Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Derideo_Te]

Run for the hills ,the creationist once again is kicking our ass on the basis of logic.

YWC needs his meds checked, stat!

 

[westwall]

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.

Once again, why do you care? So long as evolution is taught as well, what do you have to fear? Anyone who is unwilling to let multiple viewpoints be taught isn't interested in education. They are only interested in propaganda.

 

[westwall]

Run for the hills ,the creationist once again is kicking our ass on the basis of logic.

No, not really. There is no logic to creationism. There is a great deal of faith, and there is nothing wrong with that, but there is little logic involved.

 

[westwall]

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 ?

Is that another attempt to shift the focus of the conversation? Who do you think you're fooling?

I suggest you educate yourself then. Read some history. A lot of history in fact. You will find many, many certifiable geniuses who had a profound faith in the almighty.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Run for the hills ,the creationist once again is kicking our ass on the basis of logic.

No, not really. There is no logic to creationism. There is a great deal of faith, and there is nothing wrong with that, but there is little logic involved.

According to the evidence,logically I just showed naturalism is no more scientific then a creation. You can't rule out a designer only an ideologue would do so. This view that life spontaneously generated itself from nature is a view based in faith,and violates the law of Biogenesis.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Run for the hills ,the creationist once again is kicking our ass on the basis of logic.

No, not really. There is no logic to creationism. There is a great deal of faith, and there is nothing wrong with that, but there is little logic involved.

According to the evidence,logically I just showed naturalism is no more scientific then a creation. You can't rule out a designer only an ideologue would do so. This view that life spontaneously generated itself from nature is a view based in faith,and violates the law of Biogenesis.

There is no "law" of Biogenesis. It is a BELIEF not unlike your belief in "creationism".

 

[itfitzme]

Run for the hills ,the creationist once again is kicking our ass on the basis of logic.

YWC needs his meds checked, stat!

Told you, manipulates own feelings to feel good. Not a bad thing, everyone does. It just can be psychotic.

The human brain consists of multiple smaller brains that work together in a hyrarchical structure.

The evolution is clear as the sympathetic/parasympathetic system is commom down the species chain. It is often refered to as the lizard brain.

The mammillary brain is common down to dogs, bears, etc. No forehead is a clue. It is, in combination with the amygdala, is primarily responsible for emotion and memory organization. I see a racoon, I remember the bad experience from the last time, or having beem told it is bad, my hypothalimus is triggered to increase hormones, particularly by triggering adrenal function. My amygdala is triggered among with my sympathetic nervous system.

The cerebelum, cerebrial cortex, ocipital lobe, etc, is primarily responsible higher order thinking, logic, forethought, etc. I am convinced it is responsible for what we consider consciousness because the signals can be traced arounx the looop wherenit feeds back to the hypothalimus and the optic nerve pathways. We see our own pictures in our head.

The cerebelum also manipulates the mammillary brain, and by proxy, feeling.

Depending on training and genetics, the cerebrial cortex can be the driver of making feelings match reality or supporting fantacy. With good training, through childhood, a single word and concept can be trained in to create a good feeling that becomes necessary.

The brain doesn't really give a crap about reality. What it gives a crap about is maintaining homeostasis. Take away that primal object, and homesostasis is lost.

He can no more relinquish himself of his internal image of god than he can change the color of his eyes. In fact, trained well, some would gouge their own eyea out than let go of that internal image. (no, really, not an exageration, just an outlier)

 

[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

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.

bullshit

The final eleven “facts” from the 101 given here. The aim of the exercise that Eternal Productions (who compiled the list) set themselves was to take a modern scientific claim or explanation, and to show us the Biblical verse which foretells or prefigures said claim/explanation. Thus far, after 90 such claims have been examined, none have withstood scrutiny; in fact, 51 – over half – have been revealed not to be any sort of scientific claim.

91.Animals do not have a conscience (Psalm 32:9). A parrot can be taught to swear and blaspheme, yet never feel conviction. Many animals steal, but they do not experience guilt. If man evolved from animals, where did our conscience come from? The Bible explains that man alone was created as a moral being in God’s image.

No scientific claim is being tested here.

92.Pseudo-science anticipated (1 Timothy 6:20). The theory of evolution contradicts the observable evidence. The Bible warned us in advance that there would be those who would profess: “profane and idle babblings and contradictions of what is falsely called knowledge (science).” True science agrees with the Creator’s Word.

On the basis of the evidence of these “facts”, I’d beg to differ. No scientific claim is being tested here.

93. Science confirms the Bible (Colossians 2:3). These insights place the Bible far above every manmade theory and all other so-called inspired books. In contrast, the Koran states that the sun sets in a muddy pond (Surah 18:86). The Hadith contains many myths. The Book of Mormon declares that Native Americans descended from Jews – which has been disproven by DNA research. The Eastern writings also contradict true science.

No scientific claim is being tested here.

94. Human conscience understood (Romans 2:14-15). The Bible reveals that God has impressed His moral law onto every human heart. Con means with and science means knowledge. We know it is wrong to murder, lie, steal, etc. Only the Bible explains that each human has a God-given knowledge of right and wrong.

The etymology lesson is next to useless, because the earliest Biblical manuscripts were not written in neither English nor Latin (where the roots of the word “conscience” lie). No scientific claim is being tested here.

95. Love explained (Matthew 22:37-40; 1 John 4:7-12). Evolution cannot explain love. Yet, God’s Word reveals that the very purpose of our existence is to know and love God and our fellow man. God is love, and we were created in His image to reflect His love.

No scientific claim is being tested here.

96. The real you is spirit (Numbers 16:22; Zechariah 12:1). Personality is non-physical. For example, after a heart transplant the recipient does not receive the donor’s character. An amputee is not half the person he was before loosing his limbs. Our eternal nature is spirit, heart, soul, mind. The Bible tells us that “man looks at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart” (1 Samuel 16:7).

No scientific claim is being tested here.

97. The cause of suffering revealed (Genesis 3; Isaiah 24:5-6). The earth is subject to misery, which appears at odds with our wonderfully designed universe. However, the Bible, not evolution, explains the origin of suffering. When mankind rebelled against God, the curse resulted – introducing affliction, pain and death into the world.

No scientific claim is being tested here.

98. Death explained (Romans 6:23). All eventually die. The Bible alone explains why we die – “The soul who sins shall die” (Ezekiel 18:20). Sin is transgression of God’s Law. To see if you will die, please review God’s Ten Commandments (Exodus 20). Have you ever lied? (White lies and fibs count.) Ever stolen? (Cheating on a test or taxes is stealing.) Jesus said that “whoever looks at a woman to lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart” (Matthew 5:28). Have you ever looked with lust? Then you’re an adulterer at heart. Have you ever hated someone or called someone a fool? If so, the Bible says you are guilty of murder (Matthew 5:21-22; 1 John 3:15). Have you ever used your Creator’s name (Lord, God, Jesus, or Christ) in vain? This is called blasphemy – and God hates it. If you have broken these commandments at any time, then by your own admission, you are a blasphemer, a murderer, an adulterer, a thief, and a liar at heart. And we have only looked at five of the Ten Commandments. This is why we die.

No scientific claim is being tested here. It’s more of a sermon…

99. Justice understood (Acts 17:30-31). Our God-given conscience reveals that all sin will be judged. Down deep we know that He who created the eyes sees every secret sin (Romans 2:16). He who formed our mind remembers our past offense as if it just occurred. God has declared that the penalty for sin is death. Physical death comes first, then the second death – which is eternal separation from God in the lake of fire (Revelation 21:8). God cannot lie. Every sin will be judged. His justice demands it. But God is also rich in mercy to all who call upon His name. He has made a way for justice to be served and mercy to be shown.

More theological claims. No scientific claim is being tested here.

100. Eternal life revealed (John 3:16). Scientists search in vain for the cure for aging and death. Yet, the good news is that God, who is the source of all life, has made a way to freely forgive us so that we may live forever with Him in heaven. “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us” (Romans 5:8). “For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life” (John 3:16). God desires a loving, eternal relationship with each person – free from sin, fear, and pain. Therefore, He sent His Son to die as our substitute on the cross. “The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Romans 6:23). Jesus never sinned, therefore He alone qualified to pay the penalty for our sins on the cross. He died in our place. He then rose from the grave defeating death. All who turn from their sins and trust Him will be saved. To repent and place your trust in Jesus Christ, make Psalm 51 your prayer. Then read your Bible daily, obeying what you read. God will never let you down.

Science is not trying to cure aging and death as such – they’re certainly not searching “in vain”. A lot of theology, but no scientific claim is being tested here.

101. The solution to suffering (Revelation 21). Neither evolution nor religion offers a solution to suffering. But God offers heaven as a gift to all who trust in His Son. In heaven, “God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away” (Revelation 21:4).

We end on preaching, rather than demonstrable scientific truth: No scientific claim is being tested here.

Astonishingly, not one of the eleven so-called scientific facts are scientific facts at all, and can therefore be dismissed. This means that only 39 of the 101 “facts” are genuine attempts to put an understanding of a scientific claim to the Bible. 62 are simply not any sort of scientific claim at all.

However, none – not a single one – of the 39 stand up: they either misread the Bible, or show an inadequate understanding of science.

I’m genuinely surprised at that over well over half of the 101 “facts” are not even attempts at scientific claims, but rather just comment or anti-evoltution rhetoric.

The final part in this series will attempt to derive some sort of conclusion from this exercies, and wrap up my own particular efforts at tackling the absurd claims of Creationism.

Exposed: 101 Scientific Facts in the Bible | Science and the Bible Archive

 

[itfitzme]

Run for the hills ,the creationist once again is kicking our ass on the basis of logic.

No, not really. There is no logic to creationism. There is a great deal of faith, and there is nothing wrong with that, but there is little logic involved.

According to the evidence,logically I just showed naturalism is no more scientific then a creation. You can't rule out a designer only an ideologue would do so. This view that life spontaneously generated itself from nature is a view based in faith,and violates the law of Biogenesis.

You are confusing faith, belief based on a probability of less than 1%. With confidence, belief based on a probability of greater than 95%.

 

[Hollie]

No, not really. There is no logic to creationism. There is a great deal of faith, and there is nothing wrong with that, but there is little logic involved.

According to the evidence,logically I just showed naturalism is no more scientific then a creation. You can't rule out a designer only an ideologue would do so. This view that life spontaneously generated itself from nature is a view based in faith,and violates the law of Biogenesis.

There is no "law" of Biogenesis. It is a BELIEF not unlike your belief in "creationism".

I was actually staring in shocked disbelief at the newly created "law of bioiogenesis". It must be a law he read about on Harun Yahya.

 

[daws101]

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.

intelligent Design Creationists Attempt to (re)Define Junk DNA

Paul McBride is causing quite a stir among the creationists. His review of Science & Human Origins was so devastating that they couldn't ignore it.

Jonathan McLatchie (Jonathan M) is the latest creationist to attempt a defense of the home team. He concentrates on defending the Intelligent Design Creationist position on junk DNA [A Response to Paul McBride on Junk DNA].

On this topic (junk DNA), the IDiots make a lot of errors. One of them is to deliberately conflate "junk DNA" and "noncoding DNA" so that when they come up with evidence for function in noncoding DNA they can tout this as evidence against junk DNA. This error is so pervasive in the IDiot literature that Paul McBride even predicted that Casey Luskin would make this mistake in the book.

Here's how Jonathan McLatchie responds ..
In his review, McBride notes that he had predicted that Luskin would "conflate non-coding DNA and junk DNA, and that Luskin would exploit this erroneous conflation by pointing to known functions of non-coding DNA as evidence against junk DNA."

Of course, no one today (including the likes of Larry Moran, PZ Myers and T. Ryan Gregory) denies that at least some non-protein-coding DNA serves important functions. The term "junk DNA" was first coined in 1972 in a paper by Susumu Ohno. Although Ohno believed that the vast majority of the DNA that didn't code for proteins was "the remains of nature's experiments which failed," Ohno suggested that "these silent DNA base sequences may now be serving the useful but negative function of spacing [genes]."

McBride writes,
I'd like just once to see all these references where all these researchers are saying that if DNA does not code for a protein then it is junk.
As stated above, no credible scientist claims that all non-coding DNA is "junk."
Good for you, Jonathan McLatchie. You seem to be one of the few Intelligent Design Creationists who pay attention to the science. But now you need to go one step farther. You need to acknowledge that your colleagues are dead wrong. Casey Luskin, a lawyer, gets it wrong quite often but what about Jonathan Wells who wrote a whole book on the subject?


Here's an excerpt from an interview with Denyse O'Leary [Jonathan Wells on his book, The Myth of Junk DNA – yes, it is a Darwinist myth and he nails it as such].
Denyse O'Leary: So, for those who dropped science after Grade Ten, what is junk/non-coding DNA?

Jonathan Wells: “Non-coding” in this context means “non-protein-coding.” An important function of our DNA is to specific the sequences of subunits (amino acids) in the proteins that (along with other types of molecules) make up our bodies. When molecular biologists discovered in the 1970s that about 98% of our DNA does not code for proteins, some biologists called non-protein-coding DNA “junk.”
Oops! Jonathan Wells says that some biologists referred to all noncoding DNA as junk but McLatchie admits that this is not true.

Those two need to have a talk. It's what honest people do.

http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2012/08/intelligent-design-creationists-attempt.html

 

[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."

This is an assumption.

Nothing is an assumption. Everything has been observed in the Michigan St. Lab.

 

[daws101]

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.

show us the your proof that it's an assumption.

prime example of an assumption : god said....

 

[daws101]

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?

 

[daws101]

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 ?

how would you know? you use all of your brain and it is barely .00005 of a %

 

[daws101]

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 ?

you mean the theory of biogenesis...

 

[daws101]

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

Waffle. I've noticed with regularity that requiring the religious extremist to support his statements will send him running for the exits.

Do you really want the 101 evidences of foreknowledge from the bible again ?

you mean the one I've debunked at least 101 times ..?

 

[daws101]

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 ?

Is that another attempt to shift the focus of the conversation? Who do you think you're fooling?

Sorry but it's reality.

yes it is, what's also reality is you aren't in that group

 

[daws101]

Run for the hills ,the creationist once again is kicking our ass on the basis of logic.

 

[westwall]

Run for the hills ,the creationist once again is kicking our ass on the basis of logic.

No, not really. There is no logic to creationism. There is a great deal of faith, and there is nothing wrong with that, but there is little logic involved.

According to the evidence,logically I just showed naturalism is no more scientific then a creation. You can't rule out a designer only an ideologue would do so. This view that life spontaneously generated itself from nature is a view based in faith,and violates the law of Biogenesis.

No, you really didn't. I know you think you did but that is because you don't understand how to lay out a logical argument without instilling faith into it. It's not a condemnation it is merely an observation.