Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[YWN666]

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 Do not quote me until you read it and then quote me and we will discuss the specifics instead of having these rhetorical responses to each other.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

You're avoiding the point yet again. Unbelievable. You seem to believe that "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit". Your avoidance tactics are so transparent and trying to have an intelligent conversation with you is a waste of time.

 

[Hollie]

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 Do not quote me until you read it and then quote me and we will discuss the specifics instead of having these rhetorical responses to each other.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

This will come as a shock to you but every discovery about the natural world made by science has had a completely natural and explainable cause. Every one.

Your need for "magic" to be a requirement for existence is strictly a function of your self-imposed intellectual limitations and a desperate attempt to promote your fears and ignorance.

 

[westwall]

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... noone 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 createdan 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.

I thought liberals were about inclusiveness and tolerance. Clearly you are tolerant of only those who agree with you. In other words you are no better than the worst of the most intolerant of religious nutters.

 

[westwall]

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.

Why do you care? How on Earth do their beliefs possibly affect you? You are no better than they are.

 

[westwall]

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.

This is untrue. Some theories have little evidence to support them. Anthropogenic global warming is an excellent example of that, however plate tectonics is well understood, most of the physical laws are likewise well understood, we still don't know what gravity truly is, we can accurately measure it, and we can accurately predict its effect, but we still don't really know what it is.

But overall I would say that 90% of the scientific theories out there are so well understood to the point that we can accurately predict any interaction out to four nines at any distance or time.

 

[westwall]

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 ?

This will come as a shock to you but every discovery about the natural world made by science has had a completely natural and explainable cause. Every one.

Your need for "magic" to be a requirement for existence is strictly a function of your self-imposed intellectual limitations and a desperate attempt to promote your fears and ignorance.

Here you go off of the rails. There have been MANY great geniuses who were believers in God. When you insult someone's intellect for their belief, you lose whatever credibility you may have had.

 

[itfitzme]

The annoying thing about Creationists is the lack of symetry. *If science can't prove it to a 100% degree of certainty then their 0% faith based perspective is certainly correct. *And they love the "well, I didn't overtly state that and you can't prove I am implying it, therefore, you can't argue against it",bs.*

And yet, they will assume the other person's statement implies whatever bs implication they want to stick in there, inspite of a presenter's best effort.

The speaker has the control over what they are implying and it is up to the speaker to manage that. *And fundamentalists know this, deny they are, and ignore other's reasonable effort to do so.

The reality of language and communication is that it always carries a number of implied meanings. This is why science experiment and proof is grounded in careful presentation of the experimental setup and the specific measurement in terms of exactly defined mearurable quantity and value. *The history of scientific experiments and theory create the context for whatever folllows, for the very narrow implications of the experimental results. (Law is like that.) *Beyond that very specificly defined setup, measure, and results, any presentation becomes a bit fuzzier.

Psychology and advertising recognises that language also carries with it subjective feeling. *The nature of biblical speak is one of manipulating the language to get the right feeling, not to describe the objective world. *

What they miss is that while religion and creationism cannot encompass the nature of science, science can, and does, have the capability of capturing, defining, measuring, and explaining religion and creationism.

Religion and Creationism is like a teenage girl saying, "You don't understand me." *Of course science understands religion. *It just doesn't express it in the fuzzy, feeling based language that religion prefers. *That is with one exception, the environmemt of psychology and individual psychotherapy.

It's a set theory thing. *The universe is the largest set. Naturalism recognizes that this is all of it. *In that set, there is science and religion. *Science is a large part of that set, as it continues to observe the universe and explain more and more. Inside that set are numerous subsets. *Two are phsychology amd history. *Religion is inside of those two, part historical, part social psychology, part individual psychology.

Because*science explains religion, it knows where religion goes. *Religion wants to claim dominion over the uknown universe. *It can't even recognize it's own place in the larger universe. *And the only way that it can maintain it's illusion is by manipulating language along emotional impied contexts and avoiding real physical measures. *Indeed, it's contant attempt to claim dominion over the ever decreasing unknown is by never doing so. *By definition, what is not capable of being objectively experienced cannot be directly measured. *And what is unknown has never been measured. *

All religion has got is to say, "You can't directly measure what I'm thinking, ergo you can't know it or prove it."

But guess what, I can know it because I also know what is not being said. I once accused someone of something. *He replied, "You don't know that. You didn't SEE me do it." *And I knew with certainty, not from abduction but because of what he didn't say. *He didn't say, "I didn't do it." *He's a pathological liar. To lie, he must conjure up an image of how it might reasonably be otherwise. *He needs a "reasonable" lie. *That takes time, that takes forethought. *Faced with the sudden accusation, he couldn't just flat out lie. He first had to consider if I might have seem him. *Anyone having not done it would not had given a thought to if i had seen it. That would be obvious as they didn't do it.

Crearionism and Intelligent Design arguements that avoid, hide, otherwise don't state the obvious foundation tell me something. What is being avoided tells me that they they are trying to bs around it. It tells me, like that pathological liar, that they know they are being disengenous. *It isn't in what they say, it is in what they avoid saying. *They know that a naturalist attaches a negative feeling to "god" and they are avoiding that feeling as they atempt to manipulate feelings with language.

 

[YWN666]

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.

Why do you care? How on Earth do their beliefs possibly affect you? You are no better than they are.

I care because people like him are the type who are trying to get their fantasies taught as fact in public schools.

 

[YWN666]

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 ?

This will come as a shock to you but every discovery about the natural world made by science has had a completely natural and explainable cause. Every one.

Your need for "magic" to be a requirement for existence is strictly a function of your self-imposed intellectual limitations and a desperate attempt to promote your fears and ignorance.

Here you go off of the rails. There have been MANY great geniuses who were believers in God. When you insult someone's intellect for their belief, you lose whatever credibility you may have had.

I'd bet that if they were geniuses in the field of science, any belief in a god wouldn't be literal.

 

[itfitzme]

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.

Why do you care? How on Earth do their beliefs possibly affect you? You are no better than they are.

I care because people like him are the type who are trying to get their fantasies taught as fact in public schools.

Actually, there are people that are better than other people. My doctor is better than me. I am better than some people. I know some that I am clearly better than, in all honesty.

I just don't get to kill them. But I surely do get to tell them what they need to do. And I surely have exposed them for being chronic liars.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Why do you care? How on Earth do their beliefs possibly affect you? You are no better than they are.

I care because people like him are the type who are trying to get their fantasies taught as fact in public schools.

My views must threaten you.

The only difference yours are being taught.

I have a question for you.

What definite evidence supports the claim for a natural origin to life?

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

I have before,like I said you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

 

[itfitzme]

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 ?

This will come as a shock to you but every discovery about the natural world made by science has had a completely natural and explainable cause. Every one.

Your need for "magic" to be a requirement for existence is strictly a function of your self-imposed intellectual limitations and a desperate attempt to promote your fears and ignorance.

Here you go off of the rails. There have been MANY great geniuses who were believers in God. When you insult someone's intellect for their belief, you lose whatever credibility you may have had.

Non-sequiter because they didn't pass it off as science or objective truth.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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 ?

You're avoiding the point yet again. Unbelievable. You seem to believe that "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit". Your avoidance tactics are so transparent and trying to have an intelligent conversation with you is a waste of time.

You mean to tell me you have no answer ? how is it bullshit Mr. critical thinker ?

 

[itfitzme]

Why do you care? How on Earth do their beliefs possibly affect you? You are no better than they are.

I care because people like him are the type who are trying to get their fantasies taught as fact in public schools.

My views must threaten you.

The only difference yours are being taught.

I have a question for you.

What definite evidence supports the claim for a natural origin to life?

Nature, all of it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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 ?

This will come as a shock to you but every discovery about the natural world made by science has had a completely natural and explainable cause. Every one.

Your need for "magic" to be a requirement for existence is strictly a function of your self-imposed intellectual limitations and a desperate attempt to promote your fears and ignorance.

Here ya go genius !

What definite evidence supports the claim for a natural origin to life?

 

[itfitzme]

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.

I have before,like I said you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

You can lead a Creationist to MIT but you can't make him think.

Sayings aren't what, where, when, how much.

Like I said, just emotional language manipulation.

 

[Youwerecreated]

This will come as a shock to you but every discovery about the natural world made by science has had a completely natural and explainable cause. Every one.

Your need for "magic" to be a requirement for existence is strictly a function of your self-imposed intellectual limitations and a desperate attempt to promote your fears and ignorance.

Here you go off of the rails. There have been MANY great geniuses who were believers in God. When you insult someone's intellect for their belief, you lose whatever credibility you may have had.

I'd bet that if they were geniuses in the field of science, any belief in a god wouldn't be literal.

A person who uses 10% of his brain has all the answers correct ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I care because people like him are the type who are trying to get their fantasies taught as fact in public schools.

My views must threaten you.

The only difference yours are being taught.

I have a question for you.

What definite evidence supports the claim for a natural origin to life?

Nature, all of it.

Really ! so you're gonna give an answer that violates the law of biogenesis ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

I have before,like I said you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

You can lead a Creationist to MIT but you can't make him think.

Sayings aren't what, where, when, how much.

Like I said, just emotional language manipulation.

Tell that to my University.