Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Youwerecreated]

the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which tells us that matter and energy naturally tend toward greater randomness rather than greater order and complexity.

What is more complex, an acorn or a mighty oak tree?
A fertilized human egg or you?

What is your point ?

My point is your Second Law error was an error. Do you see it yet?

If you're referring to the sun blasting energy through our atmosphere ? no,because in a closed system does exchange energy but not matter.

If that is not what you were referring to please point it out.

 

[Hollie]

You are not using your logical thinking to see the importance of logic.

I find no logic in emotional appeals to supernaturalism.

Really, dude. Cutting and pasting a library of failed creationist arguments is a waste of bandwidth.

How ?

The aims of scientific philosophy.

The aims of scientific philosophy can be exposed as the following three.

First, its basic aim is to defend the scientific insight of the philosophy and that it should use the hypothetical-deductive method as any other science.

A second aim is to theoretically develop the philosophy applying this hypothetical-deductive method to show that it can make some advances, not like what happens in the eternal repetition of approaches of unscientific philosophy, the speculative one.

Finally, as any other science, a scientific philosophy aim is to apply in the practice its theoretical developments to show that the scientific vision of the philosophy can not only build theories but also use them usefully in the world.

Scientific Philosophy

What extremists choose to ignore is that their arguments for the supernatural only survive in the philosophical realm.

I understand you must abdicate reason and rationality regarding the gods and delve into the philosophical (and metaphysical), because reason and rationality do not survive in the realm of the supernatural. Philosophical arguments are essentially useless for drawing conclusions because ultimately, there's no requirement for the conclusions to be valid or not. They produce nothing of any real utility for problem solving.

This is characteristic of philosophy in general and theology in particular. When arguing in the void of evidence, the best that can be assembled is an appeal to supernatural / metaphysical human constructs, ie:, gods. These are ideas with no obvious connection to reality and truth. This is why science cures disease, looks back in time to the very edge of our universe and sends humans into outer space, while philosophy and theology do not.

 

[Derideo_Te]

It is logical to assume a designer. Because you don't understand the abilities of the designer does not mean the assumption is illogical.

It is never logical to imagine a fantasy and then delude oneself that this fantasy was responsible for everything you see.

How would you prove its only fantasy ?

For the umpteenth time onus is on you to prove that your delusion is real.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What is your point ?

My point is your Second Law error was an error. Do you see it yet?

If you're referring to the sun blasting energy through our atmosphere ? no,because in a closed system does exchange energy but not matter.

If that is not what you were referring to please point it out.

If you're referring to the sun blasting energy through our atmosphere ?

Are you more complex than a fertilized egg?
It must be because you used energy.
That's why your Second Law error is an error.

It's why the claim that the Second Law makes evolution impossible, is so silly.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Science has been trying to figure out the designers methods and repeating it. They will not eliminate the designer if they unlock the mystery only strengthen the view it took intelligence and design to make it happen.

Science has been doing nothing of the sort. Your delusion is threatened by science making factual discoveries that eliminates any involvement by your mythical "creator".

Yes they have. They have been going on the presupposition that there is no designer. They are trying to show natural undirected processes are the cause eliminating the possibility of a designer. They have to show that chaos produces order seen in nature.

Your paranoid delusions have no basis in reality. Science doesn't care about your fantasy and is under no obligation to prove anything to you.

 

[Hollie]

It is logical to assume a designer. Because you don't understand the abilities of the designer does not mean the assumption is illogical.

It is never logical to imagine a fantasy and then delude oneself that this fantasy was responsible for everything you see.

How would you prove its only fantasy ?

Quite clearly, you're hoping to retreat to a version of the "prove it isn't", weasel. It is impossible to prove a negative. So your comment is already logically vacuous.

But, as to negligence regarding the "prove it isn't" weasel, evidence and reason are the only tools we have to discriminate between demonstrable fact vs. claims to supernatural entities (the gods), which are human constructs. While you will recoil in fits of denial that we have solid evidence that natural laws exist, we have nothing at all to suggest that your partisan gods are anything but re-inventions of earlier gods.

Where is the equivalent evidence for your "designer gods?"

 

[Youwerecreated]

It is never logical to imagine a fantasy and then delude oneself that this fantasy was responsible for everything you see.

How would you prove its only fantasy ?

For the umpteenth time onus is on you to prove that your delusion is real.

What do you to go by to determine that the origins of life was a product of chaos converted to order ? Or that the origins of natural processes were produced by unguided naturalism?

With your reasoning you must suffering from delusions. For the umpteenth time,irreducible complexity is a product design. That is a rational assumption,at least as rational as saying everything we observe came in to existence by chance.

 

[Hollie]

How would you prove its only fantasy ?

For the umpteenth time onus is on you to prove that your delusion is real.

What do you to go by to determine that the origins of life was a product of chaos converted to order ? Or that the origins of natural processes were produced by unguided naturalism?

With your reasoning you must suffering from delusions. For the umpteenth time,irreducible complexity is a product design. That is a rational assumption,at least as rational as saying everything we observe came in to existence by chance.

It is not necessary for scientists to prove that design is not required for the complexity we see in nature. NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to a supernatural designer. If you or any Flat Earth'ers have evidence that something shows signs of being designed (something that could not have arisen naturally) please come forward with it. To date, no one has. You are trying to shift the burden of proof. Advocates of designer gawds are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must substantiate their incredible claims. The whole Behe invented "irreducibly complex" argument is not taken seriously by the relevant science community. Scientists do not "take it on faith" that the natural answers are there... that is all they have evidence of. And those answers do very well.

 

[Derideo_Te]

How would you prove its only fantasy ?

For the umpteenth time onus is on you to prove that your delusion is real.

What do you to go by to determine that the origins of life was a product of chaos converted to order ? Or that the origins of natural processes were produced by unguided naturalism?

With your reasoning you must suffering from delusions. For the umpteenth time,irreducible complexity is a product design. That is a rational assumption,at least as rational as saying everything we observe came in to existence by chance.

There is no such thing as "irreducible complexity". Slackjawed yokels might gaze in wonder at things they cannot comprehend but normal rational people understand that there are a set of basic laws of physics and chemistry that result in predictable outcomes. The universe has always existed and will always exist. Given billions of years and billions of planets the odds of what we observe are most certainly the result of chance. Your irrational belief in sky fairies has no bearing on either the origin or the outcome.

 

[Steven_R]

With your reasoning you must suffering from delusions. For the umpteenth time,irreducible complexity is a product design. That is a rational assumption,at least as rational as saying everything we observe came in to existence by chance.

Michael Behe was just about laughed out of the courtroom with his Irreducible Complexity nonsense during the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. I wouldn't hang my hat on anything he says.

 

[Youwerecreated]

My point is your Second Law error was an error. Do you see it yet?

If you're referring to the sun blasting energy through our atmosphere ? no,because in a closed system does exchange energy but not matter.

If that is not what you were referring to please point it out.

If you're referring to the sun blasting energy through our atmosphere ?

Are you more complex than a fertilized egg?
It must be because you used energy.
That's why your Second Law error is an error.

It's why the claim that the Second Law makes evolution impossible, is so silly.

It takes more than energy.

To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a closed system requires outside energy and outside information. Evolutionists maintain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent Evolution on Earth, since this planet receives outside energy from the Sun. Thus, they suggest that the Sun's energy helped create the life of our beautiful planet. However, is the simple addition of energy all that is needed to accomplish this great feat?12

Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?

A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun's energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers - all beginning from a single seed.

If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun's energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?

What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process.
The Ultimate Ingredient: Designed and Coded Information
Photo copyrighted, Films for Christ.
Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith in the ORIGINS motion picture series.

The distinguished scientist and origins expert, Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, puts it this way:

"What is the difference then between a stick, which is dead, and an orchid which is alive? The difference is that the orchid has teleonomy in it. It is a machine which is capturing energy to increase order. Where you have life, you have teleonomy, and then the Sun's energy can be taken and make the thing grow - increasing its order" [temporarily].13

teleonomy: Information stored within a living thing. Teleonomy involves the concept of something having a design and purpose. Non-teleonomy is “directionlessness,” having no project. The teleonomy of a living thing is somehow stored within its genes. Teleonomy can use energy and matter to produce order and complexity.14

Where did the teleonomy of living things originate? It is important to note that the teleonomy (the ordering principle, the know-how) does not reside in matter itself. Matter, itself, is not creative. Dr. Wilder-Smith:

"The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules."15

Creationists believe cells build themselves from carefully designed and coded information which has been passed from one life to the next since their original inception.

[See below for further evidence that the 2nd Law is a major problem for Evolution]

SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS - Does this basic law of nature prevent Evolution? ? ChristianAnswers.Net

 

[Youwerecreated]

With your reasoning you must suffering from delusions. For the umpteenth time,irreducible complexity is a product design. That is a rational assumption,at least as rational as saying everything we observe came in to existence by chance.

Michael Behe was just about laughed out of the courtroom with his Irreducible Complexity nonsense during the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. I wouldn't hang my hat on anything he says.

I am impressed with a judges knowledge of science in that case

 

[Steven_R]

"The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules."

Someone should tell all those cell biologists they are now out of a job now that we're looking for information concerning cells outside of the plane of existence we're on.

 

[Derideo_Te]

If you're referring to the sun blasting energy through our atmosphere ? no,because in a closed system does exchange energy but not matter.

If that is not what you were referring to please point it out.

If you're referring to the sun blasting energy through our atmosphere ?

Are you more complex than a fertilized egg?
It must be because you used energy.
That's why your Second Law error is an error.

It's why the claim that the Second Law makes evolution impossible, is so silly.

It takes more than energy.

To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a closed system requires outside energy and outside information. Evolutionists maintain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent Evolution on Earth, since this planet receives outside energy from the Sun. Thus, they suggest that the Sun's energy helped create the life of our beautiful planet. However, is the simple addition of energy all that is needed to accomplish this great feat?12

Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?

A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun's energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers - all beginning from a single seed.

If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun's energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?

What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process.
The Ultimate Ingredient: Designed and Coded Information
Photo copyrighted, Films for Christ.
Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith in the ORIGINS motion picture series.

The distinguished scientist and origins expert, Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, puts it this way:

"What is the difference then between a stick, which is dead, and an orchid which is alive? The difference is that the orchid has teleonomy in it. It is a machine which is capturing energy to increase order. Where you have life, you have teleonomy, and then the Sun's energy can be taken and make the thing grow - increasing its order" [temporarily].13

teleonomy: Information stored within a living thing. Teleonomy involves the concept of something having a design and purpose. Non-teleonomy is “directionlessness,” having no project. The teleonomy of a living thing is somehow stored within its genes. Teleonomy can use energy and matter to produce order and complexity.14

Where did the teleonomy of living things originate? It is important to note that the teleonomy (the ordering principle, the know-how) does not reside in matter itself. Matter, itself, is not creative. Dr. Wilder-Smith:

"The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules."15

Creationists believe cells build themselves from carefully designed and coded information which has been passed from one life to the next since their original inception.

[See below for further evidence that the 2nd Law is a major problem for Evolution]

SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS - Does this basic law of nature prevent Evolution? ? ChristianAnswers.Net

Earth is not a closed system. Right from it's original formation it has been receiving both energy and matter from outside. That process is still happening therefore earth is an open system. The fact that we can still see meteor showers and find meteorites on the planet is physical evidence that disproves your ridiculous claim about the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you're referring to the sun blasting energy through our atmosphere ? no,because in a closed system does exchange energy but not matter.

If that is not what you were referring to please point it out.

If you're referring to the sun blasting energy through our atmosphere ?

Are you more complex than a fertilized egg?
It must be because you used energy.
That's why your Second Law error is an error.

It's why the claim that the Second Law makes evolution impossible, is so silly.

It takes more than energy.

To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a closed system requires outside energy and outside information. Evolutionists maintain that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics does not prevent Evolution on Earth, since this planet receives outside energy from the Sun. Thus, they suggest that the Sun's energy helped create the life of our beautiful planet. However, is the simple addition of energy all that is needed to accomplish this great feat?12

Compare a living plant with a dead one. Can the simple addition of energy make a completely dead plant live?

A dead plant contains the same basic structures as a living plant. It once used the Sun's energy to temporarily increase its order and grow and produce stems, leaves, roots, and flowers - all beginning from a single seed.

If there is actually a powerful Evolutionary force at work in the universe, and if the open system of Earth makes all the difference, why does the Sun's energy not make a truly dead plant become alive again (assuming a sufficient supply of water, light, and the like)?

What actually happens when a dead plant receives energy from the Sun? The internal organization in the plant decreases; it tends to decay and break apart into its simplest components. The heat of the Sun only speeds the disorganization process.
The Ultimate Ingredient: Designed and Coded Information
Photo copyrighted, Films for Christ.
Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith in the ORIGINS motion picture series.

The distinguished scientist and origins expert, Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith, puts it this way:

"What is the difference then between a stick, which is dead, and an orchid which is alive? The difference is that the orchid has teleonomy in it. It is a machine which is capturing energy to increase order. Where you have life, you have teleonomy, and then the Sun's energy can be taken and make the thing grow - increasing its order" [temporarily].13

teleonomy: Information stored within a living thing. Teleonomy involves the concept of something having a design and purpose. Non-teleonomy is “directionlessness,” having no project. The teleonomy of a living thing is somehow stored within its genes. Teleonomy can use energy and matter to produce order and complexity.14

Where did the teleonomy of living things originate? It is important to note that the teleonomy (the ordering principle, the know-how) does not reside in matter itself. Matter, itself, is not creative. Dr. Wilder-Smith:

"The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules."15

Creationists believe cells build themselves from carefully designed and coded information which has been passed from one life to the next since their original inception.

[See below for further evidence that the 2nd Law is a major problem for Evolution]

SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS - Does this basic law of nature prevent Evolution? ? ChristianAnswers.Net

To create any kind of upward, complex organization in a closed system requires outside energy

And since we get energy from the sun, your Second Law claim is in error.
Still don't see it?

 

[itfitzme]

"Living cells—by surviving, growing, and forming complex organisms—are generating order and thus might appear to defy the second law of thermodynamics. How is this possible? The answer is that a cell is not an isolated system: it takes in energy from its environment in the form of food, or as photons from the sun (or even, as in some chemosynthetic bacteria, from inorganic molecules alone), and it then uses this energy to generate order within itself. In the course of the chemical reactions that generate order, part of the energy that the cell uses is converted into heat. The heat is discharged into the cell's environment and disorders it, so that the total entropy—that of the cell plus its surroundings—increases, as*demanded by the laws of physics."

Catalysis and the Use of Energy by Cells - Molecular Biology of the Cell - NCBI Bookshelf

 

[Hollie]

Creationists believe cells build themselves from carefully designed and coded information which has been passed from one life to the next since their original inception.

[See below for further evidence that the 2nd Law is a major problem for Evolution]

SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS - Does this basic law of nature prevent Evolution? ? ChristianAnswers.Net

Other people believe Bigfoot is real. So what?

As to "cells build themselves from carefully designed and coded information...", you and the creation ministries have yet to account for why your gawds are so terribly inept regarding their "design". It's neither "careful", nor is it a "design" that suggests anything but incompetent designers.

 

[Steven_R]

With your reasoning you must suffering from delusions. For the umpteenth time,irreducible complexity is a product design. That is a rational assumption,at least as rational as saying everything we observe came in to existence by chance.

Michael Behe was just about laughed out of the courtroom with his Irreducible Complexity nonsense during the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. I wouldn't hang my hat on anything he says.

I am impressed with a judges knowledge of science in that case

His understanding was leaps and bounds beyond the misguided fools on the school board and the delusional morons at the Discovery Institute.

 

[Hollie]

With your reasoning you must suffering from delusions. For the umpteenth time,irreducible complexity is a product design. That is a rational assumption,at least as rational as saying everything we observe came in to existence by chance.

Michael Behe was just about laughed out of the courtroom with his Irreducible Complexity nonsense during the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial. I wouldn't hang my hat on anything he says.

I am impressed with a judges knowledge of science in that case

You're a bit slow to see the implication. Behe and the rest of the ID'iot cabal were met with testimony from scientists who had only to present the case for reason and rationality in a logical, factual manner.

Before proceeding further, I must take note of a key problem with your appeals to the gods. It is an acknowledgement that the “laws” you speak of are not really laws at all. They are merely temporary and reprievable rules imposed by the gods, to be removed at some point.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"The pure chemistry of a cell is not enough to explain the working of a cell, although the workings are chemical. The chemical workings of a cell are controlled by information which does not reside in the atoms and molecules."

Someone should tell all those cell biologists they are now out of a job now that we're looking for information concerning cells outside of the plane of existence we're on.

Nothing wrong with looking. If the big bang did happen I would expect life to be found somewhere other than this planet. That to me is just more evidence supporting creation, life only existing on this planet.

Matter and energy scattered throughout the universe by the big bang why would there be just life on our planet ?