Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[daws101]

They do know the building blocks of life but they will never be able to demonstrate origins in a naturalistic setting. Even if they find a way for life to be formed through these building blocks it was accomplished through intelligence not naturalism.

Once again you are demonstrating the arrogance of religion. Once the process is identified there is every possibility that they could then find it occurring in the "naturalistic setting". Unless you know what you are looking for how can you expect it to find it? Your erroneous assumption that "intelligence" was involved in the "creation" of the first "cell slime" that was capable of reproducing is based upon nothing but your "blind faith".

I don't believe life came from slime in water. Life begets life how hard is that to understand ?

how hard is it to understand that belief proves nothing but belief.
you have no objective evidence to substantiate it.

 

[daws101]

Both models.

Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)

Your source has ZERO credibility.

But atheist sites that get quoted do ?

what's your point?

 

[Youwerecreated]

'Naturalism' is not the same as 'evolution' - evolution is what is taught in schools, not 'naturalism'. Again, the OP seems to be confusing two terms.

Science limits itself to what can be tested, proven, replicated: it has no means to observe the nonphysical world.

It does not deny the metaphysical or spiritual exists, it simply does not cover the topic. That's what religion is all about: we don't need science to cover the spiritual.

It appears the OP is unaware of the many theists who find the Theory of Evolution the best explanation for the area it legitimately describes: the 'origin of species'. (note that this does not include abiogenesis).

If there is no God then everything came in to existence through naturalism. This is the philosophy of many evolutionists and where their presuppositions come from. To say scientists do not possess presuppositions is nonsense.

 

[Derideo_Te]

nat·u·ral·ism

/ˈnaCHərəˌlizəm/



Noun


1.(in art and literature) A style and theory of representation based on the accurate depiction of detail. Naturalism rejected the idealiza...
2.A philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual...


nat·u·ral·ism (nchr--lzm, nchr-)
n.
1. Factual or realistic representation, especially:
a. The practice of describing precisely the actual circumstances of human life in literature.

b. The practice of reproducing subjects as precisely as possible in the visual arts.

2.
a. A movement or school advocating such precise representation.

b. The principles and methods of such a movement or of its adherents.

3. Philosophy The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.

4. Theology The doctrine that all religious truths are derived from nature and natural causes and not from revelation.

5. Conduct or thought prompted by natural desires or instincts.

Why did you omit the link and edit the philosophical definition?

Like I stated the ignorance is not mine.

Google

naturalism - definition of naturalism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

So you LIED by deliberate omission twice over.

"(Philosophy) Philosophy
a. a scientific account of the world in terms of causes and natural forces that rejects all spiritual, supernatural, or teleological explanations"

 

[Youwerecreated]

Once again you are demonstrating the arrogance of religion. Once the process is identified there is every possibility that they could then find it occurring in the "naturalistic setting". Unless you know what you are looking for how can you expect it to find it? Your erroneous assumption that "intelligence" was involved in the "creation" of the first "cell slime" that was capable of reproducing is based upon nothing but your "blind faith".

I don't believe life came from slime in water. Life begets life how hard is that to understand ?

how hard is it to understand that belief proves nothing but belief.
you have no objective evidence to substantiate it.

Daws how absurd of a response. You have evidence all around you of living organisms producing more living organisms and not one example of life coming from non-living matter.

 

[Hollie]

I don't know anything about this "naturalism" but I do know that creationism is a bunch of nonsensical bunk and it cannot qualify as a scientific theory. I can't believe that anyone still believes in that crap after the major embarrassment to both creationism and ID in the Dover, Pa courtroom.

Both naturalism and creationism is merely philosophy and the full tenets of both can't be tested through the scientific method.

The day is coming when the courts will be fully educated to make an adequate decision concerning both views.

You're not even able to make rational distinctions between science and supernaturalism. Science is not a "philosophy". The study of the the natural world is performed with the process of science. Science has no methods to test for religious claims such as creationism because creationism is nothing more than religious appeals.

The courts have repeatedly tossed out creationism being taught in the public school system because, as it has been presented to you repeatedly, creationism is Christian religious dogma under a different name. Your creationist ministries have suffered humiliating reprimands by judges who have seen religion being tagged with various names in attempts to introduce religious dogma into public schools.

In the U.S., the constitution forbids promoting religion in the public schools.

Do you have any clue that your attempts to bludgeon poeple with bibles is offensive?

 

[daws101]

'Naturalism' is not the same as 'evolution' - evolution is what is taught in schools, not 'naturalism'. Again, the OP seems to be confusing two terms.

Science limits itself to what can be tested, proven, replicated: it has no means to observe the nonphysical world.

It does not deny the metaphysical or spiritual exists, it simply does not cover the topic. That's what religion is all about: we don't need science to cover the spiritual.

It appears the OP is unaware of the many theists who find the Theory of Evolution the best explanation for the area it legitimately describes: the 'origin of species'. (note that this does not include abiogenesis).

If there is no God then everything came in to existence through naturalism. This is the philosophy of many evolutionists and where their presuppositions come from. To say scientists do not possess presuppositions is nonsense.

scientific presuppositions are based on available evidence..
not pulled from the metaphorical ass like biblical presuppositions are...

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why did you omit the link and edit the philosophical definition?

Like I stated the ignorance is not mine.

Google

naturalism - definition of naturalism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

So you LIED by deliberate omission twice over.

"(Philosophy) Philosophy
a. a scientific account of the world in terms of causes and natural forces that rejects all spiritual, supernatural, or teleological explanations"

No I just posted it and left off the link thought you would have been smart enough to at least look up the term before making a fool of yourself.

 

[MHunterB]

They do know the building blocks of life but they will never be able to demonstrate origins in a naturalistic setting. Even if they find a way for life to be formed through these building blocks it was accomplished through intelligence not naturalism.

Once again you are demonstrating the arrogance of religion. Once the process is identified there is every possibility that they could then find it occurring in the "naturalistic setting". Unless you know what you are looking for how can you expect it to find it? Your erroneous assumption that "intelligence" was involved in the "creation" of the first "cell slime" that was capable of reproducing is based upon nothing but your "blind faith".

I don't believe life came from slime in water. Life begets life how hard is that to understand ?

Science has nothing to do with 'belief' and everything to do with testable repeatable results. I'm not deying that one's beliefs are important in one's life - just that they have any particular weight in adding to scientific knowledge.

 

[Youwerecreated]

'Naturalism' is not the same as 'evolution' - evolution is what is taught in schools, not 'naturalism'. Again, the OP seems to be confusing two terms.

Science limits itself to what can be tested, proven, replicated: it has no means to observe the nonphysical world.

It does not deny the metaphysical or spiritual exists, it simply does not cover the topic. That's what religion is all about: we don't need science to cover the spiritual.

It appears the OP is unaware of the many theists who find the Theory of Evolution the best explanation for the area it legitimately describes: the 'origin of species'. (note that this does not include abiogenesis).

If there is no God then everything came in to existence through naturalism. This is the philosophy of many evolutionists and where their presuppositions come from. To say scientists do not possess presuppositions is nonsense.

scientific presuppositions are based on available evidence..
not pulled from the metaphorical ass like biblical presuppositions are...

Bullshit ! your presuppositions close your mind to the possibility of creation don't even attempt to Bullshit me daws.. Everyone is affected by their presuppositions, Whether it's political,philosophy or whatever it is your presuppositions will affect your interpretations.

 

[daws101]

I don't believe life came from slime in water. Life begets life how hard is that to understand ?

how hard is it to understand that belief proves nothing but belief.
you have no objective evidence to substantiate it.

Daws how absurd of a response. You have evidence all around you of living organisms producing more living organisms and not one example of life coming from non-living matter.

I'm sure you see it that way...but as with all your observations it's false.
ALL LIFE HAS NON LIVING COMPONENTS: MINERALS AND WATER...without those there is no life...
procreation or life from life is not proof it started that way..

 

[Youwerecreated]

Once again you are demonstrating the arrogance of religion. Once the process is identified there is every possibility that they could then find it occurring in the "naturalistic setting". Unless you know what you are looking for how can you expect it to find it? Your erroneous assumption that "intelligence" was involved in the "creation" of the first "cell slime" that was capable of reproducing is based upon nothing but your "blind faith".

I don't believe life came from slime in water. Life begets life how hard is that to understand ?

Science has nothing to do with 'belief' and everything to do with testable repeatable results. I'm not deying that one's beliefs are important in one's life - just that they have any particular weight in adding to scientific knowledge.

If this is true how can you make scientific predictions ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

how hard is it to understand that belief proves nothing but belief.
you have no objective evidence to substantiate it.

Daws how absurd of a response. You have evidence all around you of living organisms producing more living organisms and not one example of life coming from non-living matter.

I'm sure you see it that way...but as with all your observations it's false.
ALL LIFE HAS NON LIVING COMPONENTS: MINERALS AND WATER...without those there is no life...
procreation or life from life is not proof it started that way..

Daws that is a fact.

The life that began life was the living being that designed it.

 

[Hollie]

'Naturalism' is not the same as 'evolution' - evolution is what is taught in schools, not 'naturalism'. Again, the OP seems to be confusing two terms.

Science limits itself to what can be tested, proven, replicated: it has no means to observe the nonphysical world.

It does not deny the metaphysical or spiritual exists, it simply does not cover the topic. That's what religion is all about: we don't need science to cover the spiritual.

It appears the OP is unaware of the many theists who find the Theory of Evolution the best explanation for the area it legitimately describes: the 'origin of species'. (note that this does not include abiogenesis).

If there is no God then everything came in to existence through naturalism. This is the philosophy of many evolutionists and where their presuppositions come from. To say scientists do not possess presuppositions is nonsense.

It's a common tactic of creationists to associate "evilutionist" with the beginning of life. The theory of evolution does not address how life began.

Unfortunately, people such as ywc with virtually no background in science will argue against an established scientific principle they know nothing about.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Like I stated the ignorance is not mine.

Google

naturalism - definition of naturalism by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

So you LIED by deliberate omission twice over.

"(Philosophy) Philosophy
a. a scientific account of the world in terms of causes and natural forces that rejects all spiritual, supernatural, or teleological explanations"

No I just posted it and left off the link thought you would have been smart enough to at least look up the term before making a fool of yourself.

Furthermore you lack the basic honesty and integrity to admit when you are caught lying.

Here is EXACTLY what you posted;

Noun


1.(in art and literature) A style and theory of representation based on the accurate depiction of detail. Naturalism rejected the idealiza...
2.A philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual...


nat·u·ral·ism (nchr--lzm, nchr-)

This is what you DELIBERATELY OMITTED;

a scientific account of the world in terms of causes and natural forces that rejects all spiritual, supernatural, or teleological explanations

The only fool is the one who forgets what they have already posted.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Have a good weekend all.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So you LIED by deliberate omission twice over.

"(Philosophy) Philosophy
a. a scientific account of the world in terms of causes and natural forces that rejects all spiritual, supernatural, or teleological explanations"

No I just posted it and left off the link thought you would have been smart enough to at least look up the term before making a fool of yourself.

Furthermore you lack the basic honesty and integrity to admit when you are caught lying.

Here is EXACTLY what you posted;

Noun


1.(in art and literature) A style and theory of representation based on the accurate depiction of detail. Naturalism rejected the idealiza...
2.A philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual...


nat·u·ral·ism (nchr--lzm, nchr-)

This is what you DELIBERATELY OMITTED;

a scientific account of the world in terms of causes and natural forces that rejects all spiritual, supernatural, or teleological explanations

The only fool is the one who forgets what they have already posted.

Put your big boy pants on admit you are stupid.

Why the fuck would I have to post a link for a definition dumbshit ?

You are a friggen MORON.

 

[daws101]

If there is no God then everything came in to existence through naturalism. This is the philosophy of many evolutionists and where their presuppositions come from. To say scientists do not possess presuppositions is nonsense.

scientific presuppositions are based on available evidence..
not pulled from the metaphorical ass like biblical presuppositions are...

Bullshit ! your presuppositions close your mind to the possibility of creation don't even attempt to Bullshit me daws.. Everyone is affected by their presuppositions, Whether it's political,philosophy or whatever it is your presuppositions will affect your interpretations.

looks like a tantrum to me...
answer the question slapdick does the bible have presuppositions in it or not? and do those presuppositions effect an objective interpretation of evidence.?

 

[MHunterB]

Both models.

Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation (Part I & II)

Your source has ZERO credibility.

But atheist sites that get quoted do ?

What are you calling 'atheist' sites? As explained already, metaphysics or spirituality is NOT properly part of Science, any science. Please do not confuse ignoring religious topics with 'being atheist'. They are two different matters: the scientists are saying 'we cannot use science to prove theological truths', as opposed to atheists who are saying 'there ARE no theological truths'.

It is a logical error to equate the two: the scientist does NOT deny that such spiritual truth exists.

 

[Hollie]

Daws how absurd of a response. You have evidence all around you of living organisms producing more living organisms and not one example of life coming from non-living matter.

I'm sure you see it that way...but as with all your observations it's false.
ALL LIFE HAS NON LIVING COMPONENTS: MINERALS AND WATER...without those there is no life...
procreation or life from life is not proof it started that way..

Daws that is a fact.

The life that began life was the living being that designed it.

Your gawds are living beings?

Is that why they were as as ascribed by their human inventors with human attributes?