Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Youwerecreated]

I think the wand is figurative. How does magic differ from "beyond our comprehension"?

You would have to ask hollie on that.

I'm asking you. In particular, I'm asking what you meant by this statement:

Yes I believe in supernaturalism but by definition supernaturalism is not magic.

... because I've always seen them as the same thing (ableit 'magic' is often used mockingly). You denied there is any 'magic' involved in a supernatural account of creation, so I'm asking what your definition of magic is and how it differs from supernatural.

About the wand comment.

The differences can't be explained any better thn this.

Dallas Willard on Christianity, Magic, and the Supernatural - Thinking Christian

 

[Youwerecreated]

I think the wand is figurative. How does magic differ from "beyond our comprehension"?

You would have to ask hollie on that.

This is the problem of your own manufacture. Without a single assist from anyone else, you refuted your own argument. You claim to know with 100% certainty that which you later admit is beyond your comprehension.

This is the reason you're now left to "quote-mining".

You take everything you read on your biased sites as it is beyond reproach, and that is not the case. Hell you can't even take the scientists word on the matter which are suppose to be your source for reality and knowledge.

 

[Hollie]

You would have to ask hollie on that.

This is the problem of your own manufacture. Without a single assist from anyone else, you refuted your own argument. You claim to know with 100% certainty that which you later admit is beyond your comprehension.

This is the reason you're now left to "quote-mining".

You take everything you read on your biased sites as it is beyond reproach, and that is not the case. Hell you can't even take the scientists word on the matter which are suppose to be your source for reality and knowledge.

You have difficulty separating dogma from actual science. There are identifiable standards that form the basis of what we call "knowledge". One of those standards is the "Scientific Method". It provides a means whereby a hypothesis is subject to a rigorous means of objective testing.

You still can't resolve that your subjective / emotional claims to your particular gawds are directly in competition with claims by others to different gawds. Your gawds are no more extant than the Greek gawds, the Hindu gawds, or any other gawds.

To the back of the line for you and your gawds.

 

[Hollie]

Maybe there is very little difference.

Quotes About Origin Of Life (8 quotes)

It's a common tactic of yours to "quote-mine". So many of your "quotes" are frauds, as they are from selected creation ministries.

None of these quotes are frauds hollie, that is your imagination and denial at work,

You have demonstrated your dishonesty often enough for me to know that if your fingers are typing, it's probably a lie.

I've had ample experience with your falsified, edited, parsed and out of context "quote-mining"

 

[YWN666]

The theory of creationism is not based solely on the supernatural but biblical evidence. Evidence in science that supports what is stated in the bible. You nor I can prove or disprove Gods existence. Nor can science prove origins through natural processes. There is no evidence of the origins of anything happening through natural processes.

Hello in there? Hello????? Creationism CANNOT QUALIFY AS A SCIENTIFIC THEORY. End of story. You can go home now. You lose. You can make up all of the lame crap you want but that doesn't change the fact that creationism is religion masquerading as science and as they say, a pig with a dress and lipstick is still a pig.

Wrong here are some examples. The bible states 10 times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind. Since life has begun and currently that is what we see kinds bringing forth after their own kind. Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

Here are some more examples.

Complexity, Variety and Adaptability in Living Organisms and Ecological Systems.

Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection.

Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

Another.

Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information.

Inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation.

Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

Another.

Entropy Law as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Concurs, indicating a beginning (concurrent with or close to beginning of time) followed by constant degradation.

Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

A Theory of Biblical Creation


So explain to me why creationism is not Empirically Falsifiable ? Why does the science community rule out this evidence and a creator when they have no answer as to how life could have originated through natural processes ? I thought the science community was not suppose to be biased.

The problem is that creationism says god did it and that is NOT falsifiable. Be honest with yourself and stop promoting this juvenile nonsense. No real scientists accept creationism as anything other than a joke.

 

[YWN666]

Wrong here are some examples. The bible states 10 times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind. Since life has begun and currently that is what we see kinds bringing forth after their own kind. Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

Here are some more examples.

Complexity, Variety and Adaptability in Living Organisms and Ecological Systems.

Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection.

Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

Another.

Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information.

Inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation.

Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

Another.

Entropy Law as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Concurs, indicating a beginning (concurrent with or close to beginning of time) followed by constant degradation.

Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

A Theory of Biblical Creation


So explain to me why creationism is not Empirically Falsifiable ? Why does the science community rule out this evidence and a creator when they have no answer as to how life could have originated through natural processes ? I thought the science community was not suppose to be biased.

Baraminology


Template:Creationism2 In creation science, baraminology is a system for classifying life into groups having no common ancestry, called "baramins". Classification is based on a literal creationist reading of "kinds" in Genesis, especially the distinction between mankind and other animals. Supplementary criteria include the ability of animals to interbreed and the similarity of their observable traits. Like all of creation science, baraminology is pseudoscience and is unrelated to science: modern biological facts have shown that all life descended from one common ancestor.[1] The scientific alternative to baraminology is cladistics, which classifies species based on evolutionary history.

Biblical Kinds

The Bible mentions kinds on several occasions. Genesis 1:12-25 gives an account of the creation of living things:

“ 24 And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. ”

Genesis 7:13-16 states that there are distinct kinds of cattle. In Deuteronomy 14:11-18 varieties of owl, raven, and hawk are presented as distinct kinds. Leviticus 19:19 states that kinds might interbreed. Apart from what is implied by these passages, the Bible does not specify what a kind is.

Traditional interpretations, such as those of St. Augustine[2], Thomas Aquinas[3], John Calvin[4], and the Vatican[5], hold that the Bible makes theological and not scientific statements about reality, and that no conflict exists between science and the Bible. A typical interpretation of Genesis, with focus upon the kinds, is that all things were created, that the ordered multitude of creation is as God intended, and that the Darwinian model "is strongly animated by [a] fundamental feeling of solidarity with the whole of creation", the latter in reference to parallel concepts of common descent and common creator.Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag.

Baraminology

Baraminology is founded upon a biblically literal young earth creationist interpretation of the Bible: that each kind was brought into direct physical existence by God and that these kinds share no ancestry. Baraminology emerged as an effort to make this view scientifically appealing.[6] The idea of a baramin was proposed in 1941 by Frank Marsh, but was criticized for a lack of formal definition. In 1990 the work of Kurt Wise and Walter ReMine introduced baraminology as the pursuit of an acceptable definition.[6] ReMine's work specifies four groupings: holobaramins, monobaramins, apobaramins, and polybaramins. These are, respectively, all things of one kind; some things of the same kind; groups of kinds; and any mixed grouping of things. [7] These groups are similar in name to the concepts of monophyly, paraphyly and polyphyly used in phylogenetics

Conditions for membership in a (holo)baramin and methods of classification have changed over the years. These include the ability to create viable offspring, and morphological similarity.[8] Some creationists have suggested that kind refers to species, while others believe it might mean any animal which may be distinguished in some way from another.[9] Another criterion is "baramin distance" which is calculated based on the similarity of the animals' characters, using methods borrowed from phenetics.[10] In all cases, methods that have been found to place humans and primates into the same baramin have been discarded. [11][12]

Criticism

Baraminology has been heavily criticized for its lack of rigorous testing and post-study rejection of data to make it better fit the desired findings.[13] Baraminology is a pseudoscience, and has not produced any peer-reviewed scientific research,[14] nor is any word beginning with "baramin" found in Biological Abstracts, which has complete coverage of zoology and botany since 1924.[15] Universal common descent, which states that all life shares a common ancestor, is well-established and tested, and is a scientifically-verified fact.[16] However, neither cladistics, the field devoted to investigating the ancestral relationships between living things, nor the scientific consensus on transitional fossils are accepted by baraminologists.[17]


Baraminology - wikidoc

I proved creationism is a falsifiable theory deal with it.

Baloney. You did nothing of the sort. How do you explain away the "statement of faith" that so many creationist organizations require of their members? That alone rules it out as science. You can do your song and dance and spew your canned creationist propaganda but that doesn't change the fact that creationism is a fairy tale that cannot qualify as a scientific theory.

 

[YWN666]

Wrong here are some examples. The bible states 10 times in genesis that kinds bring forth after their own kind. Since life has begun and currently that is what we see kinds bringing forth after their own kind. Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

Here are some more examples.

Complexity, Variety and Adaptability in Living Organisms and Ecological Systems.

Inherent and complete in original populations as created; manifested (and subject to degradation) over time through genetic variation and natural selection.

Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

Another.

Massive amounts of Coded Genetic Information.

Inherent and complete in original populations as created; sum total has steadily declined over time via mutational degradation.

Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

Another.

Entropy Law as formalized in the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

Concurs, indicating a beginning (concurrent with or close to beginning of time) followed by constant degradation.

Empirically Falsifiable? Yes

A Theory of Biblical Creation


So explain to me why creationism is not Empirically Falsifiable ? Why does the science community rule out this evidence and a creator when they have no answer as to how life could have originated through natural processes ? I thought the science community was not suppose to be biased.

Baraminology


Template:Creationism2 In creation science, baraminology is a system for classifying life into groups having no common ancestry, called "baramins". Classification is based on a literal creationist reading of "kinds" in Genesis, especially the distinction between mankind and other animals. Supplementary criteria include the ability of animals to interbreed and the similarity of their observable traits. Like all of creation science, baraminology is pseudoscience and is unrelated to science: modern biological facts have shown that all life descended from one common ancestor.[1] The scientific alternative to baraminology is cladistics, which classifies species based on evolutionary history.

Biblical Kinds

The Bible mentions kinds on several occasions. Genesis 1:12-25 gives an account of the creation of living things:

“ 24 And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. ”

Genesis 7:13-16 states that there are distinct kinds of cattle. In Deuteronomy 14:11-18 varieties of owl, raven, and hawk are presented as distinct kinds. Leviticus 19:19 states that kinds might interbreed. Apart from what is implied by these passages, the Bible does not specify what a kind is.

Traditional interpretations, such as those of St. Augustine[2], Thomas Aquinas[3], John Calvin[4], and the Vatican[5], hold that the Bible makes theological and not scientific statements about reality, and that no conflict exists between science and the Bible. A typical interpretation of Genesis, with focus upon the kinds, is that all things were created, that the ordered multitude of creation is as God intended, and that the Darwinian model "is strongly animated by [a] fundamental feeling of solidarity with the whole of creation", the latter in reference to parallel concepts of common descent and common creator.Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag.

Baraminology

Baraminology is founded upon a biblically literal young earth creationist interpretation of the Bible: that each kind was brought into direct physical existence by God and that these kinds share no ancestry. Baraminology emerged as an effort to make this view scientifically appealing.[6] The idea of a baramin was proposed in 1941 by Frank Marsh, but was criticized for a lack of formal definition. In 1990 the work of Kurt Wise and Walter ReMine introduced baraminology as the pursuit of an acceptable definition.[6] ReMine's work specifies four groupings: holobaramins, monobaramins, apobaramins, and polybaramins. These are, respectively, all things of one kind; some things of the same kind; groups of kinds; and any mixed grouping of things. [7] These groups are similar in name to the concepts of monophyly, paraphyly and polyphyly used in phylogenetics

Conditions for membership in a (holo)baramin and methods of classification have changed over the years. These include the ability to create viable offspring, and morphological similarity.[8] Some creationists have suggested that kind refers to species, while others believe it might mean any animal which may be distinguished in some way from another.[9] Another criterion is "baramin distance" which is calculated based on the similarity of the animals' characters, using methods borrowed from phenetics.[10] In all cases, methods that have been found to place humans and primates into the same baramin have been discarded. [11][12]

Criticism

Baraminology has been heavily criticized for its lack of rigorous testing and post-study rejection of data to make it better fit the desired findings.[13] Baraminology is a pseudoscience, and has not produced any peer-reviewed scientific research,[14] nor is any word beginning with "baramin" found in Biological Abstracts, which has complete coverage of zoology and botany since 1924.[15] Universal common descent, which states that all life shares a common ancestor, is well-established and tested, and is a scientifically-verified fact.[16] However, neither cladistics, the field devoted to investigating the ancestral relationships between living things, nor the scientific consensus on transitional fossils are accepted by baraminologists.[17]


Baraminology - wikidoc

One more thing at one time most all scientists were creationist and you are posting nonsense by saying creationist have not contributed anything to science.

Here is a reminder dipshit.

Bible-Believing Scientists of the Past

That means NOTHING. Hundreds of years ago, science was in its infancy so it's not surprising that people back then reached some ridiculous conclusions. The year is now 2013 and there is no excuse for the kind of primitive "thinking" that is behind creationism.

 

[YWN666]

You demonstrated that creationism is a laughable joke.

You're in denial of the facts.

Actually, no. The fact is, creationism is a laughable joke. Using the various bibles as science texts is a laughable joke.

Creationism was designed to dupe gullible people into following the religious agenda and YWC has swallowed it hook line and sinker. It's pathetic and a waste of brain matter.

 

[YWN666]

Actually, no. The fact is, creationism is a laughable joke. Using the various bibles as science texts is a laughable joke.

Some day you will remember these conversations.

You think Hollie has forgotten them already? Why?

YWC is resorting to the classic fundy "just you wait" threat that they use to close a comment when they have nothing of substance to offer. YAWN.

 

[YWN666]

I don't lie hollie. sometimes I may be mistaken but I never purposely lie or try to mislead. Like I said you can lead a horse to water but it is up to the horse to drink. Not a threat hollie, if I am correct which I believe I am it's merely a warning.

Sure it's a threat. It's how most religious salesmen ply their trade.

Not a salesmen and it most certainly is not my trade.

Of course you are. You peddle bullshit.

 

[YWN666]

Not a salesmen and it most certainly is not my trade.

Is just a hobby then?

Is it not my right to free speech ?

If your house was burning down, and you were asleep in your home,would you appreciate it if some woke you up and alerted you that your house was on fire ?

Fundies historically suck at analogies and this one is no different. If my house is on fire, that can be proven with cold hard scientific facts. Your assertion, not so much.

 

[YWN666]

Is just a hobby then?

Is it not my right to free speech ?

If your house was burning down, and you were asleep in your home,would you appreciate it if some woke you up and alerted you that your house was on fire ?

Of course it's your right. And you make a good point; I can definitely understand how religious proselytizing can be motivated by compassion. But "hellfire and damnation" is a threat, and has traditionally been used to frighten people into submission. I'd have deep misgivings joining any religion that relied on such threats to win converts.

Anyone who has taken basic psychology courses knows that positive reinforcement is much more effective at behavior modification than negative reinforcement. Perhaps god flunked psychology.

 

[daws101]

You're in denial of the facts.

Actually, no. The fact is, creationism is a laughable joke. Using the various bibles as science texts is a laughable joke.

Some day you will remember these conversations.

the yer gonna get yours ploy!

 

[daws101]

Some day you will remember these conversations.

I remember these conversations today. I remember the lies upon lies that you furthered.

I really think it's pathetic that you feel a need to threaten me with your gawds. But then again, self-hating religious zealots who spend their lives consumed by hate / self-hate tend to be less than critical thinkers.

Humans have shown that they are liable to believe in things that give them comfort even if it's an utter lie rather than the truth if it's uncomfortable. We can see that with religious zealots such as yourself who lie incessantly and unapologetically because it calms an emotional requirement whereby they can foist responsibility for their actions on their gawds.

I don't lie hollie. sometimes I may be mistaken but I never purposely lie or try to mislead. Like I said you can lead a horse to water but it is up to the horse to drink. Not a threat hollie, if I am correct which I believe I am it's merely a warning.

bullshit you lie constantly...

 

[YWN666]

What's your excuse?


Great, you are showing at least a capacity to learn and upgrade your position. Well done.


Better put, creationism contends that what folks label "supernatural" is not only possible, but not so supernatural when you consider the logical conclusion that what we see around us the simple effect of an outside force or cause.

Why folks like you are so comfortable embracing a logical fallacy, is beyond me. You claim the high-ground on all things logical and scientific.... yet you insist that the universe came about from nothing, and without an antecedent cause. Such thinking flies in the face of fundamental logic and science.

Why yes, magical gawds are certainly logical and scientific.

No magic required hollie,that is the creators natural ability, and it will never be matched by all the scientists in the world with all the complicated machinery, tools, and knowledge they possess.

You use unprovable assertions to support your argument. You first have to present evidence of the existence of your god and THEN you can start arguing about his abilities. Good luck. You'd be the first person in history to be able to do so.

 

[daws101]

Not a salesmen and it most certainly is not my trade.

Is just a hobby then?

Is it not my right to free speech ?

If your house was burning down, and you were asleep in your home,would you appreciate it if some woke you up and alerted you that your house was on fire ?

talk about a misleading analogy !

 

[YWN666]

Not all of creationism has been falsified but that can be said of many scientific theories.

There is nothing about creationism that is falsifiable because the premise is an appeal to magic and supernaturalism.

It says so in the Book of the Dead.

B.S. I already presented you the evidence of creationism that can be falsified now show me how that evidence can't be falsified.

The elements of creationism that require a supernatural cause are what can't be falsified. You're trying to pick and choose bits that are falsifiable and then saying the entire "theory" is legit.

 

[YWN666]

Now you can understand why so many believe in design and creation over naturalism.

Because you can't possibly live without the thought of a Imaginary Sky Pixie watching your every move?

What is your Imaginary Sky Pixie that produced everything that exists in this universe.

There is nothing wrong with saying "we don't know yet"

 

[daws101]

B.S. I already presented you the evidence of creationism that can be falsified now show me how that evidence can't be falsified.

Feigned attempts at melodrama won't save your bankrupt argument. Your argument for creationism relies upon "supermagical" intervention by specific, sectarian gawd(s).

Identify for us how anyone can falsify the existence of your gawd(s).

How many times must I say I can't prove the existence of God but only infer a designer. How is that any different from inferring unguided naturalism produced systematic natural processes ?

wrong! the only thing you can infer is the APPEARANCE of design...which in and of it's self is not evidence of a designer.. how many ******* times do you have to be told that!

 

[westwall]

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.

Is creationism scientific?

Because science is based on OBSERVABLE facts. It is not interested in truth. Religion is interested in truth. That's as basic as I can get it for you. That is the fundamental underlying difference between science and religion. Creationism has no observable fact. It has opinion, but there is nothing that we can observe that demonstrates creationism.

It's as simple as that.