Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Derideo_Te]

Example please.

Viruses, famine, floods, earthquakes, volcanoes, genetic diseases, asteroids, etc, etc.

Signs of the fault of humanity and disorder which we have been discussing. The only way those problems would have never been experienced was for man to obey God.

As predictable as clockwork. Whenever you are faced with irrefutable facts you start spewing superstitious drivel while you beat a hasty retreat back into your shell.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No offense,but we are not talking about Alabama or Arkansas.

Your ignorance is nation wide.

I don't deny I am ignorant of many issues. Are you suggesting you have all the answers and possess no ignorance ?

I'm suggesting that your defense of the "Evolution is impossible, because of the 2nd Law" meme, is a good display of your ignorance.

 

[daws101]

Thanks for agreeing with over time all objects are affected by decay which is the result of disorder that leads to death. What we exp over time is devolution. Things are not getting better or improving in complexity,that is what you need for evolution to trend upwards. You should know by now the basics of macro evolution. Micro-adaptations do happen but they are minor changes and the genetic information is already in the Genome to adapt.

It's true, the entropy of the universe is increasing.
At the same time things can get more complex.
Just look how complex your ignorance has become.

U of A does not produce ignorance they educate so the educated can teach the ignorant. You are all here must have missed me.

I see you missed the grammar and english courses or maybe wine with your nighttime meds is not a good idea.

 

[daws101]

In passing, I just want to say that anything that happens for the very first time--not having been established prior as a 'natural process'--must therefore be described as supernatural. The first lightning bolt was supernatural, by definition. So was the first rainfall, the first tsunami, tornado, hurricane, fire, etc.

I think we--assuming no one will insist on being stubborn for the sake of avoiding real conversation--can all agree that at this very moment, not all possible "processes" have occurred. Other "processes" will surely occur in the future for the very first time, and again, by your definition, they must be labeled supernatural. Shouldn't we all agree that, by definition, supernatural processes can and will continue to occur?

Going a different way--supposing that you reserve the word "supernatural" to mean only "miraculous" processes brought about by an entity or entities with unimaginable power--I have to ask out of curiosity. Do you really believe that a being creating a universe must be supernatural and executing a supernatural process, when (see quantum physics) our universe could be virtual? Surely you realize that one day, assuming the human race continues to thrive, we will finally gain the ability to create virtual realities where everyone inside is either a "user" or an artificial intelligence? You know that is coming. Does the computer programmer that creates a virtual reality, a supernatural being? No. But would that programmer necessarily be defined as supernatural to the people inside that reality? Yes, absolutely.

Is it that difficult to imagine that the universe we experience is the result of a giant pile of--for lack of a better word--code. The Programmer, having all powers one could imagine, is no more supernatural in this scenario than a programmer that wrote The Sims.

FYI this theorem would go far in explaining so many formerly unexplainable things. For example: In our normal world, we as Christians imagine what God's dimension is like. We also wonder what God looks like, and wonder why He doesn't just materialize in our world and satisfy everyone's curiosity. OK -- now, imagine a character in The Sims, wondering the same thing. He knows what's going on around him in his virtual world that exists only as lines of code. You are playing The Sims and he is wondering what you look like, what your "dimension" is like, and wonders why you won't materialize in his world to prove your existence and satisfy his curiosity.

Please resist the temptation to laugh and marginalize me, saying I should be wearing a tinfoil hat because I claim we are all Sims. I am making no such claim. I am only trying to come up with real-life examples that could help us understand there is no need to dismiss creation as some impossible, "miraculous," "unscientific," "supernatural" event.

Certainly there is merit in your programmer/Sims scenario as a means to "explain" the universe. But if you are going to use this then you have to explain the inconsistencies too. If our universe is virtual then your programmer has written some really buggy code. That contradicts the notion of an omnipotent "programmer/creator".

Example please.

a woman's birth canal!


1. The wisdom in wisdom teeth
Anyone who has had trouble with their wisdom teeth would know that these third molars bring nothing but pain. The reason for this is quite simply that we do not have enough room in our mouths.

Our distant ancestors, with their slightly longer jawbones, may have had room for them. But in the mouth of the modern human, wisdom teeth often end up having nowhere to grow to and become stuck (compacted) and have to be removed.

Wisdom teeth may have helped our distant ancestors chew all that harsh unprocessed foods, but today, they are little more than an example of outdated design that most people can do without.

2. The appendix
Even though it has been extensively researched, scientists have not managed to identify any clear function for the human appendix. But whereas we do not know what it is good for, we certainly know how life-threateningly harmful it can be.

Between five and ten percent of people will develop acute appendicitis in their lifetimes. When this happens, the appendix fills with pus and has to be surgically removed.

Interestingly, other mammals seem to have a similar structure to the human appendix, which they use for certain kinds of digestion. This strongly suggests that, like our wisdom teeth, our appendixes are inherited from our distant ancestors.

In addition, recent studies have suggested that removing the appendix may reduce the chances of developing ulcerative colitis. Add the fact that no adverse effects have been noticed from removing the human appendix, and the case for a design flaw is very strong.

3. Looking the wrong way?
We know that our eyes are certainly not the best in the animal kingdom. But whereas a suboptimal design seems to serve our purposes well enough, the human eye, as those of other vertebrates, nevertheless seems to be rather strangely laid out.

Our eyes are essentially wired backwards with the light-sensitive cones and rods (the eye’s 'film') situated behind a webbing of blood vessels and nerve fibres and facing away from the light.

One consequence of this design is that the nerves have to travel through the eye, which is why the human eye has a blind spot at its centre. By contrast, an animal like the squid has its eyes wired the correct, or more obvious, way around with the photoreceptors pointing toward the light.

In addition, the connection between the optic nerve and the retina is surprisingly fragile – something which makes the retina prone to detaching as we age.

4. Down the wrong pipe
Another aspect of the human body that is widely considered to be an example of questionable design is the way in which air and food briefly share the same pipe. In essence, this is why we can choke on our food.

A number of scientists have suggested that it may have been a better design to keep the trachea (air pipe) and oesophagus (the pipe food travels down) completely separate. Instead, these two cross, which is why food can go “down the wrong pipe” - something that can be fatal.

A small valve, or flap, called the epiglottis, helps close the trachea when swallowing food. While this does solve the problem most of the time, it certainly isn’t a perfect solution.

Furthermore, in children, the epiglottis can become infected, which can lead to severe inflammation. Though this can be easily treated, it can be very dangerous when treatment is not available.

5. Haemorrhoids
Haemorrhoids refers to a condition where veins in and around the anus become inflamed. They can at times be itchy and painful, and are usually first suspected when blood is noticed in the stool.

Possible causes include a genetic predisposition, the increased pressure in the rectum during pregnancy and straining during bowel movements. By the age of 50, an estimated 50% of adults would have experienced haemorrhoids.

There are strong suggestions that squatting during bowel movements may have a protective effect, something which suggests that modern toilets are at least part of the problem.

Either way, exposing veins to the kind of pressures and friction present in the rectum is certainly not good design.

Not adapted for longer life
Just as haemorrhoids suggest that our bodies have not adapted to modern toilets, a number of other body flaws also involve our inability to adapt to our changing circumstances.

One of the major changes of the last few hundred years, is that human beings are getting much older. This means we are more aware of how our eyes, ears, backs, hips and brains fail to stand up to the passing of time.

But, the mere fact that we are living longer suggests that we are doing a good job of adapting to the weak spots in our design. Whether it is using vaccines to train our bodies to spot infections, or wearing glasses to see better, we are certainly making progress.

But inguinal hernias, cancer, labour pain, autoimmune diseases (where the body attacks itself) are all still with us. All of which suggests that in terms of plugging the gaps in the design of the human body, we have a long way to go. – (Marcus Low, Health24)

Reviewed by Prof Don du Toit, head of anatomy at Stellenbosch University

Sources:
Olshansky, SJ. If humans were built to last. Scientific American. March 2001.
Theobald, D. The vestigiality of the human vermiform appendix. TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy December 2006.
Mayo Clinic
digestive.niddk.nih.gov

5 body flaws | Health24

you want fries with that?

 

[daws101]

Viruses, famine, floods, earthquakes, volcanoes, genetic diseases, asteroids, etc, etc.

Signs of the fault of humanity and disorder which we have been discussing. The only way those problems would have never been experienced was for man to obey God.

As predictable as clockwork. Whenever you are faced with irrefutable facts you start spewing superstitious drivel while you beat a hasty retreat back into your shell.

bump

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Certainly there is merit in your programmer/Sims scenario as a means to "explain" the universe. But if you are going to use this then you have to explain the inconsistencies too. If our universe is virtual then your programmer has written some really buggy code. That contradicts the notion of an omnipotent "programmer/creator".

Example please.

a woman's birth canal!


1. The wisdom in wisdom teeth
Anyone who has had trouble with their wisdom teeth would know that these third molars bring nothing but pain. The reason for this is quite simply that we do not have enough room in our mouths.

Our distant ancestors, with their slightly longer jawbones, may have had room for them. But in the mouth of the modern human, wisdom teeth often end up having nowhere to grow to and become stuck (compacted) and have to be removed.

Wisdom teeth may have helped our distant ancestors chew all that harsh unprocessed foods, but today, they are little more than an example of outdated design that most people can do without.

2. The appendix
Even though it has been extensively researched, scientists have not managed to identify any clear function for the human appendix. But whereas we do not know what it is good for, we certainly know how life-threateningly harmful it can be.

Between five and ten percent of people will develop acute appendicitis in their lifetimes. When this happens, the appendix fills with pus and has to be surgically removed.

Interestingly, other mammals seem to have a similar structure to the human appendix, which they use for certain kinds of digestion. This strongly suggests that, like our wisdom teeth, our appendixes are inherited from our distant ancestors.

In addition, recent studies have suggested that removing the appendix may reduce the chances of developing ulcerative colitis. Add the fact that no adverse effects have been noticed from removing the human appendix, and the case for a design flaw is very strong.

3. Looking the wrong way?
We know that our eyes are certainly not the best in the animal kingdom. But whereas a suboptimal design seems to serve our purposes well enough, the human eye, as those of other vertebrates, nevertheless seems to be rather strangely laid out.

Our eyes are essentially wired backwards with the light-sensitive cones and rods (the eye’s 'film') situated behind a webbing of blood vessels and nerve fibres and facing away from the light.

One consequence of this design is that the nerves have to travel through the eye, which is why the human eye has a blind spot at its centre. By contrast, an animal like the squid has its eyes wired the correct, or more obvious, way around with the photoreceptors pointing toward the light.

In addition, the connection between the optic nerve and the retina is surprisingly fragile – something which makes the retina prone to detaching as we age.

4. Down the wrong pipe
Another aspect of the human body that is widely considered to be an example of questionable design is the way in which air and food briefly share the same pipe. In essence, this is why we can choke on our food.

A number of scientists have suggested that it may have been a better design to keep the trachea (air pipe) and oesophagus (the pipe food travels down) completely separate. Instead, these two cross, which is why food can go “down the wrong pipe” - something that can be fatal.

A small valve, or flap, called the epiglottis, helps close the trachea when swallowing food. While this does solve the problem most of the time, it certainly isn’t a perfect solution.

Furthermore, in children, the epiglottis can become infected, which can lead to severe inflammation. Though this can be easily treated, it can be very dangerous when treatment is not available.

5. Haemorrhoids
Haemorrhoids refers to a condition where veins in and around the anus become inflamed. They can at times be itchy and painful, and are usually first suspected when blood is noticed in the stool.

Possible causes include a genetic predisposition, the increased pressure in the rectum during pregnancy and straining during bowel movements. By the age of 50, an estimated 50% of adults would have experienced haemorrhoids.

There are strong suggestions that squatting during bowel movements may have a protective effect, something which suggests that modern toilets are at least part of the problem.

Either way, exposing veins to the kind of pressures and friction present in the rectum is certainly not good design.

Not adapted for longer life
Just as haemorrhoids suggest that our bodies have not adapted to modern toilets, a number of other body flaws also involve our inability to adapt to our changing circumstances.

One of the major changes of the last few hundred years, is that human beings are getting much older. This means we are more aware of how our eyes, ears, backs, hips and brains fail to stand up to the passing of time.

But, the mere fact that we are living longer suggests that we are doing a good job of adapting to the weak spots in our design. Whether it is using vaccines to train our bodies to spot infections, or wearing glasses to see better, we are certainly making progress.

But inguinal hernias, cancer, labour pain, autoimmune diseases (where the body attacks itself) are all still with us. All of which suggests that in terms of plugging the gaps in the design of the human body, we have a long way to go. – (Marcus Low, Health24)

Reviewed by Prof Don du Toit, head of anatomy at Stellenbosch University

Sources:
Olshansky, SJ. If humans were built to last. Scientific American. March 2001.
Theobald, D. The vestigiality of the human vermiform appendix. TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy December 2006.
Mayo Clinic
digestive.niddk.nih.gov

5 body flaws | Health24

you want fries with that?

Those problems are fixed when we become Pak Protectors.

 

[daws101]

Example please.

a woman's birth canal!


1. The wisdom in wisdom teeth
Anyone who has had trouble with their wisdom teeth would know that these third molars bring nothing but pain. The reason for this is quite simply that we do not have enough room in our mouths.

Our distant ancestors, with their slightly longer jawbones, may have had room for them. But in the mouth of the modern human, wisdom teeth often end up having nowhere to grow to and become stuck (compacted) and have to be removed.

Wisdom teeth may have helped our distant ancestors chew all that harsh unprocessed foods, but today, they are little more than an example of outdated design that most people can do without.

2. The appendix
Even though it has been extensively researched, scientists have not managed to identify any clear function for the human appendix. But whereas we do not know what it is good for, we certainly know how life-threateningly harmful it can be.

Between five and ten percent of people will develop acute appendicitis in their lifetimes. When this happens, the appendix fills with pus and has to be surgically removed.

Interestingly, other mammals seem to have a similar structure to the human appendix, which they use for certain kinds of digestion. This strongly suggests that, like our wisdom teeth, our appendixes are inherited from our distant ancestors.

In addition, recent studies have suggested that removing the appendix may reduce the chances of developing ulcerative colitis. Add the fact that no adverse effects have been noticed from removing the human appendix, and the case for a design flaw is very strong.

3. Looking the wrong way?
We know that our eyes are certainly not the best in the animal kingdom. But whereas a suboptimal design seems to serve our purposes well enough, the human eye, as those of other vertebrates, nevertheless seems to be rather strangely laid out.

Our eyes are essentially wired backwards with the light-sensitive cones and rods (the eye’s 'film') situated behind a webbing of blood vessels and nerve fibres and facing away from the light.

One consequence of this design is that the nerves have to travel through the eye, which is why the human eye has a blind spot at its centre. By contrast, an animal like the squid has its eyes wired the correct, or more obvious, way around with the photoreceptors pointing toward the light.

In addition, the connection between the optic nerve and the retina is surprisingly fragile – something which makes the retina prone to detaching as we age.

4. Down the wrong pipe
Another aspect of the human body that is widely considered to be an example of questionable design is the way in which air and food briefly share the same pipe. In essence, this is why we can choke on our food.

A number of scientists have suggested that it may have been a better design to keep the trachea (air pipe) and oesophagus (the pipe food travels down) completely separate. Instead, these two cross, which is why food can go “down the wrong pipe” - something that can be fatal.

A small valve, or flap, called the epiglottis, helps close the trachea when swallowing food. While this does solve the problem most of the time, it certainly isn’t a perfect solution.

Furthermore, in children, the epiglottis can become infected, which can lead to severe inflammation. Though this can be easily treated, it can be very dangerous when treatment is not available.

5. Haemorrhoids
Haemorrhoids refers to a condition where veins in and around the anus become inflamed. They can at times be itchy and painful, and are usually first suspected when blood is noticed in the stool.

Possible causes include a genetic predisposition, the increased pressure in the rectum during pregnancy and straining during bowel movements. By the age of 50, an estimated 50% of adults would have experienced haemorrhoids.

There are strong suggestions that squatting during bowel movements may have a protective effect, something which suggests that modern toilets are at least part of the problem.

Either way, exposing veins to the kind of pressures and friction present in the rectum is certainly not good design.

Not adapted for longer life
Just as haemorrhoids suggest that our bodies have not adapted to modern toilets, a number of other body flaws also involve our inability to adapt to our changing circumstances.

One of the major changes of the last few hundred years, is that human beings are getting much older. This means we are more aware of how our eyes, ears, backs, hips and brains fail to stand up to the passing of time.

But, the mere fact that we are living longer suggests that we are doing a good job of adapting to the weak spots in our design. Whether it is using vaccines to train our bodies to spot infections, or wearing glasses to see better, we are certainly making progress.

But inguinal hernias, cancer, labour pain, autoimmune diseases (where the body attacks itself) are all still with us. All of which suggests that in terms of plugging the gaps in the design of the human body, we have a long way to go. – (Marcus Low, Health24)

Reviewed by Prof Don du Toit, head of anatomy at Stellenbosch University

Sources:
Olshansky, SJ. If humans were built to last. Scientific American. March 2001.
Theobald, D. The vestigiality of the human vermiform appendix. TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy December 2006.
Mayo Clinic
digestive.niddk.nih.gov

5 body flaws | Health24

you want fries with that?

Those problems are fixed when we become Pak Protectors.

Larry Niven! HAVEN'T READ HIS STUFF SINCE THE 80'S.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

a woman's birth canal!


1. The wisdom in wisdom teeth
Anyone who has had trouble with their wisdom teeth would know that these third molars bring nothing but pain. The reason for this is quite simply that we do not have enough room in our mouths.

Our distant ancestors, with their slightly longer jawbones, may have had room for them. But in the mouth of the modern human, wisdom teeth often end up having nowhere to grow to and become stuck (compacted) and have to be removed.

Wisdom teeth may have helped our distant ancestors chew all that harsh unprocessed foods, but today, they are little more than an example of outdated design that most people can do without.

2. The appendix
Even though it has been extensively researched, scientists have not managed to identify any clear function for the human appendix. But whereas we do not know what it is good for, we certainly know how life-threateningly harmful it can be.

Between five and ten percent of people will develop acute appendicitis in their lifetimes. When this happens, the appendix fills with pus and has to be surgically removed.

Interestingly, other mammals seem to have a similar structure to the human appendix, which they use for certain kinds of digestion. This strongly suggests that, like our wisdom teeth, our appendixes are inherited from our distant ancestors.

In addition, recent studies have suggested that removing the appendix may reduce the chances of developing ulcerative colitis. Add the fact that no adverse effects have been noticed from removing the human appendix, and the case for a design flaw is very strong.

3. Looking the wrong way?
We know that our eyes are certainly not the best in the animal kingdom. But whereas a suboptimal design seems to serve our purposes well enough, the human eye, as those of other vertebrates, nevertheless seems to be rather strangely laid out.

Our eyes are essentially wired backwards with the light-sensitive cones and rods (the eye’s 'film') situated behind a webbing of blood vessels and nerve fibres and facing away from the light.

One consequence of this design is that the nerves have to travel through the eye, which is why the human eye has a blind spot at its centre. By contrast, an animal like the squid has its eyes wired the correct, or more obvious, way around with the photoreceptors pointing toward the light.

In addition, the connection between the optic nerve and the retina is surprisingly fragile – something which makes the retina prone to detaching as we age.

4. Down the wrong pipe
Another aspect of the human body that is widely considered to be an example of questionable design is the way in which air and food briefly share the same pipe. In essence, this is why we can choke on our food.

A number of scientists have suggested that it may have been a better design to keep the trachea (air pipe) and oesophagus (the pipe food travels down) completely separate. Instead, these two cross, which is why food can go “down the wrong pipe” - something that can be fatal.

A small valve, or flap, called the epiglottis, helps close the trachea when swallowing food. While this does solve the problem most of the time, it certainly isn’t a perfect solution.

Furthermore, in children, the epiglottis can become infected, which can lead to severe inflammation. Though this can be easily treated, it can be very dangerous when treatment is not available.

5. Haemorrhoids
Haemorrhoids refers to a condition where veins in and around the anus become inflamed. They can at times be itchy and painful, and are usually first suspected when blood is noticed in the stool.

Possible causes include a genetic predisposition, the increased pressure in the rectum during pregnancy and straining during bowel movements. By the age of 50, an estimated 50% of adults would have experienced haemorrhoids.

There are strong suggestions that squatting during bowel movements may have a protective effect, something which suggests that modern toilets are at least part of the problem.

Either way, exposing veins to the kind of pressures and friction present in the rectum is certainly not good design.

Not adapted for longer life
Just as haemorrhoids suggest that our bodies have not adapted to modern toilets, a number of other body flaws also involve our inability to adapt to our changing circumstances.

One of the major changes of the last few hundred years, is that human beings are getting much older. This means we are more aware of how our eyes, ears, backs, hips and brains fail to stand up to the passing of time.

But, the mere fact that we are living longer suggests that we are doing a good job of adapting to the weak spots in our design. Whether it is using vaccines to train our bodies to spot infections, or wearing glasses to see better, we are certainly making progress.

But inguinal hernias, cancer, labour pain, autoimmune diseases (where the body attacks itself) are all still with us. All of which suggests that in terms of plugging the gaps in the design of the human body, we have a long way to go. – (Marcus Low, Health24)

Reviewed by Prof Don du Toit, head of anatomy at Stellenbosch University

Sources:
Olshansky, SJ. If humans were built to last. Scientific American. March 2001.
Theobald, D. The vestigiality of the human vermiform appendix. TalkOrigins Archive: Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy December 2006.
Mayo Clinic
digestive.niddk.nih.gov

5 body flaws | Health24

you want fries with that?

Those problems are fixed when we become Pak Protectors.

Larry Niven! HAVEN'T READ HIS STUFF SINCE THE 80'S.

There's been some recent stuff that really fills in some of the holes.
You should catch up.

 

[Hollie]

In passing, I just want to say that anything that happens for the very first time--not having been established prior as a 'natural process'--must therefore be described as supernatural. The first lightning bolt was supernatural, by definition. So was the first rainfall, the first tsunami, tornado, hurricane, fire, etc.

I think we--assuming no one will insist on being stubborn for the sake of avoiding real conversation--can all agree that at this very moment, not all possible "processes" have occurred. Other "processes" will surely occur in the future for the very first time, and again, by your definition, they must be labeled supernatural. Shouldn't we all agree that, by definition, supernatural processes can and will continue to occur?

Sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense.

Something that happens for the first time is clearly not “by definition”, supernatural. The first bolt of lightning, the first tornado, hurricane, etc., were not supernatural events that became less so as humankind learned the causes. The causes were always natural, just not understood as to the mechanisms.

What is interesting about your choice of hurricanes (for one example), as a “supernatural event” is that one can make the case for these events being entirely a product of your gods. According to believers, it is the gods who are responsible for all existence and so the gods are ultimately responsible for hurricanes and all other “‘natural disasters”.

There is really no such a things as a "natural consequence" because the root of all is the supernatural law-defining abilities of the gods that cobbled it together. The gods don't cause an earthquake? Yes, they established the laws of plate tectonics which describe the physical characteristics of portions of the earth’s crust which shifts and adjusts, and those elements together create shifting of landmasses we call earthquakes.

The gods don't cause a tornado? Yes, they established the laws of convection and rotation of planets, and those two elements together create swirling whirlwinds we call twisters. As the Author of All, they could have created a completely different existence-- but didn't.

Going a different way--supposing that you reserve the word "supernatural" to mean only "miraculous" processes brought about by an entity or entities with unimaginable power--I have to ask out of curiosity. Do you really believe that a being creating a universe must be supernatural and executing a supernatural process, when (see quantum physics) our universe could be virtual? Surely you realize that one day, assuming the human race continues to thrive, we will finally gain the ability to create virtual realities where everyone inside is either a "user" or an artificial intelligence? You know that is coming. Does the computer programmer that creates a virtual reality, a supernatural being? No. But would that programmer necessarily be defined as supernatural to the people inside that reality? Yes, absolutely.

I’m not at all substituting the term "supernatural" for "miraculous". They are quantitatively different terms.

What a shame that you cannot define for us a single discovery by humanity that has had a “supernatural” cause, ie:, a cause not explainable by natural circumstances. Many ancient peoples had beliefs in gods, spirits and all sorts of superstitions which were used to explain phenomena they didn’t understand. The Abrahamic god of the desert is a more recent but no less a vehicle for superstition. Share the knowledge why your gods are extant to the exclusion of other, more ancient gods. When you can share that knowledge in a way that would verify your claim that you in some way attain supremacy over the Dayaks, then you'd have some cleats in the turf. But it’s all gainsaid. The only thing we have ("we" meaning those who don't embrace your particular theology) is your assertion that your spiritual knowledge is somehow better. You like to drop it in my lap that you know for certain that your gods are extant so hey-- why don't you show me the tool(s) that places your beliefs in supremacy to all others?


Secondly, I have no reason for believing a “being” created anything. I understand you will default to this alleged “being” as the gods, but in terms of evidence, we’re left with nothing more than your partisan claims to one or more partisan gods.

Actually, your thought experiment tells us nothing about the possibility of whether or not I wish the Bible to be wrong. I don’t wish the Bible to be anything. I wish you to make a supportable argument without the need to use the Bible as proof of something when it’s the veracity of the Bible that is in question. Your argument only tells us about your capacity to draw false conclusions out of willful neglect of any real standard of care.

I’m only holding your feet to the fire for the purpose of demanding you demonstrate the truth of claims that you have already made.



Is it that difficult to imagine that the universe we experience is the result of a giant pile of--for lack of a better word--code. The Programmer, having all powers one could imagine, is no more supernatural in this scenario than a programmer that wrote The Sims.

FYI this theorem would go far in explaining so many formerly unexplainable things. For example: In our normal world, we as Christians imagine what God's dimension is like. We also wonder what God looks like, and wonder why He doesn't just materialize in our world and satisfy everyone's curiosity. OK -- now, imagine a character in The Sims, wondering the same thing. He knows what's going on around him in his virtual world that exists only as lines of code. You are playing The Sims and he is wondering what you look like, what your "dimension" is like, and wonders why you won't materialize in his world to prove your existence and satisfy his curiosity.

Please resist the temptation to laugh and marginalize me, saying I should be wearing a tinfoil hat because I claim we are all Sims. I am making no such claim. I am only trying to come up with real-life examples that could help us understand there is no need to dismiss creation as some impossible, "miraculous," "unscientific," "supernatural" event.

I’m thinking you’re spending waaaaaaay too much time in imaginary worlds.

First, let us agree that any “ultimate understanding” of existence is unknowable. The theist relies on a god(s)-caused worldview (faith) and the materialist relies on the nature-caused worldview, each calling upon a bottom plank that cannot ultimately be proven. Philosophically speaking, we cannot beg the question to support the contention, therefore gods cannot be used to support the contention of gods, and calls to the a priori status of logic cannot be used to support the existence of logic. And the kicker is, not even my statement above is exempt from that fatal flaw of argumentation-- I might be wrong or right that we can't beg the question, but cannot prove either.

Given that, we decide to agree that we all exist in a reality and that reality has some constants. This, we can call the penultimate level of realism, and that is the true level by which we all are forced to operate. It is here we offer our worldviews based upon our presuppositions, because we have to dismiss the impossibility of the ultimate level in order to function.

We are therefore reduced to the probability factor, which is argumentation not based upon solid proof but upon consistent behavior of the natural world. At this point, it's purely a choice between theist and materialist as to what worldview makes the greater amount of sense.

The theist is burdened by creating, to explain the natural realm, a whole supernatural realm as if by doing so it answers the fundamental questions of why are things the way they are-- as opposed to doing what it really does, which is now create a whole new set of questions about the supernatural realm that cannot be answered. It's very much like a child asking his father at a David Copperfield show, "How does he do that?" and being asked to accept without question the reply, "Magic." The reply answers nothing, and of course it has the same effect of obscuring what the truth truly is, and it opens up a larger question which is, "What the heck is 'magic'"? We can see this in the Evolutionist / Creationist debate. The only people who fight the overwhelming evolutionary evidences are those with a vested interest in the literal accuracy of the Genesis mythology -- a mythology that is no more or less sacrosanct than the creationist mythologies of any other religious belief system. By accepting the two chapters of Genesis as the answer, they not only accept no answer as the answer ("magic!"), they forever preclude themselves from embracing what the true answer is. Asserting "god did it" only puts off by one huge step answering the question itself.

 

[Hollie]

No offense,but we are not talking about Alabama or Arkansas.

Your ignorance is nation wide.

I don't deny I am ignorant of many issues.

This is the only post of yours which has not been thoroughly refuted.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Viruses, famine, floods, earthquakes, volcanoes, genetic diseases, asteroids, etc, etc.

Signs of the fault of humanity and disorder which we have been discussing. The only way those problems would have never been experienced was for man to obey God.

As predictable as clockwork. Whenever you are faced with irrefutable facts you start spewing superstitious drivel while you beat a hasty retreat back into your shell.

Is this your weak Attempt at suggesting no intelligent creator would have created things the way they currently are ?

As Tom said earlier any natural process arising through without being guided would in fact be miraculous, hmm,now what ?

 

[Derideo_Te]

Signs of the fault of humanity and disorder which we have been discussing. The only way those problems would have never been experienced was for man to obey God.

As predictable as clockwork. Whenever you are faced with irrefutable facts you start spewing superstitious drivel while you beat a hasty retreat back into your shell.

Is this your weak Attempt at suggesting no intelligent creator would have created things the way they currently are ?

As Tom said earlier any natural process arising through without being guided would in fact be miraculous, hmm,now what ?

I suggest that you reread what he actually said as opposed to what you believe he said.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Your ignorance is nation wide.

I don't deny I am ignorant of many issues. Are you suggesting you have all the answers and possess no ignorance ?

I'm suggesting that your defense of the "Evolution is impossible, because of the 2nd Law" meme, is a good display of your ignorance.

You can't present a viable explanation and sure as hell can't produce a viable mechanism for macro-evolution that is required for your theory to possess any kind of credibility.

You fell victim of the bate and switch and possessing a vivid imagination. You think all your conjecture adds up to something meaning ful but you're merely wishing.

 

[Youwerecreated]

As predictable as clockwork. Whenever you are faced with irrefutable facts you start spewing superstitious drivel while you beat a hasty retreat back into your shell.

Is this your weak Attempt at suggesting no intelligent creator would have created things the way they currently are ?

As Tom said earlier any natural process arising through without being guided would in fact be miraculous, hmm,now what ?

I suggest that you reread what he actually said as opposed to what you believe he said.

No need to.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Is this your weak Attempt at suggesting no intelligent creator would have created things the way they currently are ?

As Tom said earlier any natural process arising through without being guided would in fact be miraculous, hmm,now what ?

I suggest that you reread what he actually said as opposed to what you believe he said.

No need to.

In which case quote his actual words that allegedly support your statement.

 

[daws101]

I don't deny I am ignorant of many issues. Are you suggesting you have all the answers and possess no ignorance ?

I'm suggesting that your defense of the "Evolution is impossible, because of the 2nd Law" meme, is a good display of your ignorance.

You can't present a viable explanation and sure as hell can't produce a viable mechanism for macro-evolution that is required for your theory to possess any kind of credibility.

You fell victim of the bate and switch and possessing a vivid imagination. You think all your conjecture adds up to something meaning ful but you're merely wishing.

 

[daws101]

fun fact: YWC yammers on

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I don't deny I am ignorant of many issues. Are you suggesting you have all the answers and possess no ignorance ?

I'm suggesting that your defense of the "Evolution is impossible, because of the 2nd Law" meme, is a good display of your ignorance.

You can't present a viable explanation and sure as hell can't produce a viable mechanism for macro-evolution that is required for your theory to possess any kind of credibility.

You fell victim of the bate and switch and possessing a vivid imagination. You think all your conjecture adds up to something meaning ful but you're merely wishing.

You can't present a viable explanation and sure as hell can't produce a viable mechanism for macro-evolution that is required for your theory to possess any kind of credibility.

Well, first of all, it's not my theory.
Second, oh, that reminds me of the 2nd Law.
The one that you think prevents things from becoming more complex.
That still makes me laugh.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I suggest that you reread what he actually said as opposed to what you believe he said.

No need to.

In which case quote his actual words that allegedly support your statement.

Would you rather I use the term supernaturalism ? He thinks that other natural processes would arise,not sure I totally agree with that but what would be the source for supernaturalism ?

Tom was trying to get us to compromise and admit any natural process arising would be considered a supernatural act and the compromise was using the term miraculous but have it your way because I prefer an act of supernaturalism.

 

[orogenicman]

How, then, is creationism—as opposed to “naturalism,” defined as “a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted”—scientific? Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define “scientific.” Too often, “science” and “naturalism” are considered one and the same, leaving creationist views out by definition. Such a definition requires an irrational reverence of naturalism. Science is defined as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” Nothing requires science, in and of itself, to be naturalistic. Naturalism, like creationism, requires a series of presuppositions that are not generated by experiments. They are not extrapolated from data or derived from test results. These philosophical presuppositions are accepted before any data is ever taken. Because both naturalism and creationism are strongly influenced by presuppositions that are neither provable nor testable, and enter into the discussion well before the facts do, it is fair to say that creationism is at least as scientific as naturalism.

Is creationism scientific?

Hello. I just stumbled upon this thread, and haven't read it all the way through. So without getting into all of the other issues likely brought up, I would like to address the above. The answer to your first question is that there is nothing "supernatural". Either it occurs naturally or it doesn't. The term supernatural is just a made up concept given to something people don't understand or can't themselves explain. It is rooted in 19th century mysticism. Since there is nothing that is in this universe that cannot be explained by natural means, resorting to so-called supernatural agents is simply irrational and lazy thinking. Creationist views are left out of science for a very simple reason. "God did it" doesn't actually explain anything. Science is a process for understanding and explaining the world around us and within us. If "God did it" were all you needed to explain the world, we wouldn't have cars, television, cell phones, computers, and all the other technological conveniences that we enjoy. Moreover, we wouldn't understand how to breed cats, dogs, horses, and all of the animal we have created for our own purposes. And I say created because we most certainly have created them. The dog is a human bred species. It never existed in the wild. Same with modern cattle and horses and many other domestic animals. Artificial selection is the method we have used to create these animals. The only difference between artificial selection and natural selection is time, and the agent doing the selection, in this case, nature itself.

If an animal likes termites, but has a short snout and a short tongue, it is going to have to tough time getting at them to eat them. But if 1/3 of those animals have a snout with a tongue that is just long enough to reach the termites in their mound, they will be more successful in acquiring the food they like. And so over time, they will be more successful in breeding than the ones with shorter snouts, so eventually there will be more longer snouted critters eating termites. Today we call them aardvarks. No need to resort to a creator to explain their existence. No need to be lazy and say "god did it". This is how science works, how it has answered so many questions and so enriched all of our lives.

So to answer your last question - "God did it" - Doesn't explain anything, and is not scientific.

Yes it does it just gets ignored. No naturalistic processes can't account for origins of any object except through programmed information.

A rainbow can be accounted for through the fact of refraction of incident sunlight on rain droplets in the atmosphere using Snell's law.

In contrast, "god did it", still does not explain the rainbow (or anything else).