Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism 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.

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.

Actually, no. Your previous denials and conspiracy theories indicate you reject dating methods because they confound your 6,000 year old fantasy.


You rail against the fosill record and dating methods in particular because they are the most visible of the contradictions to biblical timelines.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Actually, no. Your previous denials and conspiracy theories indicate you reject dating methods because they confound your 6,000 year old fantasy.


You rail against the fosill record and dating methods in particular because they are the most visible of the contradictions to biblical timelines.

The age of the earth is not a problem for creationists whether the earth is four and half billion years old or only 6,000 it does not matter to me. I do however find it entertaining that creationists purposely sent objects to be dated to labs and these objects had a known age. They did not just use one lab but several for the same evidence. It was funny how diverse the ages were.

I am concerned with origins. How it was possible life could come from non-life. How complex organisms could have formed without direction. How complicated cycles could have arisen naturally. How one cell could have organized itself and to continue to evolve in to all organisms that have ever existed. How all the molecular machines in the cell just evolved themselves.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

Actually, no. Your previous denials and conspiracy theories indicate you reject dating methods because they confound your 6,000 year old fantasy.


You rail against the fosill record and dating methods in particular because they are the most visible of the contradictions to biblical timelines.

The age of the earth is not a problem for creationists whether the earth is four and half billion years old or only 6,000 it does not matter to me. I do however find it entertaining that creationists purposely sent objects to be dated to labs and these objects had a known age. They did not just use one lab but several for the same evidence. It was funny how diverse the ages were.

I am concerned with origins. How it was possible life could come from non-life. How complex organisms could have formed without direction. How complicated cycles could have arisen naturally. How one cell could have organized itself and to continue to evolve in to all organisms that have ever existed. How all the molecular machines in the cell just evolved themselves.

You don't even understand that the Earth is not an isolated system, how could you understand any of those other things?

 

[orogenicman]

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

Actually, no. Your previous denials and conspiracy theories indicate you reject dating methods because they confound your 6,000 year old fantasy.


You rail against the fosill record and dating methods in particular because they are the most visible of the contradictions to biblical timelines.

The age of the earth is not a problem for creationists whether the earth is four and half billion years old or only 6,000 it does not matter to me. I do however find it entertaining that creationists purposely sent objects to be dated to labs and these objects had a known age. They did not just use one lab but several for the same evidence. It was funny how diverse the ages were.

I am concerned with origins. How it was possible life could come from non-life. How complex organisms could have formed without direction. How complicated cycles could have arisen naturally. How one cell could have organized itself and to continue to evolve in to all organisms that have ever existed. How all the molecular machines in the cell just evolved themselves.

What is clear is that none of that is true. If it was, it would have made headlines all over the world, instead of only in the tiny heads of you and your pathetic creationist buddies. Dude, in order to refute radiometric dating, you have to refute the physics that made possible the atomic bomb and nuclear energy. Got anything like that? Of course you don't.

By the way, if you don't care how old the Earth is, why did you try to refute it with that not so white lie you told?

Nearly all of the precursor molecules of life have already been shown to have the ability to form outside of life in the natural world. Why is it so hard for you to comprehend that it doesn't take a leap of faith to go one or more steps further? That is where the data is leading us. How will you react when that final gap in our knowledge is filled, only to find that god wasn't necessary to explain it? Aren't you going to feel a bit foolish? Yeah, you're right, probably not. Denial, I know, it's a bitch.

Oh, and if the ultimate origin of life is your quest, why are you so dumbstruck about the theory of evolution, which isn't about the ultimate origin of life?

 

[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.

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.

Why don't you just admit that you don't know anything about dating? It is clear to everyone that you don't.

If they were unreliable, there wouldn't be a scientist on the planet who would use them. Contrary to what you may have heard, we aren't stupid.

 

[orogenicman]

"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 ?

For starters I can prove to you that the fossils aren't in the wrong strata, that the people who make that kind of claim are lying to you. Contrary to what you apparently believe, geologists have a deep and abiding understanding of how to analyze strata and the fossils contained in them. Strata can form fairly rapidly. Stream sediments are formed fairly rapidly all the time. Marine carbonate strata, not rapidly at all. You are forgetting that we can and have studied modern strata all over the world and compared them with ancient strata from all over the world. How they form is very well understood. But then, you aren't trying to prove a young Earth, are you? So why does it matter to you how long it takes for strata to form?

If you can quickly learn how to interpret geological evidence, then you would have no problem doing so on a field trip with me. Come on, grasshopper. What are you afraid of?

 

[daws101]

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.

really?, then why did you ask for a description of weasels?

 

[daws101]

"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 ?

a quick search revealed that all claims of fossils being in the wrong strata are made by creationists not by credible geologists or paleontologists.....wonder why that is. ?

 

[itfitzme]

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.

Yeah, like god created man in his image, that DNA is God's created instructions, and that the second law of thermo forbids the existance of life.... like that bs.....

You are absolutely right, Creationists passing themselves as scientists is complete bs.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Actually, no. Your previous denials and conspiracy theories indicate you reject dating methods because they confound your 6,000 year old fantasy.


You rail against the fosill record and dating methods in particular because they are the most visible of the contradictions to biblical timelines.

The age of the earth is not a problem for creationists whether the earth is four and half billion years old or only 6,000 it does not matter to me. I do however find it entertaining that creationists purposely sent objects to be dated to labs and these objects had a known age. They did not just use one lab but several for the same evidence. It was funny how diverse the ages were.

I am concerned with origins. How it was possible life could come from non-life. How complex organisms could have formed without direction. How complicated cycles could have arisen naturally. How one cell could have organized itself and to continue to evolve in to all organisms that have ever existed. How all the molecular machines in the cell just evolved themselves.

You don't even understand that the Earth is not an isolated system, how could you understand any of those other things?

I never said the earth is an isolated system, if I did it was a mistake. I stated to many times That I believe it is a closed system.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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 ?

For starters I can prove to you that the fossils aren't in the wrong strata, that the people who make that kind of claim are lying to you. Contrary to what you apparently believe, geologists have a deep and abiding understanding of how to analyze strata and the fossils contained in them. Strata can form fairly rapidly. Stream sediments are formed fairly rapidly all the time. Marine carbonate strata, not rapidly at all. You are forgetting that we can and have studied modern strata all over the world and compared them with ancient strata from all over the world. How they form is very well understood. But then, you aren't trying to prove a young Earth, are you? So why does it matter to you how long it takes for strata to form?

If you can quickly learn how to interpret geological evidence, then you would have no problem doing so on a field trip with me. Come on, grasshopper. What are you afraid of?

Really ? you have visited all the fossil graveyards in the world ?

Evidence for a Global Flood

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well Not much to respond to. Dang nobody wants to talk genetics nor molecular biology anymore. Well can't really blame you.

Genetics: No Friend of Evolution - Answers in Genesis

Uh oh time is a problem for evolutionists as well.

Time?no friend of evolution

 

[Youwerecreated]

Well let's just ignore the facts.

 

[orogenicman]

The age of the earth is not a problem for creationists whether the earth is four and half billion years old or only 6,000 it does not matter to me. I do however find it entertaining that creationists purposely sent objects to be dated to labs and these objects had a known age. They did not just use one lab but several for the same evidence. It was funny how diverse the ages were.

I am concerned with origins. How it was possible life could come from non-life. How complex organisms could have formed without direction. How complicated cycles could have arisen naturally. How one cell could have organized itself and to continue to evolve in to all organisms that have ever existed. How all the molecular machines in the cell just evolved themselves.

You don't even understand that the Earth is not an isolated system, how could you understand any of those other things?

I never said the earth is an isolated system, if I did it was a mistake. I stated to many times That I believe it is a closed system.

It isn't a closed system, either. Try again.

 

[orogenicman]

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 ?

For starters I can prove to you that the fossils aren't in the wrong strata, that the people who make that kind of claim are lying to you. Contrary to what you apparently believe, geologists have a deep and abiding understanding of how to analyze strata and the fossils contained in them. Strata can form fairly rapidly. Stream sediments are formed fairly rapidly all the time. Marine carbonate strata, not rapidly at all. You are forgetting that we can and have studied modern strata all over the world and compared them with ancient strata from all over the world. How they form is very well understood. But then, you aren't trying to prove a young Earth, are you? So why does it matter to you how long it takes for strata to form?

If you can quickly learn how to interpret geological evidence, then you would have no problem doing so on a field trip with me. Come on, grasshopper. What are you afraid of?

Really ? you have visited all the fossil graveyards in the world ?

Evidence for a Global Flood

I have studied the literature on most of them, and have visited most of the important sites in the states. Global flood? You've lost your mind. You might as well say that you believe in a hollow Earth or a flat Earth, that's how crazy that is. Field trip? Yes or no?

 

[orogenicman]

Well Not much to respond to. Dang nobody wants to talk genetics nor molecular biology anymore. Well can't really blame you.

Genetics: No Friend of Evolution - Answers in Genesis

Uh oh time is a problem for evolutionists as well.

Time?no friend of evolution

Answers in Genesis = no friend of science. No doubt, you also believe that the Flintstones is a documentary. Congratulations.

 

[orogenicman]

Well let's just ignore the facts.

You're good at doing just that. Field trip? Yes or no?

 

[Hollie]

Well Not much to respond to. Dang nobody wants to talk genetics nor molecular biology anymore. Well can't really blame you.

Genetics: No Friend of Evolution - Answers in Genesis

Uh oh time is a problem for evolutionists as well.

Time?no friend of evolution

Answers in Genesis = no friend of science. No doubt, you also believe that the Flintstones is a documentary. Congratulations.

Ywc subscribes to the Ken "Creation Museum" Ham school of earth history where humans in buckskin outfits frolicked with dinosaurs.

And how cool is this - he and his ilk would like to force Christian based ID'iot creationism into the public school system.

 

[Hollie]

Well Not much to respond to. Dang nobody wants to talk genetics nor molecular biology anymore. Well can't really blame you.

Genetics: No Friend of Evolution - Answers in Genesis

Uh oh time is a problem for evolutionists as well.

Time?no friend of evolution

You fail to understand that when you link to such mindless prattle as promoted by the Flat Earth types above, it suggests your knowledge of biology is similarly meaningless.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The age of the earth is not a problem for creationists whether the earth is four and half billion years old or only 6,000 it does not matter to me. I do however find it entertaining that creationists purposely sent objects to be dated to labs and these objects had a known age. They did not just use one lab but several for the same evidence. It was funny how diverse the ages were.

I am concerned with origins. How it was possible life could come from non-life. How complex organisms could have formed without direction. How complicated cycles could have arisen naturally. How one cell could have organized itself and to continue to evolve in to all organisms that have ever existed. How all the molecular machines in the cell just evolved themselves.

You don't even understand that the Earth is not an isolated system, how could you understand any of those other things?

I never said the earth is an isolated system, if I did it was a mistake. I stated to many times That I believe it is a closed system.

If it's a closed system, if can receive energy and entropy can be reduced.
So your claim about complexity was wrong.