Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[daws101]

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

biased not credible site...

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

I don't force my views on anyone. I tell you what I think you can decide for yourself what to believe.

The only ones I get testy with sometimes are the ones that claim to know more than they actually know, and use their vulgar language as if it adds credibility to their argument.

The hard core atheist that I have dealt with in this forum clearly believe treat their view of atheism as a religion.

Religion

: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Religion - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

World English Dictionary
religion (rɪˈlɪdʒən

5. something of overwhelming importance to a person:

Religion | Define Religion at Dictionary.com

 

[Youwerecreated]

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?

I do to, just not the larger scale of evolution.

What do you think Dawkins was commenting about ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

My proof you won't accept.

I also have faith in the scriptures.

The rest of your post is not worthy of a response ,like most of hollies and daws posts.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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

Sorry but many things contained in the bible have been confirmed through modern science and at the time of the writing of the scriptures man did not possess the ability to know such things.

 

[westwall]

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.

I don't force my views on anyone. I tell you what I think you can decide for yourself what to believe.

The only ones I get testy with sometimes are the ones that claim to know more than they actually know, and use their vulgar language as if it adds credibility to their argument.

The hard core atheist that I have dealt with in this forum clearly believe treat their view of atheism as a religion.

Religion

: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Religion - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

World English Dictionary
religion (rɪˈlɪdʒən

5. something of overwhelming importance to a person:

Religion | Define Religion at Dictionary.com

Yes, I find hard core atheists just as annoying as hard core deists.

 

[itfitzme]

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.

I don't force my views on anyone. I tell you what I think you can decide for yourself what to believe.

The only ones I get testy with sometimes are the ones that claim to know more than they actually know, and use their vulgar language as if it adds credibility to their argument.

The hard core atheist that I have dealt with in this forum clearly believe treat their view of atheism as a religion.

Religion

: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

Religion - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

World English Dictionary
religion (rɪˈlɪdʒən

5. something of overwhelming importance to a person:

Religion | Define Religion at Dictionary.com

So you are claiming science is a religion? Cuz I'm pretty sure that most athiests will tell you they know there is no god because the agree with the philosophy of naturalism. It isn't a question of faith. It's a question of knowiny what you can prove.

 

[Agent.Tom]

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?

This is the very typical way in which so many destroy would could be fruitful, informative debates. Read the OP. There is no reference to any "sky pixies" being part of the definition.

People insult others and make stuff up when they simply just don't have the facts, or intellect, whichever the case may be, to engage in real discussion.

 

[Agent.Tom]

Why yes, magical gawds are certainly logical and scientific.

Another one who--predictably--just browsed through the OP and conveniently distorted the definition of creationism.

100 years ago, a computer would have been considered in the realm of "magic." Simply suggesting that the universe was created, makes absolutely zero assertions that therefore "magical gawds" and "sky pixies" were responsible for it. A couple of millennia from now, we'll be able to create our own universes. When we succeed in doing so, are you going to stick by your argument that therefore, we must be "magical gawds," or sky pixies?

Your arguments boil down to nothing but hostile rhetoric and emotion; completely devoid of facts. You are the least logical and scientific participant in this entire thread. It's funny that so many in your trendy little "click" laugh at the idea of "it's true because the bible says so," when, your retort is even less credible... "it's not true because we say so."

 

[itfitzme]

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?

This is the very typical way in which so many destroy would could be fruitful, informative debates. Read the OP. There is no reference to any "sky pixies" being part of the definition.

People insult others and make stuff up when they simply just don't have the facts, or intellect, whichever the case may be, to engage in real discussion.

I'm sorry, but look... no one is stupid enough to think that the foundation of Creationism and Intelligent Design is anything else but conservative Christian religious GOD THE CREATOR.

First it was GOD created man and all the beasts. Then it was GOD created the process and guided it. No matter how you package it, it is and always will be based of some great creator GOD.

That's why you get called to the carpet every time about mythical sky pixies. Because noone is stupid enough to buy the bs just because you left out the word "GOD". Christ, your the one that has the book that says not to worship icons, or however that goes. Words are just icons. It's the meaning that counts, not the word. You can avoid saying GOD, but we can smell the bullshit a mile away.

You can't get an intellectual conversation because you're being disingenous from the start. It is either on purpose or you simply have no clue of where Creationism and Intelligent Design came from.

 

[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

Sorry but many things contained in the bible have been confirmed through modern science and at the time of the writing of the scriptures man did not possess the ability to know such things.

Obviously, you can't identify a single thing your soothsaying bibles have made predictions for. As you should be aware, your earlier cut and paste of "miraculous predictions of the bibles" was shown to be a fraud.

What a shame that you feel this need to equate your bibles with tarot card reading, crystal ball gazing and card tricks.

One of the true dangers of religious zealotry is the belief among zealots that their holy texts are the only texts that anyone needs to read. They believe their holy texts hold all knowledge that anyone needs to know and worse, that their holy texts predict the future.

 

[Big_D2]

I do to, just not the larger scale of evolution.

What do you think Dawkins was commenting about ?

Huh? I'm confused by that last question.

Here is a link to Dawkins book when he was discussing the Lenski experiment: The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution - Richard Dawkins - Google Books

On page 124, Dawkins said the following:
"The astonishing result they found was that 59 genes had changed in the same direction. Were it not for natural selection, such as independent parallelism, in 59 genes independently, would completely beggar belief. The odds against its happening by chance are stupefying large. This is exactly the kind of thing creationists say cannot happen, because they think it is too improbable to have happened by chance."

On page 130, " The magic moment turned out to be approximately generation 20,000. Thawed-out clones of Ara-3 that dated from after generation 20,000 in the 'fossil record' showed increased probability of subsequently evolving citrate capability. No clones that dated from before generation 20,000 did. According to the hypothesis, after generation 20,000 the clones were now 'primed' to take advantage of mutation B whenever it came along."

 

[YWN666]

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 ?

The facts are on my side, not yours. Deal with it and stop making a fool of yourself.

 

[YWN666]

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

Of course you are. You peddle bullshit.

Ditto,you angry young person.

I'm not angry, just frustrated that people like you have a wealth of information available at your fingertips on the internet and yet you choose voluntarily to believe childish fantasies that have ZERO evidence to support them. Yes, you are entitled to remain ignorant but the problem is that you and your ilk either want to take everyone with you or criticize those of us who graduated to adulthood by getting a good education. There is no excuse for ignorance like yours.

 

[YWN666]

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 ?

You're once again avoiding the point which is that creationism has a supernatural element to it and that alone makes the entire "theory" unscientific.

 

[YWN666]

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 ?

Yes, I understand what a scientific theory is. You're the one who apparently does not.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Of course you are. You peddle bullshit.

Ditto,you angry young person.

I'm not angry, just frustrated that people like you have a wealth of information available at your fingertips on the internet and yet you choose voluntarily to believe childish fantasies that have ZERO evidence to support them. Yes, you are entitled to remain ignorant but the problem is that you and your ilk either want to take everyone with you or criticize those of us who graduated to adulthood by getting a good education. There is no excuse for ignorance like yours.

I would not rely on the internet for your education. People do actually believe to much of this information on the internet.

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.

Did you not grasp this ?

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




If you do not like my education, take it up with the University of Arizona.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I do to, just not the larger scale of evolution.

What do you think Dawkins was commenting about ?

Huh? I'm confused by that last question.

Here is a link to Dawkins book when he was discussing the Lenski experiment: The Greatest Show on Earth: The Evidence for Evolution - Richard Dawkins - Google Books

On page 124, Dawkins said the following:
"The astonishing result they found was that 59 genes had changed in the same direction. Were it not for natural selection, such as independent parallelism, in 59 genes independently, would completely beggar belief. The odds against its happening by chance are stupefying large. This is exactly the kind of thing creationists say cannot happen, because they think it is too improbable to have happened by chance."

On page 130, " The magic moment turned out to be approximately generation 20,000. Thawed-out clones of Ara-3 that dated from after generation 20,000 in the 'fossil record' showed increased probability of subsequently evolving citrate capability. No clones that dated from before generation 20,000 did. According to the hypothesis, after generation 20,000 the clones were now 'primed' to take advantage of mutation B whenever it came along."

This is an assumption.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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 ?

The facts are on my side, not yours. Deal with it and stop making a fool of yourself.

Do you understand how really low the number of factual evidence that exist in science compared to nonfactual evidence ? This is why theories are constantly revised.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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 ?

You're once again avoiding the point which is that creationism has a supernatural element to it and that alone makes the entire "theory" unscientific.

and Naturalism does not ? by acknowledging the possibility of design what is inferred but not proven ? by acknowledging natural processes what is inferred but not proven ?