zero what is your point ?

 

[daws101]

No, I didn't mean hollow that was from my phone and it has a mind of it's own. The age of the earth scientists would like to think they have the ability to determine it's age.

And of course, you know better.

It really is remarkable how you are forced to invent conspiracy theories as the means to support your extremist ideology or you launch into fits of abject denial.

There are many different dating methods employed by science. They have been presented to you on more than a couple of occasions. These methods are widely accepted by the relevant science community as reliable and accurate given geologic timescales.

Using the phrase "relevant science community" obviously excludes ID'iot creationists.

It should be a simple matter for ID'iot creationists to refute those atheistic evilutionist in connection with dating methods. Why don't the ID'iots provide their research papers for peer review? They can simultaneously refute the evilutionist nonsense of a 4.5 billion year old planet while disproving the fosill record.

The proof of a conspiracy is in the assumptions Uniformitarians make and contradictions that they hide. Please see the following: NephiCode: So How Old Are the Rocks, Anyway? ? Part II ? The Assumptions

ATTENTION......! THE EXTREME BULLSHIT ALERT HAS SOUNDED....

 

[daws101]

Hollow the age of the earth has nothing to do with this topic.

it has everything to do with it slapdick...

Explain weasel ?

Weasels /ˈwiːzəl/ are mammals forming the genus Mustela of the Mustelidae family. The genus includes the weasels, European polecats, stoats, ferrets and European minks. They are small, active predators, long and slender with short legs. The Mustelidae family (which also includes skunks, badgers, otters and wolverines) is often referred to as the weasel family. In the UK, the term "weasel" usually refers to the smallest species Mustela nivalis (also known as the least weasel).[1]
Weasels vary in length from 173 to 217 mm (6.8 to 8.5 in),[2] females being smaller than the males, and usually have red or brown upper coats and white bellies; some populations of some species moult to a wholly white coat in winter. They have long, slender bodies, which enable them to follow their prey into burrows. Their tails may be from 34 to 52 mm (1.3 to 2.0 in) long.[2] Weasels have a reputation for cleverness, quickness and guile.
Weasels feed on small mammals, and have from time to time been considered vermin, since some species took poultry from farms, or rabbits from commercial warrens. They can be found all across the world except for Antarctica, Australia, and neighbouring islands.


AM I going to fast for you?

 

[daws101]

No, I didn't mean hollow that was from my phone and it has a mind of it's own. The age of the earth scientists would like to think they have the ability to determine it's age.

so scientific dating methods are a conspiracy too?

Nope, it's just foolishness to think their dating methods are accurate when many times they have been shown to be unreliable and they are based off faulty assumptions.

If you want to know the faulty assumptions look them up yourself.

everytime I search faulty assumptions ...I get creationist sites....
search engine companies must be part of the conspiracy too!

 

[daws101]

The proof of a conspiracy is in the assumptions Uniformitarians make and contradictions that they hide. Please see the following: NephiCode: So How Old Are the Rocks, Anyway? ? Part II ? The Assumptions

It starts of immediately stupid.

"No geologists were present when most rocks formed, so they cannot test whether the original rocks already contained daughter isotopes alongside their parent radioisotope"

Thankfully, science can figure out so many things without having to actually be there. It is amazing. It must be like magic, to you. You should just think of it as magic. To you, us scientists and engineers are the harnessers of magic.

We are your GODS. You should pray to us.... and send money.

Observation is very important in science no ?

objective informed observation is...
the shit you claim to be observation is not.

 

[Hollie]

No, I didn't mean hollow that was from my phone and it has a mind of it's own. The age of the earth scientists would like to think they have the ability to determine it's age.

so scientific dating methods are a conspiracy too?

Nope, it's just foolishness to think their dating methods are accurate when many times they have been shown to be unreliable and they are based off faulty assumptions.

If you want to know the faulty assumptions look them up yourself.

No surprise here. The typical groundless claims.

 

[orogenicman]

The proof of a conspiracy is in the assumptions Uniformitarians make and contradictions that they hide. Please see the following: NephiCode: So How Old Are the Rocks, Anyway? ? Part II ? The Assumptions

It starts of immediately stupid.

"No geologists were present when most rocks formed, so they cannot test whether the original rocks already contained daughter isotopes alongside their parent radioisotope"

Thankfully, science can figure out so many things without having to actually be there. It is amazing. It must be like magic, to you. You should just think of it as magic. To you, us scientists and engineers are the harnessers of magic.

We are your GODS. You should pray to us.... and send money.

"Science" cannot figure out anything. "Science" (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" is a systematic study that is used to build and organize knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. A practitioner of science is known as a scientist. The vast problem is that much of what is dished out by individuals who call themselves "scientists" is neither testable nor reliable --- but influenced assumption based on one's personal view of NATURE.

I am going to make the same challenge to you as I do to every creationist I come across on the internet. I challenge you to meet me in the field where were can both examine the geologic evidence first hand. I am a geologist who lives in Kentucky, unfortunately on a fixed income, so any place we meet must be within 50 miles of my home. Sorry, that's the best I can do, but I promise you that if you agree to meet, you will find out how little you actually understand about geology. What say you? Put your money where your mouth is.

 

[orogenicman]

How many genes were found in the Y chromosome of the neanderthals ?

Well, dude, the entire sequence is available right here:

Index of /neandertal/altai/bam

Plow through it and tell us what you find. The Y Chromosome sequence is at the bottom (and has the smallest file size).

This is an important aspect of your argument and you brought up neanderthals. Why don't you produce the evidence ?

I did produce the evidence. It is at the link I provided:

Index of /neandertal/altai/bam

 

[orogenicman]

Hollow the age of the earth has nothing to do with this topic.

Name-caller, the age of the earth is but one contradiction to your various, invented conspiracy theories.

No, I didn't mean hollow that was from my phone and it has a mind of it's own. The age of the earth scientists would like to think they have the ability to determine it's age.

Meet me in the field, and I can show you how it is done.

 

[orogenicman]

No, I didn't mean hollow that was from my phone and it has a mind of it's own. The age of the earth scientists would like to think they have the ability to determine it's age.

And of course, you know better.

It really is remarkable how you are forced to invent conspiracy theories as the means to support your extremist ideology or you launch into fits of abject denial.

There are many different dating methods employed by science. They have been presented to you on more than a couple of occasions. These methods are widely accepted by the relevant science community as reliable and accurate given geologic timescales.

Using the phrase "relevant science community" obviously excludes ID'iot creationists.

It should be a simple matter for ID'iot creationists to refute those atheistic evilutionist in connection with dating methods. Why don't the ID'iots provide their research papers for peer review? They can simultaneously refute the evilutionist nonsense of a 4.5 billion year old planet while disproving the fosill record.

The proof of a conspiracy is in the assumptions Uniformitarians make and contradictions that they hide. Please see the following: NephiCode: So How Old Are the Rocks, Anyway? ? Part II ? The Assumptions

1) If they were so fraught with error, do you honestly believe that thousands of scientists at hundreds of laboratories across the planet would even waste their time using those methods?

2) If you are so comfortable in your young earth belief, you won't have any problem going into the field with me and seeing the evidence first hand. What say you?

 

[orogenicman]

No, I didn't mean hollow that was from my phone and it has a mind of it's own. The age of the earth scientists would like to think they have the ability to determine it's age.

so scientific dating methods are a conspiracy too?

Nope, it's just foolishness to think their dating methods are accurate when many times they have been shown to be unreliable and they are based off faulty assumptions.

If you want to know the faulty assumptions look them up yourself.

Radiometric dating is based on the exact same physics that gave us the atomic bomb and nuclear energy. In order to refute radiometric dating, you have to first refute Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Chernobyl and Fukushima. Got anything like that?

 

[orogenicman]

The proof of a conspiracy is in the assumptions Uniformitarians make and contradictions that they hide. Please see the following: NephiCode: So How Old Are the Rocks, Anyway? ? Part II ? The Assumptions

It starts of immediately stupid.

"No geologists were present when most rocks formed, so they cannot test whether the original rocks already contained daughter isotopes alongside their parent radioisotope"

Thankfully, science can figure out so many things without having to actually be there. It is amazing. It must be like magic, to you. You should just think of it as magic. To you, us scientists and engineers are the harnessers of magic.

We are your GODS. You should pray to us.... and send money.

Observation is very important in science no ?

Right, which is why I keep inviting you to go into the field with me and see the evidence first hand. What's the matter, grasshopper? Are you afraid of doing some observing?

 

[Hollie]

"Science" cannot figure out anything. "Science" (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" is a systematic study that is used to build and organize knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. A practitioner of science is known as a scientist. The vast problem is that much of what is dished out by individuals who call themselves "scientists" is neither testable nor reliable --- but influenced assumption based on one's personal view of NATURE.

Just going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing you don't have (and haven't had), a great deal of interaction with scientists or the science community.

You have had zero what is your point ?

The point is thumpie, you're wrong, as usual.

 

[Hollie]

No, I didn't mean hollow that was from my phone and it has a mind of it's own. The age of the earth scientists would like to think they have the ability to determine it's age.

so scientific dating methods are a conspiracy too?

Nope, it's just foolishness to think their dating methods are accurate when many times they have been shown to be unreliable and they are based off faulty assumptions.

If you want to know the faulty assumptions look them up yourself.

This is more of the nonsense that creationist are forced to retreat to. As usual, ywc is left with nothing but unfounded, unverified and baseless claims aimed at "they" who he claims are using "faulty assumptions". A glance through what the charlatans at the ICR try to pass off to the religious extremists tells us exactly where the gullible find such ID'iosy.

There's no indication and no specifics regarding who "they" are or what those "faulty assumptions" are. It's just more of the defensive posturing that ID'iot creationist fall back on when their false claims and attacks on science are refuted.

 

[Youwerecreated]

it has everything to do with it slapdick...

Explain weasel ?

Weasels /ˈwiːzəl/ are mammals forming the genus Mustela of the Mustelidae family. The genus includes the weasels, European polecats, stoats, ferrets and European minks. They are small, active predators, long and slender with short legs. The Mustelidae family (which also includes skunks, badgers, otters and wolverines) is often referred to as the weasel family. In the UK, the term "weasel" usually refers to the smallest species Mustela nivalis (also known as the least weasel).[1]
Weasels vary in length from 173 to 217 mm (6.8 to 8.5 in),[2] females being smaller than the males, and usually have red or brown upper coats and white bellies; some populations of some species moult to a wholly white coat in winter. They have long, slender bodies, which enable them to follow their prey into burrows. Their tails may be from 34 to 52 mm (1.3 to 2.0 in) long.[2] Weasels have a reputation for cleverness, quickness and guile.
Weasels feed on small mammals, and have from time to time been considered vermin, since some species took poultry from farms, or rabbits from commercial warrens. They can be found all across the world except for Antarctica, Australia, and neighbouring islands.


AM I going to fast for you?

That is what I thought.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It starts of immediately stupid.

"No geologists were present when most rocks formed, so they cannot test whether the original rocks already contained daughter isotopes alongside their parent radioisotope"

Thankfully, science can figure out so many things without having to actually be there. It is amazing. It must be like magic, to you. You should just think of it as magic. To you, us scientists and engineers are the harnessers of magic.

We are your GODS. You should pray to us.... and send money.

"Science" cannot figure out anything. "Science" (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" is a systematic study that is used to build and organize knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. A practitioner of science is known as a scientist. The vast problem is that much of what is dished out by individuals who call themselves "scientists" is neither testable nor reliable --- but influenced assumption based on one's personal view of NATURE.

I am going to make the same challenge to you as I do to every creationist I come across on the internet. I challenge you to meet me in the field where were can both examine the geologic evidence first hand. I am a geologist who lives in Kentucky, unfortunately on a fixed income, so any place we meet must be within 50 miles of my home. Sorry, that's the best I can do, but I promise you that if you agree to meet, you will find out how little you actually understand about geology. What say you? Put your money where your mouth is.

I never claimed to be a Geologist but I can quickly learn how to interpret geological evidence. Like Fossil graveyards all over the world showing fossils in the wrong strata. We know strata can be formed in a short period and does not need millions of years that are claimed.

What do you think you can show me that will change my mind on empirical evidence ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well, dude, the entire sequence is available right here:

Index of /neandertal/altai/bam

Plow through it and tell us what you find. The Y Chromosome sequence is at the bottom (and has the smallest file size).

This is an important aspect of your argument and you brought up neanderthals. Why don't you produce the evidence ?

I did produce the evidence. It is at the link I provided:

Index of /neandertal/altai/bam

What was your point ? When I said nearest ancestor I really meant the common ancestor. You still need to show how new genes are added to the genome not a new trait and or function from a previous existing gene.

You can't turn an ape with 37 genes in the Y chromosome in to a human with 78 genes in the same chromosome.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Name-caller, the age of the earth is but one contradiction to your various, invented conspiracy theories.

No, I didn't mean hollow that was from my phone and it has a mind of it's own. The age of the earth scientists would like to think they have the ability to determine it's age.

Meet me in the field, and I can show you how it is done.

I have seen enough concerning dating methods to know they are unreliable.

 

[Hollie]

"Science" cannot figure out anything. "Science" (from Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge" is a systematic study that is used to build and organize knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe. In an older and closely related meaning, "science" also refers to a body of knowledge itself, of the type that can be rationally explained and reliably applied. A practitioner of science is known as a scientist. The vast problem is that much of what is dished out by individuals who call themselves "scientists" is neither testable nor reliable --- but influenced assumption based on one's personal view of NATURE.

I am going to make the same challenge to you as I do to every creationist I come across on the internet. I challenge you to meet me in the field where were can both examine the geologic evidence first hand. I am a geologist who lives in Kentucky, unfortunately on a fixed income, so any place we meet must be within 50 miles of my home. Sorry, that's the best I can do, but I promise you that if you agree to meet, you will find out how little you actually understand about geology. What say you? Put your money where your mouth is.

I never claimed to be a Geologist but I can quickly learn how to interpret geological evidence. Like Fossil graveyards all over the world showing fossils in the wrong strata. We know strata can be formed in a short period and does not need millions of years that are claimed.

What do you think you can show me that will change my mind on empirical evidence ?

"Fosills in the wrong strata" is a stereotypical creationist claim that derives from ignorance of geology and earth history.

Less Henry Morris and more education in the physical sciences makes the extremist a better student.