Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Derideo_Te]

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.

given a few billion years maybe...

Oh ye of little faith!

 

[Derideo_Te]

Evolution

The gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form

Devolution

Descent or degeneration to a lower or worse state.

Yep they are the opposite. Is that not what Todd was inferring with his blind salamander species ?

Thank you for conceding your ignorance. Simply because a subspecies of salamander has EVOLVED by adapting to an environment where there is no light and therefore no need for eyes is NOT "devolution" or even "degeneration to a lower or worse state" for that matter. The physical toll of maintaining an expensive organ like the eyes when they provide no survival benefit in that environment is simply not worth it so these salamanders have EVOLVED to make better use of their bodies physical resources.

Before descending from the trees mankind had tails. We still have vestigal remnants of them. By ridding ourselves of our tails you would allege that we have "devolved" and "degenerated to a lower or worse state". Instead our bodies EVOLVED because we no longer needed our tails and those resources were better utilized elsewhere.

As usual you have no grasp of the subject matter that you claim to have "expert" knowledge about from your "education" at the University of Arizona.

Nice story..

Substantiated by the facts provided in this post by Oregenicman.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/300473-why-is-naturalism-considered-scientific-and-creationism-is-not-post7638337.html#poststop

 

[orogenicman]

Actually, no. Berlinski is just another cult member of the Disco’tute.



#24: David Berlinski

Encyclopedia of American Loons: Search results for Berlinski

Berlinski is one of the movers and shakers of the contemporary creationist movement, associated with the Discovery Institute and one of their most frequent and famous debaters. A delusional, pompous narcissist with an ego to fit a medieval pope. Also a name-dropper (most of his talks concern important people he has talked to). A comment on one of his lunatic self-aggrandizing rants can be found here: Disco. ?tute: Evolution is a ?terrifying cripple,? ?bang[ing] its crutches through…Hell? ? Thoughts from Kansas (sums up this guy pretty well):

He is apparently really angry at evolution (it is unclear why), and famous for his purely enumerative “cows cannot evolve into whales” argument.

Berlinski was once a moderately respected author of popular-science books on mathematics. He can still add numbers together, but has forgotten the GIGO rule (“garbage in, garbage out") of applied mathematics. Some of his rantings are discussed here.

Likes to play ‘the skeptic’ (which means denialism in this case, and that is not the same thing).

Diagnosis: Boneheaded, pompous and arrogant nitwit; has a lot of influence, and a frequent participator in debates, since apparently the Discovery Institute thinks that’s the way scientific disputes are settled (although he often takes a surprisingly moderate view in debates, leading some to suspect that he is really a cynical fraud rather than a loon).

Indeed. His arguments are about as insane as the looney stuff that Pat Robertson spews. He claims that evolution is not real because women don't have tails. He also has no known record of his own contribution to the development of mathematics or of any other science for that matter.

Nice use of the strawman again...lol

Posting what someone has said is not a strawman. Try again.

 

[eots]

Indeed. His arguments are about as insane as the looney stuff that Pat Robertson spews. He claims that evolution is not real because women don't have tails. He also has no known record of his own contribution to the development of mathematics or of any other science for that matter.

Nice use of the strawman again...lol

Posting what someone has said is not a strawman. Try again.

Trying to equate him to Pat Robertson is a classic example of a strawman and you lose all credibility when you do it..

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Aw you were corrected just not willing to admit it.

Why do you keep posting if that is the case ?

Show me.

For some reason, I think even the dumbest can learn.
You're beginning to change my mind.

The conversation has dried up unless you respond to the questions put to you.

You lied about correcting me, and I'm getting tired of mocking your idiocy, so you may be right.

 

[HUGGY]

It is a really simple argument the OP has presented.

Why shouldn't believing in myths and sky fairies not be just as plausable as not believing in myths and sky fairies.

Having the "right" to believe in made up nonsense including god does not gaurantee that the scientific community need to give your made up crap any validity.

"Faith" has zero worth as evidense. Multipy one mans faith by a billion(guesstimated number of christians) and you still have zero factual evidense that a god does or ever has existed.

Yes..it is possible and almost certain that a billion people can and are wrong. You have had over 3000 years including the Jews to make your case for a god. That is a lot of time. That is a lot of time wasted.

Archeology and what we like to call modern scientific method, free from the suffocating preasures, and yes the threatening of the very lives of those seeking true knowledge, free of the church, has only been around a tiny fraction of the time honest fact based knowledge and discovery have been applied to our earth's history. Many billions of scientific investigations have discovered many billions of answers and solved many billions of pieces of the puzzel.

Not being able to prove a few things 100%(yet) is not equal to not being able to prove anything 100%.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

The term evolution only adds confusion. The definition of evolution supports my claim for evolution having an arrow pointing towards complexity.

ev·o·lu·tion
/ˌevəˈlo͞oSHən/
Noun

The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the...
The gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form.

The difference between micro-adaptations which is what is observed is an aid to survival of ones environment.

dev·o·lu·tion
/ˌdevəˈlo͞oSHən/
Noun

The transfer or delegation of power to a lower level, esp. by central government to local or regional administration.
Descent or degeneration to a lower or worse state.

Synonyms
transfer - degeneration

Devolution is what is observed in the whole universe in agreement with the 2nd law.

How strange that ywc now claims to believe in evolution... now that it's convenient because his earlier denial as to the mechanism has been shot down in flames.

I have always claimed to believe in Micro-evolution, and the better term for it was micro-adaptations. Did you slip and hit your head ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Take your own advice and discover that you misused the term "devolution" because you erroneously assumed it to mean the opposite of evolution.

Evolution

The gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form

Devolution

Descent or degeneration to a lower or worse state.

Yep they are the opposite. Is that not what Todd was inferring with his blind salamander species ?

Thank you for conceding your ignorance. Simply because a subspecies of salamander has EVOLVED by adapting to an environment where there is no light and therefore no need for eyes is NOT "devolution" or even "degeneration to a lower or worse state" for that matter. The physical toll of maintaining an expensive organ like the eyes when they provide no survival benefit in that environment is simply not worth it so these salamanders have EVOLVED to make better use of their bodies physical resources.

Before descending from the trees mankind had tails. We still have vestigal remnants of them. By ridding ourselves of our tails you would allege that we have "devolved" and "degenerated to a lower or worse state". Instead our bodies EVOLVED because we no longer needed our tails and those resources were better utilized elsewhere.

As usual you have no grasp of the subject matter that you claim to have "expert" knowledge about from your "education" at the University of Arizona.

Run off child. quit trying to mask your ignorance.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

given a few billion years maybe...

Oh ye of little faith!

According to a few theories you only have 5 billion years left but I believe it's really much less than that.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Show me.

For some reason, I think even the dumbest can learn.
You're beginning to change my mind.

The conversation has dried up unless you respond to the questions put to you.

You lied about correcting me, and I'm getting tired of mocking your idiocy, so you may be right.

Both orogenicman and I corrected you on your poor analogy.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Show me.

For some reason, I think even the dumbest can learn.
You're beginning to change my mind.

The conversation has dried up unless you respond to the questions put to you.

You lied about correcting me, and I'm getting tired of mocking your idiocy, so you may be right.

You are embarrassed and have to react like hollie would,don't worry I am use to it. Now can you start responding to my questions.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The conversation has dried up unless you respond to the questions put to you.

You lied about correcting me, and I'm getting tired of mocking your idiocy, so you may be right.

Both orogenicman and I corrected you on your poor analogy.

Wrong on both counts.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The conversation has dried up unless you respond to the questions put to you.

You lied about correcting me, and I'm getting tired of mocking your idiocy, so you may be right.

You are embarrassed and have to react like hollie would,don't worry I am use to it. Now can you start responding to my questions.

Your idiocy does not embarass me.

 

[orogenicman]

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 ?

Complete and utter rubbish.

 

[orogenicman]

Nice use of the strawman again...lol

Posting what someone has said is not a strawman. Try again.

Trying to equate him to Pat Robertson is a classic example of a strawman and you lose all credibility when you do it..

Right, because that would be too demeaning to Pat Robertson.

 

[eots]

Posting what someone has said is not a strawman. Try again.

Trying to equate him to Pat Robertson is a classic example of a strawman and you lose all credibility when you do it..

Right, because that would be too demeaning to Pat Robertson.

So he counters that argument with the reverse strawman...lol

 

[Hollie]

The term evolution only adds confusion. The definition of evolution supports my claim for evolution having an arrow pointing towards complexity.

ev·o·lu·tion
/ˌevəˈlo͞oSHən/
Noun

The process by which different kinds of living organisms are thought to have developed and diversified from earlier forms during the...
The gradual development of something, esp. from a simple to a more complex form.

The difference between micro-adaptations which is what is observed is an aid to survival of ones environment.

dev·o·lu·tion
/ˌdevəˈlo͞oSHən/
Noun

The transfer or delegation of power to a lower level, esp. by central government to local or regional administration.
Descent or degeneration to a lower or worse state.

Synonyms
transfer - degeneration

Devolution is what is observed in the whole universe in agreement with the 2nd law.

How strange that ywc now claims to believe in evolution... now that it's convenient because his earlier denial as to the mechanism has been shot down in flames.

I have always claimed to believe in Micro-evolution, and the better term for it was micro-adaptations. Did you slip and hit your head ?

That's strange when you always claimed evolution was false. You're quite befuddled.

 

[Hollie]

The conversation has dried up unless you respond to the questions put to you.

You lied about correcting me, and I'm getting tired of mocking your idiocy, so you may be right.

You are embarrassed and have to react like hollie would,don't worry I am use to it. Now can you start responding to my questions.

I respond to your lies and falsehoods. I counter your falsehoods with facts. That is why you react with such pith and vinegar.

I've been a positive influence on you. I've noticed a marked reduction in your cutting and pasting of falsified "quotes". After you were repeatedly exposed as a fraud for your cut and pasted lies, you did learn that those lies were a simple matter to debunk.

 

[newpolitics]

THe OP is a strawman because naturalism is not considered "scientific." Science can only take place within a naturalistic framework, by definition, because the natural what is detectable, testable, and therefore able to be theorized . This is known as methodological naturalism, which doesn't make any claims about reality. The OP fails to make this distinction, and therefore is fueling a debate based on this ambiguity. It is arguing against metaphysical naturalism, which is a strawman, since science does not claim what metaphysical naturalism claims, which is that the natural universe is all that actually exists. Two totally different things. To reiterate, the OP attempts to pigeon hole all naturalism into "metaphysical naturalism" and call this scientific, when science makes no claims about the composition of reality, it merely tests what is available, which is the natural universe, and hence, necessarily abides by methodological naturalism, which doesn't claim that the natural universe is all that exists, but is bound to it for its methodology to work.

A little intellectual honesty would be nice from the creationists around here, please.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How strange that ywc now claims to believe in evolution... now that it's convenient because his earlier denial as to the mechanism has been shot down in flames.

I have always claimed to believe in Micro-evolution, and the better term for it was micro-adaptations. Did you slip and hit your head ?

That's strange when you always claimed evolution was false. You're quite befuddled.

Anyone can visit the creationist thread to show you're are mistaken or deliberately lying.