Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Steven_R]

Why is naturalism scientific and creationism isn't?

Fg=(Gm1m2)/r^2 Where does God fit in my equation? I can't quantify the Almighty. Which God should I use in any event? Is F=ma+Thor? Is Velocity really dx/dt or do I need to work Hermes in there somewhere? Or is there a different set of scientific principles for each and every religion and philosophy? Do Hindus get one set of physics and Muslims get another? Is chemistry and atomic theory good for believers in science, but alchemy is just as true for non-believers? Is evolution false for Christians but true for peoples' whose mythology includes being turned from animals into man by their gods?

 

[Big_D2]

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.

If you feel there is no use to it then it should not be taught. If there are other classes that are useless then that's irrelevant to this subject. As far as I know, there are no science classes that are useless.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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?

It sounds like you're still bitter about being kicked off the site for being a troll. Hollie, you not smart.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Look no one in their right mind accepts Abiogenesis as a viable theory. So the answer is false there is no evidence even coming close to refuting biogenesis.

Bottom line we all use the definition for terms that support our view. If there is no creator life arose through natural unguided processes. But once the naturalists are hit with reality they do everything in their power to change the subject or try and twist the terms and how they should be used.

I am not doing anything out of line it just seems that way because most of you have no viable response. I will say at least you're reasonable the others not so much.

 

[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.

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.)

Naturalism is a philosophy as well,you're taking this to personal.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.)

Oh boy,you believe in a philosophy and don't even know it.

 

[Hollie]

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?

It sounds like you're still bitter about being kicked off the site for being a troll. Hollie, you not smart.

Actually, I've never been "on" Harun Yahya. However, I have refuted the silly cut and paste nonsense you have used from there.

It sounds like you're still bitter about being taken to task for cutting and pasting from another of the charlatans you worship at.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Look no one in their right mind accepts Abiogenesis as a viable theory. So the answer is false there is no evidence even coming close to refuting biogenesis.

Bottom line we all use the definition for terms that support our view. If there is no creator life arose through natural unguided processes. But once the naturalists are hit with reality they do everything in their power to change the subject or try and twist the terms and how they should be used.

I am not doing anything out of line it just seems that way because most of you have no viable response. I will say at least you're a reasonable the others not so much.

It was thoroughly predictable that you would again use your typical tactics of lies in that you cut and paste edited and parsed portions of "quotes".

In spite of the numerous times you have exposed for your fraudulent actions, you still have no issue with this type of dishonesty.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So, you were scouring Harun Yahya.

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

It sounds like you're still bitter about being kicked off the site for being a troll. Hollie, you not smart.

Actually, I've never been "on" Harun Yahya. However, I have refuted the silly cut and paste nonsense you have used from there.

It sounds like you're still bitter about being taken to task for cutting and pasting from another of the charlatans you worship at.

What have I posted from their site other than the page on living fossils ? we know living fossils blow a hole wide open in the fossil record.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Look no one in their right mind accepts Abiogenesis as a viable theory. So the answer is false there is no evidence even coming close to refuting biogenesis.

Bottom line we all use the definition for terms that support our view. If there is no creator life arose through natural unguided processes. But once the naturalists are hit with reality they do everything in their power to change the subject or try and twist the terms and how they should be used.

I am not doing anything out of line it just seems that way because most of you have no viable response. I will say at least you're a reasonable the others not so much.

It was thoroughly predictable that you would again use your typical tactics of lies in that you cut and paste edited and parsed portions of "quotes".

In spite of the numerous times you have exposed for your fraudulent actions, you still have no issue with this type of dishonesty.

Wrong again hollie.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Is this really all you have been reduced to ? you just avoid the evidence and questions presented to you. I am growing bored with what is happening in this thread.

 

[Hollie]

Look no one in their right mind accepts Abiogenesis as a viable theory. So the answer is false there is no evidence even coming close to refuting biogenesis.

Bottom line we all use the definition for terms that support our view. If there is no creator life arose through natural unguided processes. But once the naturalists are hit with reality they do everything in their power to change the subject or try and twist the terms and how they should be used.

I am not doing anything out of line it just seems that way because most of you have no viable response. I will say at least you're a reasonable the others not so much.

It was thoroughly predictable that you would again use your typical tactics of lies in that you cut and paste edited and parsed portions of "quotes".

In spite of the numerous times you have exposed for your fraudulent actions, you still have no issue with this type of dishonesty.

Wrong again hollie.

I can see you're in denial about the "quotes" you selectively and dishonestly edit and parse when doing so is an attempt to further your dogma.

 

[Hollie]

It sounds like you're still bitter about being kicked off the site for being a troll. Hollie, you not smart.

Actually, I've never been "on" Harun Yahya. However, I have refuted the silly cut and paste nonsense you have used from there.

It sounds like you're still bitter about being taken to task for cutting and pasting from another of the charlatans you worship at.

What have I posted from their site other than the page on living fossils ? we know living fossils blow a hole wide open in the fossil record.

Your silly conspiracy theories only serve to further reduce your credibility.

Are you not aware that Harun Yahya caters to, and exploits the conspiracy theory / religious extremist crowd?

 

[Steven_R]

Look no one in their right mind accepts Abiogenesis as a viable theory. So the answer is false there is no evidence even coming close to refuting biogenesis.

Here's a fun way to spend your afternoon and prove all the science lovers wrong. Call the ten closest universities to you and ask to speak to the Biology Department chair. Ask him about the Miller-Uray experiment. After his explanation, ask him about the viability of abiogenesis as an explanation of how life started. Finally, ask him if the Biological community accepts abiogenesis as the probable answer to how life started in the first place.

Post results for all to see. Remember to get names of both people and universities so we can follow up with them.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Look no one in their right mind accepts Abiogenesis as a viable theory. So the answer is false there is no evidence even coming close to refuting biogenesis.

Here's a fun way to spend your afternoon and prove all the science lovers wrong. Call the ten closest universities to you and ask to speak to the Biology Department chair. Ask him about the Miller-Uray experiment. After his explanation, ask him about the viability of abiogenesis as an explanation of how life started. Finally, ask him if the Biological community accepts abiogenesis as the probable answer to how life started in the first place.

Post results for all to see. Remember to get names of both people and universities so we can follow up with them.

Don't have to,I attended the U of A and I know they accept what they are taught but behind closed doors do they really. They have no reason to accept it as a viable theory because there is no evidence supporting it but they do believe it is a viable theory. The important question is why ?

There are many problems with the miller and urey experiment to prove their point.

1. they assume what the environment was like without proof it existed in that condition, at the time of origins of life.

2. they knew what the conditions had to be for it to happen.

3. Life was not produced in the experiment under all the right conditions.

4. the test was conducted by intelligent beings not by nature.

5. the test produced right handed amino acids and that is not a problem ?


You're not the first to point to the miller and urey experiment.

 

[dblack]

Look no one in their right mind accepts Abiogenesis as a viable theory. So the answer is false there is no evidence even coming close to refuting biogenesis.

Here's a fun way to spend your afternoon and prove all the science lovers wrong. Call the ten closest universities to you and ask to speak to the Biology Department chair. Ask him about the Miller-Uray experiment. After his explanation, ask him about the viability of abiogenesis as an explanation of how life started. Finally, ask him if the Biological community accepts abiogenesis as the probable answer to how life started in the first place.

Post results for all to see. Remember to get names of both people and universities so we can follow up with them.

It's interesting stuff for sure. But you seem to be suggesting that such inquiry invalidates the scientific approach when, if anything, it does the opposite.

You seem to be under the illusion that 'science lovers' think science has all the answers, or that it's the only way to answer important questions.

The ability of science to answer the origins question really has no bearing on the validity of the creationist account.

 

[Steven_R]

Look no one in their right mind accepts Abiogenesis as a viable theory. So the answer is false there is no evidence even coming close to refuting biogenesis.

Here's a fun way to spend your afternoon and prove all the science lovers wrong. Call the ten closest universities to you and ask to speak to the Biology Department chair. Ask him about the Miller-Uray experiment. After his explanation, ask him about the viability of abiogenesis as an explanation of how life started. Finally, ask him if the Biological community accepts abiogenesis as the probable answer to how life started in the first place.

Post results for all to see. Remember to get names of both people and universities so we can follow up with them.

It's interesting stuff for sure. But you seem to be suggesting that such inquiry invalidates the scientific approach when, if anything, it does the opposite.

You seem to be under the illusion that 'science lovers' think science has all the answers, or that it's the only way to answer important questions.

The ability of science to answer the origins question really has no bearing on the validity of the creationist account.

It's quite the opposite. I'm a firm believer in the scientific method and that science is a self-correcting machine. If abiogenesis had no merit, there wouldn't be a biology department anywhere that would discuss it.

In the interests of full disclosure, I am a physics student.

My problem is that sarcasm doesn't always get through the internet. Maybe I should have put quotation marks around the words science lover.

 

[dblack]

Here's a fun way to spend your afternoon and prove all the science lovers wrong. Call the ten closest universities to you and ask to speak to the Biology Department chair. Ask him about the Miller-Uray experiment. After his explanation, ask him about the viability of abiogenesis as an explanation of how life started. Finally, ask him if the Biological community accepts abiogenesis as the probable answer to how life started in the first place.

Post results for all to see. Remember to get names of both people and universities so we can follow up with them.

It's interesting stuff for sure. But you seem to be suggesting that such inquiry invalidates the scientific approach when, if anything, it does the opposite.

You seem to be under the illusion that 'science lovers' think science has all the answers, or that it's the only way to answer important questions.

The ability of science to answer the origins question really has no bearing on the validity of the creationist account.

It's quite the opposite. I'm a firm believer in the scientific method and that science is a self-correcting machine. If abiogenesis had no merit, there wouldn't be a biology department anywhere that would discuss it.

In the interests of full disclosure, I am a physics student.

My problem is that sarcasm doesn't always get through the internet. Maybe I should have put quotation marks around the words science lover.

Ah.. I see now. I clearly wasn't reading between the lines.

 

[Gardener]

Creationism is based on faith, not science.

 

[Steven_R]

Don't have to,I attended the U of A and I know they accept what they are taught but behind closed doors do they really. They have no reason to accept it as a viable theory because there is no evidence supporting it but they do believe it is a viable theory. The important question is why ?

There are many problems with the miller and urey experiment to prove their point.

1. they assume what the environment was like without proof it existed in that condition, at the time of origins of life.

2. they knew what the conditions had to be for it to happen.

3. Life was not produced in the experiment under all the right conditions.

4. the test was conducted by intelligent beings not by nature.

And yet, with the follow on experiments that use conditions that are now thought to more closely mirror early Earth conditions, the experiment not only yielded the same amino acids, in some cases they yielded more amino acids.

5. the test produced right handed amino acids and that is not a problem ?

Why would it be? It isn't like every naturally occurring amino acid has to be left handed. The point of the experiment was to see if amino acids could be produced given what was thought to be early Earth conditions.