Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Hollie]

He created plants for food I doubt it. Some people take the term soul and apply the wrong definition to the term.

I personally believe a soul is any living organism.

So, algae has a "soul".

No and that is not what the scriptures teach.

Gen 2:7 And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Gen 1:21 And God created great sea-animals, and every living soul that creeps with which the waters swarmed after their kind; and every winged fowl after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Every living organism over all is a soul.

So, shellfish have "souls"?

 

[Youwerecreated]

So, algae has a "soul".

No and that is not what the scriptures teach.

Gen 2:7 And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Gen 1:21 And God created great sea-animals, and every living soul that creeps with which the waters swarmed after their kind; and every winged fowl after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Every living organism over all is a soul.

I hate to break it to you, but the Bible is not a science book. You didn't know this? Huh.

You don't have to break anything to me. A Question concerning a soul was raised how would or should I respond to that question ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

But the more important question is: Does a living plant have a soul created by god?

He created plants for food I...

Really? I challenge you to eat some Jimson weed seeds. Let me know when you do so I can call in the guys with white coats.

By the way, almost nothing we eat today occurs in the wild. We have created our own food through thousands of years of artificial selection.

Are you saying nomadic humans did not eat plants in the wild ? and I never said all plants should be consumed for food ,hell some of these plants provide medicine.

 

[orogenicman]

That is not what I am saying.

That is exactly what you were saying. Don't you even read your posts?



Not true at all. Many "new traits" simply come from already existing genes that are turned off or turned on, depending on the trait. For instance, if you want humans with tails, simply turn on the genes that already exists in our genome for tails.



Wrong. See above.

Humans walk differently,have morals,more intelligent, that is just a few of the traits that makes a human more complex than other primates.

I don't know about that. You don't see chimpanzees destroying the planet, do you?

You underestimate the complexity of other primates, both anatomically, and socially/intellectually.

And yet, we share many traits with our other primate cousins. For instance, traits we share with all other primates:

1) Forward-facing eyes for binocular vision (allowing depth perception)

2) Increased reliance on vision: reduced noses, snouts (smaller, flattened), loss of vibrissae (whiskers), and relatively small, hairless ears

3) Color vision

4) Opposable thumbs for power grip (holding on) and precision grip (picking up small objects)

5) Grasping fingers aid in power grip

6) Flattened nails for fingertip protection, development of very sensitive tactile pads on digits

7) Primitive limb structure, one upper limb bone, two lower limb bones, many mammalian orders have lost various bones, especially fusing of the two lower limb bones

8) Generalist teeth for an opportunistic, omnivorous diet; loss of some primitive mammalian dentition, humans have lost two premolars

9) Progressive expansion and elaboration of the brain, especially of the cerebral cortex

10) Greater facial mobility and vocal repertoire

11) Progressive and increasingly efficient development of gestational processes

12) Prolongation of postnatal life periods

13) Reduced litter size—usually just one (allowing mobility with clinging young and more individual attention to young)

14) Most primates have one pair of mammae in the chest

15) Complicated social organization

Just 4% of our genome separate us from Bonobos.

That is not what I said don't put words in my mouth.

I quoted what you said. Anyone can see it. Apparently you are in denial.

We can agree that new traits or functions come from already existing genetic information. But your side is claiming that these changes come from mutations.

Many do. Your point?

Humans do commit crimes but that is a choice would you rather have a world designed and ran by chimps ?

I prefer the Bonobo way - they solve all their conflicts with sex. Works for me.

Similarity does not prove evolution that is merely circular reasoning and it's not science.

Erm, what? If we share 96% of our genetic make up with Bonobos (making them our closest animal relative), that certainly DOES prove evolution has occurred. Are you suggesting that we are not apes? Because if you are, then you really haven't learned much of anything about biology.

 

[Hollie]

No and that is not what the scriptures teach.

Gen 2:7 And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Gen 1:21 And God created great sea-animals, and every living soul that creeps with which the waters swarmed after their kind; and every winged fowl after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Every living organism over all is a soul.

I hate to break it to you, but the Bible is not a science book. You didn't know this? Huh.

You don't have to break anything to me. A Question concerning a soul was raised how would or should I respond to that question ?

The obvious answer is that you should have referenced the Greek goddess of the soul, Psykhe (Psyche).

 

[orogenicman]

No and that is not what the scriptures teach.

Gen 2:7 And Jehovah God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

Gen 1:21 And God created great sea-animals, and every living soul that creeps with which the waters swarmed after their kind; and every winged fowl after its kind. And God saw that it was good.

Every living organism over all is a soul.

I hate to break it to you, but the Bible is not a science book. You didn't know this? Huh.

You don't have to break anything to me. A Question concerning a soul was raised how would or should I respond to that question ?

You could simply agree that the concept of the soul is not scientifically workable, and that the idea is simply a mythological delusion.

 

[orogenicman]

He created plants for food I...

Really? I challenge you to eat some Jimson weed seeds. Let me know when you do so I can call in the guys with white coats.

By the way, almost nothing we eat today occurs in the wild. We have created our own food through thousands of years of artificial selection.

Are you saying nomadic humans did not eat plants in the wild ? and I never said all plants should be consumed for food ,hell some of these plants provide medicine.

Then perhaps you should rephrase your statement.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That is exactly what you were saying. Don't you even read your posts?



Not true at all. Many "new traits" simply come from already existing genes that are turned off or turned on, depending on the trait. For instance, if you want humans with tails, simply turn on the genes that already exists in our genome for tails.



Wrong. See above.



I don't know about that. You don't see chimpanzees destroying the planet, do you?

You underestimate the complexity of other primates, both anatomically, and socially/intellectually.

And yet, we share many traits with our other primate cousins. For instance, traits we share with all other primates:

1) Forward-facing eyes for binocular vision (allowing depth perception)

2) Increased reliance on vision: reduced noses, snouts (smaller, flattened), loss of vibrissae (whiskers), and relatively small, hairless ears

3) Color vision

4) Opposable thumbs for power grip (holding on) and precision grip (picking up small objects)

5) Grasping fingers aid in power grip

6) Flattened nails for fingertip protection, development of very sensitive tactile pads on digits

7) Primitive limb structure, one upper limb bone, two lower limb bones, many mammalian orders have lost various bones, especially fusing of the two lower limb bones

8) Generalist teeth for an opportunistic, omnivorous diet; loss of some primitive mammalian dentition, humans have lost two premolars

9) Progressive expansion and elaboration of the brain, especially of the cerebral cortex

10) Greater facial mobility and vocal repertoire

11) Progressive and increasingly efficient development of gestational processes

12) Prolongation of postnatal life periods

13) Reduced litter size—usually just one (allowing mobility with clinging young and more individual attention to young)

14) Most primates have one pair of mammae in the chest

15) Complicated social organization

Just 4% of our genome separate us from Bonobos.

That is not what I said don't put words in my mouth.

I quoted what you said. Anyone can see it. Apparently you are in denial.



Many do. Your point?

Humans do commit crimes but that is a choice would you rather have a world designed and ran by chimps ?

I prefer the Bonobo way - they solve all their conflicts with sex. Works for me.

Similarity does not prove evolution that is merely circular reasoning and it's not science.

Erm, what? If we share 96% of our genetic make up with Bonobos (making them our closest animal relative), that certainly DOES prove evolution has occurred. Are you suggesting that we are not apes? Because if you are, then you really haven't learned much of anything about biology.

My point is mutations along with natural selection are the mechanisms for evolution according to your theory. Not already stored genetic information.

We do not share our Dna with other primates,Dna similarity does not prove this to be accurate.

All it shows is we were produced by many of the same ingredients. What your side say's is misleading because when you get down to biological measurements we are not even close to being related.

If you keep repeating the same nonsense do you believe you're scoring points ? if you can't observe the obvious differences between groups of organisms that are produced with the same ingredients what doe that say for your logic?

 

[Youwerecreated]

I hate to break it to you, but the Bible is not a science book. You didn't know this? Huh.

You don't have to break anything to me. A Question concerning a soul was raised how would or should I respond to that question ?

The obvious answer is that you should have referenced the Greek goddess of the soul, Psykhe (Psyche).

Now you know why you're ignored most of the time.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I hate to break it to you, but the Bible is not a science book. You didn't know this? Huh.

You don't have to break anything to me. A Question concerning a soul was raised how would or should I respond to that question ?

You could simply agree that the concept of the soul is not scientifically workable, and that the idea is simply a mythological delusion.

Why would I do that it was just a term used by our ancestors.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Really? I challenge you to eat some Jimson weed seeds. Let me know when you do so I can call in the guys with white coats.

By the way, almost nothing we eat today occurs in the wild. We have created our own food through thousands of years of artificial selection.

Are you saying nomadic humans did not eat plants in the wild ? and I never said all plants should be consumed for food ,hell some of these plants provide medicine.

Then perhaps you should rephrase your statement.

Maybe you should quit looking for something to jump on and simply discuss the issues.

 

[Hollie]

You don't have to break anything to me. A Question concerning a soul was raised how would or should I respond to that question ?

The obvious answer is that you should have referenced the Greek goddess of the soul, Psykhe (Psyche).

Now you know why you're ignored most of the time.

Now you know why your specious claims are met with challenges you cannot address.

Identify for us why your gawds are true and Psykhe is not.

 

[orogenicman]

That is not what I said don't put words in my mouth.

I quoted what you said. Anyone can see it. Apparently you are in denial.



Many do. Your point?



I prefer the Bonobo way - they solve all their conflicts with sex. Works for me.

Similarity does not prove evolution that is merely circular reasoning and it's not science.

Erm, what? If we share 96% of our genetic make up with Bonobos (making them our closest animal relative), that certainly DOES prove evolution has occurred. Are you suggesting that we are not apes? Because if you are, then you really haven't learned much of anything about biology.

My point is mutations along with natural selection are the mechanisms for evolution according to your theory. Not already stored genetic information.

And you'd be wrong. A gene that is turned off, and then, through environmental changes, is turned on, is also a mutation.

We do not share our Dna with other primates,Dna similarity does not prove this to be accurate.

We share genetic information with nearly every life form on the planet. In fact, much of our own DNA is not our own. I give you endogenous retroviruses:

Demystified . . . Human endogenous retroviruses

<snipped the remaining drivel>

 

[orogenicman]

You don't have to break anything to me. A Question concerning a soul was raised how would or should I respond to that question ?

You could simply agree that the concept of the soul is not scientifically workable, and that the idea is simply a mythological delusion.

Why would I do...?

Because it is true?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It was noted in Chapter 7 that because macromolecule formation (such as amino acids polymerizing to form protein) goes uphill energetically, work must be done on the system via energy flow through the system. We can readily see the difficulty in getting polymerization reactions to occur under equilibrium conditions, i.e., in the absence of such an energy flow.

It's a good thing that living creatures have an energy flow, to do the needed work.

Do you really understand evolution ?

more complex organisms requires more information for its description. the evolution of increased complexity certainly violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Since a more complex plant or animal requires more information for its description, it would carry more genetic information in its genes. Evolution would have to produce this stored genetic information. natural selection is supposed to accomplish this because the living organism will use free energy from its environment to pay for the production of this new genetic information, it has to do it without violating the second law. This proposition has never been proved experimentally, so the production of greater biological complexity through the natural process of evolution would certainly violate the law of degeneration.

more complex organisms requires more information for its description. the evolution of increased complexity certainly violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Why?

the production of greater biological complexity through the natural process of evolution would certainly violate the law of degeneration.

The law of degeneration? Now you're just making shit up.

I mean more than before. LOL!

 

[orogenicman]

Are you saying nomadic humans did not eat plants in the wild ? and I never said all plants should be consumed for food ,hell some of these plants provide medicine.

Then perhaps you should rephrase your statement.

Maybe you should quit looking for something to jump on and simply discuss the issues.

If you want to have a discussion, accuracy is important. It is not accurate to say that plants were created for us to eat, because most plants are not edible, and most of the plants we eat, we created.

 

[eots]

Then perhaps you should rephrase your statement.

Maybe you should quit looking for something to jump on and simply discuss the issues.

If you want to have a discussion, accuracy is important. It is not accurate to say that plants were created for us to eat, because most plants are not edible, and most of the plants we eat, we created.

most plants are not edible ?? most edible plants we created ??...link ?

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Those of you who believe in evolution answer this. If you can.

Why male and female?

Still no answer huh?

Oh and a Wikipedia link isn't an answer.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Those of you who believe in evolution answer this. If you can.

Why male and female?

you want a really puzzler why asexual reproduction?

Can't answer it either huh? It figures.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It was noted in Chapter 7 that because macromolecule formation (such as amino acids polymerizing to form protein) goes uphill energetically, work must be done on the system via energy flow through the system. We can readily see the difficulty in getting polymerization reactions to occur under equilibrium conditions, i.e., in the absence of such an energy flow.

It's a good thing that living creatures have an energy flow, to do the needed work.

Do you really understand evolution ?

more complex organisms requires more information for its description. the evolution of increased complexity certainly violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Since a more complex plant or animal requires more information for its description, it would carry more genetic information in its genes. Evolution would have to produce this stored genetic information. natural selection is supposed to accomplish this because the living organism will use free energy from its environment to pay for the production of this new genetic information, it has to do it without violating the second law. This proposition has never been proved experimentally, so the production of greater biological complexity through the natural process of evolution would certainly violate the law of degeneration.

more complex organisms requires more information for its description. the evolution of increased complexity certainly violate the second law of thermodynamics.

Why?

the production of greater biological complexity through the natural process of evolution would certainly violate the law of degeneration.

The law of degeneration? Now you're just making shit up.

I mean more than before. LOL!

No it is an observed fact I am not making it up. Here I will give you an example and quote a source further explaining it.

Purebred animals over time suffer from Genetic degeneration because they are from a much smaller gene pool. The mut is from a much larger gene pool that is why they are healthier than purebreeds. More mutations remain in a smaller gene pool than in a much larger gene pool. Being from a much larger gene pool slows genetic degeneration. Your side does not want to admit to this observed fact because it presents problems for their theory.

11.3 The degeneration law
The examples named above, especially the blind water scorpion, the flightless cormorant, and the day-fly, show a simple and logical, but as far as I know not yet formulated, biological law. It goes as follows:

A species or population has a tendency in the long run to lose those characteristics that it does not absolutely need to survive.

For clarification: that is ‘tendency’ and ‘in the long run’. That means in practice, in terms of a human life span, that it can take a very long time before it is done. Furthermore: the time it takes, depends on the largeness of the population. The larger a population, the slower degeneration occurs. The smaller a population, the quicker it will impoverish and degenerate over time.
The reason for this ‘law’ is mutation and that is called genetic drift. If a certain characteristic (flight, sight, or whatever) is no longer a determining factor for the survival of the species, a mutation which damages that characteristic will not be selected out. The carrier of this mutant characteristic can therefore reproduce in peace and by sheer coincidence; the lost characteristic can spread throughout the entire population. This coincidental spreading of genes, which does not particularly take place due to selection, is a familiar concept, called genetic drift. Genetic drift is sheer coincidence: who mates with who and how many offspring do they have, which can reproduce again, etc. But other factors such as this also play a part: can a mutant gene ‘hitch a ride’ with a very beneficial gene, because it is very close to this beneficial gene on the chromosome?. This makes the chance that the two become separated by recombination very small. Because the beneficial gene is selected for, the mutant ‘hitches a ride’ and also spreads itself throughout the population. This arbitrary aspect of genetic drift can just as easily mean that a mutant characteristic disappears again by pure coincidence! But in the long run, a mutation will damage that characteristic again, so that it can once more spread itself by genetic drift. However, if at a certain point in time every individual of the population has become homozygous for that damaged characteristic, there is no way back, because the original undamaged gene has been lost. And that means that a population in the end has a tendency to lose that characteristic.It can be clear that the degeneration law is an appropriate name for this law.[5]

Evolution is in fact Degeneration: 11. Degeneration Exists

This is a good read on the reality of degeneration.