Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[daws101]

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.

tantrum much?

 

[Hollie]

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 ?

Yeah. So much for the scientific method. I suppose you will need to cut and paste some new conspiracy theory from the ICR.

Speaking of the ICR / snake handling emporium, I got a chuckle regarding your cut and paste from the ICR charlatan regarding carbon dating. I'd have thought that cutting and pasting from the dregs at the ICR would suggest to the cut and paster that their arguments have lost all credibility. But yet, here you are again, cutting and pasting from a syndicate of liars, " quote-miners" and religious extremists.

Kinda' makes you look like a dolt.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

A rational creationist is on oxymoron.

 

[BarryDesborough]

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 can't prove or disprove. They were proven wrong many times dating methods have been proven to be unreliable.

A rational creationist is on oxymoron.

I thought it was a laundry product.

 

[Derideo_Te]

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.

A rational creationist is on oxymoron.

I thought it was a laundry product.

Laundry products are a lot more helpful than creationists!

 

[Uncensored2008]

63% of Republicans still believe that Iraq had WMD's in 2003.

98% of democrats believe Obama won't cum in their mouth.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I don't know anything about this "naturalism" but I do know that creationism is a bunch of nonsensical bunk and it cannot qualify as a scientific theory. I can't believe that anyone still believes in that crap after the major embarrassment to both creationism and ID in the Dover, Pa courtroom.

"Naturalism" is an archaic term from the 19th century. Those things studied as "Naturalism" have long since developed into formal disciplines; biology, geology, oceanography, paleontology, etc.

 

[BarryDesborough]

Because creationism is not scientific.

Dur!

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yeah. So much for the scientific method. I suppose you will need to cut and paste some new conspiracy theory from the ICR.

Speaking of the ICR / snake handling emporium, I got a chuckle regarding your cut and paste from the ICR charlatan regarding carbon dating. I'd have thought that cutting and pasting from the dregs at the ICR would suggest to the cut and paster that their arguments have lost all credibility. But yet, here you are again, cutting and pasting from a syndicate of liars, " quote-miners" and religious extremists.

Kinda' makes you look like a dolt.

I'm sorry, what is ICR? I'm not familiar with this acronym?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Laundry products are a lot more helpful than creationists!

BUT, don't put Oxyclean in the dishwasher - it foams.

Found this out the hard way....

 

[Youwerecreated]

Because creationism is not scientific.

Dur!

Why do you evolutionists make such stupid claims. Scientists were once creationist. Compare your theory to creation and tell me why your theory is more viable ?

A Theory of Biblical Creation

 

[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 can't prove or disprove. They were proven wrong many times dating methods have been proven to be unreliable.

A rational creationist is on oxymoron.

There is no rational evolutionist but they can be morons.

 

[Hollie]

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.

A rational creationist is on oxymoron.

There is no rational evolutionist but they can be morons.

That is a problem which religious extremists have yet to address. They view knowledge and enlightennent as repulsive and worthy only their hate. Science and knowledge clashes with their insistence of a 6,000 year old earth and a literal rendering of biblical tales and fables.

This, in part, is what drives their hatred of learning and provides motivation for their conspiracy theories.

 

[Youwerecreated]

A rational creationist is on oxymoron.

There is no rational evolutionist but they can be morons.

That is a problem which religious extremists have yet to address. They view knowledge and enlightennent as repulsive and worthy only their hate. Science and knowledge clashes with their insistence of a 6,000 year old earth and a literal rendering of biblical tales and fables.

This, in part, is what drives their hatred of learning and provides motivation for their conspiracy theories.

Whats the matter hollie,you see that creationism is every bit of a theory as evolution ?

Fable is a very good term for evolution.

 

[Hollie]

There is no rational evolutionist but they can be morons.

That is a problem which religious extremists have yet to address. They view knowledge and enlightennent as repulsive and worthy only their hate. Science and knowledge clashes with their insistence of a 6,000 year old earth and a literal rendering of biblical tales and fables.

This, in part, is what drives their hatred of learning and provides motivation for their conspiracy theories.

Whats the matter hollie,you see that creationism is every bit of a theory as evolution ?

Fable is a very good term for evolution.

Creationism as configured by the christian creation ministries is not a theory. It is a religious belief.

Your lack of exposure to a science curriculum leaves you ill prepared to make that distinction.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Why do you evolutionists make such stupid claims. Scientists were once creationist. Compare your theory to creation and tell me why your theory is more viable ?

A Theory of Biblical Creation

Science is a process, not a result.

Certainly there were men of Science who believed in creation, at one time. But as greater knowledge has been gained, that is no longer possible. Creationism, like Anthropogenic Global Warming, is not consistent with know fact, and therefore is the product of faith, not science.

 

[daws101]

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 can't prove or disprove. They were proven wrong many times dating methods have been proven to be unreliable.

A rational creationist is on oxymoron.

THANKS i DIDN'T WANT TO STATE THE OBVIOUS..

 

[daws101]

[ame=http://youtu.be/NRKtKE3W1Mc]The logic of creationists - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Derideo_Te]

There is no rational evolutionist but they can be morons.

That is a problem which religious extremists have yet to address. They view knowledge and enlightennent as repulsive and worthy only their hate. Science and knowledge clashes with their insistence of a 6,000 year old earth and a literal rendering of biblical tales and fables.

This, in part, is what drives their hatred of learning and provides motivation for their conspiracy theories.

Whats the matter hollie,you see that creationism is every bit of a theory as evolution ?

Fable is a very good term for evolution.

Creationism is NOT a scientific theory whereas evolution is a scientific theory.

That YWC doesn't know what a scientific theory means gives lie to his claims to have worked in the DNA field.

 

[daws101]

That is a problem which religious extremists have yet to address. They view knowledge and enlightennent as repulsive and worthy only their hate. Science and knowledge clashes with their insistence of a 6,000 year old earth and a literal rendering of biblical tales and fables.

This, in part, is what drives their hatred of learning and provides motivation for their conspiracy theories.

Whats the matter hollie,you see that creationism is every bit of a theory as evolution ?

Fable is a very good term for evolution.

Creationism is NOT a scientific theory whereas evolution is a scientific theory.

That YWC doesn't know what a scientific theory means gives lie to his claims to have worked in the DNA field.

Ywc will respond with a needless comment about his degree or his 11 year journey through evilutionist hell.
in 5.....4....3...2..1