Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[daws101]

Evolution Vs. God - YouTube

That is one of the best videos I have seen.

Reminds me of some of these threads on here.

That's just sad. Okay, now listen to what a REAL scientist has to say:

ah oh ..now you've done it ...evoked the demon carl sagan..!

 

[Uncensored2008]

what facts.?

Indeed!

?When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag? (or whatever).? « shoqvalue.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

Evidence my dear boy, I presented mine where is yours ?

What evidence did you feel you provided?
What evidence do you feel I need to provide?

 

[orogenicman]

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.

Maybe you should do more research.


CSC Header Graphic
CSC - About CSC CSC - Contact CSC - Search CSC - Links CSC - Home
Printer Friendly Version
Dotted Line
A Comparison of Judge Jones' Opinion in Kitzmiller v. Dover with Plaintiffs� Proposed �Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law�
By: David DeWolf & John West
Discovery Institute
December 12, 2006

Ha! The Discovery Institute was one of the plaintiffs in the case. They had their hat handed to them by a conservative judge. One would think that if they still had a prayer in the matter, that they would have appealed to the Supreme Court. That fact is that they didn't because they knew they would lose. End of story.

 

[Uncensored2008]

again so what..even funny is you missed the obvious joke completely...the poster is sarah palin quoting sinclair lewis. .
as always you are grasping at straws and missing.

Lying about Sarah Palin makes it funny?

Well dayum....

I'd call you a fucktard - but that would be insulting to rdean....

 

[orogenicman]

another is observable evidenced do you have any observable evidenced of one kind of creature turning into another kind ?

No, and if I did, that would be evidence AGAINST evolution. The problem here, as usual, is that you truly do not understand the theory, what it is and what it is not. There are no "Kinds". That is an expression made up by creationists because they don't believe in the concept of species. Try again.

perhaps its a concept requiring more faith and imagination than I can give it..

Well, it doesn't surprise me that you are in denial of concepts that have been around nearly 400 years and are still in wide use today. After all, you are still waiting for ET to land in your back yard.

 

[daws101]

what facts.?

Indeed!

?When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag? (or whatever).? « shoqvalue.com

wow a fringe right blog! nuff said!

 

[Uncensored2008]

I think the same about you..

Aw Daws, thinking is not your forte'...

first it was the idiot false assumption now it's the fraud false assumption...

"Daws always was a ******* fool." - John F. Kennedy, 1776

 

[daws101]

again so what..even funny is you missed the obvious joke completely...the poster is sarah palin quoting sinclair lewis. .
as always you are grasping at straws and missing.

Lying about Sarah Palin makes it funny?

Well dayum....

I'd call you a fucktard - but that would be insulting to rdean....

how am I lying about sara no live brain cells palin?
whoever composed the poster did exactly what I described..
and yes she a religofacist ..although she has no clue she is.
damn you're sooo easy!

 

[Hollie]

I never said I believe it..I said can find no easy explanation or way to offhandedly dismiss the testimony of these highly experienced and intelligent men and that there is enough evidence and sworn testimony of high ranking military and NASA personal that it requires serious consideration and investigation

translation you believe it.
if you did not you'd either ignore it or not drag it out every time you feel the need.

its actually you and your little friend hollie that like to use it as your strawman and your translation only shows how illogical you are with your belief that when presented with compelling testimony and evidence it must be fully accepted or completely ignored ti....this philosophy does however explain much about your thought processes

You have an addiction to this conspiracy theory like a crack addict needs a fix. Why get defensive when it is noted that your OCD - like proclivities cause you to champion this conspiracy at every opportunity.

 

[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.



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.

Typical and predictable tactic. You really think a Dr. didn't take college science

Geology and paleontology are not prerequisites for medical school. Here is the problem. Almost every one of your so-called experts are not experts in the fields that matter. Sure I can probably find an engineer who thinks that neurosurgery is the path to the devil, but then, he isn't an expert on neurosurgery, is he?

And whether or not your so-called doctor took any of these courses is irrelevant to whether or not he passed them, and certainly not relevant to whether or not he is qualified to claim scientific expertize on these matters.

I on the other hand, am a published geologist, someone who worked in the field for over 20 years before becoming medically disabled. Contrary to what you believe, it actually matters what experts you rally to your argument.

 

[daws101]

I think the same about you..

Aw Daws, thinking is not your forte'...

first it was the idiot false assumption now it's the fraud false assumption...

"Daws always was a ******* fool." - John F. Kennedy, 1776

another false assumption.. not only would jfk have laughed at you but just for laughs and giggles sent you to russia with rolls of microfilm up your ass .

 

[orogenicman]

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

Strawman argument.

You deny the obvious ?

No one in the modern scientific community is arguing for spontaneous generation. Hence, your argument is a strawman argument.

 

[orogenicman]

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.

Look the only ones trying out of desperation to change the current conversation was you.

Evolutionists desperation on display.

I don't know what you are doing, but I am trying to stay on topic.

 

[eots]

No, and if I did, that would be evidence AGAINST evolution. The problem here, as usual, is that you truly do not understand the theory, what it is and what it is not. There are no "Kinds". That is an expression made up by creationists because they don't believe in the concept of species. Try again.

perhaps its a concept requiring more faith and imagination than I can give it..

Well, it doesn't surprise me that you are in denial of concepts that have been around nearly 400 years and are still in wide use today. After all, you are still waiting for ET to land in your back yard.

I am waiting for ETS to land in my yard ? really ?..I do not even know if there are ETS or if there is if they are anywhere close to us..however I do find it interesting that it is a concept that existed thousands of years ago and still to this day it is reported by defense ministers and Apollo crew that there is unequivocal evidence of alien contact...dont you ?

 

[Uncensored2008]

how am I lying about sara no live brain cells palin?

Well, lets see - did Palin actually mis-quote Sinclair - or was that you, cutting and pasting from a hate site with no more discernment than a feral baboon?

And you saying SHE has no brain cells is rich irony indeed..

whoever composed the poster did exactly what I described..
and yes she a religofacist ..although she has no clue she is.
damn you're sooo easy!

I've never seen Palin advocate the use of the state to silence views she opposes.

Now YOU OTH.....

ROFL

Get thee to a baboonary....

 

[orogenicman]

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.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

Cheers,

Cheers my butt you are doing the same thing people in that video eots posted are doing. This also shows your ignorance of evolution.

What? You mean presenting the evidence that was asked for? Yeah, what an evil thing for me to do.

Dr. Theobald showed speciation or microadaptations and tried passing it off as macro evolution, it didn't change kinds so how is this macroevolution.

Typical bate and switch tactics.

That is because "kinds" is not a scientific term.

"Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution.

What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution.

Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory, macroevolution involves common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level."

Speciation has been demonstrated numerous times in the lab, in the field, and in the fossil record.

The relatedness of all life on this planet has been described in minute detail via genetic analysis, and is ongoing. For anyone to deny these findings, you'd have to be completely scientifically illiterate.

 

[eots]

translation you believe it.
if you did not you'd either ignore it or not drag it out every time you feel the need.

its actually you and your little friend hollie that like to use it as your strawman and your translation only shows how illogical you are with your belief that when presented with compelling testimony and evidence it must be fully accepted or completely ignored ti....this philosophy does however explain much about your thought processes

You have an addiction to this conspiracy theory like a crack addict needs a fix. Why get defensive when it is noted that your OCD - like proclivities cause you to champion this conspiracy at every opportunity.

I believe it is you that has some conspiracy surrounding the sworn statements of Apollo crew and defense ministers..clearly you do not believe these statements and question the motives...

 

[daws101]

Strawman argument.

You deny the obvious ?

No one in the modern scientific community is arguing for spontaneous generation. Hence, your argument is a strawman argument.

you'll find that YWC will use the same rote phrases incessantly..

 

[eots]

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

Look the only ones trying out of desperation to change the current conversation was you.

Evolutionists desperation on display.

I don't know what you are doing, but I am trying to stay on topic.

Well, it doesn't surprise me that you are in denial of concepts that have been around nearly 400 years and are still in wide use today. After all, you are still waiting for ET to land in your back yard.

right...
__________________