Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[eots]

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.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ]Evolution Vs. God - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWDRz5cSziQ]Scientists: The Theory of Evolution is wrong (part1) - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4ylfLqiyRo]Scientists: The Theory of Evolution is wrong (part2) - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4dWimXdtzWs]Collapse of Evolution - YouTube[/ame]

 

[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.

Oh and Dover was about intelligent design not creationism. It has been pointed out to you how the Judge was unethical in his judgment and how he ignored evidence for intelligent design like peer reviews, evidence he allowed in.

You really ought to read the transcript of the trial. The Judge (a conservative Bush appointee) affirmed that ID was nothing more than creationism (a religious belief) intentionally re-named to try to bypass the previous the Supreme Court ruling against it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I didn't want to give you any wiggle room. Why was just this one planet in our solar system formed differently from the rest ? Why is this planet bursting with life and no other in the solar system ?We can see a long ways and still no planet anything like this one.

All I can do is pray for some of you, that your eyes may some day will open.

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.

You are gonna deny the obvious differences now of other planets from this one ?

There is so much more than that. If you admit some of the differences why the question above. No the 2nd law would work against some of the current theories.

You are gonna deny the obvious differences now of other planets from this one ?

Why would I deny that Earth has liquid water, an ozone layer and a magnetic field?

No the 2nd law would work against some of the current theories.

No it doesn't.

 

[Hollie]

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.

Oh and Dover was about intelligent design not creationism. It has been pointed out to you how the Judge was unethical in his judgment and how he ignored evidence for intelligent design like peer reviews, evidence he allowed in.

That's really nonsense. ID (as branded by the Disco'tute), is just the latest burqa that has been slapped on Christian fundamentalism.

Christian creationism has gone through several titles as efforts and failures by fundies to force Christian fundie beliefs into the public schools have been thrown out by the courts.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Your side has it backwards. Your side believes we started with chaos went to order. Really how it was ,we started with perfection and went slowly to disorder and we continue on that road til judgment day.

Your side believes we started with chaos went to order.

It's amazing how orderly things can get when you apply a bit of energy.
Look at how disordered liquid water and carbon dioxide gas are compared to a nice orderly cellulose structure. Amazing. Just takes a bit of sunlight.

Yes energy is very important to this planet. Mercury and Venus get plenty of energy from the sun and look at them. Then you have other planets getting energy not as much as Mercury and Venus. So just pumping in energy does not make the differences. It don't look so ordered on the other planets in our solar system.

Yes energy is very important to this planet.

Yes, which is why your 2nd Law claim is just so damn funny.
And by funny, I mean it shows your ignorance.

Mercury and Venus get plenty of energy from the sun and look at them.

Yes, your 2nd Law claim would be silly if you made it for Mercury and Venus.

So just pumping in energy does not make the differences.

The difference it makes is it shows the idiocy of your 2nd Law claims.

It don't look so ordered on the other planets in our solar system.

Well shit, who said it did? Link?

 

[orogenicman]

Former evolutionist scientist rejects evolution.

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.

Ro 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Here's a small sampling of other evolutionists who have been delivered from the bondage of their false religious dogma.

Emeritus Professor Tyndale John Rendle-Short - From (theistic) evolution to creation
For Prof himself, educated at Cambridge and brought up with his father's writings, theistic evolution (or its variant, progressive creationism) was the natural direction for him to take. His odyssey to being chairman of one of the most effective creation science outreach ministries in the world was overseen by the Lord's hand in countless ways, both large and small.

OMG! He was a pediatrician and fundamentalist theologian, and NEVER taught the theory of evolution.

Charlie Lieberts - (Chemist)

I have found no evidence whatsoever that he was ever actually a chemist other than the fact that he once worked for a pharmaceutical company. We don't even know what university he is supposed to have attended. For all we know, he was a salesman, which actually better fits what he does at Answers in Genesis. He is not a geologist, and there is no history of him ever actually taking any geology classes. But he would have us believe that humans and dinosaurs lived at the same geologic time period. You'd have to be a complete idiot to listen to the friggin nonsense of this guy.

Dr. Gary Parker (Biologist)

The only professional work of note that this man has done was his dissertation - on tadpoles. His entire career, in fact, has been involved with creationism, not evolutionary science.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

You're hoping weak excuses will supplant yet another failure on the part of religious extremists to impose their fundamentalist beliefs upon the public school system.

The arguments made at the Dover trial by the religious lobby were appeals to partisan gawds and supernaturalism. As usual, you confuse proselytizing and your need to impose your religious beliefs on others with a coherent argument supported with facts.

A natural process arising such as spontaneous generation would in fact be considered supernaturalism.

Strawman argument.

 

[orogenicman]

Of course it is. It's a simple matter to review the "about" page or the "statement of faith" section of the Christian fundie websites your cut and paste from.

So You, what other books do creationists really on? Book of Mormons? Any others?

TO NAME A FEW OF THE OLDIES..
Baha'i
Buddhism
Christianity
Confucianism
Jainism
Judaism
Hinduism
Islam
Mormonism
Paganism
Shinto
Sikhism
Taoism
Zoroastrianism

Oh that's brilliant. You are claiming that creationists cite all of these treligions as evidence for evolution? You really ought to consider rephrasing that bullshit post.

 

[orogenicman]

yes the "magic soup' theory.. That can not be replicated in laboratory conditons

you obviously have no indication of what you're hoping to convey.

You need to stick with your space alien conspiracy theories.

they are not my theories it is the testimony of the men who walked on the moon ..but clearly thats too much for you to handle so you need to pretend its my theory to comfort yourself

Trying desperately to steer the conversation in another direction, eh? Oh dear.

 

[orogenicman]

you obviously have no indication of what you're hoping to convey.

You need to stick with your space alien conspiracy theories.

they are not my theories it is the testimony of the men who walked on the moon ..but clearly thats too much for you to handle so you need to pretend its my theory to comfort yourself

.... It's like putting fresh batteries in a child's toy.

roflmao!

 

[eots]

you obviously have no indication of what you're hoping to convey.

You need to stick with your space alien conspiracy theories.

they are not my theories it is the testimony of the men who walked on the moon ..but clearly thats too much for you to handle so you need to pretend its my theory to comfort yourself

Trying desperately to steer the conversation in another direction, eh? Oh dear.

yes , she keeps doing that every time she feels challenged on her evolutionary beliefs she brings up space aliens

 

[eots]

So You, what other books do creationists really on? Book of Mormons? Any others?

TO NAME A FEW OF THE OLDIES..
Baha'i
Buddhism
Christianity
Confucianism
Jainism
Judaism
Hinduism
Islam
Mormonism
Paganism
Shinto
Sikhism
Taoism
Zoroastrianism

Oh that's brilliant. You are claiming that creationists cite all of these treligions as evidence for evolution? You really ought to consider rephrasing that bullshit post.

I think you need to gather your thoughts and try this one again

 

[orogenicman]

Soup of Life - YouTube

Origin of life experiments revisited

Modern analysis of forgotten samples has given chemists in the US additional insights into the origins of life on Earth.

Stanley Miller became famous with a single experiment carried out during his PhD thesis with Harold Urey. The experiment simulated conditions in a sealed apparatus, which according to Urey's previous work were believed to have predominated on the primeval Earth, including an ocean, a reducing atmosphere, and a spark discharge meant to simulate lightning. After only a few days, this experiment produced a rich mixture of organic molecules including some of the amino acids found in proteins today.

Over the next half-century, Miller continued to study prebiotic chemistry and possible origins of life in many variations but he never reached a definitive explanation of the origin of life.

Following Miller's death in May 2007, his former student Jeffrey Bada, a geochemist at the University of California at San Diego, inherited the contents of Miller's lab and office and discovered samples from 1958. The samples were clearly labelled and referenced in Miller's lab notebook but never reported. Bada's group has now analysed these samples using modern HPLC and mass spectrometry to gain two independent descriptions of their chemical composition.

The unreported (until now) 1958 experiment again involved a spark but the gas mixture included both reduced and oxidised substances and was the first experiment to contain hydrogen sulphide (H2S). Bada's team found that the unreported samples contained a greater abundance and variety of biologically relevant molecules than Miller had reported in his 1950s studies. The samples also contained oxidation products of the sulfur-containing amino acids cysteine and methionine, which Miller didn't report making until the 1970s.

While a gas mixture like the one Miller used in 1958 may not be representative of the Earth's early atmosphere overall, Bada and coworkers believe that it may well mimic the complex chemical conditions near volcanic sites (particularly near black smokers on the ocean floor).

The study 'demonstrates how the addition of hydrogen sulphide may have been important in producing a richer assortment of key building block such as amino acids,' says Bada. 'It seems increasingly apparent that volcanic plume chemistry may have played an important role in the synthesis of organic compounds on the early Earth.'

Bemused by the new findings from old samples, biochemist Kevin Plaxco from the University of California at Santa Barbara comments: 'Miller was such a pioneer that even now, four years after his death and more than 50 years after the experiments in question, his work is still yielding surprises.'
*******************
What this also shows is that the ability to perform high performance biochemical analysis of samples 50 years ago didn't exist, which is why Miller didn't detect these compounds back then. Modern HPLC (high performance liquid chromatography) can detect organic compounds down to parts per trillion.

 

[daws101]

This planet possesses physical characteristics that set it apart from others in this solar system. That has nothing to do with convenience and nothing to do with any gawds. It has to do with physical sciences we understand.

So...yes. It was convenient that the planet is in the particular location it is, relative to the sun and other planets. It's also not so convenient that the planet rotates about it's axis and has the convenience of an atmosphere that generates convection currents. Those conditions combine to create swirling winds we call twisters. How inconvenient that the planet has land masses (plates), that move. That tectonic plate shifting causes earthquakes.

How inconvenient that the planet was in just the wrong place 65 million years ago when it was impacted by a large object striking in the Yucatan.

To ascribe your gawds as the magic hand-wavers who *poofed* those characteristics into existence is just silly. Or possibly, it's all true and your designer gawds are just hopelessly inept designers.

you did notice that ywc amended his bullshit from: "no other planet" to "no other planet in this solar system.."
in a failed attempt to appear correct.

I didn't want to give you any wiggle room. Why was just this one planet in our solar system formed differently from the rest ? Why is this planet bursting with life and no other in the solar system ?We can see a long ways and still no planet anything like this one.

All I can do is pray for some of you, that your eyes may some day will open.

1.
I didn't need any wiggle room.
2. you have no evidence that this is the only planet or moon in the system that has life.
3. we can only see very large objects very far away. so as always your assumption is specious.

 

[orogenicman]

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

One of the hallmarks of scientific theories is that they can be falsified (shown to not be true). One obvious way to refute evolution is to find a bunny rabbit in Cambrian sediments. Got ANYTHING like that?

 

[daws101]

The bible is historical,literal,and mataphoric. You have to cross reference scriptures to get sometimes the true meaning. The bible is cleverly put together to show it's critics the fools that they are. Example,hollie, earlier referring to a flat earth.

Give me evidence that refutes genesis please.

Australopithecus afarensis, 3.6-2.9 million years ago.

You can keep telling yourself this nonsense but man truly is limited ,you will find that out someday.

classic non answer..

 

[orogenicman]

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.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ]Evolution Vs. God - YouTube[/ame]

Erm, your video is not a response to my post. Try again, in your own words.

 

[eots]

Soup of Life - YouTube

Origin of life experiments revisited

Modern analysis of forgotten samples has given chemists in the US additional insights into the origins of life on Earth.

Stanley Miller became famous with a single experiment carried out during his PhD thesis with Harold Urey. The experiment simulated conditions in a sealed apparatus, which according to Urey's previous work were believed to have predominated on the primeval Earth, including an ocean, a reducing atmosphere, and a spark discharge meant to simulate lightning. After only a few days, this experiment produced a rich mixture of organic molecules including some of the amino acids found in proteins today.

Over the next half-century, Miller continued to study prebiotic chemistry and possible origins of life in many variations but he never reached a definitive explanation of the origin of life.

Following Miller's death in May 2007, his former student Jeffrey Bada, a geochemist at the University of California at San Diego, inherited the contents of Miller's lab and office and discovered samples from 1958. The samples were clearly labelled and referenced in Miller's lab notebook but never reported. Bada's group has now analysed these samples using modern HPLC and mass spectrometry to gain two independent descriptions of their chemical composition.

The unreported (until now) 1958 experiment again involved a spark but the gas mixture included both reduced and oxidised substances and was the first experiment to contain hydrogen sulphide (H2S). Bada's team found that the unreported samples contained a greater abundance and variety of biologically relevant molecules than Miller had reported in his 1950s studies. The samples also contained oxidation products of the sulfur-containing amino acids cysteine and methionine, which Miller didn't report making until the 1970s.

While a gas mixture like the one Miller used in 1958 may not be representative of the Earth's early atmosphere overall, Bada and coworkers believe that it may well mimic the complex chemical conditions near volcanic sites (particularly near black smokers on the ocean floor).

The study 'demonstrates how the addition of hydrogen sulphide may have been important in producing a richer assortment of key building block such as amino acids,' says Bada. 'It seems increasingly apparent that volcanic plume chemistry may have played an important role in the synthesis of organic compounds on the early Earth.'

Bemused by the new findings from old samples, biochemist Kevin Plaxco from the University of California at Santa Barbara comments: 'Miller was such a pioneer that even now, four years after his death and more than 50 years after the experiments in question, his work is still yielding surprises.'
*******************
What this also shows is that the ability to perform high performance biochemical analysis of samples 50 years ago didn't exist, which is why Miller didn't detect these compounds back then. Modern HPLC (high performance liquid chromatography) can detect organic compounds down to parts per trillion.

so in short its a belief..and may or may not be true...intresting

 

[eots]

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.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ]Evolution Vs. God - YouTube[/ame]

Erm, your video is not a response to my post. Try again, in your own words.

intelligent design is no more faith based than evolution