Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Derideo_Te]

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

The fallacy lies in the name of that video. "Science v's God"? What utter nonsense. The first minute or so is clips from 1950's newsreels about the TofR. Granted no one in the video said anything about God but the believers are taking the statement "Its The Collapse Of Physics As We Know it" as if this is somehow "proof" of the existence of their deity.

The indisputable facts are that there is an issue with the mathematical reconciliation between Einstein's TofR and Quantum mathematics. This does NOT equate to a "Science v's God" showdown at all. It is just an acknowledgement that we still need to figure out what is happening inside a singularity. 500 years ago the believers persecuted those who said that the earth was not the center of the universe. 25 years ago we had no evidence that there were planets around other stars. Given time this problem will be solved without the need for any "supernatural entity".

In summary the limitations of our knowledge do NOT equate to proof that there is a God. That superstition was the foundation of religion. Religion is never going to provide the answer to this problem. Hard working scientists will eventually do so given enough time.

 

[orogenicman]

you really are a zealot and a conspiracy theorist aren't your interesting how much like you this editorial blog uses nothing but empty ad hominem attacks and strawmen as your main argument without actually addressing directly any of his views...

I can see you're infuriated that anyone would challenge your posted youtube video.

Screeching about a zealot and a conspiracy theorist is really pointless and only serves to define your having no argument to present.

I find it equally interesting how you and your blogger both like to characterize anyone challenging your theories as being "angry" when in fact ..it is your blogger spewing out the name calling and obvious anger and David Berlinski who engages in a calm reasoned debate...you like to call others conspiracy theorist but almost every rebuttal of yours suggest some conspiratorial motives for all that question your theory..its intresting to see how seems to mirror the behavior of christian fudamantalist

A challenge to any scientific theory ALWAYS includes an argument for why an alternative theory better explains the evidence, and then presents that theory in detail with supporting, falsifiable, repeatable evidence. Simply declaring one's opposition to the theory with the rant na nana na na doesn't do it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

This guy Nails it...

David Berlinski?Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions - YouTube

I have to agree if by "nails it" you mean that he panders shamelessly to the "anti-elitists" who consider advanced education to be a "sign of the devil"?

 

[HUGGY]

This guy Nails it...

David Berlinski?Atheism and its Scientific Pretensions - YouTube

I have to agree if by "nails it" you mean that he panders shamelessly to the "anti-elitists" who consider advanced education to be a "sign of the devil"?

The theist will cling tooth and nail to thier belief including the last resort position nulear option of "the devil" as the reason for any logical argument against god.

An intelligent human being not suffering from mental ilness has as much chance of presenting a lack of evidence of a diety to these people as one does entering the day room of a mental hospital and finding reason.

I joke about the religeous being crazy but the joke is not far from the truth. They can make up as many "devils" as it takes to thwart the wall of scientific knowledge closing in around them.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

I have, your theory violates the 2nd law I never said my theory violates the 2nd law. Over time that the universe existed the entropy level would have increased to a point complexity and order could have never arose.

What happens to earth when the universe reaches equilibrium ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

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?

That would be devolution not evolution. You still can't prove the organism was the product of devolution nor whether it was always like that.

You're are basing an argument conjecture which is what the theory of evolution is in a nut shell.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

Ok just because you disagree you are gonna take your cards and go home.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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?

That would be devolution not evolution. You still can't prove the organism was the product of devolution nor whether it was always like that.

You're are basing an argument conjecture which is what the theory of evolution is in a nut shell.

YWC just proved that he doesn't even know what the term "devolution" means let alone understand the concepts of evolution. But to give YWC his due credit he is doing a magnificent job at destroying his own credibility thus saving us all the time and trouble.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

We both corrected your bad analogy.

LOL!

Tell me again how the 2nd Law disproves evolution.

I have, your theory violates the 2nd law I never said my theory violates the 2nd law. Over time that the universe existed the entropy level would have increased to a point complexity and order could have never arose.

What happens to earth when the universe reaches equilibrium ?

Over time that the universe existed the entropy level would have increased to a point complexity and order could have never arose.

You have a problem with the fact that while entropy is increasing, across the universe, order can increase locally. It makes you look silly.

 

[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.

And yet the differences amounts to a mere 4% of their respective genomes. And that means that we share 96% of our genome with chimpanzees, more than with any other species.

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.

You probably should ask for a refund from your teachers, because, damn.

It's more like 5% for now because remember junk Dna is no longer junk Dna according to the Genome project. But taking a 5% difference creates a lot of difference in the Genome.

Why because I can argue from both sides and dismantle your arguments ? I once was on your side as well and than I woke up. I am very happy with my education from the University of Arizona.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

That would be devolution not evolution. You still can't prove the organism was the product of devolution nor whether it was always like that.

You're are basing an argument conjecture which is what the theory of evolution is in a nut shell.

That would be devolution not evolution.

Scientifically, explain the difference.

You still can't prove the organism was the product of devolution nor whether it was always like that.

Find some examples living outside of caves and your silly point might have some merit.

You're are basing an argument conjecture which is what the theory of evolution is in a nut shell

Can you try that again, in English?

 

[Youwerecreated]

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

No not science,only some theories.

If you truly believe that, then you don't understand scientific theories.

B.S. tactic to avoid a response.the theory of evolution and naturalism require huge amounts of faith, some are just not honest enough to admit it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

There are two forms of evolution: Microevolution and macroevolution.

The following article gives a succinct description of both.

CB902: Microevolution vs. Macroevolution

Oh no I was wondering how long it would take you to quote something from talk origins. Look the science community extrapolates from micro-adaptations as evidence for macro- evolution. They extrapolate from natural cycles and processes for naturalism not having a clue how either could have arose unguided.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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 ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism

Darwinism originally included the broad concepts of transmutation of species or of evolution which gained general scientific acceptance when Charles Darwin published On the Origin of Species, including concepts which predated Darwin's theories, but subsequently referred to specific concepts of natural selection, the Weismann barrier or in genetics the central dogma of molecular biology.[1] Though it usually refers strictly to biological evolution, the term has been misused by creationists to refer to the origin of life and has even been applied to concepts of cosmic evolution which have no connection to Darwin's work. It is therefore considered the belief and acceptance of Darwin's, and his predecessors, work in place of other theories including divine design and extraterrestrial origins.[2][3]

The meaning of "Darwinism" has changed over time, and varies depending on its context.[4] In the United States, the term "Darwinism" is often used by creationists as a pejorative term in reference to beliefs such as atheistic naturalism, but in the United Kingdom the term has no negative connotations, being freely used as a shorthand for the body of theory dealing with evolution, and in particular, evolution by natural selection.[5]

The term was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in April 1860,[6] and was used to describe evolutionary concepts in general, including earlier concepts such as Spencerism. Many of the proponents of Darwinism at that time, including Huxley, had reservations about the significance of natural selection, and Darwin himself gave credence to what was later called Lamarckism. The strict neo-Darwinism of August Weismann gained few supporters in the late 19th century. During this period, which has been called "the eclipse of Darwinism", scientists proposed various alternative evolutionary mechanisms which eventually proved untenable. The development of the modern evolutionary synthesis from the 1930s to the 1950s, incorporating natural selection with population genetics and Mendelian genetics, revived Darwinism in an updated form.[7]

While the term has remained in use amongst scientific authors when referring to modern evolutionary theory, it has increasingly been argued that it is an inappropriate term for modern evolutionary theory.[5][8] For example, Darwin was unfamiliar with the work of Gregor Mendel,[9] and as a result had only a vague and inaccurate understanding of heredity. He naturally had no inkling of yet more recent developments and, like Mendel himself, knew nothing of genetic drift for example.[10]

Do you understand neo darwinism ? this is the current most accepted theory of evolution.

 

[Youwerecreated]

An organism that evolved into a sightless organism.

Is that more complex than its ancestor which could see?

That would be devolution not evolution. You still can't prove the organism was the product of devolution nor whether it was always like that.

You're are basing an argument conjecture which is what the theory of evolution is in a nut shell.

YWC just proved that he doesn't even know what the term "devolution" means let alone understand the concepts of evolution. But to give YWC his due credit he is doing a magnificent job at destroying his own credibility thus saving us all the time and trouble.

You really are so biased it clouds your thinking. look up devolution and follow the conversation nitwit.

 

[Youwerecreated]

LOL!

Tell me again how the 2nd Law disproves evolution.

I have, your theory violates the 2nd law I never said my theory violates the 2nd law. Over time that the universe existed the entropy level would have increased to a point complexity and order could have never arose.

What happens to earth when the universe reaches equilibrium ?

Over time that the universe existed the entropy level would have increased to a point complexity and order could have never arose.

You have a problem with the fact that while entropy is increasing, across the universe, order can increase locally. It makes you look silly.

It's possible BUT does not confirm it actually happened on this planet the way you claim.

 

[Youwerecreated]

An organism that evolved into a sightless organism.

Is that more complex than its ancestor which could see?

That would be devolution not evolution. You still can't prove the organism was the product of devolution nor whether it was always like that.

You're are basing an argument conjecture which is what the theory of evolution is in a nut shell.

That would be devolution not evolution.

Scientifically, explain the difference.

You still can't prove the organism was the product of devolution nor whether it was always like that.

Find some examples living outside of caves and your silly point might have some merit.

You're are basing an argument conjecture which is what the theory of evolution is in a nut shell

Can you try that again, in English?

They may be the result bad genetics.

They may be in their environment because they are blind. They are having a hard time surviving that is why they are endangered.

You're making your point off conjecture by not knowing if they have always been that way or a product of devolution.

Do you know they have very little data on this species ,and you are trying to make an argument solely on this species being blind ?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I have, your theory violates the 2nd law I never said my theory violates the 2nd law. Over time that the universe existed the entropy level would have increased to a point complexity and order could have never arose.

What happens to earth when the universe reaches equilibrium ?

Over time that the universe existed the entropy level would have increased to a point complexity and order could have never arose.

You have a problem with the fact that while entropy is increasing, across the universe, order can increase locally. It makes you look silly.

It's possible BUT does not confirm it actually happened on this planet the way you claim.

It's possible

Increased local order is possible? Thanks for finally admitting your error.
I mean, claiming the 2nd Law makes evolution impossible has to be the dumbest argument I've ever heard.

BUT does not confirm it actually happened on this planet the way you claim.

You haven't seen increased local order? Are you a blind cave salamander?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That would be devolution not evolution. You still can't prove the organism was the product of devolution nor whether it was always like that.

You're are basing an argument conjecture which is what the theory of evolution is in a nut shell.

That would be devolution not evolution.

Scientifically, explain the difference.

You still can't prove the organism was the product of devolution nor whether it was always like that.

Find some examples living outside of caves and your silly point might have some merit.

You're are basing an argument conjecture which is what the theory of evolution is in a nut shell

Can you try that again, in English?

They may be the result bad genetics.

They may be in their environment because they are blind. They are having a hard time surviving that is why they are endangered.

You're making your point off conjecture by not knowing if they have always been that way or a product of devolution.

Do you know they have very little data on this species ,and you are trying to make an argument solely on this species being blind ?

They may be in their environment because they are blind.

Right. The blind salamanders just happened to find their way to a cave.
Did they use little canes? Seeing eye dogs?

I think you should just sit there, you're being stupid again.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That would be devolution not evolution. You still can't prove the organism was the product of devolution nor whether it was always like that.

You're are basing an argument conjecture which is what the theory of evolution is in a nut shell.

That would be devolution not evolution.

Scientifically, explain the difference.

You still can't prove the organism was the product of devolution nor whether it was always like that.

Find some examples living outside of caves and your silly point might have some merit.

You're are basing an argument conjecture which is what the theory of evolution is in a nut shell

Can you try that again, in English?

They may be the result bad genetics.

They may be in their environment because they are blind. They are having a hard time surviving that is why they are endangered.

You're making your point off conjecture by not knowing if they have always been that way or a product of devolution.

Do you know they have very little data on this species ,and you are trying to make an argument solely on this species being blind ?

You're making your point off conjecture by not knowing if they have always been that way or a product of devolution.

You never explained the difference between evolution and devolution.
If you don't mention the 2nd Law, there is a slight chance you won't look like an idiot.