Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[itfitzme]

Atheists only know how to create a strawman god and destroy it.

They are a silly lot and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone. They have no experience of God, no apt concept of God. They're perfectly happy to gad about telling people there's no guy in the sky. They believe that makes them appear intelligent.

Ignore them.

You have absolutely no clue as to my experience of god.

I can assure you that it exceeds any experience you have ever had and are likely to ever have.

You have no clue and if Christ himself were standing on the street corner, I am quite sure you would trip all over yourself as you hurried to church.

That you presume to know other's experience of god is all I need to know.

It is all I need to know because, while I cannot presume to know what another's experience is, I can define real and objective constraints to what it can really be.

What it cannot be is an objective and autonomous experience.

And this gets to the core of it. Hollie, Daws101, and Steven_R might very well make a personal statement of some personal and subjective experience. Having read their posts, I can nearly guarantee, sufficieny to put money on it, that they would frame it as how they feel or what they believe without presenting it as being objective. They would not presume that their personal feelings or subjective experience is necessarily representative of mine, or anyone elses. They would not presume that their personal, subjective sense of the world takes precidence, is somehow superior, to anyone elses. They will hardly presume their objective experience is somehow superior to anyone elses, except that that objectivity has been carefully vetted.

I can say that I believe that life on other planets is extra-ordinarily unlikely, and get no rebutal. I can say that the current odds are 1/786 (or whatever that number is) and likely get no rebutal. It probably just passes by as benignly, "yeah, whatever."

If I were to say that it is guaranteed that life exists beyond this Earth, I'd expect to be called to the carpet to prove it. Possibly after a delay as they did a quick google to see if anything changed since they last looked.

 

[turzovka]

Whether they want to call creationism scientific or not, I care not. But "they" calling naturalism "fact" more or less, is a fallacy. (as you so state)

But let that not trouble the text book writers.

Anyway, they can do as they please. I, personally, am quite grateful to the body of science for proving the divinity of Christ via all their endless studies on the Shroud of Turin. The carbon 14 test in the eighties is their one life-line they (that is, those who stand firm against the claims) are holding onto against a mountain of evidence that cries out "surpernatural!" And the carbon 14 test has been criticized by numerous scientists or studies as very likely faulty for a number of reasons. (easy to google) Meanwhile, the qualities on that cloth remain completely inexplicable for man even today to create, much less some out of this world forger in the 1400's as some still hope is the explanation (as hyper implausible as it may be). Jesus has given us signs enough.

Which journals is Jesus producing peer-reviewed papers in?

First you tell me if it would make a difference to you or not?

None who have replied to me really care enough to know the truth. Or they are afraid of it.

Because if they cared, they would have done the easy to access homework long ago.

The Shroud of Turin is a real life miracle. And science is what says it is so.

 

[daws101]

[ame=http://youtu.be/eBqe5xvYnNc]The Meaning of Life: Growth and Learning - YouTube[/ame]

 

[daws101]

Whether they want to call creationism scientific or not, I care not. But "they" calling naturalism "fact" more or less, is a fallacy. (as you so state)

But let that not trouble the text book writers.

Anyway, they can do as they please. I, personally, am quite grateful to the body of science for proving the divinity of Christ via all their endless studies on the Shroud of Turin. The carbon 14 test in the eighties is their one life-line they (that is, those who stand firm against the claims) are holding onto against a mountain of evidence that cries out "surpernatural!" And the carbon 14 test has been criticized by numerous scientists or studies as very likely faulty for a number of reasons. (easy to google) Meanwhile, the qualities on that cloth remain completely inexplicable for man even today to create, much less some out of this world forger in the 1400's as some still hope is the explanation (as hyper implausible as it may be). Jesus has given us signs enough.

Which journals is Jesus producing peer-reviewed papers in?

First you tell me if it would make a difference to you or not?

None who have replied to me really care enough to know the truth. Or they are afraid of it.

Because if they cared, they would have done the easy to access homework long ago.

The Shroud of Turin is a real life miracle. And science is what says it is so.

Scientist re-creates Turin Shroud to show it's fake - CNN.com

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're less ordered than an egg. Thanks for admitting the obvious.
That explains your ignorance.
Thanks, just wanted to point that out.

I feel like I am but thanks for avoiding the obvious answer that supports what I have been saying.

You defeated your own point by trying to show what is contained in our genes is evolution. What it really was, is the instructions of what you will be, and when your body will break down, while you were just an egg.

I'm glad to point out that living things can get more complex by taking in energy.

Glad to point out the ignorance of your 2nd Law idiocy.

Idiocy the energy required by our cells to reproduce and remain healthy come from the food we eat. The sun does not directly give us the energy we need it comes through plants and things that need the sun that we eat.

I would like to know how early life survived with no food unless we are gonna make up another story. So tell me how this energy would make us more complex other than through theory and a vivid imagination ?

What would be your example of this evidence,organisms getting more complex because they eat ? I thought that was done through copying errors called mutations. Did you forget your mechanisms for evolution ? Here let me help you with this. Mutations and natural selection over large spans of time is that not your theory in a nutshell ?

 

[daws101]

I feel like I am but thanks for avoiding the obvious answer that supports what I have been saying.

You defeated your own point by trying to show what is contained in our genes is evolution. What it really was, is the instructions of what you will be, and when your body will break down, while you were just an egg.

I'm glad to point out that living things can get more complex by taking in energy.

Glad to point out the ignorance of your 2nd Law idiocy.

Idiocy the energy required by our cells to reproduce and remain healthy come from the food we eat. The sun does not directly give us the energy we need it comes through plants and things that need the sun that we eat.

I would like to know how early life survived with no food unless we are gonna make up another story. So tell me how this energy would make us more complex other than through theory and a vivid imagination ?

What would be your example of this evidence,organisms getting more complex because they eat ? I thought that was done through copying errors called mutations. Did you forget your mechanisms for evolution ? Here let me help you with this. Mutations and natural selection over large spans of time is that not your theory in a nutshell ?

what the fuck to you mean by early life..?
Microbial mats of coexisting bacteria and archaea were the dominant form of life in the early Archean and many of the major steps in early evolution are thought to have taken place within them.[2] The evolution of oxygenic photosynthesis, around 3.5 Ga, eventually led to the oxygenation of the atmosphere, beginning around 2.4 Ga.[3] The earliest evidence of eukaryotes (complex cells with organelles) dates from 1.85 Ga,[4][5] and while they may have been present earlier, their diversification accelerated when they started using oxygen in their metabolism. Later, around 1.7 Ga, multicellular organisms began to appear, with differentiated cells performing specialised functions.[6] Bilateria, animals with a front and a back, appeared by 555 million years ago.[7]
The earliest land plants date back to around 450 Ma (million years ago),[8] although evidence suggests that algal scum formed on the land as early as 1.2 Ga. Land plants were so successful that they are thought to have contributed to the late Devonian extinction event.[9] Invertebrate animals appear during the Ediacaran period,[10] while vertebrates originated about 525 Ma during the Cambrian explosion.[11] During the Permian period, synapsids, including the ancestors of mammals, dominated the land,[12] but most of this group became extinct in the Permian–Triassic extinction event 252.2 Ma.[13] During the recovery from this catastrophe, archosaurs became the most abundant land vertebrates, displacing therapsids in the mid-Triassic;[14] one archosaur group, the dinosaurs, dominated the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods.[15] After the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 66 Ma killed off the dinosaurs,[16] mammals increased rapidly in size and diversity.[17] Such mass extinctions may have accelerated evolution by providing opportunities for new groups of organisms to diversify.[18]
Evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Youwerecreated]

How bout a sun,moon,atmosphere,oxygen,organs,blood,veins,skeletal structures,food,water. Can you imagine life without any of the above ?

those are not evidence of design or a designer...

Considering the existence of extremophiles living near hot smoker vents on the ocean floors that have no connection to the Sun based food chain, yeah I can see life without the Sun.

The moon is nice, but life can do just fine without it.

Atmosphere might be a little harder to get around, but Europa effectively has no atmosphere and life may be abundant beneath the ice.

Oxygen is the only one of those things that life as we know it has to have, but then again life arose on a primordial Earth that had an oxygen poor atmosphere.

Blood, bones, organs are all absent in single celled organisms and they do just fine without them.

Food. Define food. Plants use sunlight as food.

Water. Life as we know it needs water (although viruses don't but the jury is still out on whether or not a virus is technically a lifeform). But why wouldn't there be any water? Other than H2 and O2, H2O is the most abundant compound in the universe, largely because of the molecular physics involved. The only way to not have water is to change the laws of physics and at that point this whole exercise is nothing more than mental masturbation.

Nonsense!

What would happen if the Sun disappeared? | Spaceanswers.com


What would we do without the moon? | ScienceNordic

 

[Youwerecreated]

I'm glad to point out that living things can get more complex by taking in energy.

Glad to point out the ignorance of your 2nd Law idiocy.

Idiocy the energy required by our cells to reproduce and remain healthy come from the food we eat. The sun does not directly give us the energy we need it comes through plants and things that need the sun that we eat.

I would like to know how early life survived with no food unless we are gonna make up another story. So tell me how this energy would make us more complex other than through theory and a vivid imagination ?

What would be your example of this evidence,organisms getting more complex because they eat ? I thought that was done through copying errors called mutations. Did you forget your mechanisms for evolution ? Here let me help you with this. Mutations and natural selection over large spans of time is that not your theory in a nutshell ?

what the fuck to you mean by early life..?
Microbial mats of coexisting bacteria and archaea were the dominant form of life in the early Archean and many of the major steps in early evolution are thought to have taken place within them.[2] The evolution of oxygenic photosynthesis, around 3.5 Ga, eventually led to the oxygenation of the atmosphere, beginning around 2.4 Ga.[3] The earliest evidence of eukaryotes (complex cells with organelles) dates from 1.85 Ga,[4][5] and while they may have been present earlier, their diversification accelerated when they started using oxygen in their metabolism. Later, around 1.7 Ga, multicellular organisms began to appear, with differentiated cells performing specialised functions.[6] Bilateria, animals with a front and a back, appeared by 555 million years ago.[7]
The earliest land plants date back to around 450 Ma (million years ago),[8] although evidence suggests that algal scum formed on the land as early as 1.2 Ga. Land plants were so successful that they are thought to have contributed to the late Devonian extinction event.[9] Invertebrate animals appear during the Ediacaran period,[10] while vertebrates originated about 525 Ma during the Cambrian explosion.[11] During the Permian period, synapsids, including the ancestors of mammals, dominated the land,[12] but most of this group became extinct in the Permian–Triassic extinction event 252.2 Ma.[13] During the recovery from this catastrophe, archosaurs became the most abundant land vertebrates, displacing therapsids in the mid-Triassic;[14] one archosaur group, the dinosaurs, dominated the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods.[15] After the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 66 Ma killed off the dinosaurs,[16] mammals increased rapidly in size and diversity.[17] Such mass extinctions may have accelerated evolution by providing opportunities for new groups of organisms to diversify.[18]
Evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

origins of life ? Don't bring me something that is nothing more than conjecture.

 

[dblack]

Idiocy the energy required by our cells to reproduce and remain healthy come from the food we eat. The sun does not directly give us the energy we need it comes through plants and things that need the sun that we eat.

I would like to know how early life survived with no food unless we are gonna make up another story. So tell me how this energy would make us more complex other than through theory and a vivid imagination ?

What would be your example of this evidence,organisms getting more complex because they eat ? I thought that was done through copying errors called mutations. Did you forget your mechanisms for evolution ? Here let me help you with this. Mutations and natural selection over large spans of time is that not your theory in a nutshell ?

what the fuck to you mean by early life..?
Microbial mats of coexisting bacteria and archaea were the dominant form of life in the early Archean and many of the major steps in early evolution are thought to have taken place within them.[2] The evolution of oxygenic photosynthesis, around 3.5 Ga, eventually led to the oxygenation of the atmosphere, beginning around 2.4 Ga.[3] The earliest evidence of eukaryotes (complex cells with organelles) dates from 1.85 Ga,[4][5] and while they may have been present earlier, their diversification accelerated when they started using oxygen in their metabolism. Later, around 1.7 Ga, multicellular organisms began to appear, with differentiated cells performing specialised functions.[6] Bilateria, animals with a front and a back, appeared by 555 million years ago.[7]
The earliest land plants date back to around 450 Ma (million years ago),[8] although evidence suggests that algal scum formed on the land as early as 1.2 Ga. Land plants were so successful that they are thought to have contributed to the late Devonian extinction event.[9] Invertebrate animals appear during the Ediacaran period,[10] while vertebrates originated about 525 Ma during the Cambrian explosion.[11] During the Permian period, synapsids, including the ancestors of mammals, dominated the land,[12] but most of this group became extinct in the Permian–Triassic extinction event 252.2 Ma.[13] During the recovery from this catastrophe, archosaurs became the most abundant land vertebrates, displacing therapsids in the mid-Triassic;[14] one archosaur group, the dinosaurs, dominated the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods.[15] After the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 66 Ma killed off the dinosaurs,[16] mammals increased rapidly in size and diversity.[17] Such mass extinctions may have accelerated evolution by providing opportunities for new groups of organisms to diversify.[18]
Evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

origins of life ? Don't bring me something that is nothing more than conjecture.

Likewise.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I feel like I am but thanks for avoiding the obvious answer that supports what I have been saying.

You defeated your own point by trying to show what is contained in our genes is evolution. What it really was, is the instructions of what you will be, and when your body will break down, while you were just an egg.

I'm glad to point out that living things can get more complex by taking in energy.

Glad to point out the ignorance of your 2nd Law idiocy.

Idiocy the energy required by our cells to reproduce and remain healthy come from the food we eat. The sun does not directly give us the energy we need it comes through plants and things that need the sun that we eat.

I would like to know how early life survived with no food unless we are gonna make up another story. So tell me how this energy would make us more complex other than through theory and a vivid imagination ?

What would be your example of this evidence,organisms getting more complex because they eat ? I thought that was done through copying errors called mutations. Did you forget your mechanisms for evolution ? Here let me help you with this. Mutations and natural selection over large spans of time is that not your theory in a nutshell ?

the energy required by our cells to reproduce and remain healthy come from the food we eat.

Yes. So? You're telling me our cells are not a closed system.
Welcome to the party, pal.

So tell me how this energy would make us more complex other than through theory and a vivid imagination ?

You started out as an egg. After you took in a lot of energy, you are a complex, though not very smart, adult.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I'm glad to point out that living things can get more complex by taking in energy.

Glad to point out the ignorance of your 2nd Law idiocy.

Idiocy the energy required by our cells to reproduce and remain healthy come from the food we eat. The sun does not directly give us the energy we need it comes through plants and things that need the sun that we eat.

I would like to know how early life survived with no food unless we are gonna make up another story. So tell me how this energy would make us more complex other than through theory and a vivid imagination ?

What would be your example of this evidence,organisms getting more complex because they eat ? I thought that was done through copying errors called mutations. Did you forget your mechanisms for evolution ? Here let me help you with this. Mutations and natural selection over large spans of time is that not your theory in a nutshell ?

the energy required by our cells to reproduce and remain healthy come from the food we eat.

Yes. So? You're telling me our cells are not a closed system.
Welcome to the party, pal.

So tell me how this energy would make us more complex other than through theory and a vivid imagination ?

You started out as an egg. After you took in a lot of energy, you are a complex, though not very smart, adult.

No I am not claiming cells are closed systems and does it really matter.

The Harvard scientist, John Ross, comments:

...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ...there is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.6

Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?

 

[Youwerecreated]

what the fuck to you mean by early life..?
Microbial mats of coexisting bacteria and archaea were the dominant form of life in the early Archean and many of the major steps in early evolution are thought to have taken place within them.[2] The evolution of oxygenic photosynthesis, around 3.5 Ga, eventually led to the oxygenation of the atmosphere, beginning around 2.4 Ga.[3] The earliest evidence of eukaryotes (complex cells with organelles) dates from 1.85 Ga,[4][5] and while they may have been present earlier, their diversification accelerated when they started using oxygen in their metabolism. Later, around 1.7 Ga, multicellular organisms began to appear, with differentiated cells performing specialised functions.[6] Bilateria, animals with a front and a back, appeared by 555 million years ago.[7]
The earliest land plants date back to around 450 Ma (million years ago),[8] although evidence suggests that algal scum formed on the land as early as 1.2 Ga. Land plants were so successful that they are thought to have contributed to the late Devonian extinction event.[9] Invertebrate animals appear during the Ediacaran period,[10] while vertebrates originated about 525 Ma during the Cambrian explosion.[11] During the Permian period, synapsids, including the ancestors of mammals, dominated the land,[12] but most of this group became extinct in the Permian–Triassic extinction event 252.2 Ma.[13] During the recovery from this catastrophe, archosaurs became the most abundant land vertebrates, displacing therapsids in the mid-Triassic;[14] one archosaur group, the dinosaurs, dominated the Jurassic and Cretaceous periods.[15] After the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event 66 Ma killed off the dinosaurs,[16] mammals increased rapidly in size and diversity.[17] Such mass extinctions may have accelerated evolution by providing opportunities for new groups of organisms to diversify.[18]
Evolutionary history of life - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

origins of life ? Don't bring me something that is nothing more than conjecture.

Likewise.

Be specific.

 

[Hollie]

Idiocy the energy required by our cells to reproduce and remain healthy come from the food we eat. The sun does not directly give us the energy we need it comes through plants and things that need the sun that we eat.

I would like to know how early life survived with no food unless we are gonna make up another story. So tell me how this energy would make us more complex other than through theory and a vivid imagination ?

What would be your example of this evidence,organisms getting more complex because they eat ? I thought that was done through copying errors called mutations. Did you forget your mechanisms for evolution ? Here let me help you with this. Mutations and natural selection over large spans of time is that not your theory in a nutshell ?

the energy required by our cells to reproduce and remain healthy come from the food we eat.

Yes. So? You're telling me our cells are not a closed system.
Welcome to the party, pal.

So tell me how this energy would make us more complex other than through theory and a vivid imagination ?

You started out as an egg. After you took in a lot of energy, you are a complex, though not very smart, adult.

No I am not claiming cells are closed systems and does it really matter.

The Harvard scientist, John Ross, comments:

...there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. ...there is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.6

Does Entropy Contradict Evolution?

Oh my. Another cut and paste from the ICR. For the more excitable of the fundies, the ICR seems to be among the go-to sites for "quotes" that have been edited, parsed or faked by Henry Morris.

 

[dblack]

origins of life ? Don't bring me something that is nothing more than conjecture.

Likewise.

Be specific.

"origins of life ? Don't bring me something that is nothing more than conjecture."

You seem to be taking the position that, unless we can provide a convincing alternative, we must accept your supernatural explanation for the origins of life. We don't.

More importantly, we don't have to accept it as science, because it's not. You might not find evolution theory convincing, and that's fine, but it is science. Supernatural explanations are not.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So the 2nd law applies to closed systems.

YWC's mind is an "Isolated system". Nothing that matters can freely pass between his mind and reality and it is a complete waste of energy even trying.

 

[Hollie]

Likewise.

Be specific.

"origins of life ? Don't bring me something that is nothing more than conjecture."

You seem to be taking the position that, unless we can provide a convincing alternative, we must accept your supernatural explanation for the origins of life. We don't.

More importantly, we don't have to accept it as science, because it's not. You might not find evolution theory convincing, and that's fine, but it is science. Supernatural explanations are not.

Go easy on the boy. He's a Harun Yahya Academy graduate.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Likewise.

Be specific.

"origins of life ? Don't bring me something that is nothing more than conjecture."

You seem to be taking the position that, unless we can provide a convincing alternative, we must accept your supernatural explanation for the origins of life. We don't.

More importantly, we don't have to accept it as science, because it's not. You might not find evolution theory convincing, and that's fine, but it is science. Supernatural explanations are not.

Fair enough But you see I have stated I can't show evidence that proves Gods existence.I can only provide evidence that infers a designer. Daws however takes a story about the past and acts like it is a fact because he simply does not understand fact from possibility. You can choose to believe that if you wish it's fine but don't act like it refutes anything like he or she does.

I would argue that is not science.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So the 2nd law applies to closed systems.

YWC's mind is an "Isolated system". Nothing that matters can freely pass between his mind and reality and it is a complete waste of energy even trying.

The way science defines systems are there any biological closed systems ?

How do you explain decay in nature if not by entropy ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Be specific.

"origins of life ? Don't bring me something that is nothing more than conjecture."

You seem to be taking the position that, unless we can provide a convincing alternative, we must accept your supernatural explanation for the origins of life. We don't.

More importantly, we don't have to accept it as science, because it's not. You might not find evolution theory convincing, and that's fine, but it is science. Supernatural explanations are not.

Go easy on the boy. He's a Harun Yahya Academy graduate.

I don't believe U of A is the academy you claim it is.

 

[Derideo_Te]

So the 2nd law applies to closed systems.

YWC's mind is an "Isolated system". Nothing that matters can freely pass between his mind and reality and it is a complete waste of energy even trying.

The way science defines systems are there any biological closed systems ?

How do you explain decay in nature if not by entropy ?

Your "irreducible obtuseness" stands in the way of your ever being capable of learning. Instead you pose questions where you are already biased with creationist disinformation.