Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Hollie]

It's simple,provide the evidence that refutes the claim.

it refutes itself "Look no one in their right mind accepts Abiogenesis as a viable theory."
like I said : subjective, judgmental false declaration...
can't get an easier than that.

You're looking like even a bigger fool then hollie for defending this lie.

There is no evidence for spontaneous generation through natural processes Zero zip nada !

The fool is the religious zealot who feverishly defends an indefensible claim such as "creationism".

 

[Youwerecreated]

it refutes itself "Look no one in their right mind accepts Abiogenesis as a viable theory."
like I said : subjective, judgmental false declaration...
can't get an easier than that.

You're looking like even a bigger fool then hollie for defending this lie.

There is no evidence for spontaneous generation through natural processes Zero zip nada !

The fool is the religious zealot who feverishly defends an indefensible claim such as "creationism".

What ? no response to my explanations.

 

[Hollie]

If you keep copying and pasting the same nonsense do you think it's anymore credible? Biogenesis goes against any thought of spontaneous generation. Do I need to spell this out for you ?

As a viable theory, biogenesis is as pointless and as dismissable as creationism.

You're are a fool.

Produce the evidence that refutes it genius.

Already have.

You have failed to produce any credible evidence for supermagical creation. It's gotten so bad for you that you are forced to scour the web for such nonsense as biogenesis, a thoroughly discredited claim. Religious zealots readily refute their own silly claims.

 

[Hollie]

You're looking like even a bigger fool then hollie for defending this lie.

There is no evidence for spontaneous generation through natural processes Zero zip nada !

The fool is the religious zealot who feverishly defends an indefensible claim such as "creationism".

What ? no response to my explanations.

You may wish to first offer viable "explanations".

Your goofy cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya is not an explanation for anything.

 

[Hollie]

slapdick? you need new material and you can try and spin the facts all you want but you and many like you are full of shit.

THE HISTORY OF THE LAW OF BIOGENESIS
Francesco Redi (1626-1697)
Francesco Redi

Understanding life at the microscopic level due to the state of technology in this day and age might make the work of Italian scientist, Francesco Redi, seem trivial to many. However, before achieving the microscopic viewing capabilities we have today, some things we take for granted were not so intuitive. Long ago, the Greeks believed that abiogenesis was common (Balme, 1962). This belief continued to be the dominant position for millennia. Even as late as 300 years ago, it was standard belief in the scientific community that life commonly and spontaneously arose from non-life. For instance, it was believed that when a piece of meat rotted, it “spontaneously” gave rise to maggots, which then turned into flies (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 339). However, some scientists began to challenge this idea.

Redi hypothesized that the maggots actually arose from eggs that were laid by flies on the meat. The eggs, he claimed, were too small to be seen by the human eye. In 1688, he conducted experiments to test his hypothesis. Redi placed meat in jars, some of which were left open to the air, and some of which were covered with netting or were tightly sealed. Maggots were found to grow only on the meat that flies could reach. Thus, it was determined that life did not spontaneously generate on the rotted meat (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 340).
Lazzaro Spallanzani (1729-1799)
Lazzaro Spallanzani

An 18th-century English scientist, John Needham, attacked the findings of Redi. He claimed that his own scientific experiments verified that microorganisms did in fact spontaneously generate in some gravy, after it was allegedly thoroughly boiled in a bottle. Thus, in 1768, Lazzaro Spallanzani conducted his own simple scientific experimentation to test Needham’s findings. He prepared gravy in the same manner that Needham had, divided it into two bottles, and boiled it thoroughly, killing all microorganisms. One of the bottles was corked, and the other was left open to the air. Spallanzani argued that if microorganisms were spontaneously generating from the gravy, the gravy from both bottles should be teeming with microorganisms after a few days. However, only the gravy in the open bottle was found to have microorganisms after the allotted time. Once again, it was determined that life does not spontaneously generate. Life comes only from other life (Miller and Levine, 1991, pp. 339-340).
Louis Pasteur (1822-1895)
Louis Pasteur

For many, the work of Spallanzani and Redi was still not enough to drive the proverbial nail into the coffin of spontaneous generation. Some argued that air was needed for the spontaneous generation of life to occur, and Spallanzani’s corked bottle did not allow air to reach the gravy. A standard, evolution-based high school biology textbook states: “It was not until 1864, and the elegant experiment of French scientist Louis Pasteur, that the hypothesis of spontaneous generation was finally disproved” (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 341, emp. added). Pasteur placed a “nutrient broth,” similar to Needham’s gravy, in a flask with a long, s-curved neck. The flask was unsealed—left open to the air. However, the curvature of the flask’s neck served as an entrapment mechanism for dust particles and airborne microorganisms, keeping them from reaching the broth. The flask was observed over the time span of an entire year, and microorganisms could never be found. Next, he broke off the s-curved neck of the flask, allowing dust and microorganisms to reach the broth. After only one day, the broth was cloudy from dust and teeming with microorganisms. According to the aforementioned biology textbook, “Pasteur, like Redi and Spallanzani before him, had shown that life comes only from life” (Miller and Levine, 1991, p. 341, emp. added).
Rudolf Virchow (1821-1902)
Rudolf Virchow

German scientist, Rudolf Virchow, further expanded scientific understanding of the Law of Biogenesis. Virchow is the scientist who “recognized that all cells come from cells by binary fusion” (“Definition: Rudolf Virchow,” 2006). In 1858, he made the discovery for which he is well-known—“omnis cellula e cellula”—“every cell originates from another existing cell like it” (“Definition: Rudolf Virchow”). The Encyclopaedia Britannica says, concerning Virchow, “His aphorism ‘omnis cellula e cellula’…ranks with Pasteur’s ‘omne vivum e vivo’ (every living thing arises from a preexisting living thing) among the most revolutionary generalizations of biology” (Ackerknect, 1973, 23:35, emp. added). So, in nature, life comes from life of its own kind.
The Result: The Law of Biogenesis

Sadly, many simply refuse to accept the evidence. This refusal to accept the impossibility of abiogenesis has resulted in many scientists scrambling to conduct research that could be used as scientific support for abiogenesis. And subsequently, media personnel, along with many in the scientific community, are quick to jump to rash conclusions about the finds of research. When a researcher’s work can conceivably be twisted to support the idea of spontaneous generation, it seems that the evolutionist will strive to do so—against all reason to the contrary. A stream of research has surfaced over the years to try to prove that abiogenesis could have happened (cf. Haeckel, 1876; Miller, 1953; Wong, et al., 2000; Hartgerink, et al., 2001; Sommer, et al., 2008; Gibson, et al., 2010), all to no avail. [NOTE: See the Apologetics Press Web site for a discussion and refutation of these references.] In their desperation, some evolutionists have begun to acknowledge the unlikelihood of abiogenesis and have even begun to theorize the baseless idea that aliens seeded life on Earth billions of years ago (cf. Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, 1981; Gribbin, 1981; Stein and Miller, 2008).

Regardless of such speculation and conjecture, the evidence that science has found is clear. In nature, life comes only from life of its own kind. Period. All scientific evidence confirms this well-established principle of science. There are no known exceptions. Thus, biogenesis is a law. Abiogenesis is impossible. Prominent marine biologist and evolutionist, Martin Moe, admitted: “A century of sensational discoveries in the biological sciences has taught us that life arises only from life” (1981, p. 36, emp. added). Evolutionist George G. Simpson, perhaps the most influential paleontologist of the 20th century, stated, “[T]here is no serious doubt that biogenesis is the rule, that life comes only from other life, that a cell, the unit of life, is always and exclusively the product or offspring of another cell” (Simpson and Beck, 1965, p. 144, emp. added). In their textbook, Biology: A Search for Order in Complexity, Moore and Slusher wrote: “Historically the point of view that life comes only from life has been so well established through the facts revealed by experiment that it is called the Law of Biogenesis” (1974, p. 74, emp. in orig., ital. added).

What does the scientific evidence indicate about the origin of life? Life creates life. The evolutionists themselves begrudgingly admit this, and yet refuse to accept its implications. If atheistic evolution is true, abiogenesis must be true. Belief in abiogenesis is a stubborn refusal to accept the scientific evidence, choosing in turn to give credence to evolutionary superstition, myths, and fables.

https://www.apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=1018

Yeah, unfortunately, it proves equally that life isn't creates by god. So now, after all your wasted effort to attempt to imply that if abiogenisis is false, that therefore god is true, you have demonstrated nothing.

The fundamental flaw in all your reasoning, which you avoid stating because you prefer denial, is as I previously was nice enough to state for you.

You would like to claim god must be true unless proven false. But that is simply not how it works. The hypothesis of god does not "fill in" simply because there is no proof of abiogenisis as the initial origination of life.

The correct assertion is that, given the correctness of evolutionary theory in both the history of discovered facts and the predictions of future biological changes, within the degree of certainty that can be achieved, the appropriate hypothesis is

at some point in the distant past, there was a remarkable and rare event, no matter how unlikely, of abiogenesis that began life on this planet.

What we know, as much as anything, from statistics, is that, however unlikely it may be, shit happens.

The lesson that "shit happens" is an important one. A common misperception is to conclude from observation of a single event, that the event must represent the norm because if it was unlikely then it would be unlikely to have been observed. If anything, the statistical methidology of science takes asucj care to avoid this fallacy, the fallacy of "shit don't happen".

The marvel of evolution is that it takes advantage of the reality that unlikely events occur if you just wait long enough.

But, like all shit that happens, the statistical unlikelyhood of shit happens makes it extremely difficult to prove a particular instance of shit happening.

As much as you would like to, the theory of god doesn't substitute for the theory of shit happens. Nor does the fallacy of shit don't happen stand as proof of god.

The only grounds that tbe hypothesis of god has is to claim that god is responsible for shit happening. Yet, I can define and refine a measure of shit happens as a sequence of probability, 10%...1%...0.1%...and onward, to the finest level that I have time to waste. And, simply by flipping coins, I can prove to any degree of certainy, to an absolute degree of certainty, that shit just happens all by itself.

You have two possible answers on the origins of life.

A designer or spontaneous generation through natural processes. We know that Biogenesis refutes spontaneous generation through natural processes.

That puts your feverish religious claims at a disadvantage. We know that biogenesis is a discredited ploy. We also have no reason to believe that any designer gawds have any connection with life on the planet.

 

[Youwerecreated]

As a viable theory, biogenesis is as pointless and as dismissable as creationism.

You're are a fool.

Produce the evidence that refutes it genius.

Already have.

You have failed to produce any credible evidence for supermagical creation. It's gotten so bad for you that you are forced to scour the web for such nonsense as biogenesis, a thoroughly discredited claim. Religious zealots readily refute their own silly claims.

Why reply if you can't be honest ?

We both know the history of Biogenesis and Abiogenesis and who coined the terms.

bi·o·gen·e·sis
/ˌbīōˈjenəsis/
Noun

The synthesis of substances by living organisms.
The hypothesis that living matter arises only from other living matter.

abiogenesis
Web definitions
a hypothetical organic phenomenon by which living organisms are created from nonliving matter.
wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

 

[Youwerecreated]

The fool is the religious zealot who feverishly defends an indefensible claim such as "creationism".

What ? no response to my explanations.

You may wish to first offer viable "explanations".

Your goofy cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya is not an explanation for anything.

Those are my words dumbass have a good day. you lack the intelligence and integrity for this conversation.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yeah, unfortunately, it proves equally that life isn't creates by god. So now, after all your wasted effort to attempt to imply that if abiogenisis is false, that therefore god is true, you have demonstrated nothing.

The fundamental flaw in all your reasoning, which you avoid stating because you prefer denial, is as I previously was nice enough to state for you.

You would like to claim god must be true unless proven false. But that is simply not how it works. The hypothesis of god does not "fill in" simply because there is no proof of abiogenisis as the initial origination of life.

The correct assertion is that, given the correctness of evolutionary theory in both the history of discovered facts and the predictions of future biological changes, within the degree of certainty that can be achieved, the appropriate hypothesis is

at some point in the distant past, there was a remarkable and rare event, no matter how unlikely, of abiogenesis that began life on this planet.

What we know, as much as anything, from statistics, is that, however unlikely it may be, shit happens.

The lesson that "shit happens" is an important one. A common misperception is to conclude from observation of a single event, that the event must represent the norm because if it was unlikely then it would be unlikely to have been observed. If anything, the statistical methidology of science takes asucj care to avoid this fallacy, the fallacy of "shit don't happen".

The marvel of evolution is that it takes advantage of the reality that unlikely events occur if you just wait long enough.

But, like all shit that happens, the statistical unlikelyhood of shit happens makes it extremely difficult to prove a particular instance of shit happening.

As much as you would like to, the theory of god doesn't substitute for the theory of shit happens. Nor does the fallacy of shit don't happen stand as proof of god.

The only grounds that tbe hypothesis of god has is to claim that god is responsible for shit happening. Yet, I can define and refine a measure of shit happens as a sequence of probability, 10%...1%...0.1%...and onward, to the finest level that I have time to waste. And, simply by flipping coins, I can prove to any degree of certainy, to an absolute degree of certainty, that shit just happens all by itself.

You have two possible answers on the origins of life.

A designer or spontaneous generation through natural processes. We know that Biogenesis refutes spontaneous generation through natural processes.

That puts your feverish religious claims at a disadvantage. We know that biogenesis is a discredited ploy. We also have no reason to believe that any designer gawds have any connection with life on the planet.

Still waiting for that evidence that discredited the law.

 

[Hollie]

You have two possible answers on the origins of life.

A designer or spontaneous generation through natural processes. We know that Biogenesis refutes spontaneous generation through natural processes.

That puts your feverish religious claims at a disadvantage. We know that biogenesis is a discredited ploy. We also have no reason to believe that any designer gawds have any connection with life on the planet.

Still waiting for that evidence that discredited the law.

Do you mean the evidence you already have?

Still waiting for evidence of your goofy creationist claims to miracles and supernaturalism . This may come as a sho k to you but Harun Yahya is not a credible source.

 

[Hollie]

What ? no response to my explanations.

You may wish to first offer viable "explanations".

Your goofy cutting and pasting from Harun Yahya is not an explanation for anything.

Those are my words dumbass have a good day. you lack the intelligence and integrity for this conversation.

When your arguments are cut and pasted "quotes" from Harun Yahya, you basically become the poster child for lack of intelligence and integrity.

Did you know that Harun Yahya (real name Adnan Oktar), is a failed college student with no formal training in science? Did you know that he believes himself to be the Mahdi? Did you know he served jail time for some rather sordid crimes involving extortion and activities with underage girls?

But yeah, you worship this charlatan as a reliable science source.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hollie go away I will not respond to you anymore because of the reasons mentioned earlier.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Just to help you people out that are being mislead by daws and hollies poor attempts at lying.

scientific law
Web definitions
A scientific law states a repeated observation about nature..
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

 

[Hollie]

Hollie go away I will not respond to you anymore because of the reasons mentioned earlier.

I can understand you're befuddled and angry that anyone would criticize Harun Yahya. When your arguments are refuted, you do have a habit of lashing out like a petulant child. Your failed arguments are not a valid reason for behaving as though you've been scolded and sent to your room.


CB000: Law of Biogenesis

Claim CB000:

Pasteur and other scientists disproved the concept of spontaneous generation and established the "law of biogenesis" -- that life comes only from previous life.


Source:

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 38.

Response:

1. The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.

 

[Hollie]

Just to help you people out that are being mislead by daws and hollies poor attempts at lying.

scientific law
Web definitions
A scientific law states a repeated observation about nature..
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law

What natural laws apply to supernatural gawds?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hollie go away I will not respond to you anymore because of the reasons mentioned earlier.

I can understand you're befuddled and angry that anyone would criticize Harun Yahya. When your arguments are refuted, you do have a habit of lashing out like a petulant child. Your failed arguments are not a valid reason for behaving as though you've been scolded and sent to your room.


CB000: Law of Biogenesis

Claim CB000:

Pasteur and other scientists disproved the concept of spontaneous generation and established the "law of biogenesis" -- that life comes only from previous life.


Source:

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 38.

Response:

1. The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.

Because you are dumb enough to keep posting the same crap.

So you understand what a scientific law is. What is observed over and over ? living organisms producing living organisms. Not non living matter producing living matter. Your view is a theory my view is a scientific law.

Law Definition - Definition of Law

Until you have evidence refuting the law you are simply wasting your time posting this nonsense.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie go away I will not respond to you anymore because of the reasons mentioned earlier.

I can understand you're befuddled and angry that anyone would criticize Harun Yahya. When your arguments are refuted, you do have a habit of lashing out like a petulant child. Your failed arguments are not a valid reason for behaving as though you've been scolded and sent to your room.


CB000: Law of Biogenesis

Claim CB000:

Pasteur and other scientists disproved the concept of spontaneous generation and established the "law of biogenesis" -- that life comes only from previous life.


Source:

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 38.

Response:

1. The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.

Because you are dumb enough to keep posting the same crap.

So you understand what a scientific law is. What is observed over and over ? living organisms producing living organisms. Not non living matter producing living matter. Your view is a theory my view is a scientific law.

Law Definition - Definition of Law

Until you have evidence refuting the law you are simply wasting your time posting this nonsense.

I understand you're befuddled. That's why you're flailing about.

The silly and discredited biogenesis nonsense actually refutes magical creationism. I'm sure that is the reason for your befuddlement.

Cutting and pasting dictionary definitions is of little value when those definitions don't apply to your argument. But then again, your silly cutting and pasting doesn't apply to any valid argument.

 

[Hollie]

Hollie go away I will not respond to you anymore because of the reasons mentioned earlier.

I can understand you're befuddled and angry that anyone would criticize Harun Yahya. When your arguments are refuted, you do have a habit of lashing out like a petulant child. Your failed arguments are not a valid reason for behaving as though you've been scolded and sent to your room.


CB000: Law of Biogenesis

Claim CB000:

Pasteur and other scientists disproved the concept of spontaneous generation and established the "law of biogenesis" -- that life comes only from previous life.


Source:

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 38.

Response:

1. The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.

Because you are dumb enough to keep posting the same crap.

So you understand what a scientific law is. What is observed over and over ? living organisms producing living organisms. Not non living matter producing living matter. Your view is a theory my view is a scientific law.

Law Definition - Definition of Law

Until you have evidence refuting the law you are simply wasting your time posting this nonsense.

Pasteur, fermentation, contagion, and proving a negative

Summary

What Louis Pasteur and the others who denied spontaneous generation demonstrated is that life does not currently spontaneously arise in complex form from nonlife in nature; he did not demonstrate the impossibility of life arising in simple form from nonlife by way of a long and propitious series of chemical steps/selections. In particular, they did not show that life cannot arise once, and then evolve. Neither Pasteur, nor any other post-Darwin researcher in this field, denied the age of the earth or the fact of evolution.

Introduction

A recurring theme in antievolution literature is that if science cannot account for the origin of life, evolution is false, and that "spontaneous generation" was disproven, so therefore evolution is false. This syllogism fails, because evolution (that is, common descent and transmutation of species) occurs whether or not life arose by chance, law or design, but there is another more insidious mistake here. It is not true that "spontaneous generation" has been ruled out in all cases by science; the claims disproven were more restricted than that

 

[Hollie]

Hollie go away I will not respond to you anymore because of the reasons mentioned earlier.

So, you lied to me.

The gods are not going to be happy about this.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I can understand you're befuddled and angry that anyone would criticize Harun Yahya. When your arguments are refuted, you do have a habit of lashing out like a petulant child. Your failed arguments are not a valid reason for behaving as though you've been scolded and sent to your room.


CB000: Law of Biogenesis

Claim CB000:

Pasteur and other scientists disproved the concept of spontaneous generation and established the "law of biogenesis" -- that life comes only from previous life.


Source:

Watchtower Bible and Tract Society, 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, p. 38.

Response:

1. The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.

Because you are dumb enough to keep posting the same crap.

So you understand what a scientific law is. What is observed over and over ? living organisms producing living organisms. Not non living matter producing living matter. Your view is a theory my view is a scientific law.

Law Definition - Definition of Law

Until you have evidence refuting the law you are simply wasting your time posting this nonsense.

Pasteur, fermentation, contagion, and proving a negative

Summary

What Louis Pasteur and the others who denied spontaneous generation demonstrated is that life does not currently spontaneously arise in complex form from nonlife in nature; he did not demonstrate the impossibility of life arising in simple form from nonlife by way of a long and propitious series of chemical steps/selections. In particular, they did not show that life cannot arise once, and then evolve. Neither Pasteur, nor any other post-Darwin researcher in this field, denied the age of the earth or the fact of evolution.

Introduction

A recurring theme in antievolution literature is that if science cannot account for the origin of life, evolution is false, and that "spontaneous generation" was disproven, so therefore evolution is false. This syllogism fails, because evolution (that is, common descent and transmutation of species) occurs whether or not life arose by chance, law or design, but there is another more insidious mistake here. It is not true that "spontaneous generation" has been ruled out in all cases by science; the claims disproven were more restricted than that

This is not true the sources you keep quoting are liars. Did you not understand me saying that spontaneous generation is a theory and a weak one. I gave it more credbility then it deserves by refering to it as a theory. By your sources own words "life does not currently spontaneously arise in complex form from nonlife in nature"

Then to say creationists do not believe in evolution is a lie. We believe in micro-evolution not macro-evolution.

But until you can show otherwise with evidence biogenesis is a known law. Abiogenesis is wishful thinking.

Seriously the only one beffuddled is yourself and your sources.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hollie go away I will not respond to you anymore because of the reasons mentioned earlier.

So, you lied to me.

The gods are not going to be happy about this.

I have to dissect your nonsense and show people the truth. You're hoping I ignore your ignorance.

Only when I feel I need to respond to you then I will. Really though most people should know by now you're full of crap.