Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[eots]

Yes. First of all, I don't have to look at the sun to know that entropy in the universe is increasing. That is a product of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But the 2nd law only applies to closed systems. Trees don't live in a closed system. They can just as easily become LESS complex. Evolution does not have an arrow of complexity.

Are you trying to suggest the universe has no affect on a closed system ?

The universe IS a closed system.



No. Humans, for instance, are genetically LESS complex than their ape cousins, the chimpanzee. I can cite many other examples, if you like.

It's pretty simple for as long the universe has been around and the whole time decreasing in order how did organisms get more complex ?

It is irrelevant. On a planet that is NOT a closed system, organisms can become more, or less, complex. Natural selection makes no requirement that an organism be more complex than its predecessor. The only requirement is that any modification result in offspring having a survival advantage over its predecessors. If that advantage means that it becomes LESS complex, that's what happens.

I don't believe evolution ever happened the way they currently teach. I believe small changes happens within in a family but not enough to account for all the different organisms that has ever existed.

And that's because you are illiterate on the subject. There is a cure for your ailment. Take some biology classes.

Darwinism is a belief system..like religion...a very fundamentalist group of zealots for the most part..

 

[orogenicman]

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).

God did it never explains a process. God did it is merely an inference. No different then a natural cycle is extrapolated from for evidence for naturalism.

Inference is the non-logical, but rational, means, through observation of patterns of facts, to indirectly see new meanings and contexts for understanding. What patterns of facts have you observed that lead you to believe that "god did it"? Did you document these patterns? Did you publish your findings? Did others replicate your findings? How is your indirect observation of "god did it" more meaningful than a direct observation that doesn't require "god did it" as an explanation?

 

[orogenicman]

Yes. First of all, I don't have to look at the sun to know that entropy in the universe is increasing. That is a product of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But the 2nd law only applies to closed systems. Trees don't live in a closed system. They can just as easily become LESS complex. Evolution does not have an arrow of complexity.

I didn't say you had to look at the sun to know the entropy of the universe is increasing.
I didn't say trees lived in a closed system. I didn't say trees couldn't evolve into a less complex tree, I said a growing tree is growing more complex.
I know that evolution does not have an arrow of complexity.

So help me out, what was the conflict?

I don't know but I think you guys are wasting your time. Going from an amoeba to a microbiologist, I would say according to your theory you do have an arrow pointing towards complexity.

How can an organism get less complex and survive it's environment ?

You need to quit using a cycle of an organism as your argument ,that is a bad analogy.

And yet microbiologists, like all human beings, have fewer genes than a grape. Again, complexity is not a requirement for survival. Human beings require fewer genes than a grape, and yet we have survived just fine, thank you very much.

 

[orogenicman]

Are you trying to suggest the universe has no affect on a closed system ? If all the different organisms were a product of macro-evolution didn't they get more complex ?

It's pretty simple for as long the universe has been around and the whole time decreasing in order how did organisms get more complex ?

I don't believe evolution ever happened the way they currently teach. I believe small changes happens within in a family but not enough to account for all the different organisms that has ever existed.

You should probably just sit there.
Every time you open your mouth, you say something silly.

Does the universe have an effect on the supposed open system earth ?

Sorry I just noticed I said a closed system.

How is the Earth a closed system when all that energy (from the sun) is streaming into it from elsewhere?

 

[eots]

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).

god did it never explains a process. God did it is merely an inference. No different then a natural cycle is extrapolated from for evidence for naturalism.

inference is the non-logical, but rational, means, through observation of patterns of facts, to indirectly see new meanings and contexts for understanding. What patterns of facts have you observed that lead you to believe that "god did it"? Did you document these patterns? Did you publish your findings? Did others replicate your findings? How is your indirect observation of "god did it" more meaningful than a direct observation that doesn't require "god did it" as an explanation?

create life where there is no life and you will have proven your theory

 

[orogenicman]

Are you trying to suggest the universe has no affect on a closed system ?

The universe IS a closed system.



No. Humans, for instance, are genetically LESS complex than their ape cousins, the chimpanzee. I can cite many other examples, if you like.



It is irrelevant. On a planet that is NOT a closed system, organisms can become more, or less, complex. Natural selection makes no requirement that an organism be more complex than its predecessor. The only requirement is that any modification result in offspring having a survival advantage over its predecessors. If that advantage means that it becomes LESS complex, that's what happens.

I don't believe evolution ever happened the way they currently teach. I believe small changes happens within in a family but not enough to account for all the different organisms that has ever existed.

And that's because you are illiterate on the subject. There is a cure for your ailment. Take some biology classes.

Darwinism is a belief system..like religion...a very fundamentalist group of zealots for the most part..

Ah yes, the science is a religion argument. How quaint.

 

[eots]

the universe is a closed system.



No. Humans, for instance, are genetically less complex than their ape cousins, the chimpanzee. I can cite many other examples, if you like.



It is irrelevant. On a planet that is not a closed system, organisms can become more, or less, complex. Natural selection makes no requirement that an organism be more complex than its predecessor. The only requirement is that any modification result in offspring having a survival advantage over its predecessors. If that advantage means that it becomes less complex, that's what happens.



And that's because you are illiterate on the subject. There is a cure for your ailment. Take some biology classes.

darwinism is a belief system..like religion...a very fundamentalist group of zealots for the most part..

ah yes, the science is a religion argument. How quaint.

it seems more the domain of darwinist..not all science

 

[eots]

While much is being said about Creationism Vs Evolution, and the debate goes on concerning who is right and what should be taught in our schools, a quiet revolution has been taking place in an area of science that is seldom discussed in public. Yet the theories being advanced from leading scientists about this subject suggest that many of the "miracles" and supernatural events of the Bible may actually be scientifically acceptable at some point in the future. The field of science I'm talking about is Quantum Physics and specifically String Theory.

Does String Theory Confirm the Bible? | Creation, Evolution, and Genesis

 

[orogenicman]

darwinism is a belief system..like religion...a very fundamentalist group of zealots for the most part..

ah yes, the science is a religion argument. How quaint.

it seems more the domain of darwinist..not all science

Except that Darwinism is not the same as the theory of evolution. Except that the theory of evolution is one of the most accepted scientific theories (accepted by virtually all scientists in all walks of life), and one of the most successful scientific theories of all time. I'm sorry if you didn't get the memo.

 

[orogenicman]

While much is being said about Creationism Vs Evolution, and the debate goes on concerning who is right and what should be taught in our schools, a quiet revolution has been taking place in an area of science that is seldom discussed in public. Yet the theories being advanced from leading scientists about this subject suggest that many of the "miracles" and supernatural events of the Bible may actually be scientifically acceptable at some point in the future. The field of science I'm talking about is Quantum Physics and specifically String Theory.

Does String Theory Confirm the Bible? | Creation, Evolution, and Genesis

 

[eots]

While much is being said about Creationism Vs Evolution, and the debate goes on concerning who is right and what should be taught in our schools, a quiet revolution has been taking place in an area of science that is seldom discussed in public. Yet the theories being advanced from leading scientists about this subject suggest that many of the "miracles" and supernatural events of the Bible may actually be scientifically acceptable at some point in the future. The field of science I'm talking about is Quantum Physics and specifically String Theory.

Does String Theory Confirm the Bible? | Creation, Evolution, and Genesis

Its funny watching these evolution fundamentalist resort to posting inane pictures when their THEORY is questioned..equally as amusing as when they say that the other simple does not understand what a theory means in scientific terms and that it is even greater than a fact..but for some reason when it come to scientific theories that may cause ripples in their rigid belief system this high regard for theory seems to diminish

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wHHz4mB9GKY]Science v's God : Its The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it - YouTube[/ame]

 

[orogenicman]

While much is being said about Creationism Vs Evolution, and the debate goes on concerning who is right and what should be taught in our schools, a quiet revolution has been taking place in an area of science that is seldom discussed in public. Yet the theories being advanced from leading scientists about this subject suggest that many of the "miracles" and supernatural events of the Bible may actually be scientifically acceptable at some point in the future. The field of science I'm talking about is Quantum Physics and specifically String Theory.

Does String Theory Confirm the Bible? | Creation, Evolution, and Genesis

Its funny watching these evolution fundamentalist resort to posting inane pictures when their THEORY is questioned..equally as amusing as when they say that the other simple does not understand what a theory means in scientific terms and that it is even greater than a fact..but for some reason when it come to scientific theories that may cause ripples in their rigid belief system this high regard for theory seems to diminish

What's funny is that you believe that there is a question about whether evolution occurs or is a valid scientific paradigm. It does occur, and is a valid scientific paradigm. The only people who question it don't understand it or are afraid of what it implies. That is the simple truth of the matter; whether or not you believe it is is irrelevant.

 

[Hollie]

While much is being said about Creationism Vs Evolution, and the debate goes on concerning who is right and what should be taught in our schools, a quiet revolution has been taking place in an area of science that is seldom discussed in public. Yet the theories being advanced from leading scientists about this subject suggest that many of the "miracles" and supernatural events of the Bible may actually be scientifically acceptable at some point in the future. The field of science I'm talking about is Quantum Physics and specifically String Theory.

Does String Theory Confirm the Bible? | Creation, Evolution, and Genesis

The "quiet revolution" you claim is taking place is quiet for a very good reason: your conspiracy theories regarding aliens breeding with humans and living among us has never left obscure blogs of wacky conspiracy theorists.

 

[Hollie]

Science v's God : Its The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it - YouTube

Conspiracy theorists are always ripe for the picking with youtube videos. The producers of these silly videos (often fundamentalist creation ministries), can take "quotes", images, collections of 1950's vintage newsreels and snippets of out of context comments and combine it all into a five minute info-mercial to get the message "the gawds did it".

 

[orogenicman]

While much is being said about Creationism Vs Evolution, and the debate goes on concerning who is right and what should be taught in our schools, a quiet revolution has been taking place in an area of science that is seldom discussed in public. Yet the theories being advanced from leading scientists about this subject suggest that many of the "miracles" and supernatural events of the Bible may actually be scientifically acceptable at some point in the future. The field of science I'm talking about is Quantum Physics and specifically String Theory.

Does String Theory Confirm the Bible? | Creation, Evolution, and Genesis

The "quiet revolution" you claim is taking place is quiet for a very good reason: your conspiracy theories regarding aliens breeding with humans and living among us has never left obscure blogs of wacky conspiracy theorists.

One would have to be a few cards shy of a full deck to believe that kind of idiotic nonsense, don't you think?.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes. First of all, I don't have to look at the sun to know that entropy in the universe is increasing. That is a product of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But the 2nd law only applies to closed systems. Trees don't live in a closed system. They can just as easily become LESS complex. Evolution does not have an arrow of complexity.

I didn't say you had to look at the sun to know the entropy of the universe is increasing.
I didn't say trees lived in a closed system. I didn't say trees couldn't evolve into a less complex tree, I said a growing tree is growing more complex.
I know that evolution does not have an arrow of complexity.

So help me out, what was the conflict?

To say that a growing tree is growing more complex, is a broad statement that doesn't apply to every tree, in fact, it probably doesn't apply to any tree. Saplings have exactly the same number of genes that a full grown tree has, and its cells function in exactly the same way that adult tree cells do. So how is it getting more complex? Larger, yes? But more complex? Doubtful. If there is any difference in complexity between a sapling and an adult tree it is in the adult tree's ability to reproduce. But that is simply a matter of genetic programming - genes that turn on or off when a tree reaches a certain age, genes it already possesses.

So how is it getting more complex?

A tree is more complex than an acorn.
An adult human is more complex than a fertilized human egg.

 

[daws101]

I didn't say you had to look at the sun to know the entropy of the universe is increasing.
I didn't say trees lived in a closed system. I didn't say trees couldn't evolve into a less complex tree, I said a growing tree is growing more complex.
I know that evolution does not have an arrow of complexity.

So help me out, what was the conflict?

To say that a growing tree is growing more complex, is a broad statement that doesn't apply to every tree, in fact, it probably doesn't apply to any tree. Saplings have exactly the same number of genes that a full grown tree has, and its cells function in exactly the same way that adult tree cells do. So how is it getting more complex? Larger, yes? But more complex? Doubtful. If there is any difference in complexity between a sapling and an adult tree it is in the adult tree's ability to reproduce. But that is simply a matter of genetic programming - genes that turn on or off when a tree reaches a certain age, genes it already possesses.

So how is it getting more complex?

A tree is more complex than an acorn.
An adult human is more complex than a fertilized human egg.

I think you folks differ on the definition of complex..

 

[orogenicman]

I didn't say you had to look at the sun to know the entropy of the universe is increasing.
I didn't say trees lived in a closed system. I didn't say trees couldn't evolve into a less complex tree, I said a growing tree is growing more complex.
I know that evolution does not have an arrow of complexity.

So help me out, what was the conflict?

To say that a growing tree is growing more complex, is a broad statement that doesn't apply to every tree, in fact, it probably doesn't apply to any tree. Saplings have exactly the same number of genes that a full grown tree has, and its cells function in exactly the same way that adult tree cells do. So how is it getting more complex? Larger, yes? But more complex? Doubtful. If there is any difference in complexity between a sapling and an adult tree it is in the adult tree's ability to reproduce. But that is simply a matter of genetic programming - genes that turn on or off when a tree reaches a certain age, genes it already possesses.

So how is it getting more complex?

A tree is more complex than an acorn.
An adult human is more complex than a fertilized human egg.

Try performing a heart transplant on a fertilized human egg. Good luck with that.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I didn't say you had to look at the sun to know the entropy of the universe is increasing.
I didn't say trees lived in a closed system. I didn't say trees couldn't evolve into a less complex tree, I said a growing tree is growing more complex.
I know that evolution does not have an arrow of complexity.

So help me out, what was the conflict?

I don't know but I think you guys are wasting your time. Going from an amoeba to a microbiologist, I would say according to your theory you do have an arrow pointing towards complexity.

How can an organism get less complex and survive it's environment ?

You need to quit using a cycle of an organism as your argument ,that is a bad analogy.

Texas Blind Salamander (Eurycea rathbuni)

Your point ?