Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Not true,humans have more complex traits. I can list the differences if you like. All life possesses complexity,but humans possess the most complexity.

 

[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.

Not true,humans have more complex traits. I can list the differences if you like. All life possesses complexity,but humans possess the most complexity.

Genetically, humans are less complex than many other life forms. I'm afraid this is a fact that you are not going to be able to ignore. The evidence is undeniable. The fact that humans are physiologically and anatomically so similar to other mammals is readily demonstrated by the fact that were it not so, we would never have seen all the advances in medicine that we've seen in the past 100 years. As a species, we are not as unique as you've been led to believe.

 

[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

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?.

Well if that is the case we have ministers of defense from Britain and Canada..several of the men who walked on the moon and generals in charge of nuclear facilities all a few cards short of a full deck...all having the same shared delusion at the same time...I have a hard time accepting that is the case

 

[eots]

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".

I posted the sworn statements from 4 hrs of testimony from the disclosure project which included Apollo astronauts ,defense minister and top ranking military and high level NASA employees who have petitioned congress and have stated their willingness to testify before congress under oath ..there was nothing from the 1950s newsreels..nothing was out of context and not one of these people said the gawds did it...this nonsense you spew is only you cognitive dissonance because this information challenges your belief system

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

What does that have to do with YWC's misunderstanding of the 2nd Law or anything I've said on this thread?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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 ?

You asked,
How can an organism get less complex and survive it's environment ?
Do you have head trauma?

 

[Youwerecreated]

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?

I am a believer that genetic programming is the result of a intelligent programmer. The design of all things both inanimate and animate is evidence of a designer. Natural processes arising would not be natural but supernaturalism.

Who or what could we infer is the cause of the processes by observing natural processes at work.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Does a closed system ,the universe. Have an effect on an open system such as the earth ?

I always get a chuckle when Evolutionlists try to make the argument of similarity between the chimp and human and I quickly point out the differences. I would have earlier but did not have my pc. I was on my phone. While 18 pairs of chromosomes are very similar, chromosomes 4, 9 and 12 show differences. Genes and markers are not in the same order. Y chromosome are different sizes and many of the markers do not line up.
Scientists have also found non random regions that correspond with insertions in the human line.
Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes chimps have 24. I am well aware of the explanation of two small chromosomes fusing in the chimp. Chimps have around 23 kilobases same as other apes. That is 1,000 dna base pairs. Humans are very different having much shorter telomeres 10 kilobases long.

I have taken many classes in science, not just biology.

 

[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.

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.

So how do you explain how we evolved from other organisms ? oh and thanks for refuting your own argument that humans and chimps are related through genetic similarity.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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?

I said in an earlier post that was a typo. I am still not convinced the earth is an open system but for the sake of argument, my question still stands.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

No not science,only some theories.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Of course it is, you just added supposed mechanisms. Have you heard of Neo Darwinism ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

The better term would be micro-adaptations not evolution.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

What does that have to do with YWC's misunderstanding of the 2nd Law or anything I've said on this thread?

We both corrected your bad analogy.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Texas Blind Salamander (Eurycea rathbuni)

Your point ?

You asked,
How can an organism get less complex and survive it's environment ?
Do you have head trauma?

It is a small endangered species .there are many ways to take this point on. I will simply ask you how do you know that this species is not just a victim of a bad trait passed on or it got less complex ?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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

What does that have to do with YWC's misunderstanding of the 2nd Law or anything I've said on this thread?

We both corrected your bad analogy.

LOL!

Tell me again how the 2nd Law disproves evolution.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your point ?

You asked,
How can an organism get less complex and survive it's environment ?
Do you have head trauma?

It is a small endangered species .there are many ways to take this point on. I will simply ask you how do you know that this species is not just a victim of a bad trait passed on or it got less complex ?

An organism that evolved into a sightless organism.

Is that more complex than its ancestor which could see?

 

[orogenicman]

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?.

Well if that is the case we have ministers of defense from Britain and Canada..several of the men who walked on the moon and generals in charge of nuclear facilities all a few cards short of a full deck...all having the same shared delusion at the same time...I have a hard time accepting that is the case

You won't find any disagreement with me on that account.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

What does that have to do with YWC's misunderstanding of the 2nd Law or anything I've said on this thread?

The origin of biological complexity is directly related to the origin of function through an underlying connection between the two phenomena. Thus the emergence of both function and complexity are found to be governed by the same single driving force, the drive toward greater dynamic kinetic stability. If performing a specific task requires a certain amount of complexity, the function evolves to a point of stability. It requires no more complexity than is required to perform the task. On the other hand, some species, acting through their own artificial 'self selection' can evolve in unique and sometimes bizarre ways to perform what is outwardly a simple task. Thus we have birds with brightly colored plumage that is used to attract mates and ward off rivals. In this case, it is the female that is driving the complexity through her biased selection of mates.

 

[orogenicman]

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?

I am a believer that genetic programming is the result of a intelligent programmer. The design of all things both inanimate and animate is evidence of a designer. Natural processes arising would not be natural but supernaturalism.

Who or what could we infer is the cause of the processes by observing natural processes at work.

I suspected that you would not answer my questions. If you aren't going to answer them, there is nothing more to say here.