Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[YWN666]

You're are a fool.

Produce the evidence that refutes it genius.

You made the assertion so the burden of proof is on you to support it.

I can't because there is no evidence that refutes it,and no the claim was made by her.

YOU make the positive assertion is biogenesis is a valid theory so the burden is on you, NOT on the person challenging you. You claim to be educated so I'm surprised you didn't know that.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Many members of creationist groups have agreed that their research will never contradict the bible. I keep asking YWC to address that issue but he keeps changing the subject or running away as creationists usually do.

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

BULLSHIT. Are you telling me that it is scientifically possible for a man to die and awake three days later?

The abilities of God is beyond mans comprehension if it were not so we could answer a lot of earths mysteries.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

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.

You should post the Second Law. Then I'll be happy to show you the error in this claim.

1.second law of thermodynamics a law stating that mechanical work can be derived from a body only when that body interacts with another at a lower temperature; any spontaneous process results in an increase of entropy.

second law of thermodynamics - definition of second law of thermodynamics by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Now that you understand your mistake, you'll stop using the Second Law incorrectly?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is a closed system and that is why we see entropy on all things.

Incorrect. Fundmentally incorrect.

A closed system is also refered to as an isolated system. This is so fundental as to defy any more basic explaination. All life are open, non-isolated systems.

To say otherwise is to simply ignore a very basic concept of thermo.

How so when scientists consider earth a closed system ? the reason is because no serious amount of matter enters and leaves earth. The atmosphere does however allow just the right amount of energy in. This is the only reason they say it is both open and closed but that is nonsense. The sun is pure energy and that is why the energy of the sun penetrates the earth's atmosphere.

The atmosphere does however allow just the right amount of energy in.

Makes your Second Law error so obvious.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You made the assertion so the burden of proof is on you to support it.

I can't because there is no evidence that refutes it,and no the claim was made by her.

YOU make the positive assertion is biogenesis is a valid theory so the burden is on you, NOT on the person challenging you. You claim to be educated so I'm surprised you didn't know that.

It is not a theory it is a law. You have bought IN to the spin and lies. Living organisms come from other living organisms they do not come from Abiogenesis.

If you wish to refute the law produce the evidence that shows otherwise.

 

[Hollie]

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

You mean like how the Bible says the geocentric model is correct (when it isn't advocating a flat Earth that is), but how We've known since 1610 that simply is not true.

Or how the Bible outright says the circumference of a circle is 3 time its diameter when every 9th grader knows it's really 3.14159... times.

Or maybe the time the Jews are told not to eat rabbits because they chew cud, but rabbits in the real world don't chew cud.

That is just ignorance of the scriptures for anyone to claim the bible teaches a flat earth ,you should stay away from your atheist hate sites they will mislead you.

The ignorance is yours in that you simply don't understand any of the bibles. As is the case with so many religious extremists, you have a need to selectively interpret the bibles in a way that allows you to ignore the errors and contradictions. It's intellectually dishonest, but it calms an emotional requirement to continue in your deep stupor.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Incorrect. Fundmentally incorrect.

A closed system is also refered to as an isolated system. This is so fundental as to defy any more basic explaination. All life are open, non-isolated systems.

To say otherwise is to simply ignore a very basic concept of thermo.

How so when scientists consider earth a closed system ? the reason is because no serious amount of matter enters and leaves earth. The atmosphere does however allow just the right amount of energy in. This is the only reason they say it is both open and closed but that is nonsense. The sun is pure energy and that is why the energy of the sun penetrates the earth's atmosphere.

The atmosphere does however allow just the right amount of energy in.

Makes your Second Law error so obvious.

Nope as I have explained it is simple reasoning. The sun is so powerful the atmosphere can't prevent the energy of the sun penetrating the atmosphere.

 

[YWN666]

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.

YWC thought Sharknado was a documentary.

 

[Hollie]

I can't because there is no evidence that refutes it,and no the claim was made by her.

YOU make the positive assertion is biogenesis is a valid theory so the burden is on you, NOT on the person challenging you. You claim to be educated so I'm surprised you didn't know that.

It is not a theory it is a law. You have bought IN to the spin and lies. Living organisms come from other living organisms they do not come from Abiogenesis.

If you wish to refute the law produce the evidence that shows otherwise.

Biogenesis has long ago been discarded as a valid theory. It is a relic that religious extremists cling to.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How so when scientists consider earth a closed system ? the reason is because no serious amount of matter enters and leaves earth. The atmosphere does however allow just the right amount of energy in. This is the only reason they say it is both open and closed but that is nonsense. The sun is pure energy and that is why the energy of the sun penetrates the earth's atmosphere.

The atmosphere does however allow just the right amount of energy in.

Makes your Second Law error so obvious.

Nope as I have explained it is simple reasoning. The sun is so powerful the atmosphere can't prevent the energy of the sun penetrating the atmosphere.

Yes, we receive energy from the sun. Proof of your Second Law error.

 

[YWN666]

I can't because there is no evidence that refutes it,and no the claim was made by her.

YOU make the positive assertion is biogenesis is a valid theory so the burden is on you, NOT on the person challenging you. You claim to be educated so I'm surprised you didn't know that.

It is not a theory it is a law. You have bought IN to the spin and lies. Living organisms come from other living organisms they do not come from Abiogenesis.

If you wish to refute the law produce the evidence that shows otherwise.

Once again, you are dodging the point that you know will embarrass you. Consider me shocked.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Everyone have a good weekend I will continue this later getting ready for Vegas.

 

[itfitzme]

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

You mean like how the Bible says the geocentric model is correct (when it isn't advocating a flat Earth that is), but how We've known since 1610 that simply is not true.

Or how the Bible outright says the circumference of a circle is 3 time its diameter when every 9th grader knows it's really 3.14159... times.

Or maybe the time the Jews are told not to eat rabbits because they chew cud, but rabbits in the real world don't chew cud.

That is just ignorance of the scriptures for anyone to claim the bible teaches a flat earth ,you should stay away from your atheist hate sites they will mislead you.

Yeah, he clearly spends too much time on science.

 

[itfitzme]

How so when scientists consider earth a closed system ? the reason is because no serious amount of matter enters and leaves earth. The atmosphere does however allow just the right amount of energy in. This is the only reason they say it is both open and closed but that is nonsense. The sun is pure energy and that is why the energy of the sun penetrates the earth's atmosphere.

The atmosphere does however allow just the right amount of energy in.

Makes your Second Law error so obvious.

Nope as I have explained it is simple reasoning. The sun is so powerful the atmosphere can't prevent the energy of the sun penetrating the atmosphere.

You are distracting yourself, again, from the point. The 2nd Law of Thermo does not have any bearing on the matter. Life intakes matter and energy, is an open system by definition.

Nothing about the second law forbids life developing.

 

[westwall]

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.

You do know where the 6000 year figure came from do you not?

I should have worded that differently not how long man has been on the planet but how long ago did creation begin.

Yes I do,and I also know a day is a thousand years to the LORD, so were the the days of creation a thousand years each or were they like the days of man. If we go by the days of man somewhere around 6,000 years by tracing the ancestry of adam.

If the days of creation were a 1,000 years we are looking at around 12,000 years.

The 6,000 year figure came from the Bishop Ussher when he sat down in his bathtub and calculated all the begats and the lifetimes of the various folks in the Bible. I don't remember the exact year but it was around 1650 that he calculated that figure. Do you see a problem with the timeline here?

Furthermore, who's to say that a day is only 1000 years to God? A MAN? What man can know, or even more to the point, has the temerity to define what Gods day is like?

Here are my thoughts on it. God, if he existed, and made this universe, swished his finger through the primordial ooze and then sat back to watch what happens. His or Her day is billions of years long and consists of doing whatever an omniscient, omnipresent and omnipowerful deity wishes to do...which I doubt has anything to do with humanity. The Universe is far too vast for a deity to be tied down to one tiny little planet.....don't you think?

 

[itfitzme]

Update:

To be more technically precise;

"·*Open - exchange of both H and M with S
·*Closed - exchange of H but not M with S
·*Isolated - exchange of neither H nor M with S

Which of these describes Earth?* The answer depends on context."

M:mass S:Enrtopy H:Enthalpy(heat?)

This doesn't change any general or basic points, it is just more precisely correct as "isolate" vs "closed" are considered different as a closed system doesn't exchange matter with its surroundings, only heat/energy.

Regardless, the earth receives energy from the sun. That energy is used by living organisms. That energy also drives the climate which performs work.

There are few things on this planet, and nothing in nature, which is isolated or closed. Life is neither.



Donald T. Haynie - Biological Thermodynamics - Earth: Open or Closed?

 

[itfitzme]

A thermous creates an isolated system.
My refrigerator is closed until I open it.
My coffee cup is an open system
Living organisms are definitively open systems.

 

[Steven_R]

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

You mean like how the Bible says the geocentric model is correct (when it isn't advocating a flat Earth that is), but how We've known since 1610 that simply is not true.

Or how the Bible outright says the circumference of a circle is 3 time its diameter when every 9th grader knows it's really 3.14159... times.

Or maybe the time the Jews are told not to eat rabbits because they chew cud, but rabbits in the real world don't chew cud.

That is just ignorance of the scriptures for anyone to claim the bible teaches a flat earth ,you should stay away from your atheist hate sites they will mislead you.

We'll discount Daniel 4:10-11 because it was a dream, but what about When the Devil showed Jesus the whole Earth from a mountaintop? Regardless of how high this mountain is, one cannot see the other side of a sphere from a static point. (Matthew 4:8 and Luke 4:5)

But let's discount the Flat Earth claims then. What about the geocentric model that has been proven wrong by countless observations and experiments? Or the fact that the Bible is wrong on basic geometry? Or basic rabbit biology?

 

[itfitzme]

We'll discount Daniel 4:10-11 because it was a dream, but what about When the Devil showed Jesus the whole Earth from a mountaintop? Regardless of how high this mountain is, one cannot see the other side of a sphere from a static point. (Matthew 4:8 and Luke 4:5)

It is a demonstration of the theory of relativity. Light bends around gravitational mass. See, you just have to think about it and the bible predicts everything.

 

[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.

Sorry, you were the one that turned tail and ran when asked to engage, why is that ?

Typical lie from a faux "Christian". We have already proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you are unqualified to engage in any serious scientific discussion. That you are gullible enough to believe this deliberate misconstruing of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is additional evidence. So to address your question as to why I am not willing to engage you on any scientific topic it is because the outcome is a foregone conclusion. You will be humiliated by your ignorance and then deny that that your ignorance was exposed. Only a fool does the exact same thing and expects a different outcome each time. With you the outcome is always the same.