Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[daws101]

I asked you why ?

because evolution is not perfect just good enough..

You don't have a clue as to why even though I provided the answer to you ?

you just keep believing that.. your answer has no validity....my statement is correct.
I love it when you get all jesused up and full of shit.
makes it more fun to knock you down.

 

[daws101]

Real science does not contradict the bible it's that simple.

I agree. The Bible is a historical reference in one case and a historical novel in the other. It is however, not concerned with science in the slightest.

That is where you're wrong.

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

non credible source. been debunked countless times....
ywc only brings it up when he's getting his ass handed to him .

 

[Youwerecreated]

Indeed it is. The female birth canal is an excellent example of that. It is so poorly "designed" that up until the advent of the C section vast numbers of innocent wonderful women and children, died in childbirth because the baby couldn't make the corner and get out.

I somehow find it difficult to imagine God making such a stupid error in His design.

God told that women would suffer during childbirth as an extra punishment for eve's sin.

But all the imperfections are due heredity that was brought on by sin. At least you can agree that the flaws you speak of are due to heredity though.

Yes I understand how women are evil and need to be punished. How do you reconcile that with the innocent MALE children who never had a chance? I can understand how God wouldn't care about those pesky female children (not really I'm just taking an extreme viewpoint so you can see how ridiculous that statement was) they're just going to lead good boys into sin after all....but what about all those hundreds of thousands of male children who never, ever had a chance...?

And the flaws are due to evolutionary screw-ups. If it was purely hereditary those people would have died off and it would no longer be a problem. See how science works?

No God did not show partiality.

Gen 3:14 And the Lord God said to the snake, Because you have done this you are cursed more than all cattle and every beast of the field; you will go flat on the earth, and dust will be your food all the days of your life:
Gen 3:15 And there will be war between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed: by him will your head be crushed and by you his foot will be wounded.
Gen 3:16 To the woman he said, Great will be your pain in childbirth; in sorrow will your children come to birth; still your desire will be for your husband, but he will be your master.
Gen 3:17 And to Adam he said, Because you gave ear to the voice of your wife and took of the fruit of the tree which I said you were not to take, the earth is cursed on your account; in pain you will get your food from it all your life.
Gen 3:18 Thorns and waste plants will come up, and the plants of the field will be your food;
Gen 3:19 With the hard work of your hands you will get your bread till you go back to the earth from which you were taken: for dust you are and to the dust you will go back.

 

[daws101]

I asked you why ?

I gave you one example. Why don't you deal with that one first. The human birth canal is a horrible place to be as a baby. That is responsible for uncounted deaths of women and children before the invention of the C section.

The question was what caused the flaws ?

I already provided an answer.

a steaming pile of nonsense answer...

 

[Youwerecreated]

I agree. The Bible is a historical reference in one case and a historical novel in the other. It is however, not concerned with science in the slightest.

That is where you're wrong.

Eternal Productions - 101 Scientific Facts and Foreknowledge

I'm sorry. The Bible was written at least 50 years after all of these things were "predicted". Climate change fraudsters do the exact same thing and it is just as ridiculous when they do it.

Put another way, Nostradamus "predicted" a whole bunch of stuff too. The only problem is you have to turn your head a little sideways and close your eyes and cover one ear for it to really make sense.

Wrong the OT was written 3,500 years ago and the NT was written within 70 after the death of Christ.

 

[daws101]

God told that women would suffer during childbirth as an extra punishment for eve's sin.

But all the imperfections are due heredity that was brought on by sin. At least you can agree that the flaws you speak of are due to heredity though.

Yes I understand how women are evil and need to be punished. How do you reconcile that with the innocent MALE children who never had a chance? I can understand how God wouldn't care about those pesky female children (not really I'm just taking an extreme viewpoint so you can see how ridiculous that statement was) they're just going to lead good boys into sin after all....but what about all those hundreds of thousands of male children who never, ever had a chance...?

And the flaws are due to evolutionary screw-ups. If it was purely hereditary those people would have died off and it would no longer be a problem. See how science works?

No God did not show partiality.

Gen 3:14 And the Lord God said to the snake, Because you have done this you are cursed more than all cattle and every beast of the field; you will go flat on the earth, and dust will be your food all the days of your life:
Gen 3:15 And there will be war between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed: by him will your head be crushed and by you his foot will be wounded.
Gen 3:16 To the woman he said, Great will be your pain in childbirth; in sorrow will your children come to birth; still your desire will be for your husband, but he will be your master.
Gen 3:17 And to Adam he said, Because you gave ear to the voice of your wife and took of the fruit of the tree which I said you were not to take, the earth is cursed on your account; in pain you will get your food from it all your life.
Gen 3:18 Thorns and waste plants will come up, and the plants of the field will be your food;
Gen 3:19 With the hard work of your hands you will get your bread till you go back to the earth from which you were taken: for dust you are and to the dust you will go back.

non credible source....subjective and not science...

 

[Youwerecreated]

I gave you one example. Why don't you deal with that one first. The human birth canal is a horrible place to be as a baby. That is responsible for uncounted deaths of women and children before the invention of the C section.

The question was what caused the flaws ?

I already provided an answer.

No, you didn't. You dodged the question like you do whenever you have no answer for the tough questions that scientists ask you. Just like the climate change fraudsters do.

Repeat your question. if you're referring to the birth canal it's due to heredity and perfections that were lost.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yes I understand how women are evil and need to be punished. How do you reconcile that with the innocent MALE children who never had a chance? I can understand how God wouldn't care about those pesky female children (not really I'm just taking an extreme viewpoint so you can see how ridiculous that statement was) they're just going to lead good boys into sin after all....but what about all those hundreds of thousands of male children who never, ever had a chance...?

And the flaws are due to evolutionary screw-ups. If it was purely hereditary those people would have died off and it would no longer be a problem. See how science works?

No God did not show partiality.

Gen 3:14 And the Lord God said to the snake, Because you have done this you are cursed more than all cattle and every beast of the field; you will go flat on the earth, and dust will be your food all the days of your life:
Gen 3:15 And there will be war between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed: by him will your head be crushed and by you his foot will be wounded.
Gen 3:16 To the woman he said, Great will be your pain in childbirth; in sorrow will your children come to birth; still your desire will be for your husband, but he will be your master.
Gen 3:17 And to Adam he said, Because you gave ear to the voice of your wife and took of the fruit of the tree which I said you were not to take, the earth is cursed on your account; in pain you will get your food from it all your life.
Gen 3:18 Thorns and waste plants will come up, and the plants of the field will be your food;
Gen 3:19 With the hard work of your hands you will get your bread till you go back to the earth from which you were taken: for dust you are and to the dust you will go back.

non credible source....subjective and not science...

I showed that his point was wrong. if you can't keep up take notes.

 

[Youwerecreated]

School is out for the day do have a good evening.

 

[daws101]

The question was what caused the flaws ?

I already provided an answer.

No, you didn't. You dodged the question like you do whenever you have no answer for the tough questions that scientists ask you. Just like the climate change fraudsters do.

Repeat your question. if you're referring to the birth canal it's due to heredity and perfections that were lost.

the birth canal was never perfect...to say it was is a lie just as much a lie as your supernatural reason for it being flawed...

 

[daws101]

No God did not show partiality.

Gen 3:14 And the Lord God said to the snake, Because you have done this you are cursed more than all cattle and every beast of the field; you will go flat on the earth, and dust will be your food all the days of your life:
Gen 3:15 And there will be war between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed: by him will your head be crushed and by you his foot will be wounded.
Gen 3:16 To the woman he said, Great will be your pain in childbirth; in sorrow will your children come to birth; still your desire will be for your husband, but he will be your master.
Gen 3:17 And to Adam he said, Because you gave ear to the voice of your wife and took of the fruit of the tree which I said you were not to take, the earth is cursed on your account; in pain you will get your food from it all your life.
Gen 3:18 Thorns and waste plants will come up, and the plants of the field will be your food;
Gen 3:19 With the hard work of your hands you will get your bread till you go back to the earth from which you were taken: for dust you are and to the dust you will go back.

non credible source....subjective and not science...

I showed that his point was wrong. if you can't keep up take notes.

bullshit! you did not.
you posted some crap that you think has some relevance to westwall's post.
there is no evidence god said or did what those scriptures claim.
like I SAID non credible source....subjective and not science.

 

[itfitzme]

Hey, the bible is a great historical document, no one doubts that. But it isn't science, by any stretch of the imagination. We've had 2000 odd years to go over it, with a fine tooth comb.

 

[westwall]

God told that women would suffer during childbirth as an extra punishment for eve's sin.

But all the imperfections are due heredity that was brought on by sin. At least you can agree that the flaws you speak of are due to heredity though.

Yes I understand how women are evil and need to be punished. How do you reconcile that with the innocent MALE children who never had a chance? I can understand how God wouldn't care about those pesky female children (not really I'm just taking an extreme viewpoint so you can see how ridiculous that statement was) they're just going to lead good boys into sin after all....but what about all those hundreds of thousands of male children who never, ever had a chance...?

And the flaws are due to evolutionary screw-ups. If it was purely hereditary those people would have died off and it would no longer be a problem. See how science works?

No God did not show partiality.

Gen 3:14 And the Lord God said to the snake, Because you have done this you are cursed more than all cattle and every beast of the field; you will go flat on the earth, and dust will be your food all the days of your life:
Gen 3:15 And there will be war between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed: by him will your head be crushed and by you his foot will be wounded.
Gen 3:16 To the woman he said, Great will be your pain in childbirth; in sorrow will your children come to birth; still your desire will be for your husband, but he will be your master.
Gen 3:17 And to Adam he said, Because you gave ear to the voice of your wife and took of the fruit of the tree which I said you were not to take, the earth is cursed on your account; in pain you will get your food from it all your life.
Gen 3:18 Thorns and waste plants will come up, and the plants of the field will be your food;
Gen 3:19 With the hard work of your hands you will get your bread till you go back to the earth from which you were taken: for dust you are and to the dust you will go back.

None of which addresses the problem of children dying in childbirth BEFORE they can learn of the Word of God which dooms them to eternal damnation. Seems to me....if there was a God controlling all of that it would be counterproductive to produce a child only for it to be eternally damned.....without a chance.

 

[westwall]

The question was what caused the flaws ?

I already provided an answer.

No, you didn't. You dodged the question like you do whenever you have no answer for the tough questions that scientists ask you. Just like the climate change fraudsters do.

Repeat your question. if you're referring to the birth canal it's due to heredity and perfections that were lost.

So, you're saying that evolutionary processes were able to warp mankind in a mere 6000 years. Is that correct? Or did God manufacture man with those flaws already inherent in His design?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yes I understand how women are evil and need to be punished. How do you reconcile that with the innocent MALE children who never had a chance? I can understand how God wouldn't care about those pesky female children (not really I'm just taking an extreme viewpoint so you can see how ridiculous that statement was) they're just going to lead good boys into sin after all....but what about all those hundreds of thousands of male children who never, ever had a chance...?

And the flaws are due to evolutionary screw-ups. If it was purely hereditary those people would have died off and it would no longer be a problem. See how science works?

No God did not show partiality.

Gen 3:14 And the Lord God said to the snake, Because you have done this you are cursed more than all cattle and every beast of the field; you will go flat on the earth, and dust will be your food all the days of your life:
Gen 3:15 And there will be war between you and the woman and between your seed and her seed: by him will your head be crushed and by you his foot will be wounded.
Gen 3:16 To the woman he said, Great will be your pain in childbirth; in sorrow will your children come to birth; still your desire will be for your husband, but he will be your master.
Gen 3:17 And to Adam he said, Because you gave ear to the voice of your wife and took of the fruit of the tree which I said you were not to take, the earth is cursed on your account; in pain you will get your food from it all your life.
Gen 3:18 Thorns and waste plants will come up, and the plants of the field will be your food;
Gen 3:19 With the hard work of your hands you will get your bread till you go back to the earth from which you were taken: for dust you are and to the dust you will go back.

None of which addresses the problem of children dying in childbirth BEFORE they can learn of the Word of God which dooms them to eternal damnation. Seems to me....if there was a God controlling all of that it would be counterproductive to produce a child only for it to be eternally damned.....without a chance.

One last response for the day it was not meant to answer your birth canal question only partially. It was mainly directed at your rhetoric concerning evil women.

 

[Youwerecreated]

No, you didn't. You dodged the question like you do whenever you have no answer for the tough questions that scientists ask you. Just like the climate change fraudsters do.

Repeat your question. if you're referring to the birth canal it's due to heredity and perfections that were lost.

So, you're saying that evolutionary processes were able to warp mankind in a mere 6000 years. Is that correct? Or did God manufacture man with those flaws already inherent in His design?

Ok since you're are reasonable I will hang out for a while.I am saying yes the flaws were passed on to all. How long has man been on this planet I do not know. I say between 6,000 to 12,000 years.

God created man perfect and then handed down the punishment of death for sin ,and I believe he handed down his punishment through our genes.

 

[Youwerecreated]

This I have spoken about before but this is something some should read up on, it was an evolutionist that presented a death blow to the theory of neo darwinism and it dealt with the problems of mutation fixation.

Also read up on Dr Lee Spetners book on mutations.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.

Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, actually, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation.

Rarely, though, do arguments against mutation as the mechanism for evolution consider at once the many conditions that must be met if mutation is to bring about macro-evolutionary change (that is, change from one basic kind of life to another). Yet examining the probabilities of these conditions all being met together provides excellent evidence against evolution and in favor of creation.
NINE CONDITIONS FOR MUTATION FIXATION

Fortunately, geneticist R.H. Byles has made the job easy for us by discussing nine important conditions in an article on the subject.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution

 

[itfitzme]

I have certainly learned a lot, here. I like getting to the bottom of issues, where the foudation of the disagreement lies. And, it is clear that it all rests on the difference in axioms or postulates that often go unstated.

It generally comes down to axioms that are so ingrained that neither side recognizes what it is that they are taking as patently obvious such that they go without saying.

"Real science doesn't contradict the Bible" is one.

The false until proven true vs true till proven false is another.

"I don't know" equals "god did it for a reason" seems to be one.

Faith vs 95-99% confidence level.

Faith vs deductive reason.

I'm all for hope and faith. I go to sleep, each night, resting assured that I will wake up the next day. Still, I lock my doors.

Life isn't a science experiment. And god knows I've tried. So, science doesn't negate having hope. But blind faith isn't a substitute for rational thought and deducing good hypothesis from existing science.

The bible served its purpose, providing something, anything, when there was nothing else to go on. It filled in for law, history, psychology, a dictionary reference, an explaination for nature, and something to read where none existed.

It has been thoroughly vetted.

 

[Derideo_Te]

This I have spoken about before but this is something some should read up on, it was an evolutionist that presented a death blow to the theory of neo darwinism and it dealt with the problems of mutation fixation.

Also read up on Dr Lee Spetners book on mutations.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.

Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, actually, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation.

Rarely, though, do arguments against mutation as the mechanism for evolution consider at once the many conditions that must be met if mutation is to bring about macro-evolutionary change (that is, change from one basic kind of life to another). Yet examining the probabilities of these conditions all being met together provides excellent evidence against evolution and in favor of creation.
NINE CONDITIONS FOR MUTATION FIXATION

Fortunately, geneticist R.H. Byles has made the job easy for us by discussing nine important conditions in an article on the subject.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution

YWC has already established that he is unqualified to engage on this topic.

 

[itfitzme]

This I have spoken about before but this is something some should read up on, it was an evolutionist that presented a death blow to the theory of neo darwinism and it dealt with the problems of mutation fixation.

Also read up on Dr Lee Spetners book on mutations.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution
by E. Calvin Beisner, M.A.

Most arguments against the possibility of mutation as a mechanism for evolution revolve around two premises: that mutations are almost always harmful, and that the idea of their improving rather than harming organisms is contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity. These are two sides of the same coin, actually, the latter arguing from principle and the former from empirical observation.

Rarely, though, do arguments against mutation as the mechanism for evolution consider at once the many conditions that must be met if mutation is to bring about macro-evolutionary change (that is, change from one basic kind of life to another). Yet examining the probabilities of these conditions all being met together provides excellent evidence against evolution and in favor of creation.
NINE CONDITIONS FOR MUTATION FIXATION

Fortunately, geneticist R.H. Byles has made the job easy for us by discussing nine important conditions in an article on the subject.

Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution

"contrary to the Second Law of Thermodynamics"...

Oh, good god... Jesus Christ... For crying out loud...

Another bastardization of the second law of thermo. By that interpretation, my air conditioner and refrigerator wouldn't work. A steam locamotive wouldn't function. My car wouldn't run. Weather and climate wouldn't exist. Life itself wouldn't work.

This is right up there with saying that the theory of relativity means everything is a matter of opinion.

2nd Law of Thermo says that for a LARGE ISOLATED SYSTEM, delta-entropy is greater than or equal to zero.

Life exists, functions, because it is not a closed system. It uses external energy to do work in opposition to the second law of thermo. The sun is where that energy comes from, and geothermal energy as well as gravitational energy.