Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Derideo_Te]

Nope everyone would have been judged before that day comes. It says that everyone whose name is not found in the book of life will be destroyed. After that final battle when all the ones that their names have not been written in the book of life are destroyed along will all the rebellious angels have been destroyed except for satan because he will be bound for the 1,000 year reign.

The resurrection will be of the ones receiving everlasting life that have passed away. The others that never had a chance to know Christ will get that chance in the 1,000 year reign. Satan will be released for a very short time and the ones that never had a chance to know Christ and then fall error once satan is released for a very short time they and satan along with death will be cast in to the lake of fire total destruction and they will never come back from that.

That swooshing sound you heard was my point going over your head at Mach 3.

No I just corrected your fallacy if you read my words slowly.

Your cognitive dissonance must be deafening. You believe in a fallacious "judgment" that has a pre-ordained outcome therefore it is more akin to a lynching by your serial mass murdering "creator". Since you have no problem with his record of crimes against humanity and are all gung ho for the upcoming slaughter of innocents that makes you an accomplice before the fact. Oops, now I sound like hobelim. I will leave you to your delusions and fantasies.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That swooshing sound you heard was my point going over your head at Mach 3.

No I just corrected your fallacy if you read my words slowly.

Your cognitive dissonance must be deafening. You believe in a fallacious "judgment" that has a pre-ordained outcome therefore it is more akin to a lynching by your serial mass murdering "creator". Since you have no problem with his record of crimes against humanity and are all gung ho for the upcoming slaughter of innocents that makes you an accomplice before the fact. Oops, now I sound like hobelim. I will leave you to your delusions and fantasies.

Sit back and relax, and take in a very deep breath and then exhale. What a gift that is to be able to take in that all important deep breath and then exhale.....

 

[Hollie]

Ahhh name calling (stupid seeming to be the most common term used). The rhetorical technique used when a person lacks either facts or logic to support their position. Though people do hold foolish beliefs. For example, because a majority of people believe something about the physical world, than that must be how the world works. For example, I would bet that at least 75% of the population thinks that, for all practical purposes, time on the space station, is the same as time down here.

More to the point. Since it is clear that not a single poster put forth the mental effort to actual do any research, let me suggest that you read this article. Assuming that its 2500 words requiring 15 min does not exceed your attention span Naturalism on wikipedia

As to why creationism is NOT science. Well, if the person raising this question understood what science was, they would know the answer. The concept of creationism can not possibly be shown to be false. Hence is it not a scientific theory. Depending on your concept of naturalism; that is, can the concept be made to stretch to cover anything that we might discover, than it is either science or not.

Suppose for example that careful experiments showed that in emergency rooms, people can "die", and be brought back, and demonstrate that they saw things for which we have no known explanation, such as a written message on a platform only 5 inches from the ceiling. (or .5in, or .05 in) Would that be something that would be considered "natural" or not? If so, why or why not? Obviously if it were to be considered natural than we have expanded our concept of what is natural to cover whatever we experience so naturalism can not be falsified. If the observation were considered to be supernatural, --- that is we can experience something when we 'die' and come back --- than naturalism can be falsified, and is thus scientific.

I hope that this answers most peoples questions.

Science can show that all living organisms arose through naturalistic unguided processes if they do so then you can make a better argument for naturalism not rule out creation completely, Because it will have been shown through intelligence not a total natural process.

Both naturalism and creation can be falsifiable, and both can be proven false. I actually gave examples, and please don't say the person that asked the question is ignorant of science and the scientific method. My degree says otherwise.

Your supposed "degree" is no defense for ignorance.

Supernatural creationism is obviously not falsifiable because it relies on miracles and supernatural events. Philosopher Karl Popper has argued for decades that the primary criterion of science is the falsifiability of its theories. We can never prove absolutely, but we can falsify. A set of ideas that cannot, in principle, be falsified is not science. Thus, your religious claims are not science.

The entire creationist program includes nothing more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting supposed contradictions among the evidence. The fundamentalist christian brand of creationism is nothing more than biblical literalism. The fundies claim their religious dogma is "scientific" because it follows the Popperian model in trying to demolish evolution. Yet Popper's argument must apply in both directions.

"Scientific creationism" is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase precisely because it cannot be falsified. I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Supernatural systems are dogma, not science.

 

[Hollie]

Well he has already predicted how that will go but believe as you wish.

If the final outcome is a foregone conclusion then your mythical "creator" has already prejudged everyone before they were even "created' so the entire "judgment" premise is nothing but a complete farce. Thanks for exposing the utter fallacy of your "judgment" myth.

Nope everyone would have been judged before that day comes. It says that everyone whose name is not found in the book of life will be destroyed. After that final battle when all the ones that their names have not been written in the book of life are destroyed along will all the rebellious angels have been destroyed except for satan because he will be bound for the 1,000 year reign.

The resurrection will be of the ones receiving everlasting life and the ones that never had a chance to know Christ that have passed away. The others that never had a chance to know Christ will get that chance in the 1,000 year reign. Satan will be released for a very short time and the ones that never had a chance to know Christ and then fall error once satan is released for a very short time they and satan along with death will be cast in to the lake of fire total destruction and they will never come back from that.

"Books of life", "Books of the Dead", "rebellious angels", "lakes of fire"... all while you claim that creationism is "scientific".

Lest I seem harsh or rhetorical, I quote creationism's (former) leading thumper, Duane Gish, from his (1978) book, Evolution? The Fossils Say No! "By creation we mean the bringing into being by a supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation. We do not know how the Creator created, what process He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe [Gish's italics]. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative processes used by the Creator." Pray tell, oh ye practitioners of voodoo magic, in the light of that last sentence, what then is scientific creationism?

 

[Hollie]

Is it not my right to free speech ?

If your house was burning down, and you were asleep in your home,would you appreciate it if some woke you up and alerted you that your house was on fire ?

What a truly silly attempt at analogy.

Religionists waiting for their gawds to return, (or to appear), has been the cause for the vast majority of religions which have failed over time, and why your currently configured religion will eventually fail as well. There is no reason to believe that the Jesus will ever come back and as the decades roll onward and he doesn't return, your religion will fall further and further out of favor, just like the promises of Mithras are now dust.

At least who it was directed at it had a rational response. You however just expose your bias through rhetoric.

I couldn't help but notice your complete befuddlement.

 

[Agent.Tom]

Your supposed "degree" is no defense for ignorance.

What's your excuse?

...creationism is obviously not falsifiable...

Great, you are showing at least a capacity to learn and upgrade your position. Well done.

...because it relies on miracles and supernatural events.

Better put, creationism contends that what folks label "supernatural" is not only possible, but not so supernatural when you consider the logical conclusion that what we see around us the simple effect of an outside force or cause.

Why folks like you are so comfortable embracing a logical fallacy, is beyond me. You claim the high-ground on all things logical and scientific.... yet you insist that the universe came about from nothing, and without an antecedent cause. Such thinking flies in the face of fundamental logic and science.

 

[Hollie]

Your supposed "degree" is no defense for ignorance.

What's your excuse?

...creationism is obviously not falsifiable...

Great, you are showing at least a capacity to learn and upgrade your position. Well done.

...because it relies on miracles and supernatural events.

Better put, creationism contends that what folks label "supernatural" is not only possible, but not so supernatural when you consider the logical conclusion that what we see around us the simple effect of an outside force or cause.

Why folks like you are so comfortable embracing a logical fallacy, is beyond me. You claim the high-ground on all things logical and scientific.... yet you insist that the universe came about from nothing, and without an antecedent cause. Such thinking flies in the face of fundamental logic and science.

Why yes, magical gawds are certainly logical and scientific.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ahhh name calling (stupid seeming to be the most common term used). The rhetorical technique used when a person lacks either facts or logic to support their position. Though people do hold foolish beliefs. For example, because a majority of people believe something about the physical world, than that must be how the world works. For example, I would bet that at least 75% of the population thinks that, for all practical purposes, time on the space station, is the same as time down here.

More to the point. Since it is clear that not a single poster put forth the mental effort to actual do any research, let me suggest that you read this article. Assuming that its 2500 words requiring 15 min does not exceed your attention span Naturalism on wikipedia

As to why creationism is NOT science. Well, if the person raising this question understood what science was, they would know the answer. The concept of creationism can not possibly be shown to be false. Hence is it not a scientific theory. Depending on your concept of naturalism; that is, can the concept be made to stretch to cover anything that we might discover, than it is either science or not.

Suppose for example that careful experiments showed that in emergency rooms, people can "die", and be brought back, and demonstrate that they saw things for which we have no known explanation, such as a written message on a platform only 5 inches from the ceiling. (or .5in, or .05 in) Would that be something that would be considered "natural" or not? If so, why or why not? Obviously if it were to be considered natural than we have expanded our concept of what is natural to cover whatever we experience so naturalism can not be falsified. If the observation were considered to be supernatural, --- that is we can experience something when we 'die' and come back --- than naturalism can be falsified, and is thus scientific.

I hope that this answers most peoples questions.

Science can show that all living organisms arose through naturalistic unguided processes if they do so then you can make a better argument for naturalism not rule out creation completely, Because it will have been shown through intelligence not a total natural process.

Both naturalism and creation can be falsifiable, and both can be proven false. I actually gave examples, and please don't say the person that asked the question is ignorant of science and the scientific method. My degree says otherwise.

Your supposed "degree" is no defense for ignorance.

Supernatural creationism is obviously not falsifiable because it relies on miracles and supernatural events. Philosopher Karl Popper has argued for decades that the primary criterion of science is the falsifiability of its theories. We can never prove absolutely, but we can falsify. A set of ideas that cannot, in principle, be falsified is not science. Thus, your religious claims are not science.

The entire creationist program includes nothing more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting supposed contradictions among the evidence. The fundamentalist christian brand of creationism is nothing more than biblical literalism. The fundies claim their religious dogma is "scientific" because it follows the Popperian model in trying to demolish evolution. Yet Popper's argument must apply in both directions.

"Scientific creationism" is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase precisely because it cannot be falsified. I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Supernatural systems are dogma, not science.

Obviously the evidence that was presented went over your head.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If the final outcome is a foregone conclusion then your mythical "creator" has already prejudged everyone before they were even "created' so the entire "judgment" premise is nothing but a complete farce. Thanks for exposing the utter fallacy of your "judgment" myth.

Nope everyone would have been judged before that day comes. It says that everyone whose name is not found in the book of life will be destroyed. After that final battle when all the ones that their names have not been written in the book of life are destroyed along will all the rebellious angels have been destroyed except for satan because he will be bound for the 1,000 year reign.

The resurrection will be of the ones receiving everlasting life and the ones that never had a chance to know Christ that have passed away. The others that never had a chance to know Christ will get that chance in the 1,000 year reign. Satan will be released for a very short time and the ones that never had a chance to know Christ and then fall error once satan is released for a very short time they and satan along with death will be cast in to the lake of fire total destruction and they will never come back from that.

"Books of life", "Books of the Dead", "rebellious angels", "lakes of fire"... all while you claim that creationism is "scientific".

Lest I seem harsh or rhetorical, I quote creationism's (former) leading thumper, Duane Gish, from his (1978) book, Evolution? The Fossils Say No! "By creation we mean the bringing into being by a supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation. We do not know how the Creator created, what process He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe [Gish's italics]. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative processes used by the Creator." Pray tell, oh ye practitioners of voodoo magic, in the light of that last sentence, what then is scientific creationism?

Not all of creationism has been falsified but that can be said of many scientific theories.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What a truly silly attempt at analogy.

Religionists waiting for their gawds to return, (or to appear), has been the cause for the vast majority of religions which have failed over time, and why your currently configured religion will eventually fail as well. There is no reason to believe that the Jesus will ever come back and as the decades roll onward and he doesn't return, your religion will fall further and further out of favor, just like the promises of Mithras are now dust.

At least who it was directed at it had a rational response. You however just expose your bias through rhetoric.

I couldn't help but notice your complete befuddlement.

Hollie you can dream.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Your supposed "degree" is no defense for ignorance.

What's your excuse?


Great, you are showing at least a capacity to learn and upgrade your position. Well done.

...because it relies on miracles and supernatural events.

Better put, creationism contends that what folks label "supernatural" is not only possible, but not so supernatural when you consider the logical conclusion that what we see around us the simple effect of an outside force or cause.

Why folks like you are so comfortable embracing a logical fallacy, is beyond me. You claim the high-ground on all things logical and scientific.... yet you insist that the universe came about from nothing, and without an antecedent cause. Such thinking flies in the face of fundamental logic and science.

Why yes, magical gawds are certainly logical and scientific.

No magic required hollie,that is the creators natural ability, and it will never be matched by all the scientists in the world with all the complicated machinery, tools, and knowledge they possess.

 

[dblack]

What's your excuse?


Great, you are showing at least a capacity to learn and upgrade your position. Well done.


Better put, creationism contends that what folks label "supernatural" is not only possible, but not so supernatural when you consider the logical conclusion that what we see around us the simple effect of an outside force or cause.

Why folks like you are so comfortable embracing a logical fallacy, is beyond me. You claim the high-ground on all things logical and scientific.... yet you insist that the universe came about from nothing, and without an antecedent cause. Such thinking flies in the face of fundamental logic and science.

Why yes, magical gawds are certainly logical and scientific.

No magic required hollie,that is the creators natural ability, and it will never be matched by all the scientists in the world with all the complicated machinery, tools, and knowledge they possess.

You're a naturalist now! Welcome to the fold, bro.

 

[Hollie]

What's your excuse?


Great, you are showing at least a capacity to learn and upgrade your position. Well done.


Better put, creationism contends that what folks label "supernatural" is not only possible, but not so supernatural when you consider the logical conclusion that what we see around us the simple effect of an outside force or cause.

Why folks like you are so comfortable embracing a logical fallacy, is beyond me. You claim the high-ground on all things logical and scientific.... yet you insist that the universe came about from nothing, and without an antecedent cause. Such thinking flies in the face of fundamental logic and science.

Why yes, magical gawds are certainly logical and scientific.

No magic required hollie,that is the creators natural ability, and it will never be matched by all the scientists in the world with all the complicated machinery, tools, and knowledge they possess.

There's nothing natural about alleged magical gawds.

 

[Hollie]

Nope everyone would have been judged before that day comes. It says that everyone whose name is not found in the book of life will be destroyed. After that final battle when all the ones that their names have not been written in the book of life are destroyed along will all the rebellious angels have been destroyed except for satan because he will be bound for the 1,000 year reign.

The resurrection will be of the ones receiving everlasting life and the ones that never had a chance to know Christ that have passed away. The others that never had a chance to know Christ will get that chance in the 1,000 year reign. Satan will be released for a very short time and the ones that never had a chance to know Christ and then fall error once satan is released for a very short time they and satan along with death will be cast in to the lake of fire total destruction and they will never come back from that.

"Books of life", "Books of the Dead", "rebellious angels", "lakes of fire"... all while you claim that creationism is "scientific".

Lest I seem harsh or rhetorical, I quote creationism's (former) leading thumper, Duane Gish, from his (1978) book, Evolution? The Fossils Say No! "By creation we mean the bringing into being by a supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation. We do not know how the Creator created, what process He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe [Gish's italics]. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative processes used by the Creator." Pray tell, oh ye practitioners of voodoo magic, in the light of that last sentence, what then is scientific creationism?

Not all of creationism has been falsified but that can be said of many scientific theories.

There is nothing about creationism that is falsifiable because the premise is an appeal to magic and supernaturalism.

It says so in the Book of the Dead.

 

[Hollie]

Science can show that all living organisms arose through naturalistic unguided processes if they do so then you can make a better argument for naturalism not rule out creation completely, Because it will have been shown through intelligence not a total natural process.

Both naturalism and creation can be falsifiable, and both can be proven false. I actually gave examples, and please don't say the person that asked the question is ignorant of science and the scientific method. My degree says otherwise.

Your supposed "degree" is no defense for ignorance.

Supernatural creationism is obviously not falsifiable because it relies on miracles and supernatural events. Philosopher Karl Popper has argued for decades that the primary criterion of science is the falsifiability of its theories. We can never prove absolutely, but we can falsify. A set of ideas that cannot, in principle, be falsified is not science. Thus, your religious claims are not science.

The entire creationist program includes nothing more than a rhetorical attempt to falsify evolution by presenting supposed contradictions among the evidence. The fundamentalist christian brand of creationism is nothing more than biblical literalism. The fundies claim their religious dogma is "scientific" because it follows the Popperian model in trying to demolish evolution. Yet Popper's argument must apply in both directions.

"Scientific creationism" is a self-contradictory, nonsense phrase precisely because it cannot be falsified. I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know, but I cannot imagine what potential data could lead creationists to abandon their beliefs. Supernatural systems are dogma, not science.

Obviously the evidence that was presented went over your head.

Obviously, you're befuddled. Using the various bibles to prove the various bibles are true to prove your gawds are true is not evidence of anything except dogma.

Unfortunately, your propaganda is a poor substitute for rationality.

 

[JoeB131]

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

Because you can't possibly live without the thought of a Imaginary Sky Pixie watching your every move?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why yes, magical gawds are certainly logical and scientific.

No magic required hollie,that is the creators natural ability, and it will never be matched by all the scientists in the world with all the complicated machinery, tools, and knowledge they possess.

You're a naturalist now! Welcome to the fold, bro.

I never denied natural processes in nature that is what they extrapolate from as their evidence. What I deny is the origins of systematic processes arising through naturalism. They were a product of design or creation whichever term you prefer.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"Books of life", "Books of the Dead", "rebellious angels", "lakes of fire"... all while you claim that creationism is "scientific".

Lest I seem harsh or rhetorical, I quote creationism's (former) leading thumper, Duane Gish, from his (1978) book, Evolution? The Fossils Say No! "By creation we mean the bringing into being by a supernatural Creator of the basic kinds of plants and animals by the process of sudden, or fiat, creation. We do not know how the Creator created, what process He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe [Gish's italics]. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigations anything about the creative processes used by the Creator." Pray tell, oh ye practitioners of voodoo magic, in the light of that last sentence, what then is scientific creationism?

Not all of creationism has been falsified but that can be said of many scientific theories.

There is nothing about creationism that is falsifiable because the premise is an appeal to magic and supernaturalism.

It says so in the Book of the Dead.

B.S. I already presented you the evidence of creationism that can be falsified now show me how that evidence can't be falsified.

 

[dblack]

No magic required hollie,that is the creators natural ability, and it will never be matched by all the scientists in the world with all the complicated machinery, tools, and knowledge they possess.

You're a naturalist now! Welcome to the fold, bro.

I never denied natural processes in nature that is what they extrapolate from as their evidence. What I deny is the origins of systematic processes arising through naturalism. They were a product of design or creation whichever term you prefer.

I believe you claimed the origin of life to be 'supernatural', right? That's what hollie is referring to as 'magic'. If you're now denying that, that would seem to place you on the side of the naturalists. Can you clarify?

 

[Youwerecreated]

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

Because you can't possibly live without the thought of a Imaginary Sky Pixie watching your every move?

What is your Imaginary Sky Pixie that produced everything that exists in this universe.