Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Youwerecreated]

Hello in there? Hello????? Creationism CANNOT QUALIFY AS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY. End of story. You can go home now. You lose. You can make up all of the lame crap you want but that doesn't change the fact that creationism is religion masquerading as science and as they say, a pig with a dress and lipstick is still a pig.

Wrong here are some examples. The bible states 10 times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind. Since life has begun and currently that is what we see kinds bringing forth after their own kind. Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

Here are some more examples.

Complexity, Variety and Adaptability in Living Organisms and Ecological Systems.

Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection.

Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

Another.

Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information.

Inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation.

Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

Another.

Entropy Law as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Concurs, indicating a beginning (concurrent with or close to beginning of time) followed by constant degradation.

Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

A Theory of Biblical Creation


So explain to me why creationism is not Empirically Falsifiable ? Why does the science community rule out this evidence and a creator when they have no answer as to how life could have originated through natural processes ? I thought the science community was not suppose to be biased.

The problem is that creationism says god did it and that is NOT falsifiable. Be honest with yourself and stop promoting this juvenile nonsense. No real scientists accept creationism as anything other than a joke.

Juvenile nonsense because you say so ? You can't prove whether God did it or not so why would real science rule it out as a possibility ? You sure as heck can't produce a falsifiable theory showing it happening through naturalism.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're in denial of the facts.

Actually, no. The fact is, creationism is a laughable joke. Using the various bibles as science texts is a laughable joke.

Creationism was designed to dupe gullible people into following the religious agenda and YWC has swallowed it hook line and sinker. It's pathetic and a waste of brain matter.

I believe the same for your side now what ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Sure it's a threat. It's how most religious salesmen ply their trade.

Not a salesmen and it most certainly is not my trade.

Of course you are. You peddle bullshit.

Ditto,you angry young person.

 

[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 use unprovable assertions to support your argument. You first have to present evidence of the existence of your god and THEN you can start arguing about his abilities. Good luck. You'd be the first person in history to be able to do so.

Apparently you do not know the creationism theory. Do not quote me until you read it and then quote me and we will discuss the specifics instead of having these rhetorical responses to each other.

Respond to the evidence that is falsifiable, ok pumpkin ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I remember these conversations today. I remember the lies upon lies that you furthered.

I really think it's pathetic that you feel a need to threaten me with your gawds. But then again, self-hating religious zealots who spend their lives consumed by hate / self-hate tend to be less than critical thinkers.

Humans have shown that they are liable to believe in things that give them comfort even if it's an utter lie rather than the truth if it's uncomfortable. We can see that with religious zealots such as yourself who lie incessantly and unapologetically because it calms an emotional requirement whereby they can foist responsibility for their actions on their gawds.

I don't lie hollie. sometimes I may be mistaken but I never purposely lie or try to mislead. Like I said you can lead a horse to water but it is up to the horse to drink. Not a threat hollie, if I am correct which I believe I am it's merely a warning.

bullshit you lie constantly...

Don't confuse me with your principles.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

The elements of creationism that require a supernatural cause are what can't be falsified. You're trying to pick and choose bits that are falsifiable and then saying the entire "theory" is legit.

Do you really understand a theory ?

 

[Big_D2]

Here is proof for macro-evolution:
Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli

From 1988 till 2010, scientists from Michigan State created populations of e. coli and observed them evolve in a controlled experiment. When oxygen is present, e. coli cannot grow and citrate and that became a defining characteristic of this bacteria.

After 30,000 generations the e. coli gained the ability to grow on citrate. This trait has been observed on the bacteria afterwards.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How, then, is creationism—as opposed to “naturalism,” defined as “a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted”—scientific? Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define “scientific.” Too often, “science” and “naturalism” are considered one and the same, leaving creationist views out by definition. Such a definition requires an irrational reverence of naturalism. Science is defined as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” Nothing requires science, in and of itself, to be naturalistic. Naturalism, like creationism, requires a series of presuppositions that are not generated by experiments. They are not extrapolated from data or derived from test results. These philosophical presuppositions are accepted before any data is ever taken. Because both naturalism and creationism are strongly influenced by presuppositions that are neither provable nor testable, and enter into the discussion well before the facts do, it is fair to say that creationism is at least as scientific as naturalism.

Is creationism scientific?

Because science is based on OBSERVABLE facts. It is not interested in truth. Religion is interested in truth. That's as basic as I can get it for you. That is the fundamental underlying difference between science and religion. Creationism has no observable fact. It has opinion, but there is nothing that we can observe that demonstrates creationism.

It's as simple as that.

The funny thing is you people want us to produce God or strong evidence for God without building a case for a creator. Why is it you don't demand the same for naturalism ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Here is proof for macro-evolution:
Historical contingency and the evolution of a key innovation in an experimental population of Escherichia coli

From 1988 till 2010, scientists from Michigan State created populations of e. coli and observed them evolve in a controlled experiment. When oxygen is present, e. coli cannot grow and citrate and that became a defining characteristic of this bacteria.

After 30,000 generations the e. coli gained the ability to grow on citrate. This trait has been observed on the bacteria afterwards.

Wrong, wrong, wrong, this is one of your only examples of what you call Macro evolution but is it really when you really look at the evidence ?

Here let's do that.


Is Macroevolution True? A Response To Tim D.
Posted in: Creation/Evolution|By: Jonathan McLatchie|July 31, 20118 Comments

When Frank recently informed me that he planned to publish a guest article by atheist Tim Duck on the scientific evidence for neo-Darwinian evolution, I was immediately intrigued. As someone with some background and academic training in biology (I hold a degree in the field), I looked forward to reading what Tim had to say. When Frank forwarded me Tim’s final draft of his essay, however, the result was a tremendous anti-climax. The first half of the essay (which you can view here) was essentially wasted in laying out elementary concepts of biology known by every freshman undergraduate. When he finally did get around to presenting his case, the result was disappointing.

We were treated to a lengthy discussion of Michigan State University biologist Rick Lenski’s now-famous experimental work on E. coli (about which we are not ignorant). The only other identifiable positive argument for the claim in question was the assertion – without justification – that an indefinite extrapolation from micro- to macro- evolution is warranted. But since this is what Tim – allegedly – set out to prove, this constitutes a remarkable instance of begging the question.

But before getting into the specifics, allow me to highlight a few areas on which Tim and I are agreed. We agree that evolution possesses explicative power (we disagree over the extent). We agree that evolution does not entail atheism (one can accept evolution and remain a Christian theist). We agree that evolution, strictly speaking, has nothing to say on the origin of life. And we agree that argumentum ad consequentiam is a logical fallacy.


As to the specific example of adaptive evolution given to us by Tim D., this same example — as I recall — was given by Richard Dawkins in his most recent popular book, The Greatest Show on Earth. The case of the citrate transporter seems, to me, to be a weak one because it has been documented that wild-type E. coli can already use citrate under low-oxygen conditions. Under these conditions, citrate is transported into the cell (Pos et al. 1998). The gene in E. coli specifies a citrate transporter. In the presence of high levels of oxygen, it is thought that the citrate transporter doesn’t function or is not produced. Thus, wild-type E. coli already possesses the genes necessary for the transportation of citrate into the cell and its subsequent utilisation. Indeed, Lenski et al. (2008) note that “A more likely possibility, in our view, is that an existing transporter has been co-opted for citrate transport under oxic [high oxygen level] conditions.” Such a scenario could take place by a loss of gene regulation (meaning that the gene is no longer expressed exclusively under low oxygen conditions) or a loss of transporter specificity.

Is Macroevolution True? A Response To Tim D. - Cross Examined - Christian Apologetics | Frank Turek

 

[westwall]

How, then, is creationism—as opposed to “naturalism,” defined as “a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted”—scientific? Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define “scientific.” Too often, “science” and “naturalism” are considered one and the same, leaving creationist views out by definition. Such a definition requires an irrational reverence of naturalism. Science is defined as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” Nothing requires science, in and of itself, to be naturalistic. Naturalism, like creationism, requires a series of presuppositions that are not generated by experiments. They are not extrapolated from data or derived from test results. These philosophical presuppositions are accepted before any data is ever taken. Because both naturalism and creationism are strongly influenced by presuppositions that are neither provable nor testable, and enter into the discussion well before the facts do, it is fair to say that creationism is at least as scientific as naturalism.

Is creationism scientific?

Because science is based on OBSERVABLE facts. It is not interested in truth. Religion is interested in truth. That's as basic as I can get it for you. That is the fundamental underlying difference between science and religion. Creationism has no observable fact. It has opinion, but there is nothing that we can observe that demonstrates creationism.

It's as simple as that.

The funny thing is you people want us to produce God or strong evidence for God without building a case for a creator. Why is it you don't demand the same for naturalism ?

Naturalism isn't a religion. Naturalism is simply observing the world around you and recording what you see. What IS there to demand of naturalism? Further I don't demand that you produce anything at all. You demand that I believe what you say. You demand that I believe as you do. I say, no. I will believe as I believe (which is agnostic) and I will demand nothing of any religion or religious person and I will respect them and their views. I just require you to show the same courtesy to me.

 

[Big_D2]

But since this is what Tim – allegedly – set out to prove, this constitutes a remarkable instance of begging the question.

First of all, that was not the point of this experiment. More than 99% of scientist in like fields accept evolution.

As to the specific example of adaptive evolution given to us by Tim D., this same example — as I recall — was given by Richard Dawkins in his most recent popular book, The Greatest Show on Earth. The case of the citrate transporter seems, to me, to be a weak one because it has been documented that wild-type E. coli can already use citrate under low-oxygen conditions. Under these conditions, citrate is transported into the cell (Pos et al. 1998). The gene in E. coli specifies a citrate transporter. In the presence of high levels of oxygen, it is thought that the citrate transporter doesn’t function or is not produced. Thus, wild-type E. coli already possesses the genes necessary for the transportation of citrate into the cell and its subsequent utilisation. Indeed, Lenski et al. (2008) note that “A more likely possibility, in our view, is that an existing transporter has been co-opted for citrate transport under oxic [high oxygen level] conditions.” Such a scenario could take place by a loss of gene regulation (meaning that the gene is no longer expressed exclusively under low oxygen conditions) or a loss of transporter specificity.

Is Macroevolution True? A Response To Tim D. - Cross Examined - Christian Apologetics | Frank Turek

Are these the same type of E.Coli? If so, why did it take 20+ years and 30000 generations before it would grow on the citrate? Why would you take the word of one scientist over many?

 

[westwall]

But since this is what Tim – allegedly – set out to prove, this constitutes a remarkable instance of begging the question.

First of all, that was not the point of this experiment. More than 99% of scientist in like fields accept evolution.




QUOTE=Youwerecreated;7541171]As to the specific example of adaptive evolution given to us by Tim D., this same example — as I recall — was given by Richard Dawkins in his most recent popular book, The Greatest Show on Earth. The case of the citrate transporter seems, to me, to be a weak one because it has been documented that wild-type E. coli can already use citrate under low-oxygen conditions. Under these conditions, citrate is transported into the cell (Pos et al. 1998). The gene in E. coli specifies a citrate transporter. In the presence of high levels of oxygen, it is thought that the citrate transporter doesn’t function or is not produced. Thus, wild-type E. coli already possesses the genes necessary for the transportation of citrate into the cell and its subsequent utilisation. Indeed, Lenski et al. (2008) note that “A more likely possibility, in our view, is that an existing transporter has been co-opted for citrate transport under oxic [high oxygen level] conditions.” Such a scenario could take place by a loss of gene regulation (meaning that the gene is no longer expressed exclusively under low oxygen conditions) or a loss of transporter specificity.

Is Macroevolution True? A Response To Tim D. - Cross Examined - Christian Apologetics | Frank Turek

Appeals to authority are never acceptable. Argue your point properly.

 

[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?

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

Do you mean "What If".

Where is your proof?

Also, the underlying problem with this is that 14 billion years ago, the Sky Pixie began the creation of the universe in order to obsess about what people in one region or even one planet are doing, or what kind of sex they are having.

By your very definition, your Sky Pixie would have to be indifferent to us.

 

[Big_D2]

Appeals to authority are never acceptable. Argue your point properly.

Was that a reference to me? My point was that since evolution is accepted, there would have been no point to complete a 20+ year experiment to prove it existence.

 

[Hollie]

Wrong here are some examples. The bible states 10 times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind. Since life has begun and currently that is what we see kinds bringing forth after their own kind. Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

Here are some more examples.

Complexity, Variety and Adaptability in Living Organisms and Ecological Systems.

Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection.

Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

Another.

Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information.

Inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation.

Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

Another.

Entropy Law as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Concurs, indicating a beginning (concurrent with or close to beginning of time) followed by constant degradation.

Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

A Theory of Biblical Creation

This is juvenile nonsense because it is precisely a circular reference. Using the bibles to prove the bibles are true is juvenile.

Complimenting the theory of evolution is the fact of evolution. Species change as there is variation within one kind of animal. There is also a predictable range of genetic variation within a species, as there is an expected rate of random mutations within a species.

Creationists have no choice but to admit that a "kind" (BTW, this is a non-scientific and ambiguous term culled from the bibles) can develop into different species. A dog "kind" can evolve into foxes, coyotes, wolves and all the types of domestic dogs. Creationists then insist that evolution must stop there. Of course, they never provide any reason for this invented and fabricated limitation. They just deny that it can happen. Creationist can't accept “macro-evolution” because it immediately contradicts their dogma. As far as science is concerned, there is no limit to the degree that species can evolve and change. Given geologic time frames, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species.

Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ: Part 1A

 

[daws101]

Wrong here are some examples. The bible states 10 times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind. Since life has begun and currently that is what we see kinds bringing forth after their own kind. Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

Here are some more examples.

Complexity, Variety and Adaptability in Living Organisms and Ecological Systems.

Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection.

Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

Another.

Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information.

Inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation.

Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

Another.

Entropy Law as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Concurs, indicating a beginning (concurrent with or close to beginning of time) followed by constant degradation.

Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

A Theory of Biblical Creation


So explain to me why creationism is not Empirically Falsifiable ? Why does the science community rule out this evidence and a creator when they have no answer as to how life could have originated through natural processes ? I thought the science community was not suppose to be biased.

The problem is that creationism says god did it and that is NOT falsifiable. Be honest with yourself and stop promoting this juvenile nonsense. No real scientists accept creationism as anything other than a joke.

Juvenile nonsense because you say so ? You can't prove whether God did it or not so why would real science rule it out as a possibility ? You sure as heck can't produce a falsifiable theory showing it happening through naturalism.

real science? you already proven you know jack shit about "real science"
no falsifiable theory can be drawn from naturalism because it's a tool not evidence...


Confusions On Evolution, Creationism, And Falsifiability
By Adam Retchless | February 20th 2010 09:15 AM | 5 comments | Print | E-mail | Track

Assorted creationists claim variously that creation theories are falsifiable and that evolutionary theories are not falsifiable. Here, I want to quickly point out a few flaws that I see in their arguments. I will discuss these issues in a more general manner in another post that I am currently writing.

Creationism is falsifiable: This essay from the Discovery Institute provides two arguments, neither of which are satisfying.

First, they look at the idea of irreducible complexity (IC, a component of Intelligent Design theory), and claim that it can be falsified by finding an evolutionary explanation for the structure in question. This does not match my understanding of "falsifiability" because IC does not make any predictions of its own, it just asks to be compared against an evolutionary explanation. As such, they are actually asking "What is more plausible, evolution or design?". This can be a productive question, but is not the gold standard of falsifiability. Even within this framework, the proponents of IC rely on an unjustified bias, assuming that as long as there is not an airtight evolutionary explanation, the IC explanation is valid (i.e. this is a "god of the gaps" argument). However, if we are just working with plausibility, the evolutionary explanation already trumps the IC explanation simply because we've observed countless instances of mutation, but no instances of intelligent design. Mutation is a more plausible explanation in all situations, without any further research. (Update: To clarify, with no known mechanism of ID, the explanation is completely implausible and therefore there is no way that we could examine existing life to see if its structure is more consistent with ID or evolution). Scientists gain nothing by considering the possibility of IC. For what it's worth, an evolutionary explanation has been proposed for their example of the bacterial flagellum.

The second example they give, the Privileged Planet hypothesis, may be theoretically falsifiable, but seems totally impotent as science. Based on what is written in the Discovery Institute essay (I haven't read the book or watched the movie), there is no reason to expect any of these predictions to be tested within my lifetime. Furthermore, the predictions all seem to boil down to "we expect alien life to be like known life", which is not a risky prediction, and therefore is not informative. At best, the privileged planet hypothesis is a dormant scientific hypothesis waiting for that century when we can test it. At worst, it is a scam to draw money from people who really want to legitimize ID.

Evolution cannot be falsified: This article at CreationWiki is just a mess, but what can you expect from a small wiki?

First, they claim that historical theories cannot be tested. This is untrue. Historical theories are regularly tested by a back-and-forth process that involves new observations of the patterns created by historical processes, and predictions based on processes known to occur in the modern world. For instance, a hypothesis about the relatedness of two organisms can be tested by making a prediction about how similar their DNA sequences will be (based on observed mutational processes) and then sequencing their genomes (new information) and seeing whether the prediction is upheld. For what it's worth, evolution is not the only historical science--astronomy and geology both rely on historical models. I also don't know why historical sciences would be treated differently than history in general, as if the testimony of witnesses is trivial to interpret (despite changes in languages, the diverse motives that people have when they write, and even the limits of human memory).

Second, when saying that only "subtheories" can be tested, they totally misrepresent what subtheories are (i.e. hypotheses). In evolutionary theories, the "subtheories" are not limited to things like evolution in a test tube (actually a fact, not a theory), they include things like asking whether birds are more closely related to mammals or dinosaurs (or bacteria). They could even include questions such as "Are birds related to mammals or dinosaurs at all". To use their "rocketship" analogy, this is like asking whether the ship landed in Asia or North America, and whether there were multiple ships.

The rest of the article seems to be nit-picking over details of evolutionary theory. The authors treat the evolving nature of evolutionary theory as evidence that it cannot be falsified. This viewpoint ignores the fact that the theory is not just refined to explain some fact and then left alone; any new hypothesis makes a variety of predictions which are then tested. These predictions involve both the historical artifacts (e.g. fossils and genome sequences), and the ongoing processes that allow populations to change (e.g. population growth, how quickly forms can change).

In the end, creationists complain that when one evolutionary hypothesis is rejected, it is replaced with another. They see this as evidence that "evolution" as a whole cannot be falsified. They are misguided on two points. First, a theory is not tested as a whole--it is tested in parts and the theory fails when so many of its parts have been demolished (or co-opted into other theories) that it can no longer be recognized as a theory. This is what happened with Spontaneous Generation, which required a few centuries between the recognition that it doesn't apply to flies, and its final death when it was conclusively demonstrated not to apply to microbes either. Their second error is their failure to recognize that evolution simply requires that life can change and that it has had sufficient time to change (i.e. the Earth is old).

As long as those conditions are met, and there is no plausible alternative mechanism for generating the diversity of life, some form of evolutionary theory will have a central place in biology.
Confusions On Evolution, Creationism, And Falsifiability

 

[westwall]

Appeals to authority are never acceptable. Argue your point properly.

Was that a reference to me? My point was that since evolution is accepted, there would have been no point to complete a 20+ year experiment to prove it existence.

Yes, it was directed at you. I don't care what is accepted. Science isn't done by consensus.
You made a statement so argue the point properly, you'll learn more about what you speak when you do that, and others will learn more other than "well they believe it".

The religious have their appeals to authority too and they are just as irrelevant.

 

[daws101]

Actually, no. The fact is, creationism is a laughable joke. Using the various bibles as science texts is a laughable joke.

Creationism was designed to dupe gullible people into following the religious agenda and YWC has swallowed it hook line and sinker. It's pathetic and a waste of brain matter.

I believe the same for your side now what ?

your belief in not relevant...

 

[daws101]

I don't lie hollie. sometimes I may be mistaken but I never purposely lie or try to mislead. Like I said you can lead a horse to water but it is up to the horse to drink. Not a threat hollie, if I am correct which I believe I am it's merely a warning.

bullshit you lie constantly...

Don't confuse me with your principles.

you have no principles..

 

[daws101]

How, then, is creationism—as opposed to “naturalism,” defined as “a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted”—scientific? Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define “scientific.” Too often, “science” and “naturalism” are considered one and the same, leaving creationist views out by definition. Such a definition requires an irrational reverence of naturalism. Science is defined as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” Nothing requires science, in and of itself, to be naturalistic. Naturalism, like creationism, requires a series of presuppositions that are not generated by experiments. They are not extrapolated from data or derived from test results. These philosophical presuppositions are accepted before any data is ever taken. Because both naturalism and creationism are strongly influenced by presuppositions that are neither provable nor testable, and enter into the discussion well before the facts do, it is fair to say that creationism is at least as scientific as naturalism.

Is creationism scientific?

Because science is based on OBSERVABLE facts. It is not interested in truth. Religion is interested in truth. That's as basic as I can get it for you. That is the fundamental underlying difference between science and religion. Creationism has no observable fact. It has opinion, but there is nothing that we can observe that demonstrates creationism.

It's as simple as that.

The funny thing is you people want us to produce God or strong evidence for God without building a case for a creator. Why is it you don't demand the same for naturalism ?

dodge! if god existed there would be no need to build a case...it would be obvious to everyone..