Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Hollie]

Sorry but many things contained in the bible have been confirmed through modern science and at the time of the writing of the scriptures man did not possess the ability to know such things.

Obviously, you can't identify a single thing your soothsaying bibles have made predictions for. As you should be aware, your earlier cut and paste of "miraculous predictions of the bibles" was shown to be a fraud.

What a shame that you feel this need to equate your bibles with tarot card reading, crystal ball gazing and card tricks.

One of the true dangers of religious zealotry is the belief among zealots that their holy texts are the only texts that anyone needs to read. They believe their holy texts hold all knowledge that anyone needs to know and worse, that their holy texts predict the future.

I have before,like I said you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Waffle. I've noticed with regularity that requiring the religious extremist to support his statements will send him running for the exits.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Obviously, you can't identify a single thing your soothsaying bibles have made predictions for. As you should be aware, your earlier cut and paste of "miraculous predictions of the bibles" was shown to be a fraud.

What a shame that you feel this need to equate your bibles with tarot card reading, crystal ball gazing and card tricks.

One of the true dangers of religious zealotry is the belief among zealots that their holy texts are the only texts that anyone needs to read. They believe their holy texts hold all knowledge that anyone needs to know and worse, that their holy texts predict the future.

I have before,like I said you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Waffle. I've noticed with regularity that requiring the religious extremist to support his statements will send him running for the exits.

Do you really want the 101 evidences of foreknowledge from the bible again ?

 

[YWN666]

Here you go off of the rails. There have been MANY great geniuses who were believers in God. When you insult someone's intellect for their belief, you lose whatever credibility you may have had.

I'd bet that if they were geniuses in the field of science, any belief in a god wouldn't be literal.

A person who uses 10% of his brain has all the answers correct ?

Is that another attempt to shift the focus of the conversation? Who do you think you're fooling?

 

[Hollie]

I have before,like I said you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Waffle. I've noticed with regularity that requiring the religious extremist to support his statements will send him running for the exits.

Do you really want the 101 evidences of foreknowledge from the bible again ?

Certainly not, because that nonsense has been refuted the last eight times you dumped it into various threads.

Your silly wall of text from "anointed-one', is a laughable joke of "quote-mining".

 

[Youwerecreated]

Here you go off of the rails. There have been MANY great geniuses who were believers in God. When you insult someone's intellect for their belief, you lose whatever credibility you may have had.

I'd bet that if they were geniuses in the field of science, any belief in a god wouldn't be literal.

A person who uses 10% of his brain has all the answers correct ?

Is that another attempt to shift the focus of the conversation? Who do you think you're fooling?

Sorry but it's reality.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Waffle. I've noticed with regularity that requiring the religious extremist to support his statements will send him running for the exits.

Do you really want the 101 evidences of foreknowledge from the bible again ?

Certainly not, because that nonsense has been refuted the last eight times you dumped it into various threads.

Your silly wall of text from "anointed-one', is a laughable joke of "quote-mining".

You're are so full of crap hollie your eyes are brown.

 

[YWN666]

and Naturalism does not ? by acknowledging the possibility of design what is inferred but not proven ? by acknowledging natural processes what is inferred but not proven ?

You're avoiding the point yet again. Unbelievable. You seem to believe that "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit". Your avoidance tactics are so transparent and trying to have an intelligent conversation with you is a waste of time.

You mean to tell me you have no answer ? how is it bullshit Mr. critical thinker ?

What I am telling you is that you're avoiding addressing the point that kills your argument.

 

[itfitzme]

I have before,like I said you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

Waffle. I've noticed with regularity that requiring the religious extremist to support his statements will send him running for the exits.

Do you really want the 101 evidences of foreknowledge from the bible again ?

No, just a couple that define countable quantities and specific dates within a reasonabke variance that can be used to predict other future events by adjusting the numbera to account for variations in the controlled variables.

You know, like how physics mechanics can predict the precise location on the planets and their moons to a degree of precision afforded by relativity.

Just something like that. Or how about the probability of rain next week.

Anyone can say, sometime in the future, a really bad thing is going to happen and people will feel bad about it except for the people that it didn't happen to.

The CDC does a better job of predicting the flu.

 

[YWN666]

Here you go off of the rails. There have been MANY great geniuses who were believers in God. When you insult someone's intellect for their belief, you lose whatever credibility you may have had.

I'd bet that if they were geniuses in the field of science, any belief in a god wouldn't be literal.

A person who uses 10% of his brain has all the answers correct ?

Is that another attempt to shift the focus of the conversation? Who do you think you're fooling?

Sorry but it's reality.

If only you could prove that! That's your fundamental problem - there is no evidence to support the claims that creationists make and once again I will ask you how a real scientist could allow anyone to limit his scientific conclusions to those that support the bible?

 

[Hollie]

Do you really want the 101 evidences of foreknowledge from the bible again ?

Certainly not, because that nonsense has been refuted the last eight times you dumped it into various threads.

Your silly wall of text from "anointed-one', is a laughable joke of "quote-mining".

You're are so full of crap hollie your eyes are brown.

Not at all. I already exposed that nonsense cut and paste wall of text as a load of fundamentalist lies and "quote-mining"

 

[YWN666]

Obviously, you can't identify a single thing your soothsaying bibles have made predictions for. As you should be aware, your earlier cut and paste of "miraculous predictions of the bibles" was shown to be a fraud.

What a shame that you feel this need to equate your bibles with tarot card reading, crystal ball gazing and card tricks.

One of the true dangers of religious zealotry is the belief among zealots that their holy texts are the only texts that anyone needs to read. They believe their holy texts hold all knowledge that anyone needs to know and worse, that their holy texts predict the future.

I have before,like I said you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

You can lead a Creationist to MIT but you can't make him think.

Sayings aren't what, where, when, how much.

Like I said, just emotional language manipulation.

Exactly. They lie because they MUST.

 

[Derideo_Te]

The annoying thing about Creationists is the lack of symetry. *If science can't prove it to a 100% degree of certainty then their 0% faith based perspective is certainly correct. *And they love the "well, I didn't overtly state that and you can't prove I am implying it, therefore, you can't argue against it",bs.*

And yet, they will assume the other person's statement implies whatever bs implication they want to stick in there, inspite of a presenter's best effort.

The speaker has the control over what they are implying and it is up to the speaker to manage that. *And fundamentalists know this, deny they are, and ignore other's reasonable effort to do so.

The reality of language and communication is that it always carries a number of implied meanings. This is why science experiment and proof is grounded in careful presentation of the experimental setup and the specific measurement in terms of exactly defined mearurable quantity and value. *The history of scientific experiments and theory create the context for whatever folllows, for the very narrow implications of the experimental results. (Law is like that.) *Beyond that very specificly defined setup, measure, and results, any presentation becomes a bit fuzzier.

Psychology and advertising recognises that language also carries with it subjective feeling. *The nature of biblical speak is one of manipulating the language to get the right feeling, not to describe the objective world. *

What they miss is that while religion and creationism cannot encompass the nature of science, science can, and does, have the capability of capturing, defining, measuring, and explaining religion and creationism.

Religion and Creationism is like a teenage girl saying, "You don't understand me." *Of course science understands religion. *It just doesn't express it in the fuzzy, feeling based language that religion prefers. *That is with one exception, the environmemt of psychology and individual psychotherapy.

It's a set theory thing. *The universe is the largest set. Naturalism recognizes that this is all of it. *In that set, there is science and religion. *Science is a large part of that set, as it continues to observe the universe and explain more and more. Inside that set are numerous subsets. *Two are phsychology amd history. *Religion is inside of those two, part historical, part social psychology, part individual psychology.

Because*science explains religion, it knows where religion goes. *Religion wants to claim dominion over the uknown universe. *It can't even recognize it's own place in the larger universe. *And the only way that it can maintain it's illusion is by manipulating language along emotional impied contexts and avoiding real physical measures. *Indeed, it's contant attempt to claim dominion over the ever decreasing unknown is by never doing so. *By definition, what is not capable of being objectively experienced cannot be directly measured. *And what is unknown has never been measured. *

All religion has got is to say, "You can't directly measure what I'm thinking, ergo you can't know it or prove it."

But guess what, I can know it because I also know what is not being said. I once accused someone of something. *He replied, "You don't know that. You didn't SEE me do it." *And I knew with certainty, not from abduction but because of what he didn't say. *He didn't say, "I didn't do it." *He's a pathological liar. To lie, he must conjure up an image of how it might reasonably be otherwise. *He needs a "reasonable" lie. *That takes time, that takes forethought. *Faced with the sudden accusation, he couldn't just flat out lie. He first had to consider if I might have seem him. *Anyone having not done it would not had given a thought to if i had seen it. That would be obvious as they didn't do it.

Crearionism and Intelligent Design arguements that avoid, hide, otherwise don't state the obvious foundation tell me something. What is being avoided tells me that they they are trying to bs around it. It tells me, like that pathological liar, that they know they are being disengenous. *It isn't in what they say, it is in what they avoid saying. *They know that a naturalist attaches a negative feeling to "god" and they are avoiding that feeling as they atempt to manipulate feelings with language.

Religion is about manipulation and control of believers. Yes, it is hidden behind window dressing and special effects but ultimately it is just exploitation of fear of the unknown. Believers are held hostage by their own gullibility and fear. Easy pickings for the unscrupulous.

 

[Youwerecreated]

You're avoiding the point yet again. Unbelievable. You seem to believe that "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit". Your avoidance tactics are so transparent and trying to have an intelligent conversation with you is a waste of time.

You mean to tell me you have no answer ? how is it bullshit Mr. critical thinker ?

What I am telling you is that you're avoiding addressing the point that kills your argument.

I am not avoiding it. I have stated in this thread and many other threads I can't prove the existence of God I can look at the evidence and infer a superior intelligence thats all. When it comes to origins you can't prove nature naturally produced life. Hell when you suggest nature did it, you're breaking a known scientific law.

 

[YWN666]

Why do you care? How on Earth do their beliefs possibly affect you? You are no better than they are.

I care because people like him are the type who are trying to get their fantasies taught as fact in public schools.

My views must threaten you.

The only difference yours are being taught.

Your views threaten young children if they are taught as fact in schools. My views are not being taught because they are my views. Facts are being taught and my views just happen to coincide because I accept the facts.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ok so now we are at a crossroads. once I point out an obvious flaw in the reasoning of the naturalists they resort to insults,typical and not surprising.

None of you can show how your views are superior and that is a typical tactic insult the person that does not believe as you do.

Check mate fundies.

 

[YWN666]

You mean to tell me you have no answer ? how is it bullshit Mr. critical thinker ?

What I am telling you is that you're avoiding addressing the point that kills your argument.

I am not avoiding it. I have stated in this thread and many other threads I can't prove the existence of God I can look at the evidence and infer a superior intelligence thats all. When it comes to origins you can't prove nature naturally produced life. Hell when you suggest nature did it, you're breaking a known scientific law.

That wasn't even the point so again you are avoiding it. You're as slippery as a greased pig.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I care because people like him are the type who are trying to get their fantasies taught as fact in public schools.

My views must threaten you.

The only difference yours are being taught.

Your views threaten young children if they are taught as fact in schools. My views are not being taught because they are my views. Facts are being taught and my views just happen to coincide because I accept the facts.

Do you have that evidence I asked of you and the others ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

What I am telling you is that you're avoiding addressing the point that kills your argument.

I am not avoiding it. I have stated in this thread and many other threads I can't prove the existence of God I can look at the evidence and infer a superior intelligence thats all. When it comes to origins you can't prove nature naturally produced life. Hell when you suggest nature did it, you're breaking a known scientific law.

That wasn't even the point so again you are avoiding it. You're as slippery as a greased pig.

Evidently you have a comprehension problem.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I have before,like I said you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.

You can lead a Creationist to MIT but you can't make him think.

Sayings aren't what, where, when, how much.

Like I said, just emotional language manipulation.

Exactly. They lie because they MUST.

What did I lie about ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Run for the hills ,the creationist once again is kicking our ass on the basis of logic.