Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[YWN666]

The highlighted comment is something that creationists always run from because they can't afford to acknowledge it. There is a reason why creationists resort to quote mining and outright fraud in order to support their "theory". They do it because they must - they have no credible evidence. I have a hard time believing that intelligent adults actually believe such juvenile nonsense.

It comes down to the sorry state of science education in this country. The average person simply doesn't know enough science to be able to listen to the IDers and Creationists and recognize that their arguments are crap on any technical level. The man on the street doesn't know enough about physics, so when one of the anti-science spouts off about how entropy doesn't work that way or Irreducible Complexity or "It's just a theory" it sound perfectly reasonable.

Short of turning public schools into STEM factories for kids, I don't know how to change this either.

It is a sad state. In a time when we are falling behind other countries in science education, these nitwits want to go in the other direction and teach our kids that fantasy is fact for their own selfish goals. If I was an astronaut sitting in a capsule on top of millions of pounds of explosive liquid oxygen, I'd be more than a little nervous to find out that the technicians that have my life in their hands majored in "creation science". I can't believe in the year 2013 that we even have to have this laughable debate.

 

[YWN666]

Come on now. The IDers have a designer in mind, but it most certainly is not God. Sure the ID crowd is tied inextricably to the Fundamentalist Christian movement and the textbook Of Pandas and People changed all mentions of a Creator to Designer right after Edwards v. Aguillard, and Phillip E. Johnson wants to turn America into some pseudo-theocracy and thinks the Wedge Document can accomplish just that, but the Designer is most assuredly not the God from the Bible.

Nope. Not at all. Not a chance. No way.

Of course the designer is believed to be the Almighty! You don't have to prove the existence of the Almighty to prove purposeful design. The alternative is a non-intelligent source produced purposeful designs,hmm no contradiction there.

You might want to go back and reread the views you're supposed to be parroting. Right there in the Dover trial the IDiots said many times that the Designer they were pushing was NOT the God for the Bible. That would be illegal, so it's definitely not God.

They wouldn't have lied under oath to push an agenda...would they?

The ID "theory" was developed to replace creationism by stripping it of references to god and they tried desperately to distance themselves from creationism during the trial but suffered a major embarrassment when someone dug up the history of revisions of the text book they were using and it clearly showed that they removed the word "creationism" and replaced it with "intelligent design" and to add insult to injury, there was an instance where they didn't totally obliterate the word creationism before inserting ID so they ended up with a printed text book that used a word like "CreIntelligent Designism"

 

[Steven_R]

Of course the designer is believed to be the Almighty! You don't have to prove the existence of the Almighty to prove purposeful design. The alternative is a non-intelligent source produced purposeful designs,hmm no contradiction there.

You might want to go back and reread the views you're supposed to be parroting. Right there in the Dover trial the IDiots said many times that the Designer they were pushing was NOT the God for the Bible. That would be illegal, so it's definitely not God.

They wouldn't have lied under oath to push an agenda...would they?

The ID "theory" was developed to replace creationism by stripping it of references to god and they tried desperately to distance themselves from creationism during the trial but suffered a major embarrassment when someone dug up the history of revisions of the text book they were using and it clearly showed that they removed the word "creationism" and replaced it with "intelligent design" and to add insult to injury, there was an instance where they didn't totally obliterate the word creationism before inserting ID so they ended up with a printed text book that used a word like "CreIntelligent Designism"

cdesign proponentsists

The so-called missing link between Creationism and ID.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I believe that was sarcasm directed at people like yourself,You can ask him yourself.



Mark Mitchison

Currently doing a PhD in Controlled Quantum Dynamics at Imperial College and the University of Oxford.

thermodynamics - Why does the law of increasing entropy, a law arising from statistics of many particles, underpin modern physics? - Physics Stack Exchange

None of the silliness, disguised as science, that you have posted was sarcasm.

Have you given up on your 2nd Law stupidity, or do we need to continue bashing you over the head with it?

Come on now,you really think a man with a solid education is gonna say "
living beings decrease the entropy of the universe"

That looks like sarcasm about the ones promoting Misinformation.

His sarcasm was directed at you? Okay.

So are you going to continue pushing your 2nd Law error?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Is that how you see it? LOL. In reality, YWC is kicking his own ass.

I doubt you would recognize reality.

No, I'm not a creationist.

That much is obvious.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

One other thing, it is time to move on from the 2nd law and Entropy. I think it's time for purposeful design , the origins question,and discussing Neo darwinism and it's mechanisms.

One other thing, it is time to move on from the 2nd law and Entropy.

Not so fast, sparky.

Do you admit that the 2nd Law in no way disproves evolution or increasing complexity?

 

[YWN666]

You might want to go back and reread the views you're supposed to be parroting. Right there in the Dover trial the IDiots said many times that the Designer they were pushing was NOT the God for the Bible. That would be illegal, so it's definitely not God.

They wouldn't have lied under oath to push an agenda...would they?

The ID "theory" was developed to replace creationism by stripping it of references to god and they tried desperately to distance themselves from creationism during the trial but suffered a major embarrassment when someone dug up the history of revisions of the text book they were using and it clearly showed that they removed the word "creationism" and replaced it with "intelligent design" and to add insult to injury, there was an instance where they didn't totally obliterate the word creationism before inserting ID so they ended up with a printed text book that used a word like "CreIntelligent Designism"

cdesign proponentsists

The so-called missing link between Creationism and ID.

Yeah, that was it!

 

[YWN666]

I doubt you would recognize reality.

No, I'm not a creationist.

That much is obvious.

You say that like it's a bad thing!

 

[Hollie]

cdesign proponentsists

The so-called missing link between Creationism and ID.

The gods really do have a sense of humor.

 

[itfitzme]

Complete Dover Trial Transcripts

Dover Trial Transcripts :: American Civil Liberties Union of Pennsylvania

 

[itfitzme]

One other thing, it is time to move on from the 2nd law and Entropy. I think it's time for purposeful design , the origins question,and discussing Neo darwinism and it's mechanisms.

One other thing, it is time to move on from the 2nd law and Entropy.

Not so fast, sparky.

Do you admit that the 2nd Law in no way disproves evolution or increasing complexity?

It would be irresponsible to let him move forward, completely misrepresenting the 2nd law.

 

[itfitzme]

This is nice of pbs;

NOVA | Intelligent Design on Trial

 

[daws101]

The very post you quoted I stated a fact you really are clueless.

your favorite lie !

You mind pointing out the lie ?


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 ?

everything you post is based on a lie, that pretty much covers it.


you question is ridiculous ...
your fairytale say in very clear terms god boinked everything into existence... from the simple to the complex.. so food would not have been a problem.
problem is it's way too convenient and completely and utterly false.
there is no evidence of any kind to support a creator.

Using a Poison to Turn Sunlight into Food
Bacteria from a hot spring in California conduct photosynthesis with arsenic--and suggest a process that might have predated typical photosynthesis

By David Biello

Arsenic, a deadly poison, kills by blocking the ability of cells to produce and consume energy. Yet, some red and green slime mats in briny hot springs in Mono Lake, Calif., use the potent compound rather than water to carry energy during photosynthesis (the process used by bacteria and plants that converts sunlight into food) new research in Science reveals.

The newly discovered microbes steal two electrons from the arsenic in the spring water, turning it into so-called arsenate, and use the energy to transform carbon dioxide into food. This only happens in the presence of light, which provides the energy to initiate the process, according to microbiologist Ronald Oremland of the U.S. Geological Survey, who led the discovery.

These are not the only bacteria that use poison to make food: They are from the genus Ectothiorhodospira, which largely relies on another poison, toxic hydrogen sulfide, for the same purpose. By analyzing the genetic material of the microbe, the researchers have also determined that this is a primitive process, going back at least three billion years, according to Oremland. That could mean that arsenic-based photosynthesis predates the oxygen-producing variety that enables life as we know it.

Not everyone agrees. "I don't think this is an ancient organism that predated most purple bacteria but something that evolved after purple sulfur bacteria already existed," says molecular biologist Donald Bryant of Pennsylvania State University in University Park, who reviewed the paper for Science, speaking of the new bacteria's ancient relatives that are thought to have evolved earlier. "It is an interesting case in which nature has taken something that is normally quite toxic and made good use of it for growth."

Using a Poison to Turn Sunlight into Food: Scientific American

the most important part "the researchers have also determined that this is a primitive process, going back at least three billion years"

that fact all by itself lays waste to creationism fairytales.

[ame=http://youtu.be/q71DWYJD-dI]How did the evolution of complex life on Earth begin? - The Gene Code, Episode 1 - BBC Four - YouTube[/ame]

Greatest Mysteries: How Did Life Arise on Earth?

Credit: Nicolle Rager Fuller, National Science Foundation
Editor's Note: We asked several scientists from various fields what they thought were the greatest mysteries today, and then we added a few that were on our minds, too. This article is the last of 15 in LiveScience's "Greatest Mysteries" series.

Earth is estimated to be about 4.5 billion years old, and for much of that history it has been home to life in one weird form or another.

Indeed, some scientists think life appeared the moment our planet's environment was stable enough to support it.


The earliest evidence for life on Earth comes from fossilized mats of cyanobacteria called stromatolites in Australia that are about 3.4 billion years old. Ancient as their origins are, these bacteria (which are still around today) are already biologically complex—they have cell walls protecting their protein-producing DNA, so scientists think life must have begun much earlier, perhaps as early as 3.8 billion years ago.

But despite knowing approximately when life first appeared on Earth, scientists are still far from answering how it appeared.

"Many theories of the origin of life have been proposed, but since it's hard to prove or disprove them, no fully accepted theory exists," said Diana Northup, a cave biologist at the University of New Mexico.

The answer to this question would not only fill one of the largest gaps in scientists' understanding of nature, but also would have important implications for the likelihood of finding life elsewhere in the universe.

Lots of ideas

Today, there are several competing theories for how life arose on Earth. Some question whether life began on Earth at all, asserting instead that it came from a distant world or the heart of a fallen comet or asteroid. Some even say life might have arisen here more than once.

"There may have been several origins," said David Deamer, a biochemist at the University of California, Santa Cruz. "We usually make 'origins' plural just to indicate that we don't necessarily claim there was just a single origin, but just an origin that didn't happen to get blasted by giant [asteroid] impacts."

Most scientists agree that life went through a period when RNA was the head-honcho molecule, guiding life through its nascent stages. According to this "RNA World" hypothesis, RNA was the crux molecule for primitive life and only took a backseat when DNA and proteins—which perform their jobs much more efficiently than RNA—developed.

"A lot of the most clever and most talented people in my field have accepted that the RNA World was not just possible, but probable," Deamer said.

RNA is very similar to DNA, and today carries out numerous important functions in each of our cells, including acting as a transitional-molecule between DNA and protein synthesis, and functioning as an on-and-off switch for some genes.

But the RNA World hypothesis doesn't explain how RNA itself first arose. Like DNA, RNA is a complex molecule made of repeating units of thousands of smaller molecules called nucleotides that link together in very specific, patterned ways. While there are scientists who think RNA could have arisen spontaneously on early Earth, others say the odds of such a thing happening are astronomical.

"The appearance of such a molecule, given the way chemistry functions, is incredibly improbable. It would be a once-in-a-universe long shot," said Robert Shapiro, a chemist at New York University. "To adopt this [view], you have to believe we were incredibly lucky."

The anthropic principle

But "astronomical" is a relative term. In his book, The God Delusion, biologist Richard Dawkins entertains another possibility, inspired by work in astronomy and physics.

Suppose, Dawkins says, the universe contains a billion billion planets (a conservative estimate, he says), then the chances that life will arise on one of them is not really so remarkable.

Furthermore, if, as some physicists say, our universe is just one of many, and each universe contained a billion billion planets, then it's nearly a certainty that life will arise on at least one of them.

As Dawkins writes, "There may be universes whose skies have no stars: but they also have no inhabitants to notice the lack."

Shapiro doesn't think it's necessary to invoke multiple universes or life-laden comets crashing into ancient Earth. Instead, he thinks life started with molecules that were smaller and less complex than RNA, which performed simple chemical reactions that eventually led to a self-sustaining system involving the formation of more complex molecules.

"If you fall back to a simpler theory, the odds aren't astronomical anymore," Shapiro told LiveScience.

Trying to recreate an event that happened billions of years ago is a daunting task, but many scientists believe that, like the emergence of life itself, it is still possible.

"The solution of a mystery of this magnitude is totally unpredictable," said Freeman Dyson, a professor emeritus of physics at Princeton University in New Jersey. "It might happen next week or it might take a thousand years."
Greatest Mysteries: How Did Life Arise on Earth? | LiveScience

 

[daws101]

I was converted from your side, and it was a very easy transition.

people are only converted because they have never really broken free of their religious indoctrination.
you were only playing at non belief .
like any addict you fell off the wagon...

Are you speaking for yourself or for everyone daws ?

I always speak for myself .
unlike you who has chronic incurable messiah complex.
but to answer your slapdicky statement.. I am speaking from first hand experience with "CINO'S" (CHRISTIANS IN NAME ONLY)Like yourself.

 

[daws101]

TROLL:

Troll -
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

forum troll -
Someone who gets pleasure by typing annoying/controversial/offensive words at strangers on internet forums, for them to read.

person 1:can someone tell me how to do this?*

troll: you're stupid, i hope you're not as ugly as you are stupid, then you will have problems

Urban Dictionary: troll

Urban Dictionary: forum troll

You seem to be an honest person what do you think of Hollie and Daws ? now for lonestar,he has had many disrespectful comments lobbed at him by the two in question. I have had the same dealings with the two. I to have been provoked. But when they step in it I get pleasure out of exposing their ignorance.

So can a person just make posts like lonestar has out of frustration ? Lonestar is no Troll.

What ignorance have you exposed... beyond your own?

he is prone to hallucinations ....

 

[daws101]

ID’iots must supply some evidence, some testable examples, as to why their Christian gods must have been the “designers” of nature. To date, they have not done so. They have merely offered bad analogies and metaphors that appeal only to fear and ignorance.

Come on now. The IDers have a designer in mind, but it most certainly is not God. Sure the ID crowd is tied inextricably to the Fundamentalist Christian movement and the textbook Of Pandas and People changed all mentions of a Creator to Designer right after Edwards v. Aguillard, and Phillip E. Johnson wants to turn America into some pseudo-theocracy and thinks the Wedge Document can accomplish just that, but the Designer is most assuredly not the God from the Bible.

Nope. Not at all. Not a chance. No way.

Of course the designer is believed to be the Almighty! You don't have to prove the existence of the Almighty to prove purposeful design. The alternative is a non-intelligent source produced purposeful designs,hmm no contradiction there.

 

[daws101]

I doubt you would recognize reality.

No, I'm not a creationist.

That much is obvious.

what an underwhelming retort.
"texans, the lowest form of white man there is!" -Robert Duvall -geronimo an american legend.

 

[daws101]

One other thing, it is time to move on from the 2nd law and Entropy. I think it's time for purposeful design , the origins question,and discussing Neo darwinism and it's mechanisms.

One other thing, it is time to move on from the 2nd law and Entropy.

Not so fast, sparky.

Do you admit that the 2nd Law in no way disproves evolution or increasing complexity?

It would be irresponsible to let him move forward, completely misrepresenting the 2nd law.

his hurry to move on to the next round creationist story time is insightful ..

 

[itfitzme]

Although it relates to disorder in certain respects, people often become confused about “entropy,” the second law of thermodynamics, as disorder.

So, it is being redefined in many introductory textbooks for physics and chemistry as energy dispersal thanks to retired chemistry professor, Frank L. Lambert.

“Energetically, the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of the majority of all known complex and ordered chemical compounds from the simpler elements. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure in its predictions, it only demands a “spreading out” of energy in all processes.”

–Frank L. Lambert, from the website:
Frank L. Lambert, Professor Emeritus
Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041
Academic and professional biography
[email protected]
September 2012


Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Redefine a term that needs no redefining "Entropy" or redefine the law ? it never was a law if it's need to be redefined.

It simply never meant "dissorder". There is no measure of "orderliness" beyond human perception of what has been determined to be "orderly".

Randomness doesn't mean "dissorder".

If I choose to assign "Coming by sea" to "heads" and "Coming by land" to "tails", then the sequences of signals, {TT, TH, HT, and HH} may or may not be randomly distributed is a series of events. But in no way may we say that there is "dissorder".

The error isn't in the succinctly defined laws of thermodynamics. The error is in the prose definition mutating away from that which it is to something which it is not.

Lambert isn't, so much, redefining it. That has already been done, and quite inapropriately. Lambert is presenting the appropriate definition, applying the words that properly define what the succinct mathematical measures and definition actually represent. When a term has been defined then improperly redefined, further "redefining" it to return it to its original definition may be locally redefining it. It is, globally, properly defining it.

Mathematically, an analogy would be that of subtracting what has been inapropriately added. The original definition of entropy never meant "dissorder". "Dissorder" was added and Lambert is subtracting it.

Entropy means "Dispersal of energy" had "to dissorder" added to it, "of energy was dropped. A=B+C became A=B+C-C+D which yielded the erronious definition of A=B+D. So, Lambert is returning it to the proper definition by subtracting D and adding C.

If someone took a hammer to your car door, then the body repair took a hammer to it again, you wouldn't say that the repair shop was damaging your car by redenting it. You would say that someone dented your car and the body shop was "undenting" it. Correctly, you might say the body shop was "redenting" or "rebending" it.

"Defining" + "redefining" + (-1)*"redefining" = "defining".

 

[Youwerecreated]

Come on now. The IDers have a designer in mind, but it most certainly is not God. Sure the ID crowd is tied inextricably to the Fundamentalist Christian movement and the textbook Of Pandas and People changed all mentions of a Creator to Designer right after Edwards v. Aguillard, and Phillip E. Johnson wants to turn America into some pseudo-theocracy and thinks the Wedge Document can accomplish just that, but the Designer is most assuredly not the God from the Bible.

Nope. Not at all. Not a chance. No way.

Of course the designer is believed to be the Almighty! You don't have to prove the existence of the Almighty to prove purposeful design. The alternative is a non-intelligent source produced purposeful designs,hmm no contradiction there.

You might want to go back and reread the views you're supposed to be parroting. Right there in the Dover trial the IDiots said many times that the Designer they were pushing was NOT the God for the Bible. That would be illegal, so it's definitely not God.

They wouldn't have lied under oath to push an agenda...would they?

You might be right but I do remember reading something someone admitted this intelligent agent was the Christian God.