Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[YWN666]

Atheists only know how to create a strawman god and destroy it.

They are a silly lot and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone. They have no experience of God, no apt concept of God. They're perfectly happy to gad about telling people there's no guy in the sky. They believe that makes them appear intelligent.

Ignore them.

YOU just made us appear intelligent.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Ok you are using a natural process that is coded in our genes. What happens to us once we reach our limits in the process ?

So are you saying we don't benefit from having the atmosphere nor the sun or moon ?

Stupid ?

Are you one of those that does not believe this planet is unique ?

Ok you are using a natural process that is coded in our genes. What happens to us once we reach our limits in the process ?

Does this have something to do with your silly ideas about the 2nd Law?

So are you saying we don't benefit from having the atmosphere nor the sun or moon ?

Are you saying purple wangfingers don't warble nicks?
Not sure about you, but I kinda like oxygen and sunlight.
Still doesn't have anything to do with your 2nd Law silliness.

Are you one of those that does not believe this planet is unique ?

Try, for a post or two, to stay on the topic of the 2nd Law. Please.

What I am asking you what happens to many of us once we reach our prime ? some never reach their prime.

An earlier question was concerning my evidence of purposeful design.

The 2nd law is proven by what is observed.

second law of thermodynamics - a law stating that mechanical work can be derived from a body only when that body interacts with another at a lower temperature; any spontaneous process results in an increase of entropy

Hmm this is interesting

law of thermodynamics - (physics) a law governing the relations between states of energy in a closed system

second law of thermodynamics - definition of second law of thermodynamics by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics requires that all systems and individual parts of systems have a tendency to go from order to disorder. How does this improve organisms in complexity ?

The 2nd law of thermodynamics requires that all systems and individual parts of systems have a tendency to go from order to disorder. How does this improve organisms in complexity ?

You're less ordered now than when you were an egg? Is that what you're saying?

That would explain a few things.

 

[turzovka]

Whether they want to call creationism scientific or not, I care not. But "they" calling naturalism "fact" more or less, is a fallacy. (as you so state)

But let that not trouble the text book writers.

Anyway, they can do as they please. I, personally, am quite grateful to the body of science for proving the divinity of Christ via all their endless studies on the Shroud of Turin. The carbon 14 test in the eighties is their one life-line they (that is, those who stand firm against the claims) are holding onto against a mountain of evidence that cries out "surpernatural!" And the carbon 14 test has been criticized by numerous scientists or studies as very likely faulty for a number of reasons. (easy to google) Meanwhile, the qualities on that cloth remain completely inexplicable for man even today to create, much less some out of this world forger in the 1400's as some still hope is the explanation (as hyper implausible as it may be). Jesus has given us signs enough.

 

[YWN666]

Whether they want to call creationism scientific or not, I care not. But "they" calling naturalism "fact" more or less, is a fallacy. (as you so state)

But let that not trouble the text book writers.

Anyway, they can do as they please. I, personally, am quite grateful to the body of science for proving the divinity of Christ via all their endless studies on the Shroud of Turin. The carbon 14 test in the eighties is their one life-line they (that is, those who stand firm against the claims) are holding onto against a mountain of evidence that cries out "surpernatural!" And the carbon 14 test has been criticized by numerous scientists or studies as very likely faulty for a number of reasons. (easy to google) Meanwhile, the qualities on that cloth remain completely inexplicable for man even today to create, much less some out of this world forger in the 1400's as some still hope is the explanation (as hyper implausible as it may be). Jesus has given us signs enough.

Shroud of Turin Not Jesus', Tomb Discovery Suggests

The Shroud of Turin - McCrone Research Institute (McRI) - Chicago, IL

The Fraud of Turin | Center for Inquiry

ShadowShroud

 

[itfitzme]

Atheists only know how to create a strawman god and destroy it.

They are a silly lot and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone. They have no experience of God, no apt concept of God. They're perfectly happy to gad about telling people there's no guy in the sky. They believe that makes them appear intelligent.

Ignore them.

It isn't possible to create a "strawman" for something that doesn't exist. By definition, the entire concept of god as an object is a strawman from the outset. "Strawman" requires that there be something real to begin with.

And your failure to present an argument, in the first place, isn't the fault of others. Not presenting an argument leaves no option but to fill in the gaping hole that you refuse to address.

Case in point, this post where you claim that athiests create a strawman "telling people there's no guy in the sky", yet present no evidence of what you think proof or object is.

So, yeah, there is no guy in the sky. And yeah, whatever you unstated "objective" argumemt is, it is wrong. It is wrong because you have none. I know you have none because you state none. It is entirely reasonable to say you have none, based on the evidence that you present none, because that is all naturalism and science have to go on, the real evidence.

Clearly you feel that you are right. And I can say that with equal certainty.

But, you don't get to present nothing, make no definitive statement, and then whine about strawman arguments.

 

[turzovka]

Whether they want to call creationism scientific or not, I care not. But "they" calling naturalism "fact" more or less, is a fallacy. (as you so state)

But let that not trouble the text book writers.

Anyway, they can do as they please. I, personally, am quite grateful to the body of science for proving the divinity of Christ via all their endless studies on the Shroud of Turin. The carbon 14 test in the eighties is their one life-line they (that is, those who stand firm against the claims) are holding onto against a mountain of evidence that cries out "surpernatural!" And the carbon 14 test has been criticized by numerous scientists or studies as very likely faulty for a number of reasons. (easy to google) Meanwhile, the qualities on that cloth remain completely inexplicable for man even today to create, much less some out of this world forger in the 1400's as some still hope is the explanation (as hyper implausible as it may be). Jesus has given us signs enough.

Shroud of Turin Not Jesus', Tomb Discovery Suggests

The Shroud of Turin - McCrone Research Institute (McRI) - Chicago, IL

The Fraud of Turin | Center for Inquiry

ShadowShroud

I've done my homework.

The burden now lies on the skeptics. Scores of questions about facts about that cloth and its remarkable qualities they have NO ANSWER for. Until they can, they're claims of fraud are on life support.

 

[itfitzme]

You made a very weak argument.


S YSTEMS

An isolated system is one so completely sealed off from its environment that neither matter nor energy passes through its boundaries. This is an imaginary construct, however, an idea rather than a reality, because it is impossible to create a situation in which no energy is exchanged between the system and the environment. Under the right conditions it is perhaps conceivable that matter could be sealed out so completely that not even an atom could pass through a barrier, but some transfer of energy is inevitable. The reason is that electromagnetic energy, such as that emitted by the Sun, requires no material medium in which to travel.

In contrast to an isolated system is a closed system, of which Earth is an approximation. Despite its name, a closed system permits the exchange of energy with the environment but does not allow matter to pass back and forth between the external environment and the system. Thus, Earth absorbs electromagnetic energy, radiated from the Sun, yet very little matter enters or departs Earth's system. Note that Earth is an approximation of a closed system: actually, some matter does pass from space into the atmosphere and vice versa. The planet loses traces of hydrogen in the extremities of its upper atmosphere, while meteorites and other forms of matter from space may reach Earth's surface.

Earth more closely resembles a closed system than it does an open one—that is, a system that allows the full and free exchange of both matter and energy with its environment. The human circulatory system is an example of an open system, as are the various "spheres" of Earth (geosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, and atmosphere) discussed later. Whereas an isolated system is imaginary in the sense that it does not exist, sometimes a different feat of imagination is required to visualize an open system. It is intricately tied to its environment, and therefore the concept of an open system as a separate entity sometimes requires some imagination.

How it works - Earth Systems

Yep, the Earth is practically a closed system, right up to the point that an metiorite explodes over Russia. Then it's not so closed.

During the formation of the solar system, it clearly was not.

You continue to use the same faulty logic, a behavior that may now call deceitful and and dissingenuous.

You take a probability of zero and call it a certainty.

You take small probabilities and call them zero.

You take that set A intersects set B and that B intersects C to mean that C equals A.

That source had a strong background in Physics. The source said an open system freely exchanges matter and and energy in both cases and that is not the case with this planet.

This argument is based on theory not factual empirical evidence that you're making.

This video of the meteor that exploded over Russia would prove otherwise.

Video: Russian meteor shock wave went 'round the world twice' - Telegraph

This list of a impact craters proves otherwise.

List of impact craters on Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Odds of Death by Asteroid? Lower Than Plane Crash, Higher Than Lightning - Wired Science

"The 15-meter meteorite impacted the atmosphere and exploded above the Chelyabinsk region of central Russia, injuring an estimated 1,200 people and causing roughly 1 billion rubles ($33 million U.S.) in damage. It was the largest meteorite to hit the country in more than a century."

Damages of $33 million US dollars would say otherwise.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Atheists only know how to create a strawman god and destroy it.

They are a silly lot and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone. They have no experience of God, no apt concept of God. They're perfectly happy to gad about telling people there's no guy in the sky. They believe that makes them appear intelligent.

Ignore them.

YOU just made us appear intelligent.

Not really but think what you like.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Ok you are using a natural process that is coded in our genes. What happens to us once we reach our limits in the process ?

Does this have something to do with your silly ideas about the 2nd Law?

So are you saying we don't benefit from having the atmosphere nor the sun or moon ?

Are you saying purple wangfingers don't warble nicks?
Not sure about you, but I kinda like oxygen and sunlight.
Still doesn't have anything to do with your 2nd Law silliness.

Are you one of those that does not believe this planet is unique ?

Try, for a post or two, to stay on the topic of the 2nd Law. Please.

What I am asking you what happens to many of us once we reach our prime ? some never reach their prime.

An earlier question was concerning my evidence of purposeful design.

The 2nd law is proven by what is observed.

second law of thermodynamics - a law stating that mechanical work can be derived from a body only when that body interacts with another at a lower temperature; any spontaneous process results in an increase of entropy

Hmm this is interesting

law of thermodynamics - (physics) a law governing the relations between states of energy in a closed system

second law of thermodynamics - definition of second law of thermodynamics by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics requires that all systems and individual parts of systems have a tendency to go from order to disorder. How does this improve organisms in complexity ?

The 2nd law of thermodynamics requires that all systems and individual parts of systems have a tendency to go from order to disorder. How does this improve organisms in complexity ?

You're less ordered now than when you were an egg? Is that what you're saying?

That would explain a few things.

Yes, because I am past my prime and everything is beginning to break down due to disorder. What is the cause of things breaking down ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Atheists only know how to create a strawman god and destroy it.

They are a silly lot and shouldn't be taken seriously by anyone. They have no experience of God, no apt concept of God. They're perfectly happy to gad about telling people there's no guy in the sky. They believe that makes them appear intelligent.

Ignore them.

It isn't possible to create a "strawman" for something that doesn't exist. By definition, the entire concept of god as an object is a strawman from the outset. "Strawman" requires that there be something real to begin with.

And your failure to present an argument, in the first place, isn't the fault of others. Not presenting an argument leaves no option but to fill in the gaping hole that you refuse to address.

Case in point, this post where you claim that athiests create a strawman "telling people there's no guy in the sky", yet present no evidence of what you think proof or object is.

So, yeah, there is no guy in the sky. And yeah, whatever you unstated "objective" argumemt is, it is wrong. It is wrong because you have none. I know you have none because you state none. It is entirely reasonable to say you have none, based on the evidence that you present none, because that is all naturalism and science have to go on, the real evidence.

Clearly you feel that you are right. And I can say that with equal certainty.

But, you don't get to present nothing, make no definitive statement, and then whine about strawman arguments.

But we can turn the tables on this comment and say the very same thing for the origins of life.

It is a strawman argument to suggest evolution and natural processes brought life to where it is now.

It is strawman argument to suggest life on other planets exist. So science now uses strawman arguments for their theories ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yep, the Earth is practically a closed system, right up to the point that an metiorite explodes over Russia. Then it's not so closed.

During the formation of the solar system, it clearly was not.

You continue to use the same faulty logic, a behavior that may now call deceitful and and dissingenuous.

You take a probability of zero and call it a certainty.

You take small probabilities and call them zero.

You take that set A intersects set B and that B intersects C to mean that C equals A.

That source had a strong background in Physics. The source said an open system freely exchanges matter and and energy in both cases and that is not the case with this planet.

This argument is based on theory not factual empirical evidence that you're making.

This video of the meteor that exploded over Russia would prove otherwise.

Video: Russian meteor shock wave went 'round the world twice' - Telegraph

This list of a impact craters proves otherwise.

List of impact craters on Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Odds of Death by Asteroid? Lower Than Plane Crash, Higher Than Lightning - Wired Science

"The 15-meter meteorite impacted the atmosphere and exploded above the Chelyabinsk region of central Russia, injuring an estimated 1,200 people and causing roughly 1 billion rubles ($33 million U.S.) in damage. It was the largest meteorite to hit the country in more than a century."

Damages of $33 million US dollars would say otherwise.

So the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to this planet ? We know of other impacts how is this interacting with other systems ?

The 2nd law applies to closed systems.

 

[YWN666]

Whether they want to call creationism scientific or not, I care not. But "they" calling naturalism "fact" more or less, is a fallacy. (as you so state)

But let that not trouble the text book writers.

Anyway, they can do as they please. I, personally, am quite grateful to the body of science for proving the divinity of Christ via all their endless studies on the Shroud of Turin. The carbon 14 test in the eighties is their one life-line they (that is, those who stand firm against the claims) are holding onto against a mountain of evidence that cries out "surpernatural!" And the carbon 14 test has been criticized by numerous scientists or studies as very likely faulty for a number of reasons. (easy to google) Meanwhile, the qualities on that cloth remain completely inexplicable for man even today to create, much less some out of this world forger in the 1400's as some still hope is the explanation (as hyper implausible as it may be). Jesus has given us signs enough.

Shroud of Turin Not Jesus', Tomb Discovery Suggests

The Shroud of Turin - McCrone Research Institute (McRI) - Chicago, IL

The Fraud of Turin | Center for Inquiry

ShadowShroud

I've done my homework.

The burden now lies on the skeptics. Scores of questions about facts about that cloth and its remarkable qualities they have NO ANSWER for. Until they can, they're claims of fraud are on life support.

So someone has proven that the shroud was actually the burial cloth of Jesus??? The skeptics don't have the burden of proof.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What I am asking you what happens to many of us once we reach our prime ? some never reach their prime.

An earlier question was concerning my evidence of purposeful design.

The 2nd law is proven by what is observed.

second law of thermodynamics - a law stating that mechanical work can be derived from a body only when that body interacts with another at a lower temperature; any spontaneous process results in an increase of entropy

Hmm this is interesting

law of thermodynamics - (physics) a law governing the relations between states of energy in a closed system

second law of thermodynamics - definition of second law of thermodynamics by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics requires that all systems and individual parts of systems have a tendency to go from order to disorder. How does this improve organisms in complexity ?

The 2nd law of thermodynamics requires that all systems and individual parts of systems have a tendency to go from order to disorder. How does this improve organisms in complexity ?

You're less ordered now than when you were an egg? Is that what you're saying?

That would explain a few things.

Yes, because I am past my prime and everything is beginning to break down due to disorder. What is the cause of things breaking down ?

You're less ordered than an egg. Thanks for admitting the obvious.
That explains your ignorance.
Thanks, just wanted to point that out.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That source had a strong background in Physics. The source said an open system freely exchanges matter and and energy in both cases and that is not the case with this planet.

This argument is based on theory not factual empirical evidence that you're making.

This video of the meteor that exploded over Russia would prove otherwise.

Video: Russian meteor shock wave went 'round the world twice' - Telegraph

This list of a impact craters proves otherwise.

List of impact craters on Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Odds of Death by Asteroid? Lower Than Plane Crash, Higher Than Lightning - Wired Science

"The 15-meter meteorite impacted the atmosphere and exploded above the Chelyabinsk region of central Russia, injuring an estimated 1,200 people and causing roughly 1 billion rubles ($33 million U.S.) in damage. It was the largest meteorite to hit the country in more than a century."

Damages of $33 million US dollars would say otherwise.

So the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to this planet ? We know of other impacts how is this interacting with other systems ?

The 2nd law applies to closed systems.

Living organisms aren't closed systems. Durr.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The 2nd law of thermodynamics requires that all systems and individual parts of systems have a tendency to go from order to disorder. How does this improve organisms in complexity ?

You're less ordered now than when you were an egg? Is that what you're saying?

That would explain a few things.

Yes, because I am past my prime and everything is beginning to break down due to disorder. What is the cause of things breaking down ?

You're less ordered than an egg. Thanks for admitting the obvious.
That explains your ignorance.
Thanks, just wanted to point that out.

I feel like I am but thanks for avoiding the obvious answer that supports what I have been saying.

You defeated your own point by trying to show what is contained in our genes is evolution. What it really was, is the instructions of what you will be, and when your body will break down, while you were just an egg.

 

[Youwerecreated]

This video of the meteor that exploded over Russia would prove otherwise.

Video: Russian meteor shock wave went 'round the world twice' - Telegraph

This list of a impact craters proves otherwise.

List of impact craters on Earth - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Odds of Death by Asteroid? Lower Than Plane Crash, Higher Than Lightning - Wired Science

"The 15-meter meteorite impacted the atmosphere and exploded above the Chelyabinsk region of central Russia, injuring an estimated 1,200 people and causing roughly 1 billion rubles ($33 million U.S.) in damage. It was the largest meteorite to hit the country in more than a century."

Damages of $33 million US dollars would say otherwise.

So the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply to this planet ? We know of other impacts how is this interacting with other systems ?

The 2nd law applies to closed systems.

Living organisms aren't closed systems. Durr.

Whoa but the system we live in is a closed system. Why does everything decay with age ? if this system has an effect on homes,cars,ect surely it has an effect on living organisms correct ? that is only obvious by observation. Durr.

 

[daws101]

You made a very weak argument.


S YSTEMS

An isolated system is one so completely sealed off from its environment that neither matter nor energy passes through its boundaries. This is an imaginary construct, however, an idea rather than a reality, because it is impossible to create a situation in which no energy is exchanged between the system and the environment. Under the right conditions it is perhaps conceivable that matter could be sealed out so completely that not even an atom could pass through a barrier, but some transfer of energy is inevitable. The reason is that electromagnetic energy, such as that emitted by the Sun, requires no material medium in which to travel.

In contrast to an isolated system is a closed system, of which Earth is an approximation. Despite its name, a closed system permits the exchange of energy with the environment but does not allow matter to pass back and forth between the external environment and the system. Thus, Earth absorbs electromagnetic energy, radiated from the Sun, yet very little matter enters or departs Earth's system. Note that Earth is an approximation of a closed system: actually, some matter does pass from space into the atmosphere and vice versa. The planet loses traces of hydrogen in the extremities of its upper atmosphere, while meteorites and other forms of matter from space may reach Earth's surface.

Earth more closely resembles a closed system than it does an open one—that is, a system that allows the full and free exchange of both matter and energy with its environment. The human circulatory system is an example of an open system, as are the various "spheres" of Earth (geosphere, hydrosphere, biosphere, and atmosphere) discussed later. Whereas an isolated system is imaginary in the sense that it does not exist, sometimes a different feat of imagination is required to visualize an open system. It is intricately tied to its environment, and therefore the concept of an open system as a separate entity sometimes requires some imagination.

How it works - Earth Systems

Yep, the Earth is practically a closed system, right up to the point that an metiorite explodes over Russia. Then it's not so closed.

During the formation of the solar system, it clearly was not.

You continue to use the same faulty logic, a behavior that may now call deceitful and and dissingenuous.

You take a probability of zero and call it a certainty.

You take small probabilities and call them zero.

You take that set A intersects set B and that B intersects C to mean that C equals A.

That source had a strong background in Physics. The source said an open system freely exchanges matter and and energy in both cases and that is not the case with this planet.

This argument is based on theory not factual empirical evidence that you're making.

speaking of weak arguments....
what's the source's name?
the Irc mayhap?

 

[daws101]

"Wrong. Their argument was that things can't get more complex, because........2nd Law."

Which is a fallacious argument. *In fact, the second law says the opposite. *It says that entropy increases in an isolated system towards maximum complexity. If all the gas molecules are initially at one end, which is simpler, they end up all over the place, which is more complex. *Entropy is a measure of the number of arrangements, the complexity.

And, the second law also includes statements for the condition of non-isolated systems, which allow for even more control over the arrangements

The fact is, you have been misled by false logic. And you bought into it. *Now, you are propogating g
false logic. *And as it has been pointed out, you are doing so with full awareness.

1.The second law of thermodynamics - a law stating that mechanical work can be derived from a body only when that body interacts with another at a lower temperature; any spontaneous process results in an increase of entropy.

This is not claiming what you're claiming sorry. This law shows that the process of evolution or origins of life would contradict this law.

So far the creationists argument is solid.

as solid as diarrhea...

 

[Steven_R]

Whether they want to call creationism scientific or not, I care not. But "they" calling naturalism "fact" more or less, is a fallacy. (as you so state)

But let that not trouble the text book writers.

Anyway, they can do as they please. I, personally, am quite grateful to the body of science for proving the divinity of Christ via all their endless studies on the Shroud of Turin. The carbon 14 test in the eighties is their one life-line they (that is, those who stand firm against the claims) are holding onto against a mountain of evidence that cries out "surpernatural!" And the carbon 14 test has been criticized by numerous scientists or studies as very likely faulty for a number of reasons. (easy to google) Meanwhile, the qualities on that cloth remain completely inexplicable for man even today to create, much less some out of this world forger in the 1400's as some still hope is the explanation (as hyper implausible as it may be). Jesus has given us signs enough.

Which journals is Jesus producing peer-reviewed papers in?

 

[daws101]

There is no evidence of it right ? is that not your same argument regarding God ?

Given the sheer size of the universe and the fact that the laws of physics and chemistry are universal, it is not only possible but probable that there is life somewhere out there.

That said, the only life that we know about is what's on the Earth and whatever bacteria hitched a ride on any of our various space shots. Simply put, extraterrestrial life has not been proven to exist. There is no example we can point to and say "this is what we've found."

There is zero evidence for the existence of whatever supernatural concepts one wants to believe in. Indeed, the supernatural is by definition outside of the natural world, so there would be no evidence either way for science to examine.

You can assume it all you want and believe it, but the view is not based on evidence. Nature convinces me of a creator and the science I have learned only reinforces that view.

the assumption slapdick is yours..STEVEN R. IS STATING FACT.
" the supernatural is by definition outside of the natural world, so there would be no evidence either way for science to examine"...steven r.
that view is based on logic, as there is no evidence to prove the supernatural exists.
nature has convinced you of nothing , it does not possess the power of persuasion.
you were indoctrinated in creator worship long before you had any idea of what science was .
meaning that any observations you make concerning nature, man, or anything else is tainted by that indoctrination, making it erroneous and subjective..not quantifiable.