Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Youwerecreated]

Because scientific method demands empirical evidence to make an assertion and naturalism (a term I seldon hear anyone use, I note) starts with the supposition that all things that are exist in the real world and therefore ARE ...em·pir·i·cal






Why?

Because while both agree that "you were created" (the evidence for your existence IS empirical) creationism seeks to explain WHY and HOW without any empirical evidence to support its explanation.




Naturalism is NOT scientific method. Naturalism is a belief system, scientific method is an approach to problem solving.

Such sophistry (suggesting that naturalism IS science is sophistry, amigo) is an interesting exercise in playing a rhetorical game but essentially worthless in doing anything to support the theories of CREATIONISM.

Why?

GIGO...you started out with a supposition that was false...naturalism is NOT science, neither is it scientic method.

Naturalism is a philosophy that one might say springs from science without in any way BEING science

Great post.

Yes, natural recurring processes can be observed does not mean the processes happened naturally. The question should be is how these natural processes that recur over and over got started.

My point is why do they look to explain that everything is a product of naturalism when their is no natural process that can be observed that could account for origins of life Or origins of any kind other than the natural recurring processes that are observed with the all the necessities already in place.

I do disagree with one of your points However.Creation is a process of design which can be observed in nature.

If you can "observe in nature" the "process of design" in "creation" then YOU must be able to provide plenty of examples since your premise is that ALL LIFE was "created", right?

So now here is your big opportunity to prove once and for all that everything is the result of "creation".

Provide irrefutable examples of this alleged "process of design" that YOU can "observe in nature".

There are to many examples in nature to number.

Organs,blood,skeletal structures,eyes,brains,central nervous system,atmosphere,the sun and moon,our planet,oxygen,water,defense mechanisms that help protect organisms,
vegetation etc.Chance or purposeful design ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why? Isn't the evidence "equal"?

Because there is evidence for spiritual entities,There is no evidence for fairies,leperchauns,and gnomes.

Please provide irrefutable "evidence" for "spiritual entities".

I can't but there is evidence suggesting the possibility.

Can you provide irrefutable evidence that everything is the product of natural processes absent of a designer ?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Great post.

Yes, natural recurring processes can be observed does not mean the processes happened naturally. The question should be is how these natural processes that recur over and over got started.

My point is why do they look to explain that everything is a product of naturalism when their is no natural process that can be observed that could account for origins of life Or origins of any kind other than the natural recurring processes that are observed with the all the necessities already in place.

I do disagree with one of your points However.Creation is a process of design which can be observed in nature.

If you can "observe in nature" the "process of design" in "creation" then YOU must be able to provide plenty of examples since your premise is that ALL LIFE was "created", right?

So now here is your big opportunity to prove once and for all that everything is the result of "creation".

Provide irrefutable examples of this alleged "process of design" that YOU can "observe in nature".

There are to many examples in nature to number.

Organs,blood,skeletal structures,eyes,brains,central nervous system,atmosphere,the sun and moon,our planet,oxygen,water,defense mechanisms that help protect organisms,
vegetation etc.Chance or purposeful design ?

So your response is the "Aw gee whiz, everything is so complicated there must be a designer"?

The bogus "intelligent design" nonsense was effectively debunked in the Dover, PA court case by a Republican appointed judge. The plaintiffs proved that the "Aw gee whiz" examples provided by the Creationists were completely bogus and that there were interim forms that demonstrated the evolution of complex structures like the eye.

Furthermore they even produced the "interim form" of the "evolution" from creationism to "intelligent design".

Basically your fallacious allegation that you can "observe in nature" the "process of design" is nothing more than rewarmed "creationism" without the benefit of any actual substance.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Because there is evidence for spiritual entities,There is no evidence for fairies,leperchauns,and gnomes.

Please provide irrefutable "evidence" for "spiritual entities".

I can't but there is evidence suggesting the possibility.

Produce that "evidence suggesting the possibility" instead.

Can you provide irrefutable evidence that everything is the product of natural processes absent of a designer ?

The onus is on YOU to prove the existence of this imaginary "designer" since YOU are the one making the claim.

 

[Youwerecreated]

If you can "observe in nature" the "process of design" in "creation" then YOU must be able to provide plenty of examples since your premise is that ALL LIFE was "created", right?

So now here is your big opportunity to prove once and for all that everything is the result of "creation".

Provide irrefutable examples of this alleged "process of design" that YOU can "observe in nature".

There are to many examples in nature to number.

Organs,blood,skeletal structures,eyes,brains,central nervous system,atmosphere,the sun and moon,our planet,oxygen,water,defense mechanisms that help protect organisms,
vegetation etc.Chance or purposeful design ?

So your response is the "Aw gee whiz, everything is so complicated there must be a designer"?

The bogus "intelligent design" nonsense was effectively debunked in the Dover, PA court case by a Republican appointed judge. The plaintiffs proved that the "Aw gee whiz" examples provided by the Creationists were completely bogus and that there were interim forms that demonstrated the evolution of complex structures like the eye.

Furthermore they even produced the "interim form" of the "evolution" from creationism to "intelligent design".

Basically your fallacious allegation that you can "observe in nature" the "process of design" is nothing more than rewarmed "creationism" without the benefit of any actual substance.

The courts are your proof they are politicians and are anti God talk about a biased view. For your information not all republicans believe in a creator

Yes you can't point to anything that had a complex beginning that was the result of natural causes concerning origins.

Totally disregaed of the evidence and the question.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Please provide irrefutable "evidence" for "spiritual entities".

I can't but there is evidence suggesting the possibility.

Produce that "evidence suggesting the possibility" instead.

Can you provide irrefutable evidence that everything is the product of natural processes absent of a designer ?

The onus is on YOU to prove the existence of this imaginary "designer" since YOU are the one making the claim.

The evidence presented is met with ridicule,example Aw Geez those people are just nuts.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Please provide irrefutable "evidence" for "spiritual entities".

I can't but there is evidence suggesting the possibility.

Produce that "evidence suggesting the possibility" instead.

Can you provide irrefutable evidence that everything is the product of natural processes absent of a designer ?

The onus is on YOU to prove the existence of this imaginary "designer" since YOU are the one making the claim.

You say there is no designer even though complexity points to a designer.

The onus is on both of us you to prove naturalism produced all we see. Me to show that all things were deigned and created. Neither one of us can do so,so it comes down to faith.

But the few things I pointed out better supports a designer than chance.

 

[Derideo_Te]

There are to many examples in nature to number.

Organs,blood,skeletal structures,eyes,brains,central nervous system,atmosphere,the sun and moon,our planet,oxygen,water,defense mechanisms that help protect organisms,
vegetation etc.Chance or purposeful design ?

So your response is the "Aw gee whiz, everything is so complicated there must be a designer"?

The bogus "intelligent design" nonsense was effectively debunked in the Dover, PA court case by a Republican appointed judge. The plaintiffs proved that the "Aw gee whiz" examples provided by the Creationists were completely bogus and that there were interim forms that demonstrated the evolution of complex structures like the eye.

Furthermore they even produced the "interim form" of the "evolution" from creationism to "intelligent design".

Basically your fallacious allegation that you can "observe in nature" the "process of design" is nothing more than rewarmed "creationism" without the benefit of any actual substance.

The courts are your proof they are politicians and are anti God talk about a biased view. For your information not all republicans believe in a creator

Yes you can't point to anything that had a complex beginning that was the result of natural causes concerning origins.

Totally disregaed of the evidence and the question.

The overwhelming evidence in the Dover, PA case exposed "intelligent design" as nothing but a fraudulent rehash of "creationism". That you refuse to accept the FACTUAL BASIS on which the court reached that decision merely exposes your willful blindness to REALITY.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I can't but there is evidence suggesting the possibility.

Produce that "evidence suggesting the possibility" instead.

Can you provide irrefutable evidence that everything is the product of natural processes absent of a designer ?

The onus is on YOU to prove the existence of this imaginary "designer" since YOU are the one making the claim.

You say there is no designer even though complexity points to a designer.

The onus is on both of us you to prove naturalism produced all we see. Me to show that all things were deigned and created. Neither one of us can do so,so it comes down to faith.

But the few things I pointed out better supports a designer than chance.

Nothing whatsoever points to a "designer".

The Dover, PA court case exposed the fraudulent "creationist" basis for a "designer".

Nothing you have pointed out supports your allegations.

 

[eots]

Now you can understand why so many believe in design and creation over naturalism.

Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ? For the same reasons naturalism is considered scientific and voodoo is not.

intelligent design can hardly be compared to voodoo

 

[eots]

Produce that "evidence suggesting the possibility" instead.


The onus is on YOU to prove the existence of this imaginary "designer" since YOU are the one making the claim.

You say there is no designer even though complexity points to a designer.

The onus is on both of us you to prove naturalism produced all we see. Me to show that all things were deigned and created. Neither one of us can do so,so it comes down to faith.

But the few things I pointed out better supports a designer than chance.

Nothing whatsoever points to a "designer".

The Dover, PA court case exposed the fraudulent "creationist" basis for a "designer".

Nothing you have pointed out supports your allegations.

absolute nonsense there is every indication of intelligent design ..evolution has huge gaping holes

 

[eots]

If you can "observe in nature" the "process of design" in "creation" then YOU must be able to provide plenty of examples since your premise is that ALL LIFE was "created", right?

So now here is your big opportunity to prove once and for all that everything is the result of "creation".

Provide irrefutable examples of this alleged "process of design" that YOU can "observe in nature".

There are to many examples in nature to number.

Organs,blood,skeletal structures,eyes,brains,central nervous system,atmosphere,the sun and moon,our planet,oxygen,water,defense mechanisms that help protect organisms,
vegetation etc.Chance or purposeful design ?

So your response is the "Aw gee whiz, everything is so complicated there must be a designer"?

The bogus "intelligent design" nonsense was effectively debunked in the Dover, PA court case by a Republican appointed judge. The plaintiffs proved that the "Aw gee whiz" examples provided by the Creationists were completely bogus and that there were interim forms that demonstrated the evolution of complex structures like the eye.

Furthermore they even produced the "interim form" of the "evolution" from creationism to "intelligent design".

Basically your fallacious allegation that you can "observe in nature" the "process of design" is nothing more than rewarmed "creationism" without the benefit of any actual substance.

link ?

 

[Hollie]

Great post.

Yes, natural recurring processes can be observed does not mean the processes happened naturally. The question should be is how these natural processes that recur over and over got started.

My point is why do they look to explain that everything is a product of naturalism when their is no natural process that can be observed that could account for origins of life Or origins of any kind other than the natural recurring processes that are observed with the all the necessities already in place.

I do disagree with one of your points However.Creation is a process of design which can be observed in nature.

If you can "observe in nature" the "process of design" in "creation" then YOU must be able to provide plenty of examples since your premise is that ALL LIFE was "created", right?

So now here is your big opportunity to prove once and for all that everything is the result of "creation".

Provide irrefutable examples of this alleged "process of design" that YOU can "observe in nature".

There are to many examples in nature to number.

Organs,blood,skeletal structures,eyes,brains,central nervous system,atmosphere,the sun and moon,our planet,oxygen,water,defense mechanisms that help protect organisms,
vegetation etc.Chance or purposeful design ?

Cancer, genetic defects, infection, floods, tornadoes, hurricanes, tsunamis, etc.,

Purposeful design?

 

[Hollie]

You say there is no designer even though complexity points to a designer.

The onus is on both of us you to prove naturalism produced all we see. Me to show that all things were deigned and created. Neither one of us can do so,so it comes down to faith.

But the few things I pointed out better supports a designer than chance.

Nothing whatsoever points to a "designer".

The Dover, PA court case exposed the fraudulent "creationist" basis for a "designer".

Nothing you have pointed out supports your allegations.

absolute nonsense there is every indication of intelligent design ..evolution has huge gaping holes

"... because I say so".

 

[Hollie]

I can't but there is evidence suggesting the possibility.

Produce that "evidence suggesting the possibility" instead.

Can you provide irrefutable evidence that everything is the product of natural processes absent of a designer ?

The onus is on YOU to prove the existence of this imaginary "designer" since YOU are the one making the claim.

You say there is no designer even though complexity points to a designer.

The onus is on both of us you to prove naturalism produced all we see. Me to show that all things were deigned and created. Neither one of us can do so,so it comes down to faith.

But the few things I pointed out better supports a designer than chance.

Complexity does not point to a "designer". It's pointless to parrot the nonsense coming out of your Christian creation ministries.

You may want to discuss your gawds "design" with the victims of his flawed and poorly constructed creation. As a "designer", God is terribly inept.

As an argument for "designer" gawds, you might want to offer some actual evidence to support your designer gawds.

 

[Hollie]

Now you can understand why so many believe in design and creation over naturalism.

Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ? For the same reasons naturalism is considered scientific and voodoo is not.

intelligent design can hardly be compared to voodoo

Of course it can. The reliance on fear and superstition is pervasive in both environments.

 

[Hollie]

I can't but there is evidence suggesting the possibility.

Produce that "evidence suggesting the possibility" instead.

Can you provide irrefutable evidence that everything is the product of natural processes absent of a designer ?

The onus is on YOU to prove the existence of this imaginary "designer" since YOU are the one making the claim.

The evidence presented is met with ridicule,example Aw Geez those people are just nuts.

You don't seem to understand that in connection with creationist charlatans, there is no evidence presented in support of their claims to supernaturalism.

The ridicule leveled at creationist charlatans is in connection with their baseless claims, lack of evidence and appeals to supernatural entities.

That's why creationist charlatans are routinely hustled out of court in utter disgrace.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So your response is the "Aw gee whiz, everything is so complicated there must be a designer"?

The bogus "intelligent design" nonsense was effectively debunked in the Dover, PA court case by a Republican appointed judge. The plaintiffs proved that the "Aw gee whiz" examples provided by the Creationists were completely bogus and that there were interim forms that demonstrated the evolution of complex structures like the eye.

Furthermore they even produced the "interim form" of the "evolution" from creationism to "intelligent design".

Basically your fallacious allegation that you can "observe in nature" the "process of design" is nothing more than rewarmed "creationism" without the benefit of any actual substance.

The courts are your proof they are politicians and are anti God talk about a biased view. For your information not all republicans believe in a creator

Yes you can't point to anything that had a complex beginning that was the result of natural causes concerning origins.

Totally disregaed of the evidence and the question.

The overwhelming evidence in the Dover, PA case exposed "intelligent design" as nothing but a fraudulent rehash of "creationism". That you refuse to accept the FACTUAL BASIS on which the court reached that decision merely exposes your willful blindness to REALITY.

I will admit creationists have been caught with their pants down but remember they are also dealing with secular courts. It will not always be that way.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Produce that "evidence suggesting the possibility" instead.


The onus is on YOU to prove the existence of this imaginary "designer" since YOU are the one making the claim.

You say there is no designer even though complexity points to a designer.

The onus is on both of us you to prove naturalism produced all we see. Me to show that all things were deigned and created. Neither one of us can do so,so it comes down to faith.

But the few things I pointed out better supports a designer than chance.

Nothing whatsoever points to a "designer".

The Dover, PA court case exposed the fraudulent "creationist" basis for a "designer".

Nothing you have pointed out supports your allegations.

Is this all you have ? respond to my posts I could care less what a secular court thinks got it ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Produce that "evidence suggesting the possibility" instead.


The onus is on YOU to prove the existence of this imaginary "designer" since YOU are the one making the claim.

You say there is no designer even though complexity points to a designer.

The onus is on both of us you to prove naturalism produced all we see. Me to show that all things were deigned and created. Neither one of us can do so,so it comes down to faith.

But the few things I pointed out better supports a designer than chance.

Nothing whatsoever points to a "designer".

The Dover, PA court case exposed the fraudulent "creationist" basis for a "designer".

Nothing you have pointed out supports your allegations.

I am a creationist,I agree with some tenets of ID and secular evolution.

Defending ?Design? in Dover (Pennsylvania, USA) - Answers in Genesis