Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Youwerecreated]

a·tion·al [ rásh'n'l ]
reasonable and sensible: governed by, or showing evidence of, clear and sensible thinking and judgment, based on reason rather than emotion or prejudice
able to think clearly and sensibly: able to think clearly and sensibly, unimpaired by physical or mental condition, strong emotion, or prejudice
in accordance with reason and logic: presented or understandable in terms that accord with reason and logic or with scientific knowledge.
using the definition above ...you are not by any standard rational..
I could list hundreds of examples of your obvious irrationality..

That is the mistake you make assuming a believers beliefs are based on emotion.

belief in the paranormal is by definition based on emotion not reason.
so as always you can't see the difference between a statement of fact and an assumption.

Once again only opinion.

 

[BarryDesborough]

How, then, is creationism—as opposed to “naturalism,” defined as “a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted”—scientific? Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define “scientific.” Too often, “science” and “naturalism” are considered one and the same, leaving creationist views out by definition. Such a definition requires an irrational reverence of naturalism. Science is defined as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” Nothing requires science, in and of itself, to be naturalistic. Naturalism, like creationism, requires a series of presuppositions that are not generated by experiments. They are not extrapolated from data or derived from test results. These philosophical presuppositions are accepted before any data is ever taken. Because both naturalism and creationism are strongly influenced by presuppositions that are neither provable nor testable, and enter into the discussion well before the facts do, it is fair to say that creationism is at least as scientific as naturalism.

It is testable.

 

[Big_D2]

IMO, The bible is not to be taken literally and should not be taught in schools.

A creationist once said that the global flood was between 4000-4500 years ago. If that's so how can a trees be dated by their rings at over 7000 years? Wouldn't everything in the flood, not on the arc, have been destroyed?

A 7,272-year tree-ring chronology for western Europe

 

[Youwerecreated]

IMO, The bible is not to be taken literally and should not be taught in schools.

A creationist once said that the global flood was between 4000-4500 years ago. If that's so how can a trees be dated by their rings at over 7000 years? Wouldn't everything in the flood, not on the arc, have been destroyed?

A 7,272-year tree-ring chronology for western Europe

If tree rings were an effective way of determining age polystrate trees would be serious problem for dating strata.

Some will say that has been debunked but that is wishful thinking because these trees are buried by several layers of strata.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How, then, is creationism—as opposed to “naturalism,” defined as “a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted”—scientific? Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define “scientific.” Too often, “science” and “naturalism” are considered one and the same, leaving creationist views out by definition. Such a definition requires an irrational reverence of naturalism. Science is defined as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” Nothing requires science, in and of itself, to be naturalistic. Naturalism, like creationism, requires a series of presuppositions that are not generated by experiments. They are not extrapolated from data or derived from test results. These philosophical presuppositions are accepted before any data is ever taken. Because both naturalism and creationism are strongly influenced by presuppositions that are neither provable nor testable, and enter into the discussion well before the facts do, it is fair to say that creationism is at least as scientific as naturalism.

It is testable.

Naturalistic origins is not testable,only natural processes that already exist are testable. The question is how did these natural processes get their start ?

 

[daws101]

In your opinion.

no it's fact

What is your evidence ?

I need none your lack of evidence is all that's needed.

 

[Big_D2]

IMO, The bible is not to be taken literally and should not be taught in schools.

A creationist once said that the global flood was between 4000-4500 years ago. If that's so how can a trees be dated by their rings at over 7000 years? Wouldn't everything in the flood, not on the arc, have been destroyed?

A 7,272-year tree-ring chronology for western Europe

If tree rings were an effective way of determining age polystrate trees would be serious problem for dating strata.

Some will say that has been debunked but that is wishful thinking because these trees are buried by several layers of strata.

It's not an issue for the professors at University of Hohenheim, Queen's University, Belfast, and the University of Köln.

 

[daws101]

That is the mistake you make assuming a believers beliefs are based on emotion.

belief in the paranormal is by definition based on emotion not reason.
so as always you can't see the difference between a statement of fact and an assumption.

Once again only opinion.

yes your denial is only an opinion based on a specious assumption
true-believer syndrome

The need to believe in phony wonders sometimes exceeds not only logic but, seemingly, even sanity. --The Rev. Canon William V. Rauscher

The true-believer syndrome merits study by science. What is it that compels a person, past all reason, to believe the unbelievable. How can an otherwise sane individual become so enamored of a fantasy, an imposture, that even after it's exposed in the bright light of day he still clings to it--indeed, clings to it all the harder? --M. Lamar Keene

Religion vs. The Paranormal
Are Paranormal Beliefs Similar to Religious Beliefs?

By Austin Cline, About.com
Is there a real connection between religion and belief in the paranormal? Some, particularly adherents of various religious faiths, will often argue that the two very different types of beliefs. Those who stand outside of religion, however, will notice some very important similarities which bear closer consideration.

Certainly there is no exact correspondence between religious and paranormal beliefs — there are people who are very religious but who don’t believe in things like Bigfoot or UFOs and there are people who believe in many paranormal events but who are not part of any religious tradition. One might be inclined to argue, then, that one does not have anything to do with the other.

Those who are adherents of religious traditions may often be particularly eager to disavow any similarity because paranormal beliefs are often portrayed as less rational and credible than religious beliefs. Even worse, conservative and fundamentalist believers often regard paranormal claims as having quite a lot to do with the actions of evil forces in the universe — not the sort of thing they would want to be associated with, quite understandably.

Nevertheless, religious beliefs and paranormal beliefs do share a number of important things in common. For one thing, both the paranormal and traditional religions are non-materialistic in nature. They do not conceive of the world as a place controlled by sequences of cause and effect between matter and energy. Instead, they presume the added presence of immaterial forces which influence or control the course of our lives.

Furthermore, there is also the appearance of a desire to provide meaning and coherence to otherwise random and chaotic events. If we are suddenly aware of a distant event we shouldn't know about, it might be attributed to clairvoyance, psychic powers, spirits, angels, or God. There seems to be a genuine continuum between what we tend to call “paranormal” and the ideas in many religious faiths.

The relationship between paranormal beliefs and religion may be even closer than that between superstitions and religious beliefs. Whereas superstitions are often isolated ideas, paranormal beliefs are commonly part of an integrated beliefs system about the very nature and substance of the universe. These belief systems are very similar to religion — they can provide meaning to our lives as well as the events in our lives, they can provide social structure, and they can provide comfort in difficult times.

Paranormal belief systems do, however, lack some of the critical characteristics of religions. They don’t typically involve ritual acts, it’s unusual for them to differentiate between the sacred and the profane, and it is rare for people to base a moral code upon those beliefs. Although this means that paranormal beliefs are not the same as religion, the strong similarities do suggest that they stem from some of the same needs and desires as religious beliefs.

 

[daws101]

How, then, is creationism—as opposed to “naturalism,” defined as “a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted”—scientific? Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define “scientific.” Too often, “science” and “naturalism” are considered one and the same, leaving creationist views out by definition. Such a definition requires an irrational reverence of naturalism. Science is defined as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” Nothing requires science, in and of itself, to be naturalistic. Naturalism, like creationism, requires a series of presuppositions that are not generated by experiments. They are not extrapolated from data or derived from test results. These philosophical presuppositions are accepted before any data is ever taken. Because both naturalism and creationism are strongly influenced by presuppositions that are neither provable nor testable, and enter into the discussion well before the facts do, it is fair to say that creationism is at least as scientific as naturalism.

It is testable.

Naturalistic origins is not testable,only natural processes that already exist are testable. The question is how did these natural processes get their start ?

creationism is not the answer.
it is not testable...

 

[daws101]

IMO, The bible is not to be taken literally and should not be taught in schools.

A creationist once said that the global flood was between 4000-4500 years ago. If that's so how can a trees be dated by their rings at over 7000 years? Wouldn't everything in the flood, not on the arc, have been destroyed?

A 7,272-year tree-ring chronology for western Europe

If tree rings were an effective way of determining age polystrate trees would be serious problem for dating strata.

Some will say that has been debunked but that is wishful thinking because these trees are buried by several layers of strata.

Dendrochronology From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The growth rings of a tree at Bristol Zoo, England. Each ring represents one year; the outside rings, near the bark, are the youngest.
Dendrochronology (from δένδρον, dendron, "tree limb"; χρόνος, khronos, "time"; and -λογία, -logia) or tree-ring dating is the scientific method of dating based on the analysis of patterns of tree rings, also known as growth rings. Dendrochronology can date the time at which tree rings were formed, in many types of wood, to the exact calendar year. This has three main areas of application: paleoecology, where it is used to determine certain aspects of past ecologies (most prominently climate); archaeology, where it is used to date old buildings, etc.; and radiocarbon dating, where it is used to calibrate radiocarbon ages (see below).

In some areas of the world, it is possible to date wood back a few thousand years, or even many thousands. Currently, the maximum for fully anchored chronologies is a little over 11,000 years from present.[1]
Dendrochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LOOKY HERE Myths Regarding Radiocarbon Dating WHY AM i NOT SUPRISED THEY WOULD SAY Dendrochronology HAS BEEN DEBUNKED.LOL!
[ame=http://youtu.be/zIBXk7s3RtY]Debunking CDK007 - 'Why Young Earth Creationists are Wrong' (dendrochronology) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Hollie]

How, then, is creationism—as opposed to “naturalism,” defined as “a philosophical viewpoint according to which everything arises from natural properties and causes, and supernatural or spiritual explanations are excluded or discounted”—scientific? Admittedly, the answer depends on how you define “scientific.” Too often, “science” and “naturalism” are considered one and the same, leaving creationist views out by definition. Such a definition requires an irrational reverence of naturalism. Science is defined as “the observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena.” Nothing requires science, in and of itself, to be naturalistic. Naturalism, like creationism, requires a series of presuppositions that are not generated by experiments. They are not extrapolated from data or derived from test results. These philosophical presuppositions are accepted before any data is ever taken. Because both naturalism and creationism are strongly influenced by presuppositions that are neither provable nor testable, and enter into the discussion well before the facts do, it is fair to say that creationism is at least as scientific as naturalism.

It is testable.

Naturalistic origins is not testable,only natural processes that already exist are testable. The question is how did these natural processes get their start ?

As usual, you’re just clueless. Naturalistic origins clearly are testable because they’re “natural”. There is no clear requirement for any supernatural intervention for life to have begun. Similarly, there is nothing that requires your particular gawds to have performed any supernatural intervention.

You make a basic miscalculation with the assumption that your gawds, as opposed to other gawds which could have sparked life. You have always slithered away when required to present evidence of how your gawds magically *poofed* creation into existence. No doubt, you will continue to do so.

I'm sure that you will whine and moan while continuing to cut and paste the same discredited nonsense from Harun Yahya in defense of your need for supernatural agents. Remember however that the falsified, edited and phony “quote” you try to pass off as legitimate attacks on science have all been shown to be lies. Trying to substitute others, as you have done in other threads will likewise be shown as lies.

I'm happy to see you are no longer defending the silly criteria of cutting and pasting from creationist websites you tried to foist off in other threads. But, having already demonstrated your failure to think through the creationist argument (since, after all, it is not your own) a new list of phony “quotes” does not give us great confidence that your substitutions are any better than your earlier frauds.

 

[Youwerecreated]

no it's fact

What is your evidence ?

I need none your lack of evidence is all that's needed.

so much for the scientific method.

Lack of evidence is not proof.there is more evidence for purposeful design over naturalism. There is no evidence for naturalism so why do you believe it by your reasoning ?

 

[daws101]

What is your evidence ?

I need none your lack of evidence is all that's needed.

so much for the scientific method.

Lack of evidence is not proof.there is more evidence for purposeful design over naturalism. There is no evidence for naturalism so why do you believe it by your reasoning ?

wrong! slapdick, you can only apply the scientific method to what is testable .you have no evidence to test. by your own words you would not test it anyway.
it a certainty that's not the scientific method.

Factual or realistic representation, especially:
The practice of describing precisely the actual circumstances of human life in literature.
The practice of reproducing subjects as precisely as possible in the visual arts.
A movement or school advocating such precise representation.
The principles and methods of such a movement or of its adherents.
Philosophy. The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.
Theology. The doctrine that all religious truths are derived from nature and natural causes and not from revelation.
Conduct or thought prompted by natural desires or instincts.
as explained before naturalism is a method not a cause.
there is no evidence for design so why do keep insisting there is.
the myths and bias observations you've presented are subjective and unprovable.

 

[Youwerecreated]

IMO, The bible is not to be taken literally and should not be taught in schools.

A creationist once said that the global flood was between 4000-4500 years ago. If that's so how can a trees be dated by their rings at over 7000 years? Wouldn't everything in the flood, not on the arc, have been destroyed?

A 7,272-year tree-ring chronology for western Europe

If tree rings were an effective way of determining age polystrate trees would be serious problem for dating strata.

Some will say that has been debunked but that is wishful thinking because these trees are buried by several layers of strata.

Dendrochronology From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The growth rings of a tree at Bristol Zoo, England. Each ring represents one year; the outside rings, near the bark, are the youngest.
Dendrochronology (from δένδρον, dendron, "tree limb"; χρόνος, khronos, "time"; and -λογία, -logia) or tree-ring dating is the scientific method of dating based on the analysis of patterns of tree rings, also known as growth rings. Dendrochronology can date the time at which tree rings were formed, in many types of wood, to the exact calendar year. This has three main areas of application: paleoecology, where it is used to determine certain aspects of past ecologies (most prominently climate); archaeology, where it is used to date old buildings, etc.; and radiocarbon dating, where it is used to calibrate radiocarbon ages (see below).

In some areas of the world, it is possible to date wood back a few thousand years, or even many thousands. Currently, the maximum for fully anchored chronologies is a little over 11,000 years from present.[1]
Dendrochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LOOKY HERE Myths Regarding Radiocarbon Dating WHY AM i NOT SUPRISED THEY WOULD SAY Dendrochronology HAS BEEN DEBUNKED.LOL!
[ame=http://youtu.be/zIBXk7s3RtY]Debunking CDK007 - 'Why Young Earth Creationists are Wrong' (dendrochronology) - YouTube[/ame]

Daws, let's be rational. Carbon dating method has the assumption that carbon 14 levels have remained constant but also hypothesized that at one point the oxygen level was so low that life could form through natural processes.They new if the oxygen level existed and remained constant like it is now that there was no chance life could form through natural processes.

Sounds like they make it up as they go. You can go back to the beginning of these theories and see how old scientists were saying the earth was. The earth kept getting older and older why is that daws ? well it's obvious the only way they can get people to by some of these theories is keep making the planet older and older. Let's dazzle them with things beyond their comprehension and they can't prove or disprove. They were proven wrong many times dating methods have been proven to be unreliable.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I need none your lack of evidence is all that's needed.

so much for the scientific method.

Lack of evidence is not proof.there is more evidence for purposeful design over naturalism. There is no evidence for naturalism so why do you believe it by your reasoning ?

wrong! slapdick, you can only apply the scientific method to what is testable .you have no evidence to test. by your own words you would not test it anyway.
it a certainty that's not the scientific method.

Factual or realistic representation, especially:
The practice of describing precisely the actual circumstances of human life in literature.
The practice of reproducing subjects as precisely as possible in the visual arts.
A movement or school advocating such precise representation.
The principles and methods of such a movement or of its adherents.
Philosophy. The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.
Theology. The doctrine that all religious truths are derived from nature and natural causes and not from revelation.
Conduct or thought prompted by natural desires or instincts.
as explained before naturalism is a method not a cause.
there is no evidence for design so why do keep insisting there is.
the myths and bias observations you've presented are subjective and unprovable.

Once again origins through natural processes is not testable. When are you gonna get it pervert ?

 

[daws101]

If tree rings were an effective way of determining age polystrate trees would be serious problem for dating strata.

Some will say that has been debunked but that is wishful thinking because these trees are buried by several layers of strata.

Dendrochronology From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The growth rings of a tree at Bristol Zoo, England. Each ring represents one year; the outside rings, near the bark, are the youngest.
Dendrochronology (from δένδρον, dendron, "tree limb"; χρόνος, khronos, "time"; and -λογία, -logia) or tree-ring dating is the scientific method of dating based on the analysis of patterns of tree rings, also known as growth rings. Dendrochronology can date the time at which tree rings were formed, in many types of wood, to the exact calendar year. This has three main areas of application: paleoecology, where it is used to determine certain aspects of past ecologies (most prominently climate); archaeology, where it is used to date old buildings, etc.; and radiocarbon dating, where it is used to calibrate radiocarbon ages (see below).

In some areas of the world, it is possible to date wood back a few thousand years, or even many thousands. Currently, the maximum for fully anchored chronologies is a little over 11,000 years from present.[1]
Dendrochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LOOKY HERE Myths Regarding Radiocarbon Dating WHY AM i NOT SUPRISED THEY WOULD SAY Dendrochronology HAS BEEN DEBUNKED.LOL!
[ame=http://youtu.be/zIBXk7s3RtY]Debunking CDK007 - 'Why Young Earth Creationists are Wrong' (dendrochronology) - YouTube[/ame]

Daws, let's be rational. Carbon dating method has the assumption that carbon 14 levels have remained constant but also hypothesized that at one point the oxygen level was so low that life could form through natural processes.They new if the oxygen level existed and remained constant like it is now that there was no chance life could form through natural processes.

Sounds like they make it up as they go. You can go back to the beginning of these theories and see how old scientists were saying the earth was. The earth kept getting older and older why is that daws ? well it's obvious the only way they can get people to by some of these theories is keep making the planet older and older. Let's dazzle them with things beyond their comprehension and they could prove wrong. They were proven wrong many times dating methods have been proven to be unreliable.

as you are not rational to begin with nothing you post can be considered rational.
so anything you say regarding the validity of any pov not your own is erroneous.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Dendrochronology From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The growth rings of a tree at Bristol Zoo, England. Each ring represents one year; the outside rings, near the bark, are the youngest.
Dendrochronology (from δένδρον, dendron, "tree limb"; χρόνος, khronos, "time"; and -λογία, -logia) or tree-ring dating is the scientific method of dating based on the analysis of patterns of tree rings, also known as growth rings. Dendrochronology can date the time at which tree rings were formed, in many types of wood, to the exact calendar year. This has three main areas of application: paleoecology, where it is used to determine certain aspects of past ecologies (most prominently climate); archaeology, where it is used to date old buildings, etc.; and radiocarbon dating, where it is used to calibrate radiocarbon ages (see below).

In some areas of the world, it is possible to date wood back a few thousand years, or even many thousands. Currently, the maximum for fully anchored chronologies is a little over 11,000 years from present.[1]
Dendrochronology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

LOOKY HERE Myths Regarding Radiocarbon Dating WHY AM i NOT SUPRISED THEY WOULD SAY Dendrochronology HAS BEEN DEBUNKED.LOL!
Debunking CDK007 - 'Why Young Earth Creationists are Wrong' (dendrochronology) - YouTube

Daws, let's be rational. Carbon dating method has the assumption that carbon 14 levels have remained constant but also hypothesized that at one point the oxygen level was so low that life could form through natural processes.They new if the oxygen level existed and remained constant like it is now that there was no chance life could form through natural processes.

Sounds like they make it up as they go. You can go back to the beginning of these theories and see how old scientists were saying the earth was. The earth kept getting older and older why is that daws ? well it's obvious the only way they can get people to by some of these theories is keep making the planet older and older. Let's dazzle them with things beyond their comprehension and they could prove wrong. They were proven wrong many times dating methods have been proven to be unreliable.

as you are not rational to begin with nothing you post can be considered rational.
so anything you say regarding the validity of any pov not your own is erroneous.

Did I say something that was irrational or was it based in fact which would be rational.

 

[daws101]

so much for the scientific method.

Lack of evidence is not proof.there is more evidence for purposeful design over naturalism. There is no evidence for naturalism so why do you believe it by your reasoning ?

wrong! slapdick, you can only apply the scientific method to what is testable .you have no evidence to test. by your own words you would not test it anyway.
it a certainty that's not the scientific method.

Factual or realistic representation, especially:
The practice of describing precisely the actual circumstances of human life in literature.
The practice of reproducing subjects as precisely as possible in the visual arts.
A movement or school advocating such precise representation.
The principles and methods of such a movement or of its adherents.
Philosophy. The system of thought holding that all phenomena can be explained in terms of natural causes and laws.
Theology. The doctrine that all religious truths are derived from nature and natural causes and not from revelation.
Conduct or thought prompted by natural desires or instincts.
as explained before naturalism is a method not a cause.
there is no evidence for design so why do keep insisting there is.
the myths and bias observations you've presented are subjective and unprovable.

Once again origins through natural processes is not testable. When are you gonna get it pervert ?

neither are supernatural ones..
it's called a push or a tie.
aw the pervert ploy...

 

[daws101]

Daws, let's be rational. Carbon dating method has the assumption that carbon 14 levels have remained constant but also hypothesized that at one point the oxygen level was so low that life could form through natural processes.They new if the oxygen level existed and remained constant like it is now that there was no chance life could form through natural processes.

Sounds like they make it up as they go. You can go back to the beginning of these theories and see how old scientists were saying the earth was. The earth kept getting older and older why is that daws ? well it's obvious the only way they can get people to by some of these theories is keep making the planet older and older. Let's dazzle them with things beyond their comprehension and they could prove wrong. They were proven wrong many times dating methods have been proven to be unreliable.

as you are not rational to begin with nothing you post can be considered rational.
so anything you say regarding the validity of any pov not your own is erroneous.

Did I say something that was irrational or was it based in fact which would be rational.

everything you say is irrational..
case in point: They were proven wrong many times dating methods have been proven to be unreliable.
that statement is completely irrational and extremely inaccurate.
but you still offer it as evidence even after you've been shown it's false.
that defines irrationality don't ya think?

 

[Youwerecreated]

as you are not rational to begin with nothing you post can be considered rational.
so anything you say regarding the validity of any pov not your own is erroneous.

Did I say something that was irrational or was it based in fact which would be rational.

everything you say is irrational..
case in point: They were proven wrong many times dating methods have been proven to be unreliable.
that statement is completely irrational and extremely inaccurate.
but you still offer it as evidence even after you've been shown it's false.
that defines irrationality don't ya think?

You can have the last word go.