Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Youwerecreated]

having that dream again?

The only ones dreaming are you and Hollie.

TROLL:

Troll -
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

forum troll -
Someone who gets pleasure by typing annoying/controversial/offensive words at strangers on internet forums, for them to read.

person 1:can someone tell me how to do this?*

troll: you're stupid, i hope you're not as ugly as you are stupid, then you will have problems

Urban Dictionary: troll

Urban Dictionary: forum troll

You seem to be an honest person what do you think of Hollie and Daws ? now for lonestar,he has had many disrespectful comments lobbed at him by the two in question. I have had the same dealings with the two. I to have been provoked. But when they step in it I get pleasure out of exposing their ignorance.

So can a person just make posts like lonestar has out of frustration ? Lonestar is no Troll.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Heat is work and work's a curse
And all the heat in the Universe
Is gonna cooool down 'cos it can't increase
Then there'll be no more work and there'll be perfect peace
Really?
Yeah - that's entropy, man!
And all because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which lays down:
That you can't pass heat from the cooler to the hotter
Try it if you like but you far better notter
'Cos the cold in the cooler will get hotter as a ruler
'Cos the hotter body's heat will pass to the cooler
Oh, you can't pass heat from the cooler to the hotter
You can try it if you like but you'll only look a fooler
'Cos the cold in the cooler will get hotter as a ruler
That's a physical Law!
Oh, I'm hot!
Hot? That's because you've been working!
Oh, Beatles - nothing!
That's the... Second Laws of Thermodynamics!

If we lose the energy of the sun we are done.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Although it relates to disorder in certain respects, people often become confused about “entropy,” the second law of thermodynamics, as disorder.

So, it is being redefined in many introductory textbooks for physics and chemistry as energy dispersal thanks to retired chemistry professor, Frank L. Lambert.

“Energetically, the second law of thermodynamics favors the formation of the majority of all known complex and ordered chemical compounds from the simpler elements. Thus, contrary to popular opinion, the second law does not dictate the decrease of ordered structure in its predictions, it only demands a “spreading out” of energy in all processes.”

–Frank L. Lambert, from the website:
Frank L. Lambert, Professor Emeritus
Occidental College, Los Angeles, CA 90041
Academic and professional biography
entropy.lambert@gmail.com
September 2012


Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Redefine a term that needs no redefining "Entropy" or redefine the law ? it never was a law if it's need to be redefined.

 

[Hollie]

The only ones dreaming are you and Hollie.

TROLL:

Troll -
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

forum troll -
Someone who gets pleasure by typing annoying/controversial/offensive words at strangers on internet forums, for them to read.

person 1:can someone tell me how to do this?*

troll: you're stupid, i hope you're not as ugly as you are stupid, then you will have problems

Urban Dictionary: troll

Urban Dictionary: forum troll

You seem to be an honest person what do you think of Hollie and Daws ? now for lonestar,he has had many disrespectful comments lobbed at him by the two in question. I have had the same dealings with the two. I to have been provoked. But when they step in it I get pleasure out of exposing their ignorance.

So can a person just make posts like lonestar has out of frustration ? Lonestar is no Troll.

What ignorance have you exposed... beyond your own?

 

[Youwerecreated]

ID’iots must supply some evidence, some testable examples, as to why their Christian gods must have been the “designers” of nature. To date, they have not done so. They have merely offered bad analogies and metaphors that appeal only to fear and ignorance.

Come on now. The IDers have a designer in mind, but it most certainly is not God. Sure the ID crowd is tied inextricably to the Fundamentalist Christian movement and the textbook Of Pandas and People changed all mentions of a Creator to Designer right after Edwards v. Aguillard, and Phillip E. Johnson wants to turn America into some pseudo-theocracy and thinks the Wedge Document can accomplish just that, but the Designer is most assuredly not the God from the Bible.

Nope. Not at all. Not a chance. No way.

Of course the designer is believed to be the Almighty! You don't have to prove the existence of the Almighty to prove purposeful design. The alternative is a non-intelligent source produced purposeful designs,hmm no contradiction there.

 

[Hollie]

ID’iots must supply some evidence, some testable examples, as to why their Christian gods must have been the “designers” of nature. To date, they have not done so. They have merely offered bad analogies and metaphors that appeal only to fear and ignorance.

Come on now. The IDers have a designer in mind, but it most certainly is not God. Sure the ID crowd is tied inextricably to the Fundamentalist Christian movement and the textbook Of Pandas and People changed all mentions of a Creator to Designer right after Edwards v. Aguillard, and Phillip E. Johnson wants to turn America into some pseudo-theocracy and thinks the Wedge Document can accomplish just that, but the Designer is most assuredly not the God from the Bible.

Nope. Not at all. Not a chance. No way.

Of course the designer is believed to be the Almighty! You don't have to prove the existence of the Almighty to prove purposeful design. The alternative is a non-intelligent source produced purposeful designs,hmm no contradiction there.

How convenient that you exempt yourself from the responsibility of supporting your claims.

 

[Youwerecreated]

TROLL:

Troll -
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument

forum troll -
Someone who gets pleasure by typing annoying/controversial/offensive words at strangers on internet forums, for them to read.

person 1:can someone tell me how to do this?*

troll: you're stupid, i hope you're not as ugly as you are stupid, then you will have problems

Urban Dictionary: troll

Urban Dictionary: forum troll

You seem to be an honest person what do you think of Hollie and Daws ? now for lonestar,he has had many disrespectful comments lobbed at him by the two in question. I have had the same dealings with the two. I to have been provoked. But when they step in it I get pleasure out of exposing their ignorance.

So can a person just make posts like lonestar has out of frustration ? Lonestar is no Troll.

What ignorance have you exposed... beyond your own?

Hollie your comments towards people who do not believe as you,it's apparent you fit the definition of a Troll. most of your copy and paste jobs come from the opposite sites from creationists. They have a dog in the hunt.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hell hollie, all one has to do is check out a poster called ruggedtouch. You either plagiarize this poster or you were this poster. You copy and paste this person word for word and use the same exact insults.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Anyway this thread is not about you and daws, Thank God, let's move on.

 

[Youwerecreated]

One other thing, it is time to move on from the 2nd law and Entropy. I think it's time for purposeful design , the origins question,and discussing Neo darwinism and it's mechanisms.

 

[Hollie]

You seem to be an honest person what do you think of Hollie and Daws ? now for lonestar,he has had many disrespectful comments lobbed at him by the two in question. I have had the same dealings with the two. I to have been provoked. But when they step in it I get pleasure out of exposing their ignorance.

So can a person just make posts like lonestar has out of frustration ? Lonestar is no Troll.

What ignorance have you exposed... beyond your own?

Hollie your comments towards people who do not believe as you,it's apparent you fit the definition of a Troll. most of your copy and paste jobs come from the opposite sites from creationists. They have a dog in the hunt.

There must be some level of awareness you reach where you perceive clues that you're demonstrating you know really very little about the subjects that you claim to be able to critique. It's just remarkable that you spend as much tine as you do denigrating subject matters you don't have the first clue about. You might want to try learning something about the subjects you rail against.

The amount of time and bandwidth you expend cutting and pasting from fundamentalist Christian websites and from Harun Yahya is alarming. You should have learned from hard experience that lies and conspiracy theories earn you no credibility. How is it possible that you have not come to grips with the reality that the creation ministries have to consistently lie and mislead about these subjects?

There is faith, but you should not have faith in lies and falsehoods. Have you ever considered why you are being manipulated and lied to? And why do you further those lies and manipulations? It is not difficult to come to conclusions about such deceptive behaviour being willful or prompted by simple ignorance.

 

[Hollie]

Hell hollie, all one has to do is check out a poster called ruggedtouch. You either plagiarize this poster or you were this poster. You copy and paste this person word for word and use the same exact insults.

You're obsessing. This was addressed previously and you were exposed as a fraud then.

Your real objection is that I have repeatedly exposed your phony, edited and falsified "quotes" cut and pasted from various extremist websites.

 

[Hollie]

Anyway this thread is not about you and daws, Thank God, let's move on.

Why is it that you're obsessing over me, directing your posts at me, but claiming the thread is not about me?

 

[Steven_R]

ID’iots must supply some evidence, some testable examples, as to why their Christian gods must have been the “designers” of nature. To date, they have not done so. They have merely offered bad analogies and metaphors that appeal only to fear and ignorance.

Come on now. The IDers have a designer in mind, but it most certainly is not God. Sure the ID crowd is tied inextricably to the Fundamentalist Christian movement and the textbook Of Pandas and People changed all mentions of a Creator to Designer right after Edwards v. Aguillard, and Phillip E. Johnson wants to turn America into some pseudo-theocracy and thinks the Wedge Document can accomplish just that, but the Designer is most assuredly not the God from the Bible.

Nope. Not at all. Not a chance. No way.

Of course the designer is believed to be the Almighty! You don't have to prove the existence of the Almighty to prove purposeful design. The alternative is a non-intelligent source produced purposeful designs,hmm no contradiction there.

You might want to go back and reread the views you're supposed to be parroting. Right there in the Dover trial the IDiots said many times that the Designer they were pushing was NOT the God for the Bible. That would be illegal, so it's definitely not God.

They wouldn't have lied under oath to push an agenda...would they?

 

[Steven_R]

This concept of "dissorder" bothered me because it requires than that order be definable and measurable. This cause a problem because "order" is a psychological process of perception.*

For me, the questions are a) how do I identify the quality distinctly as unique from all other things? and b) how do I count it?

In nature, what we see as order is what we choose to see as order. From stand point of the basic laws of thermodynamics, there is no distinction of states that we would consider "ordered" from other states that we would not. (I'll try to talk about this more later. *There may be complex distinctions, just none so simple that thermo laws will capture it easily)

SNIP

All good stuff, but sadly wasted.

I think at some point it becomes perfectly reasonable to just stop trying to explain science to people who put their fingers in their ears and start singing hymns. If they don't want to hear it, one can't make them and there are much better things one can do with one's time. If they choose to live in ignorance and superstition instead of reason, that's their choice.

 

[YWN666]

1455 Post and Hollie is still getting her ass kicked.

Is that how you see it? LOL. In reality, YWC is kicking his own ass.

I doubt you would recognize reality.

No, I'm not a creationist.

 

[YWN666]

There is no contradiction to be explained away. The people writing those websites you're relying on are crackpots and zealots who are misrepresenting what the science says, either from a lack of their own understanding or deliberately or because they just throw away science in favor of a Bronze Age creation myth. The general public doesn't understand enough about thermodynamics to know the arguments the creationists are putting forth is just nonsensical.

It's not a question of not wanting to "teach the controversy." It's a question of no controversy existing at all.

Sorry but creationists have been pointing it out for many years.

Actually, no. Sorry, but creationist arguments have been reduced to nothing more than attacks on science. The affirmative position always carries the burden of proof. This is why creationist arguments fail. The arguments are configured only to undermine science and cast doubt upon the established biological and historical record.

The arguments for magic and supernaturalism are not valid ones. What creationists expect and what they demand in connection with appeals to supernatural agents means little, if anything, in science. If people refuse to accept scientific consensus because it conflicts with their fundamentalist religious beliefs, that is not the fault of science. I find nothing about the natural processes of evolution which offends my common sense or expectations. It doesn’t fall to the scientific community to explain why intelligent design is not the most reasonable explanation for existence. ID’iots must supply some evidence, some testable examples, as to why their Christian gods must have been the “designers” of nature. To date, they have not done so. They have merely offered bad analogies and metaphors that appeal only to fear and ignorance.

The highlighted comment is something that creationists always run from because they can't afford to acknowledge it. There is a reason why creationists resort to quote mining and outright fraud in order to support their "theory". They do it because they must - they have no credible evidence. I have a hard time believing that intelligent adults actually believe such juvenile nonsense.

 

[YWN666]

If you're looking for a little background reading on scientific creationism, it's best not to take the word scientific too seriously. A three-year database search of 4,000 scientific publications - focusing on the names of people associated with the Institute for Creation Research and on phrases and keywords such as 'creationism' - didn't turn up a single paper. A follow-up study of 68 journals found that only 18 of 135,000 total manuscript submissions concerned scientific creationism, and all 18 were rejected. Reasons cited included 'flawed arguments,' 'ramblings,' and 'a high-school theme quality.' ~Science, September 1985

In all of these efforts, the creationists make abundant use of a simple tactic: They lie. They lie continually, they lie prodigiously, and they lie because they must.
--William J. Bennetta, California Academy of Sciences

 

[Steven_R]

The highlighted comment is something that creationists always run from because they can't afford to acknowledge it. There is a reason why creationists resort to quote mining and outright fraud in order to support their "theory". They do it because they must - they have no credible evidence. I have a hard time believing that intelligent adults actually believe such juvenile nonsense.

It comes down to the sorry state of science education in this country. The average person simply doesn't know enough science to be able to listen to the IDers and Creationists and recognize that their arguments are crap on any technical level. The man on the street doesn't know enough about physics, so when one of the anti-science spouts off about how entropy doesn't work that way or Irreducible Complexity or "It's just a theory" it sound perfectly reasonable.

Short of turning public schools into STEM factories for kids, I don't know how to change this either.

 

[Hollie]

Come on now. The IDers have a designer in mind, but it most certainly is not God. Sure the ID crowd is tied inextricably to the Fundamentalist Christian movement and the textbook Of Pandas and People changed all mentions of a Creator to Designer right after Edwards v. Aguillard, and Phillip E. Johnson wants to turn America into some pseudo-theocracy and thinks the Wedge Document can accomplish just that, but the Designer is most assuredly not the God from the Bible.

Nope. Not at all. Not a chance. No way.

Of course the designer is believed to be the Almighty! You don't have to prove the existence of the Almighty to prove purposeful design. The alternative is a non-intelligent source produced purposeful designs,hmm no contradiction there.

You might want to go back and reread the views you're supposed to be parroting. Right there in the Dover trial the IDiots said many times that the Designer they were pushing was NOT the God for the Bible. That would be illegal, so it's definitely not God.

They wouldn't have lied under oath to push an agenda...would they?

That's a really good observation. The history of the christian fundamentalist "creationist" agenda has reminded me of a Hollywood blockbuster movie car chase. We see cars racing down the highway, careening off the guardrail, bumpers and fenders flying off, all to the accompaniment of screeching tires and loud thuds.

ID has become self-destructive. Years ago, fundamentalist christians made no effort to conceal their agenda of promoting Biblical literalism. It was originally called "Biblical Creationism" with no pretense. Faced with the correct legal conclusions that it was merely religion, they regrouped and renamed it "Scientific Creationism," making a half hearted attempt to edit out explicit Biblical references... but that fooled no one. When that met an equally unambiguous decision in the courts, the new version became "Intelligent Design." In the process, the creationist movement has become progressively more reactionary, more desperate, and truly, more pathetic.