Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Hollie]

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

you mean the theory of biogenesis...

You mean the theory of Abiogenesis, I am speaking of the Law of Biogenesis.

It's obvious that you're just clueless.

 

[itfitzme]

I view art and creationism the same in many respects. There is much art that does nothing of value except to its creator. That is the nature of some art. The same go's for creationism. Some people derive a great deal of comfort from that belief, just like some people derive a great deal of comfort from art. Why is it acceptable to denigrate one and not the other?

Put another way, why do you fear creationism? The nature of education is to teach all angles. Anyone who limits you to a single viewpoint isn't teaching at all, they are merely speaking at you. No one should fear creationism so long as evolution is taught as well. If there were only creationism being taught I would have the same viewpoint.

My daughter is 7 years old now and she is getting a hell of an education from me in the hard sciences, the soft sciences from her mom and regular school work at her private school. We fear nothing for her because she will have the tools to make a good decision no matter what comes her way.

That is how education should be.

Do you see the difference?

If we teach creationism, then we have to teach the flying spaghetti monster, so on and so forth. The nature of education is not to teach all angles it is to teach the BEST explanation from the evidence that has been provided. It is provide a use in the real world. Evolution does both and creationism does neither.

Please advise what practical applications in science could derived from learning creationism, that would be akin to a flu shot being derived from evolution. Once you do this then you warranted the use of teaching this in schools.

Well from the appearance they are not doing a good job of teaching naturalism.

What are you even talking about. One doesn't teach naturalism. One teaches science. Naturalism is a perspective that arises naturally out of observation and science.

It is akin to saying, "teach universilism". The universe is something that all exists within. One teaches about the things in the universe.

 

[Youwerecreated]

you mean the theory of biogenesis...

You mean the theory of Abiogenesis, I am speaking of the Law of Biogenesis.

It doesn't really matter any way, it remains a suppositional hypothesis. We do know, though, that the Earth was not originally condusive to life as we now. We also know that life, as we know it now and in the fossil record, evolved. What we don't know is that some mythical and all powerfull being started it. So it is a more reasonable hypothesis that life did begin spontaneously.

Therw are two hypothesis;

a) life simply began spontaneously is a manner similar to all known observations or

b) it was created by some mythical being that has never been obseved.

You are quite welcome to the absurd second hylothesis. But it remains unfounded by any evidence. Just don't think anyone is stupid enough to buy into it as somehow scientific. And don't bother searching for some "logic" or "definitions" that you think will give the idea "authority". Your mythical sky creature isn't an authority and you haven't inhereted any of it just because you "believe".

There is not one shred of evidence that refutes the Law of Biogenesis. Fact ie ,the number of examples of biogenesis is so high it is beyond reproach.

But go ahead and cling to someones vivid imagination.

 

[Youwerecreated]

you mean the theory of biogenesis...

You mean the theory of Abiogenesis, I am speaking of the Law of Biogenesis.

It's obvious that you're just clueless.

Sure hollie

 

[Youwerecreated]

If we teach creationism, then we have to teach the flying spaghetti monster, so on and so forth. The nature of education is not to teach all angles it is to teach the BEST explanation from the evidence that has been provided. It is provide a use in the real world. Evolution does both and creationism does neither.

Please advise what practical applications in science could derived from learning creationism, that would be akin to a flu shot being derived from evolution. Once you do this then you warranted the use of teaching this in schools.

Well from the appearance they are not doing a good job of teaching naturalism.

What are you even talking about. One doesn't teach naturalism. One teaches science. Naturalism is a perspective that arises naturally out of observation and science.

It is akin to saying, "teach universilism". The universe is something that all exists within. One teaches about the things in the universe.

Really, maybe you should quit playing word games rejoin reality.

 

[Hollie]

I view art and creationism the same in many respects. There is much art that does nothing of value except to its creator. That is the nature of some art. The same go's for creationism. Some people derive a great deal of comfort from that belief, just like some people derive a great deal of comfort from art. Why is it acceptable to denigrate one and not the other?

Put another way, why do you fear creationism? The nature of education is to teach all angles. Anyone who limits you to a single viewpoint isn't teaching at all, they are merely speaking at you. No one should fear creationism so long as evolution is taught as well. If there were only creationism being taught I would have the same viewpoint.

My daughter is 7 years old now and she is getting a hell of an education from me in the hard sciences, the soft sciences from her mom and regular school work at her private school. We fear nothing for her because she will have the tools to make a good decision no matter what comes her way.

That is how education should be.

Do you see the difference?

If we teach creationism, then we have to teach the flying spaghetti monster, so on and so forth. The nature of education is not to teach all angles it is to teach the BEST explanation from the evidence that has been provided. It is provide a use in the real world. Evolution does both and creationism does neither.

Please advise what practical applications in science could derived from learning creationism, that would be akin to a flu shot being derived from evolution. Once you do this then you warranted the use of teaching this in schools.

Well from the appearance they are not doing a good job of teaching naturalism.

I'm not aware of any school syllabus that includes "naturalism". You should spend some time to understand terms and definitions.

You are likely confusing "naturalism" with courses in chemistry, biology, paleontology, geology, etc. It seems you personally find study in those aforementioned topics as an infringement upon bible study time.

 

[Hollie]

You mean the theory of Abiogenesis, I am speaking of the Law of Biogenesis.

It doesn't really matter any way, it remains a suppositional hypothesis. We do know, though, that the Earth was not originally condusive to life as we now. We also know that life, as we know it now and in the fossil record, evolved. What we don't know is that some mythical and all powerfull being started it. So it is a more reasonable hypothesis that life did begin spontaneously.

Therw are two hypothesis;

a) life simply began spontaneously is a manner similar to all known observations or

b) it was created by some mythical being that has never been obseved.

You are quite welcome to the absurd second hylothesis. But it remains unfounded by any evidence. Just don't think anyone is stupid enough to buy into it as somehow scientific. And don't bother searching for some "logic" or "definitions" that you think will give the idea "authority". Your mythical sky creature isn't an authority and you haven't inhereted any of it just because you "believe".

There is not one shred of evidence that refutes the Law of Biogenesis. Fact ie ,the number of examples of biogenesis is so high it is beyond reproach.

But go ahead and cling to someones vivid imagination.

Were you scouring Harun Yahya when you came across this "law" you're rattling on about?

 

[Youwerecreated]

If we teach creationism, then we have to teach the flying spaghetti monster, so on and so forth. The nature of education is not to teach all angles it is to teach the BEST explanation from the evidence that has been provided. It is provide a use in the real world. Evolution does both and creationism does neither.

Please advise what practical applications in science could derived from learning creationism, that would be akin to a flu shot being derived from evolution. Once you do this then you warranted the use of teaching this in schools.

Well from the appearance they are not doing a good job of teaching naturalism.

I'm not aware of any school syllabus that includes "naturalism". You should spend some time to understand terms and definitions.

You are likely confusing "naturalism" with courses in chemistry, biology, paleontology, geology, etc. It seems you personally find study in those aforementioned topics as an infringement upon bible study time.

So are you now saying life did not arise through natural processes ?


nat·u·ral·ism
[nach-er-uh-liz-uhm, nach-ruh-] Show IPA
noun

4.
Philosophy .
a.
the view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual.
b.
the belief that all phenomena are covered by laws of science and that all teleological explanations are therefore without value.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It doesn't really matter any way, it remains a suppositional hypothesis. We do know, though, that the Earth was not originally condusive to life as we now. We also know that life, as we know it now and in the fossil record, evolved. What we don't know is that some mythical and all powerfull being started it. So it is a more reasonable hypothesis that life did begin spontaneously.

Therw are two hypothesis;

a) life simply began spontaneously is a manner similar to all known observations or

b) it was created by some mythical being that has never been obseved.

You are quite welcome to the absurd second hylothesis. But it remains unfounded by any evidence. Just don't think anyone is stupid enough to buy into it as somehow scientific. And don't bother searching for some "logic" or "definitions" that you think will give the idea "authority". Your mythical sky creature isn't an authority and you haven't inhereted any of it just because you "believe".

There is not one shred of evidence that refutes the Law of Biogenesis. Fact ie ,the number of examples of biogenesis is so high it is beyond reproach.

But go ahead and cling to someones vivid imagination.

Were you scouring Harun Yahya when you came across this "law" you're rattling on about?

Hollie did you notice one source was biology online. It is a law and has so much evidence backing it,it can't be denied. You are really looking silly trying to spin your way out of the stupor you're in.

 

[Hollie]

Well from the appearance they are not doing a good job of teaching naturalism.

I'm not aware of any school syllabus that includes "naturalism". You should spend some time to understand terms and definitions.

You are likely confusing "naturalism" with courses in chemistry, biology, paleontology, geology, etc. It seems you personally find study in those aforementioned topics as an infringement upon bible study time.

So are you now saying life did not arise through natural processes ?
I

nat·u·ral·ism
[nach-er-uh-liz-uhm, nach-ruh-] Show IPA
noun

4.
Philosophy .
a.
the view of the world that takes account only of natural elements and forces, excluding the supernatural or spiritual.
b.
the belief that all phenomena are covered by laws of science and that all teleological explanations are therefore without value.

You're not paying attention.

 

[Hollie]

There is not one shred of evidence that refutes the Law of Biogenesis. Fact ie ,the number of examples of biogenesis is so high it is beyond reproach.

But go ahead and cling to someones vivid imagination.

Were you scouring Harun Yahya when you came across this "law" you're rattling on about?

Hollie did you notice one source was biology online. It is a law and has so much evidence backing it,it can't be denied. You are really looking silly trying to spin your way out of the stupor you're in.

So, you were scouring Harun Yahya.

In your stupor, did you happen to notice that Harun Yahya is a laughable joke?

 

[westwall]

I don't know where you got the impression that art is taught to make people feel good. There are careers in art and it has a practical use.

Instead of diverting the argument into one on the discussion of art in the classroom, please advise what practical applications could come from learning creationism?

I view art and creationism the same in many respects. There is much art that does nothing of value except to its creator. That is the nature of some art. The same go's for creationism. Some people derive a great deal of comfort from that belief, just like some people derive a great deal of comfort from art. Why is it acceptable to denigrate one and not the other?

Put another way, why do you fear creationism? The nature of education is to teach all angles. Anyone who limits you to a single viewpoint isn't teaching at all, they are merely speaking at you. No one should fear creationism so long as evolution is taught as well. If there were only creationism being taught I would have the same viewpoint.

My daughter is 7 years old now and she is getting a hell of an education from me in the hard sciences, the soft sciences from her mom and regular school work at her private school. We fear nothing for her because she will have the tools to make a good decision no matter what comes her way.

That is how education should be.

Do you see the difference?

If we teach creationism, then we have to teach the flying spaghetti monster, so on and so forth. The nature of education is not to teach all angles it is to teach the BEST explanation from the evidence that has been provided. It is provide a use in the real world. Evolution does both and creationism does neither.

Please advise what practical applications in science could derived from learning creationism, that would be akin to a flu shot being derived from evolution. Once you do this then you warranted the use of teaching this in schools.

There are no practical applications for most art, nor a whole host of other liberal arts, and yet, artists are honored and feted. You fear creationism, I don't, it's as simple as that. Until you figure out why you're afraid of it you will be an absolutist. Absolutists are just as dangerous as creationists.

 

[westwall]

I love it when the ignorant lead the stupid I can get you all at once lol.





Edit page | Page history | Printable version
Dictionary » L » Law of biogenesis
Law of biogenesis

Definition

noun

(1) The principle stating that life arises from pre-existing life, not from nonliving material.

Law of biogenesis - definition from Biology-Online.org

law of biogenesis
Web definitions
Biogenesis is the process of lifeforms producing other lifeforms, e.g. a spider lays eggs, which develop into spiders. It may also refer...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_biogenesis

Law Of Biogenesis
Search for Law Of Biogenesis With 100's of Results at WebCrawler
law.webcrawler.com/

biogenesis /bio·gen·e·sis/ (-jen´ĕ-sis)
1. origin of life, or of living organisms.
2. the theory that living organisms originate only from other living organisms.

Law of biogenesis - definition of Law of biogenesis in the Medical dictionary - by the Free Online Medical Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Now would you like to produce that evidence for nonliving material producing life.

Interesting that you left off the Supplement..... You do yourself no credit when you selectively edit my friend. It shows weakness and a unwillingness to debate fairly or properly. The same go's for the name calling.

The theory has been discredited in time when modern science and genetics have raised doubt its validity.

 

[westwall]

If we teach creationism, then we have to teach the flying spaghetti monster, so on and so forth. The nature of education is not to teach all angles it is to teach the BEST explanation from the evidence that has been provided. It is provide a use in the real world. Evolution does both and creationism does neither.

Please advise what practical applications in science could derived from learning creationism, that would be akin to a flu shot being derived from evolution. Once you do this then you warranted the use of teaching this in schools.

Well from the appearance they are not doing a good job of teaching naturalism.

What are you even talking about. One doesn't teach naturalism. One teaches science. Naturalism is a perspective that arises naturally out of observation and science.

It is akin to saying, "teach universilism". The universe is something that all exists within. One teaches about the things in the universe.

You too need to read a history book. Science arose from naturalism. Naturalism was first practiced by the ancient Egyptians and Greeks and is the basis for the scientific method we use today.

 

[itfitzme]

You mean the theory of Abiogenesis, I am speaking of the Law of Biogenesis.

It doesn't really matter any way, it remains a suppositional hypothesis. We do know, though, that the Earth was not originally condusive to life as we now. We also know that life, as we know it now and in the fossil record, evolved. What we don't know is that some mythical and all powerfull being started it. So it is a more reasonable hypothesis that life did begin spontaneously.

Therw are two hypothesis;

a) life simply began spontaneously is a manner similar to all known observations or

b) it was created by some mythical being that has never been obseved.

You are quite welcome to the absurd second hylothesis. But it remains unfounded by any evidence. Just don't think anyone is stupid enough to buy into it as somehow scientific. And don't bother searching for some "logic" or "definitions" that you think will give the idea "authority". Your mythical sky creature isn't an authority and you haven't inhereted any of it just because you "believe".

There is not one shred of evidence that refutes the Law of Biogenesis. Fact ie ,the number of examples of biogenesis is so high it is beyond reproach.

But go ahead and cling to someones vivid imagination.

As far as science is concerned there is EVERY shred of evidence that refutes it because therd is NO shred of evidence that supports is.

This is the philosophical, axiomatic difference between faith and naturalism. Faith is a probability of future occurance based on past experience of zero may be taken an not proven false. Science says it is proven false. You say "It could be true" I say, I don't care if "it could be", I don't perscribe medicine, pay my mechanic, or start up a manufacturing facility unless it IS TRUE.

You say true until proven false. I say false until proven true. You say hypothetically true without any proof contrary. I say hypothesis only if evidence provides some reason to pursue it.

I don't need to prove it false. It is false because it isn't true. It isn't true until it is true.

(On a side note, I was considering the planets, and their moons, particularly Jupiter, the other day. And I thought, now what good are those things anyways? What purpose could those ridiculous balls of gas and rock, orbitting some small star in the vast emptyness of space. And it struck me. They have no purpose. No intelligent being would have created them. That alone is "proof". The shear absurdity of it is proof enough.)

 

[itfitzme]

Well from the appearance they are not doing a good job of teaching naturalism.

What are you even talking about. One doesn't teach naturalism. One teaches science. Naturalism is a perspective that arises naturally out of observation and science.

It is akin to saying, "teach universilism". The universe is something that all exists within. One teaches about the things in the universe.

Really, maybe you should quit playing word games rejoin reality.

Yeah, I knew you would go there in your driving things toward a bullshit philosophical level.

I'm saying that one doesn't teach naturalism as a subject. *One teaches science. *Your trying to play word game manipulation like word definitions are some sort of authority of GOD. *

Words aren't mathematical equations. *They are defined by usage. *People use them, then Mirrian-Webster reads how they are used and writes it down.

What does the word "may" and "should" mean? *"Might"? "Ought to"? "Will"? "Shall"?

Either you get our meaning, that there is no standardized course called "naturalism" *and it isn't a choice of "teaching naturalism" or "creationism".

Oddly, I noticed that Hollie and I said, basically and independently, the exact same thing. That is because we are paying attention.

If anyone isn't paying attention, it would be you. *I am clearly understanding your meaning. You're failure to undertand mine is your ignorance. *Nice word, eh... IGNORE-ANCE. *

(What's the difference between a philosopher and a mathematician? The mathametician need a pencil, paper, and a wastebasket. The philosooher only needs the paper and pencil.)

 

[itfitzme]

Mission*

The mission of the West Virginia Master Naturalist Programtm is to train interested people in the fundamentals of natural history, nature interpretation and teaching, and to instill in them an appreciation of the importance of responsible environmental stewardship. The program will also provide a corps of highly qualified volunteers to assist government agencies, schools, and non-government organizations with research, outdoor recreation development, and environmental education and protection. **

That's not exactly what we mean by teaching "naturalism" vs "creationism"

West Virginia DNR - Wildlife Resources

 

[itfitzme]

You mean the theory of Abiogenesis, I am speaking of the Law of Biogenesis.

It doesn't really matter any way, it remains a suppositional hypothesis. We do know, though, that the Earth was not originally condusive to life as we now. We also know that life, as we know it now and in the fossil record, evolved. What we don't know is that some mythical and all powerfull being started it. So it is a more reasonable hypothesis that life did begin spontaneously.

Therw are two hypothesis;

a) life simply began spontaneously is a manner similar to all known observations or

b) it was created by some mythical being that has never been obseved.

You are quite welcome to the absurd second hylothesis. But it remains unfounded by any evidence. Just don't think anyone is stupid enough to buy into it as somehow scientific. And don't bother searching for some "logic" or "definitions" that you think will give the idea "authority". Your mythical sky creature isn't an authority and you haven't inhereted any of it just because you "believe".

There is not one shred of evidence that refutes the Law of Biogenesis. Fact ie ,the number of examples of biogenesis is so high it is beyond reproach.

But go ahead and cling to someones vivid imagination.

It is obvious what you want to imply is the meaning. It isn't. No proof.

See, tbe trouble you are having is that I don't care what words you use. What I care about is what you mean. Meaning includes what is said, what is implied, what is not said, andnthe context within which it is presented. The words you choose to use are only a small part of the gestalt of your meaning.

This isn't a chess game. Your screen name already tells me what you mean. Everything you say is in that context. It is bs because it isn't true. You can't make it true because you cannot prove something that was not true and has failed misserably to be proven true. If you had on piece of direct operational evidence, you would simply present it. It is really simple. There is no philosophical path.

Your beating around the bush, trying to flush something out. There is nothing to be flushed out. All there is, is the bush. That's all you get.

 

[Big_D2]

I view art and creationism the same in many respects. There is much art that does nothing of value except to its creator. That is the nature of some art. The same go's for creationism. Some people derive a great deal of comfort from that belief, just like some people derive a great deal of comfort from art. Why is it acceptable to denigrate one and not the other?

Put another way, why do you fear creationism? The nature of education is to teach all angles. Anyone who limits you to a single viewpoint isn't teaching at all, they are merely speaking at you. No one should fear creationism so long as evolution is taught as well. If there were only creationism being taught I would have the same viewpoint.

My daughter is 7 years old now and she is getting a hell of an education from me in the hard sciences, the soft sciences from her mom and regular school work at her private school. We fear nothing for her because she will have the tools to make a good decision no matter what comes her way.

That is how education should be.

Do you see the difference?

If we teach creationism, then we have to teach the flying spaghetti monster, so on and so forth. The nature of education is not to teach all angles it is to teach the BEST explanation from the evidence that has been provided. It is provide a use in the real world. Evolution does both and creationism does neither.

Please advise what practical applications in science could derived from learning creationism, that would be akin to a flu shot being derived from evolution. Once you do this then you warranted the use of teaching this in schools.

There are no practical applications for most art, nor a whole host of other liberal arts, and yet, artists are honored and feted. You fear creationism, I don't, it's as simple as that. Until you figure out why you're afraid of it you will be an absolutist. Absolutists are just as dangerous as creationists.

You avoid the question again and again. Just provide rationale how learning creationism, that would be akin to a flu shot being derived from evolution. The only thing I am afraid of about creationism is that time would be spent on something that is apparently useless or you would have provided an adequate response by now.

There is indeed a practical use for art. I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

 

[westwall]

If we teach creationism, then we have to teach the flying spaghetti monster, so on and so forth. The nature of education is not to teach all angles it is to teach the BEST explanation from the evidence that has been provided. It is provide a use in the real world. Evolution does both and creationism does neither.

Please advise what practical applications in science could derived from learning creationism, that would be akin to a flu shot being derived from evolution. Once you do this then you warranted the use of teaching this in schools.

There are no practical applications for most art, nor a whole host of other liberal arts, and yet, artists are honored and feted. You fear creationism, I don't, it's as simple as that. Until you figure out why you're afraid of it you will be an absolutist. Absolutists are just as dangerous as creationists.

You avoid the question again and again. Just provide rationale how learning creationism, that would be akin to a flu shot being derived from evolution. The only thing I am afraid of about creationism is that time would be spent on something that is apparently useless or you would have provided an adequate response by now.

There is indeed a practical use for art. I'm not sure where you're getting that from.

I've not avoided it at all. I stated quite clearly there is none. Why is that so hard for you to understand? It also doesn't matter one iota. There are LOTS of classes that are taught that have no practical use. They are still taught in our colleges.