Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[eots]

Oh, you mean the sworn testimony of the Apollo Crew???

Now you are completely incoherent..what is it you are struggling to say ?

What is incoherent about " Oh, you mean the sworn testimony of the Apollo Crew???"

" Oh, you mean the sworn testimony of the Apollo Crew???"is an incomplete sentence

 

[eots]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS3vxtb_ZxI]Soup of Life - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Hollie]

Now you are completely incoherent..what is it you are struggling to say ?

What is incoherent about " Oh, you mean the sworn testimony of the Apollo Crew???"

" Oh, you mean the sworn testimony of the Apollo Crew???"is an incomplete sentence

That's a conspiracy.

 

[eots]

What is incoherent about " Oh, you mean the sworn testimony of the Apollo Crew???"

" Oh, you mean the sworn testimony of the Apollo Crew???"is an incomplete sentence

That's a conspiracy.

"That's a conspiracy." is also an incomplete sentence...I am becoming concerned about you, maybe you should just forget about the sworn testimony of the Apollo crew for awhile and come back to it when you are feeling better

 

[Hollie]

" Oh, you mean the sworn testimony of the Apollo Crew???"is an incomplete sentence

That's a conspiracy.

"That's a conspiracy." is also an incomplete sentence...I am becoming concerned about you, maybe you should just forget about the sworn testimony of the Apollo crew for awhile and come back to it when you are feeling better

The alleged sworn testimony was faked, just like the moon landing.

You need conspiracy theories with a greater entertainment quotient.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why was just this one planet in our solar system formed differently from the rest ?

Formed differently? The mechanism of formation was different how, exactly?

Why is this planet bursting with life and no other in the solar system ?

Liquid water, ozone layer, magnetic field.
And we have the 2nd Law on our side.

I remember once in an oceanography class, a person made the argument that conditions on Earth are perfect for life, therefore the Earth must have been created to to support life.

Of course I countered that life adapts. It isn't that Earth has perfect conditions, it is that life has adapted to the conditions of the Earth. If conditions were different, life would have adapted differently.

What neither Daws nor YWC can grasp, both embroiled in their competing dogma, is that life and the mechanisms of adaptation, are the real magic. It's constant, it's all around us, at the microbial level, life is in a constant stat of flux, evolving and adapting. At the macro-level it is less obvious, but no less true, changes in environment spur changes in the flora and fauna.

This is why I find the warmists and their projections of doom to be laughable, and why I find the promoters of the cosmic goat herder equally laughable. Life adapts.

Micheal Crichton wrote that evolution isn't really slow, but rather it's small. We are evolving constantly, it doesn't take millions of years, but the changes are small, and only with the advent of modern medicine were we able to detect these changes. The accumulation of change needed to become recognizable may take long periods, but change itself is constant.

 

[eots]

That's a conspiracy.

"That's a conspiracy." is also an incomplete sentence...I am becoming concerned about you, maybe you should just forget about the sworn testimony of the Apollo crew for awhile and come back to it when you are feeling better

The alleged sworn testimony was faked, just like the moon landing.

You need conspiracy theories with a greater entertainment quotient.

So you create a conspiracy theory where the testimony of Apollo crew was fake and apparently the moon landing. all to protect your darwinian belife system...you just get crazier by the minute don't you

 

[Hollie]

"That's a conspiracy." is also an incomplete sentence...I am becoming concerned about you, maybe you should just forget about the sworn testimony of the Apollo crew for awhile and come back to it when you are feeling better

The alleged sworn testimony was faked, just like the moon landing.

You need conspiracy theories with a greater entertainment quotient.

So you create a conspiracy theory where the testimony of Apollo crew was fake and apparently the moon landing. all to protect your darwinian belife system...you just get crazier by the minute don't you

What is a Darwinian belife system?

 

[eots]

you are not familiar with the Darwinian evolutionary philosophical belief system ?.

 

[eots]

There is no indisputable proof for the big bang And there is none for evolution. And yet you accept those with the conviction and belief equal to any religious zealot

 

[Hollie]

There is no indisputable proof for the big bang And there is none for evolution. And yet you accept those with the conviction and belief equal to any religious zealot

That's really clueless.

You should stay with what you know: space alien conspiracy theories.

 

[Uncensored2008]

There is no indisputable proof for the big bang And there is none for evolution. And yet you accept those with the conviction and belief equal to any religious zealot

Logical fallacy of false equivalence. If you want to argue the Big Bang, start a thread.

And yes, there is irrefutable proof of evolution, overwhelming in fact.

 

[eots]

There is no indisputable proof for the big bang And there is none for evolution. And yet you accept those with the conviction and belief equal to any religious zealot

Logical fallacy of false equivalence. If you want to argue the Big Bang, start a thread.

And yes, there is irrefutable proof of evolution, overwhelming in fact.

nonsense...

 

[eots]

claims of "irrefutable proof" do not mean anything at all, if one does not specify what such a proof is

 

[Youwerecreated]

Why was just this one planet in our solar system formed differently from the rest ?

Formed differently? The mechanism of formation was different how, exactly?

Why is this planet bursting with life and no other in the solar system ?

Liquid water, ozone layer, magnetic field.
And we have the 2nd Law on our side.

I remember once in an oceanography class, a person made the argument that conditions on Earth are perfect for life, therefore the Earth must have been created to to support life.

Of course I countered that life adapts. It isn't that Earth has perfect conditions, it is that life has adapted to the conditions of the Earth. If conditions were different, life would have adapted differently.

What neither Daws nor YWC can grasp, both embroiled in their competing dogma, is that life and the mechanisms of adaptation, are the real magic. It's constant, it's all around us, at the microbial level, life is in a constant stat of flux, evolving and adapting. At the macro-level it is less obvious, but no less true, changes in environment spur changes in the flora and fauna.

This is why I find the warmists and their projections of doom to be laughable, and why I find the promoters of the cosmic goat herder equally laughable. Life adapts.

Micheal Crichton wrote that evolution isn't really slow, but rather it's small. We are evolving constantly, it doesn't take millions of years, but the changes are small, and only with the advent of modern medicine were we able to detect these changes. The accumulation of change needed to become recognizable may take long periods, but change itself is constant.

Microadaptations do happen but you can't provide an example of it resulting in what would be considered macroevolution. They extrapolate from microadaptations as support for all organisms evolving from one cell.

Scroll down and watch this video,this is a major problem for anyone who believe life came in to existence naturally and then for macroevolution to happen.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f4a_1267306340

 

[Hollie]

Why was just this one planet in our solar system formed differently from the rest ?

Formed differently? The mechanism of formation was different how, exactly?

Why is this planet bursting with life and no other in the solar system ?

Liquid water, ozone layer, magnetic field.
And we have the 2nd Law on our side.

I remember once in an oceanography class, a person made the argument that conditions on Earth are perfect for life, therefore the Earth must have been created to to support life.

Of course I countered that life adapts. It isn't that Earth has perfect conditions, it is that life has adapted to the conditions of the Earth. If conditions were different, life would have adapted differently.

What neither Daws nor YWC can grasp, both embroiled in their competing dogma, is that life and the mechanisms of adaptation, are the real magic. It's constant, it's all around us, at the microbial level, life is in a constant stat of flux, evolving and adapting. At the macro-level it is less obvious, but no less true, changes in environment spur changes in the flora and fauna.

This is why I find the warmists and their projections of doom to be laughable, and why I find the promoters of the cosmic goat herder equally laughable. Life adapts.

Micheal Crichton wrote that evolution isn't really slow, but rather it's small. We are evolving constantly, it doesn't take millions of years, but the changes are small, and only with the advent of modern medicine were we able to detect these changes. The accumulation of change needed to become recognizable may take long periods, but change itself is constant.

Microadaptations do happen but you can't provide an example of it resulting in what would be considered macroevolution. They extrapolate from microadaptations as support for all organisms evolving from one cell.

Scroll down and watch this video,this is a major problem for anyone who believe life came in to existence naturally and then for macroevolution to happen.

LiveLeak.com - Former evolutionist scientist rejects evolution.

From your link:

"Evolution is not accepted on the basis of scientific merit but as a religious preference by it's proponents.

Science has no more proven the doctrines of evolution than it has proven the existence of Peter Pan. Evolution is entirely a faith based religion; the evidences that have been fabricated to support it under the banner of science are entirely without mreit and falter under the most benign scrutiny.

It is a weak satanic deception standing in mortal opposition to the scriptures to undermine your chances for eternal salvation."



What a joke! Do you realize such nonsense makes you appear to be an unreasonable (and possibly dangerous), zealot?

 

[orogenicman]

There are some in the scientific community already calling for a new theory. what say you ?

I say that they are one out of millions. I'd say they are irrelevant. Look. Here's how it works. Who has to prove what to whom? The person making the extraordinary claim has the burden of proving to the experts and to the community at large that his or her belief has more validity than the one almost everyone else accepts. You have to lobby for your opinion to be heard. Then you have to marshal experts on your side so you can convince the majority to support your claim over the one they have always supported. Finally, when you are in the majority, the burden of proof switches to the outsider who wants to challenge you with his or her unusual claim. Evolutionists had the burden of proof for half a century after Darwin, but now the burden of proof is on creationists. It is up to creationists to show why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is right, and it is not up to the evolutionists to defend evolution. The burden of proof is on the Holocaust deniers to prove the Holocaust did not happen, not on Holocaust historians to prove that it did. The rationale for this is that mountains of evidence prove that both evolution and the Holocaust are facts. In other words, it is not enough to have the evidence. You must convince others of the validity of your evidence. And when you are an outsider this is the price you pay, regardless of whether you are right or wrong.

The creationists have done a good job pointing out all the conjecture and problems with the theory,that is why there are over 700 scientists that have openly rejected macro evolution and the modern day theory of Neo Darwinism. That is roughly 5% of scientists. Then 44% are theists and have not come out of the closet. The numbers are continuing to rise.

At least you have admitted creationist have become the outsiders. It's not the evidence that convinced people to believe darwins theory, so what was it that was convincing?

No sir. What creationists have done time and time again is demonstrate how willfully ignorant you are about the theory of evolution. And YWC, I have seen this claim of 700 scientists many times before, and every time I've looked into it, the vast majority of those "scientists" weren't actually scientists. So you don't even have that going for you. The fact is that the scientific community left creationism behind in their wake over 100 years ago. So you can keep on arguing 19th century pseudo-science if you feel you must, but realize that the scientific community considers it as valid as the Flat Earth theory. Which means, it belongs on the dust heap of abandoned 'theories', and nowhere else.

 

[orogenicman]

The creationists have done a good job pointing out all the conjecture and problems with the theory,that is why there are over 700 scientists that have openly rejected macro evolution and the modern day theory of Neo Darwinism. That is roughly 5% of scientists. Then 44% are theists and have not come out of the closet. The numbers are continuing to rise.

At least you have admitted creationist have become the outsiders. It's not the evidence that convinced people to believe darwins theory, so what was it that was convincing?

Showing that Darwin was wrong still doesn't help prove creationism. Creationism has to be proven on its own. So far, no proof whatsoever, and you'd think after all this time of arguing, that creationist could come up with something better than because it's written in a book. Which is ludicrous.

Proof is not completely needed as the creator says my ways are not your ways and you can go mad trying to figure out the intelligence of God. God mentions faith there is plenty of evidence to confirm he is out there just many reject the thought for their own personal reasons. Many of us our faith does not get shaken because we were warned of these days.

And we all know what faith is - a belief in something not in evidence. Which is why creationism is nothing more than a religious belief.

 

[eots]

Showing that Darwin was wrong still doesn't help prove creationism. Creationism has to be proven on its own. So far, no proof whatsoever, and you'd think after all this time of arguing, that creationist could come up with something better than because it's written in a book. Which is ludicrous.

Proof is not completely needed as the creator says my ways are not your ways and you can go mad trying to figure out the intelligence of God. God mentions faith there is plenty of evidence to confirm he is out there just many reject the thought for their own personal reasons. Many of us our faith does not get shaken because we were warned of these days.

And we all know what faith is - a belief in something not in evidence. Which is why creationism is nothing more than a religious belief.

you have a belief in a theory..

 

[orogenicman]

The creationists have done a good job pointing out all the conjecture and problems with the theory,that is why there are over 700 scientists that have openly rejected macro evolution and the modern day theory of Neo Darwinism. That is roughly 5% of scientists. Then 44% are theists and have not come out of the closet. The numbers are continuing to rise.

At least you have admitted creationist have become the outsiders. It's not the evidence that convinced people to believe darwins theory, so what was it that was convincing?

You may want to actually address reality and review the Dover trial. Creationism was once again exposed as a fraud. The drubbing taken by the christian fundies was humiliating.

You don't really have any response to common sense questions so you resort to changing the subject and divide and conquer. We both know that no court is gonna stand up for God because the perverting of the constitution. One simple letter written by Jefferson gave the secularists the ammunition they needed to pervert the constitution and what our forefathers really wanted.

The forefathers did not want God removed from the public and schools. They just did not want Christianity as a state sponsored religion like it once was in England, and to allow others to openly practice their religions. something you would not get in a theocracy such as middle eastern countries.

The public schools are state-sponsored. As such, religion has no place in it. Look, there are over 400,000 churches in the United States. Take your pick, and go pray in one. No one is stopping you.