Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Youwerecreated]

I also call it "The Fallacy That Shit Doesn't Happen". If statistics tells us anything, it tells us that, in even the most random of processes, shit does happen. Nature, life, is not a completely random process, like black and white balls in a box.

But that nature has non-random tendencies, isn't sufficient proof of god. Naturalism, and science, examines nature, recognizes that there are non-random processes, then compares these to each other to produce an explaination for this non-ramdomness within the context of nature.

Someone mentioned to me that even though there is randomness, it can lead to predictable results. Snowflakes fall, completely randomly, but snowdrifts always seem to show up in the same place. The geology, weather patterns, the mechanics of snow all add up to turn a random event into a predictable one. We can't predict where a particular snowflake will end up but we can predict the behavior of a whole lot of them.

Whoever told you that, was probably on drugs,no offense.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What created god? There has to be a beginning somewhere, at some point something spawned from nothing. So far, the big bang is a far more viable theory than celestial faerie tales

According to the word of God he has always existed. That defies logic but his creations do the same thing.

Not only does god defy all logic, it defies all reason, all sense, all nature, and all sanity. It is illogic, unreasonable, non-sense, unnatural, and insane.

On the other hand, logic and reason are grounded in the experience of nature. Life is nature and inherently makes sense, defying nothing. Logic and reason of nature, biology, and physics are born out of observation of nature, biology, and physics. So life is logical, natural, reasonable, sensical, and sane.

The only thing that defies nature is a mind that refuses to accept nature, to learn from it, to change to correspond to it. That is illogic, unreasonable, non-sense, unnatural, and insane.

The more I read and concider these things, the clearer becomes how ordinary is insanity. Insanity is refusing to accept the reality in front of your face because you have some preconcieved notion that you refuse to update.

They say, insanity is repeating the same behavior expecting different results. "refusing to accept the reality in front of your face because you have some preconcieved notion that you refuse to update" is the same thing.

Naturalism and science are inherently sane, logical, reasonable, and natural, because they constantly accept the reality of nature as it presents and reveals itself, on its own terms. Creationism refuses to accept reality, warping and twisting reason and logic into the most unnatural manner, in a desperate attempt to continue adhering to an old and defunct concept, expecting different results.

Sorry but naturalism is sane even though you have no evidence naturalism produced any sort of origins. You guy's are fumbling the ball. It looks like Carl shook you guy's up.

 

[itfitzme]

Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics. What is funny is the clowns responding to his videos are using the very same attacks, rhetoric, and nonsensical arguments that have been made here. I challenge you all to watch these videos.

Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics Part (1 of 5) - YouTube

Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics Part (2 of 5) - YouTube

Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics Part (3 of 5) - YouTube

Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics Part (4 of 5) - YouTube

Evolution and the second law of thermodynamics Part (5 of 5) - YouTube

Dr. Carl Wieland emloys the same faulty, rhetorical, slight of hand tricks, from the beginning.

He begins with invoking the existance of god as the cause of all natural laws.

He turns "tendency" into "must" and "unlikely into "never". He does this in his first example, the black and white balls, arranged in lines. ( 7min 50sec)

"There are heaps of different arrangements you would get from that. But, I think that you all can be fairly sure that viewed from a distance they would end up being grey.

So, in other words, if you wanted to go the other way, if you wanted to go back from this state to the other state, what would you have to do? Sort them all out. In another words, you would have to apply intelligent programming. You would have to choose according to a plan. Thing, left by themselves, without intelligent programming. Because, you see, things left by themselves, without intelligent programming, without a plan, will tend to go in one way, and not the other way, why is that? Why are things going to go from order to dissorder, in every case? Why is it when you shake the box, you're not going to get the letter A or your name spelled out in black or white balls or something? Why is it that you're going to get lots of combination but basically they will all be grey, they will all be randon? The answer is chance."

The errors are numerous and, in some cases, disingenuous. Atoms are not simply balls. Oxygen and hydrogen atoms combine to form water. I can shake a jar of water for hours and it will still be arranged so that two hydrogen atoms are attached to one oxygen. I must, through electrolysis, apply a considerable amount of energy to disassociate the hydrogen "balls" from the oxygen "balls" to get a more random collection of H2 and O2 gases. Once done, a small spark will trigger a catastrophic exposion in which the H2 and O2 gases once again combine to form water. And they will do so quite spontameously. It requires intelligent intervention, electrolysis, to create a more random mixture of O2 and H2. A small, simply unintelligent spark, creates a cascade to greater "order", H2O, water.

The problem with the example is he repeatedly takes "fairly sure" and assumes always, "they would end up being grey". Well, no the wouldn't. As raw probabilities, they would often arrange in a "pattern" that we would "recognize". While, more often than not, they would come to rest in some random arrangement that appeared grey from a distance, they would also come to rest, in many different patterns, even partial patterns, that we would recognize as "orderly". The best way to see this is to take the bottom of the box, add small indentations that create "quantum" spacing, define all the numerous "patterns" that one can arrange balls into, and calculate the raw odds. This is far more appropriate, the quantum "wells", if you will, because, in fact, nature is quantum, with descrete and individual minimum lengths, speeds, energies, and momentums.

Further, it would be far more appropriate to add magnets to the balls, little south poles to the white balls and little north poles to the black balls. Then, as nature really does, when the box of balls is shaken, the balls would stick together as atoms really do.

All in all, the speaker simply demomstrates his disengenuous rhetorical trick repeatedly, as in "without a plan, will tend to go in one way, and not the other way, why is that? Why are things going to go from order to dissorder, in every case?" "will tend" suddenly becomes "in every case".

It's pretty simple really,you believe something that goes against known laws of Physics.There are many scientists that will admit there is no evidence that contradicts the 1st or 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Dr. wieland completely and logically defeated the arguments that was being presented.If you leave any system to randomness will it drift towards disorder or not ? This is exactly what I said that if you didn't have a coded message to change an egg in to a human it would be a random process not the message forcing it's will on the matter.what are the chances of that egg becoming a human absent of the coded message in Dna ?

How many examples of randomness, do you need to admit, a random process would only produce a chaotic disorderly system ?

Thesaurus Legend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. randomness - (thermodynamics) a thermodynamic quantity representing the amount of energy in a system that is no longer available for doing mechanical work; "entropy increases as matter and energy in the universe degrade to an ultimate state of inert uniformity"
entropy, S
physical property - any property used to characterize matter and energy and their interactions
conformational entropy - entropy calculated from the probability that a state could be reached by chance alone
thermodynamics - the branch of physics concerned with the conversion of different forms of energy
2. randomness - the quality of lacking any predictable order or plan

So now how would you ever get order and complexity from unguided natural processes ?

How would you get the genetic language with an absence of intelligence ?

The big bang produced chaos how did chaos produce order and complexity ?

The only chance in a chaotic event you would have to regain order is quickly, the more time that goes by the worse the disorder.

The bibles account makes much more sense according to the evidence.That order was at it's highest level after creation, and since creation the universe and everything in it has been affected by disorder, and it just keeps getting worse, being supported by the 2nd law.

Carl Weiland didn't do anything but demonstrate himself to be a scam artist. You have to be either a lunatic or a moron to think otherwise. His entire presentation was as rediculous as the mathematical "proofs" that "prove" 1=0

 

[itfitzme]

According to the word of God he has always existed. That defies logic but his creations do the same thing.

Not only does god defy all logic, it defies all reason, all sense, all nature, and all sanity. It is illogic, unreasonable, non-sense, unnatural, and insane.

On the other hand, logic and reason are grounded in the experience of nature. Life is nature and inherently makes sense, defying nothing. Logic and reason of nature, biology, and physics are born out of observation of nature, biology, and physics. So life is logical, natural, reasonable, sensical, and sane.

The only thing that defies nature is a mind that refuses to accept nature, to learn from it, to change to correspond to it. That is illogic, unreasonable, non-sense, unnatural, and insane.

The more I read and concider these things, the clearer becomes how ordinary is insanity. Insanity is refusing to accept the reality in front of your face because you have some preconcieved notion that you refuse to update.

They say, insanity is repeating the same behavior expecting different results. "refusing to accept the reality in front of your face because you have some preconcieved notion that you refuse to update" is the same thing.

Naturalism and science are inherently sane, logical, reasonable, and natural, because they constantly accept the reality of nature as it presents and reveals itself, on its own terms. Creationism refuses to accept reality, warping and twisting reason and logic into the most unnatural manner, in a desperate attempt to continue adhering to an old and defunct concept, expecting different results.

Sorry but naturalism is sane even though you have no evidence naturalism produced any sort of origins. You guy's are fumbling the ball. It looks like Carl shook you guy's up.

Carl Weiland ridiculous presentation didn't shake up anything. From the outset, he demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of physics and statistics. Either he's an idiot or a scam artist.

You shouls send him money.

 

[itfitzme]

Sadly, what Carl Weiland also proved is how gullible many people are.

 

[Steven_R]

Sadly, what Carl Weiland also proved is how gullible many people are.

Worse than that, it shows how bad of a the scientific community it doing getting science into the hands of the public.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Dr. Carl Wieland emloys the same faulty, rhetorical, slight of hand tricks, from the beginning.

He begins with invoking the existance of god as the cause of all natural laws.

He turns "tendency" into "must" and "unlikely into "never". He does this in his first example, the black and white balls, arranged in lines. ( 7min 50sec)



The errors are numerous and, in some cases, disingenuous. Atoms are not simply balls. Oxygen and hydrogen atoms combine to form water. I can shake a jar of water for hours and it will still be arranged so that two hydrogen atoms are attached to one oxygen. I must, through electrolysis, apply a considerable amount of energy to disassociate the hydrogen "balls" from the oxygen "balls" to get a more random collection of H2 and O2 gases. Once done, a small spark will trigger a catastrophic exposion in which the H2 and O2 gases once again combine to form water. And they will do so quite spontameously. It requires intelligent intervention, electrolysis, to create a more random mixture of O2 and H2. A small, simply unintelligent spark, creates a cascade to greater "order", H2O, water.

The problem with the example is he repeatedly takes "fairly sure" and assumes always, "they would end up being grey". Well, no the wouldn't. As raw probabilities, they would often arrange in a "pattern" that we would "recognize". While, more often than not, they would come to rest in some random arrangement that appeared grey from a distance, they would also come to rest, in many different patterns, even partial patterns, that we would recognize as "orderly". The best way to see this is to take the bottom of the box, add small indentations that create "quantum" spacing, define all the numerous "patterns" that one can arrange balls into, and calculate the raw odds. This is far more appropriate, the quantum "wells", if you will, because, in fact, nature is quantum, with descrete and individual minimum lengths, speeds, energies, and momentums.

Further, it would be far more appropriate to add magnets to the balls, little south poles to the white balls and little north poles to the black balls. Then, as nature really does, when the box of balls is shaken, the balls would stick together as atoms really do.

All in all, the speaker simply demomstrates his disengenuous rhetorical trick repeatedly, as in "without a plan, will tend to go in one way, and not the other way, why is that? Why are things going to go from order to dissorder, in every case?" "will tend" suddenly becomes "in every case".

It's pretty simple really,you believe something that goes against known laws of Physics.There are many scientists that will admit there is no evidence that contradicts the 1st or 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Dr. wieland completely and logically defeated the arguments that was being presented.If you leave any system to randomness will it drift towards disorder or not ? This is exactly what I said that if you didn't have a coded message to change an egg in to a human it would be a random process not the message forcing it's will on the matter.what are the chances of that egg becoming a human absent of the coded message in Dna ?

How many examples of randomness, do you need to admit, a random process would only produce a chaotic disorderly system ?

Thesaurus Legend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. randomness - (thermodynamics) a thermodynamic quantity representing the amount of energy in a system that is no longer available for doing mechanical work; "entropy increases as matter and energy in the universe degrade to an ultimate state of inert uniformity"
entropy, S
physical property - any property used to characterize matter and energy and their interactions
conformational entropy - entropy calculated from the probability that a state could be reached by chance alone
thermodynamics - the branch of physics concerned with the conversion of different forms of energy
2. randomness - the quality of lacking any predictable order or plan

So now how would you ever get order and complexity from unguided natural processes ?

How would you get the genetic language with an absence of intelligence ?

The big bang produced chaos how did chaos produce order and complexity ?

The only chance in a chaotic event you would have to regain order is quickly, the more time that goes by the worse the disorder.

The bibles account makes much more sense according to the evidence.That order was at it's highest level after creation, and since creation the universe and everything in it has been affected by disorder, and it just keeps getting worse, being supported by the 2nd law.

Carl Weiland didn't do anything but demonstrate himself to be a scam artist. You have to be either a lunatic or a moron to think otherwise. His entire presentation was as rediculous as the mathematical "proofs" that "prove" 1=0

He does a pretty good job pointing out the important points of this issue. He showed the fallacy in your sides thinking that that 2nd law can be violated in some areas and not others. His presentation, I wished I could have seen it not just hear it. His easy to understand why theories of naturalism like abiogenesis and macroevolution violate the 2nd law. I was not intending on offending you but make you better understand why creation believe as they do. Dr. Carl made an awesome argument for creationism. In the process showed the rediculous views of your side.

 

[Steven_R]

It's pretty simple really,you believe something that goes against known laws of Physics.There are many scientists that will admit there is no evidence that contradicts the 1st or 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Dr. wieland completely and logically defeated the arguments that was being presented.If you leave any system to randomness will it drift towards disorder or not ? This is exactly what I said that if you didn't have a coded message to change an egg in to a human it would be a random process not the message forcing it's will on the matter.what are the chances of that egg becoming a human absent of the coded message in Dna ?

How many examples of randomness, do you need to admit, a random process would only produce a chaotic disorderly system ?

Thesaurus Legend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. randomness - (thermodynamics) a thermodynamic quantity representing the amount of energy in a system that is no longer available for doing mechanical work; "entropy increases as matter and energy in the universe degrade to an ultimate state of inert uniformity"
entropy, S
physical property - any property used to characterize matter and energy and their interactions
conformational entropy - entropy calculated from the probability that a state could be reached by chance alone
thermodynamics - the branch of physics concerned with the conversion of different forms of energy
2. randomness - the quality of lacking any predictable order or plan

So now how would you ever get order and complexity from unguided natural processes ?

How would you get the genetic language with an absence of intelligence ?

The big bang produced chaos how did chaos produce order and complexity ?

The only chance in a chaotic event you would have to regain order is quickly, the more time that goes by the worse the disorder.

The bibles account makes much more sense according to the evidence.That order was at it's highest level after creation, and since creation the universe and everything in it has been affected by disorder, and it just keeps getting worse, being supported by the 2nd law.

Carl Weiland didn't do anything but demonstrate himself to be a scam artist. You have to be either a lunatic or a moron to think otherwise. His entire presentation was as rediculous as the mathematical "proofs" that "prove" 1=0

He does s pretty job pointing out the important points of this issue. He showed the fallacy in your sides thinking that that 2nd law can be violated in some areas and not others. Hid presentation I wished I could have seen it not just hear it. It's easy to understand why theories of naturalism like abiogenesis and macroevolution violate the 2nd law. I was not intending on offending you but make you better understand why creation believe as they do. Dr. Carl made an awesome argument for creationism and in the process showing the probability of what your side believes.

Every time, every single time, one of you Creationist, YEC, or IDers go with that stuff, this is all I can think of:

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hfYJsQAhl0]Billy Madison - Ultimate Insult (Academic Decathlon)[Forum Weapon][How To Troll][Ignorance Is Bliss] - YouTube[/ame]

 

[itfitzme]

According to the word of God he has always existed. That defies logic but his creations do the same thing.

Not only does god defy all logic, it defies all reason, all sense, all nature, and all sanity. It is illogic, unreasonable, non-sense, unnatural, and insane.

On the other hand, logic and reason are grounded in the experience of nature. Life is nature and inherently makes sense, defying nothing. Logic and reason of nature, biology, and physics are born out of observation of nature, biology, and physics. So life is logical, natural, reasonable, sensical, and sane.

The only thing that defies nature is a mind that refuses to accept nature, to learn from it, to change to correspond to it. That is illogic, unreasonable, non-sense, unnatural, and insane.

The more I read and concider these things, the clearer becomes how ordinary is insanity. Insanity is refusing to accept the reality in front of your face because you have some preconcieved notion that you refuse to update.

They say, insanity is repeating the same behavior expecting different results. "refusing to accept the reality in front of your face because you have some preconcieved notion that you refuse to update" is the same thing.

Naturalism and science are inherently sane, logical, reasonable, and natural, because they constantly accept the reality of nature as it presents and reveals itself, on its own terms. Creationism refuses to accept reality, warping and twisting reason and logic into the most unnatural manner, in a desperate attempt to continue adhering to an old and defunct concept, expecting different results.

Sorry but naturalism is sane even though you have no evidence naturalism produced any sort of origins. You guy's are fumbling the ball. It looks like Carl shook you guy's up.

Hello, McFly, that's what I said, naturalism is sane, you are not. What part of that confused you? To many words?

 

[itfitzme]

It's pretty simple really,you believe something that goes against known laws of Physics.There are many scientists that will admit there is no evidence that contradicts the 1st or 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Dr. wieland completely and logically defeated the arguments that was being presented.If you leave any system to randomness will it drift towards disorder or not ? This is exactly what I said that if you didn't have a coded message to change an egg in to a human it would be a random process not the message forcing it's will on the matter.what are the chances of that egg becoming a human absent of the coded message in Dna ?

How many examples of randomness, do you need to admit, a random process would only produce a chaotic disorderly system ?

Thesaurus Legend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. randomness - (thermodynamics) a thermodynamic quantity representing the amount of energy in a system that is no longer available for doing mechanical work; "entropy increases as matter and energy in the universe degrade to an ultimate state of inert uniformity"
entropy, S
physical property - any property used to characterize matter and energy and their interactions
conformational entropy - entropy calculated from the probability that a state could be reached by chance alone
thermodynamics - the branch of physics concerned with the conversion of different forms of energy
2. randomness - the quality of lacking any predictable order or plan

So now how would you ever get order and complexity from unguided natural processes ?

How would you get the genetic language with an absence of intelligence ?

The big bang produced chaos how did chaos produce order and complexity ?

The only chance in a chaotic event you would have to regain order is quickly, the more time that goes by the worse the disorder.

The bibles account makes much more sense according to the evidence.That order was at it's highest level after creation, and since creation the universe and everything in it has been affected by disorder, and it just keeps getting worse, being supported by the 2nd law.

Carl Weiland didn't do anything but demonstrate himself to be a scam artist. You have to be either a lunatic or a moron to think otherwise. His entire presentation was as rediculous as the mathematical "proofs" that "prove" 1=0

He does s pretty job pointing out the important points of this issue. He showed the fallacy in your sides thinking that that 2nd law can be violated in some areas and not others. Hid presentation I wished I could have seen it not just hear it. It's easy to understand why theories of naturalism like abiogenesis and macroevolution violate the 2nd law. I was not intending on offending you but make you better understand why creation believe as they do. Dr. Carl made an awesome argument for creationism and in the process showing the probability of what your side believes.

Only if you are a complete idiot that can't tell the difference between a box of marbles and a cat.

Nothing about classical thermodynamics, which has been since updated to mechanical statistics, forbids the processes of living organisms. Indeed, they depend on it, just as a steam locamotive depends on it to climb a mountain, which by your accounting, is physically impossible.

Except for simply being stupid, I can find no other accounting for creationists. Stupid and evil.

 

[itfitzme]

It's pretty simple really,you believe something that goes against known laws of Physics.There are many scientists that will admit there is no evidence that contradicts the 1st or 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Dr. wieland completely and logically defeated the arguments that was being presented.If you leave any system to randomness will it drift towards disorder or not ? This is exactly what I said that if you didn't have a coded message to change an egg in to a human it would be a random process not the message forcing it's will on the matter.what are the chances of that egg becoming a human absent of the coded message in Dna ?

How many examples of randomness, do you need to admit, a random process would only produce a chaotic disorderly system ?

Thesaurus Legend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. randomness - (thermodynamics) a thermodynamic quantity representing the amount of energy in a system that is no longer available for doing mechanical work; "entropy increases as matter and energy in the universe degrade to an ultimate state of inert uniformity"
entropy, S
physical property - any property used to characterize matter and energy and their interactions
conformational entropy - entropy calculated from the probability that a state could be reached by chance alone
thermodynamics - the branch of physics concerned with the conversion of different forms of energy
2. randomness - the quality of lacking any predictable order or plan

So now how would you ever get order and complexity from unguided natural processes ?

How would you get the genetic language with an absence of intelligence ?

The big bang produced chaos how did chaos produce order and complexity ?

The only chance in a chaotic event you would have to regain order is quickly, the more time that goes by the worse the disorder.

The bibles account makes much more sense according to the evidence.That order was at it's highest level after creation, and since creation the universe and everything in it has been affected by disorder, and it just keeps getting worse, being supported by the 2nd law.

Carl Weiland didn't do anything but demonstrate himself to be a scam artist. You have to be either a lunatic or a moron to think otherwise. His entire presentation was as rediculous as the mathematical "proofs" that "prove" 1=0

He does s pretty job pointing out the important points of this issue. He showed the fallacy in your sides thinking that that 2nd law can be violated in some areas and not others. Hid presentation I wished I could have seen it not just hear it. It's easy to understand why theories of naturalism like abiogenesis and macroevolution violate the 2nd law. I was not intending on offending you but make you better understand why creation believe as they do. Dr. Carl made an awesome argument for creationism and in the process showing the probability of what your side believes.

He does no such thing except to prove that shaking a box of rocks will not arrange themselves into a pattern if you just ignore all the patterns that they will often arrange into.

Oh, and that living organisms aren't just a box of rocks. He proved that.

And honestly, your existence is an offense to humanity, a humanity that has bled and died for the right to be educated.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Not only does god defy all logic, it defies all reason, all sense, all nature, and all sanity. It is illogic, unreasonable, non-sense, unnatural, and insane.

On the other hand, logic and reason are grounded in the experience of nature. Life is nature and inherently makes sense, defying nothing. Logic and reason of nature, biology, and physics are born out of observation of nature, biology, and physics. So life is logical, natural, reasonable, sensical, and sane.

The only thing that defies nature is a mind that refuses to accept nature, to learn from it, to change to correspond to it. That is illogic, unreasonable, non-sense, unnatural, and insane.

The more I read and concider these things, the clearer becomes how ordinary is insanity. Insanity is refusing to accept the reality in front of your face because you have some preconcieved notion that you refuse to update.

They say, insanity is repeating the same behavior expecting different results. "refusing to accept the reality in front of your face because you have some preconcieved notion that you refuse to update" is the same thing.

Naturalism and science are inherently sane, logical, reasonable, and natural, because they constantly accept the reality of nature as it presents and reveals itself, on its own terms. Creationism refuses to accept reality, warping and twisting reason and logic into the most unnatural manner, in a desperate attempt to continue adhering to an old and defunct concept, expecting different results.

Sorry but naturalism is sane even though you have no evidence naturalism produced any sort of origins. You guy's are fumbling the ball. It looks like Carl shook you guy's up.

Carl Weiland ridiculous presentation didn't shake up anything. From the outset, he demonstrated a complete lack of understanding of physics and statistics. Either he's an idiot or a scam artist.

You shouls send him money.

No scam artist if you look at his background. Why would people holding doctorate degrees in science bother debating him if he is what you claim ?

I would say since you can't attack his argument and resort to pointless character assassination, he is not what you claim, and has reduced you to hollie and daws's level.

I am sure he took physics in high school, and at the college level. To get in to medical school you can't be an average student.

Wieland is a medical doctor graduating from Adelaide University in South Australia, but stopped practising medicine in 1986.[1] This was due to an accident Wieland was in with "a fully laden fuel tanker at highway speeds."[2] He endured five and a half months in hospital and has undergone more than fifty operations, as discussed in his book, Walking Through Shadows. He is a past president of the Christian Medical Fellowship of South Australia.[citation needed]

Wieland has said that during his time at university he was an atheist. In 1976 Wieland formed the Creation Science Association (CSA), a South Australian creationist organisation modelled after the Creation Research Society. In 1978 this organisation began publishing a magazine, Ex Nihilo (later called Creation Ex Nihilo), "to explain and promote special creation as a valid scientific explanation of origins." In 1980, CSA merged with a Queensland group to form the Creation Science Foundation, which subsequently became Answers in Genesis

Carl Wieland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't think any of you in this forum could do well in a debate against him.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Sadly, what Carl Weiland also proved is how gullible many people are.

By your pointless posts I would say he made to much sense and you don't have an answer for it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Carl Weiland didn't do anything but demonstrate himself to be a scam artist. You have to be either a lunatic or a moron to think otherwise. His entire presentation was as rediculous as the mathematical "proofs" that "prove" 1=0

He does s pretty job pointing out the important points of this issue. He showed the fallacy in your sides thinking that that 2nd law can be violated in some areas and not others. Hid presentation I wished I could have seen it not just hear it. It's easy to understand why theories of naturalism like abiogenesis and macroevolution violate the 2nd law. I was not intending on offending you but make you better understand why creation believe as they do. Dr. Carl made an awesome argument for creationism and in the process showing the probability of what your side believes.

He does no such thing except to prove that shaking a box of rocks will not arrange themselves into a pattern if you just ignore all the patterns that they will often arrange into.

Oh, and that living organisms aren't just a box of rocks. He proved that.

And honestly, your existence is an offense to humanity, a humanity that has bled and died for the right to be educated.

Randomness promotes order got it.

 

[DarkLion]

Whoever told you that, was probably on drugs,no offense.

You obviously don't understand what he said. A snowflake's pattern is random as it falls to the earth; but geological conditions determine where snowdrifts will be. Everything adheres to the laws of nature and physics. Even the random pattern of the snowflake falling is conditional upon wind, humidity etc. But you don't get that. And with that, you have answered your own question: Why isn't creationism considered equal to naturalism? Because faith doesn't equal science, and it never will.

 

[itfitzme]

This is a pattern

1
1 1
1 2 1
1 3 3 1
1 4 6 4 1
1 5 10 10 5 1
1 6 15 20 15 6 1
1 7 21 35 35 21 7 1
1 8 28 56 70 56 28 8 1
1 9 36 84 126 126 84 36 9 1

This is a pattern. Anyone that is fluent enough in statistics and probability should recognize it.

What is it?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are doing the very thing the source said. For your information you can eat all you like but eventually the decay of energy happens and we break down and die.That is true for all objects both inanimate and animate.


2nd Law of Thermodynamics
The second law is concerned with entropy, which is a measure of disorder. The second law says that the entropy of the universe increases.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics

The second law is concerned with entropy, which is a measure of disorder. The second law says that the entropy of the universe increases.

I may have put on a few pounds, but I'm not the universe yet.
Still confused? Still pushing your error?

No because when you answered the spin part of my article you should have done a better job it was revealing.

You have been making the argument for increasing complexity and then deny it. The theory of evolution don't call for the same thing increasing in complexity to make us better fit and survive our surroundings. lol If macro-evolution did take place that is exactly what happened. lol

Read over your answers then consider reality.

You have been making the argument for increasing complexity and then deny it.

I denied increasing complexity? Where?
What were you smoking when I did that?
Perhaps you can point it out?

Read over your answers then consider reality.

I consider reality, that's why I can keep pointing out your errors.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's pretty simple really,you believe something that goes against known laws of Physics.There are many scientists that will admit there is no evidence that contradicts the 1st or 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Dr. wieland completely and logically defeated the arguments that was being presented.If you leave any system to randomness will it drift towards disorder or not ? This is exactly what I said that if you didn't have a coded message to change an egg in to a human it would be a random process not the message forcing it's will on the matter.what are the chances of that egg becoming a human absent of the coded message in Dna ?

How many examples of randomness, do you need to admit, a random process would only produce a chaotic disorderly system ?

Thesaurus Legend: Synonyms Related Words Antonyms
Noun 1. randomness - (thermodynamics) a thermodynamic quantity representing the amount of energy in a system that is no longer available for doing mechanical work; "entropy increases as matter and energy in the universe degrade to an ultimate state of inert uniformity"
entropy, S
physical property - any property used to characterize matter and energy and their interactions
conformational entropy - entropy calculated from the probability that a state could be reached by chance alone
thermodynamics - the branch of physics concerned with the conversion of different forms of energy
2. randomness - the quality of lacking any predictable order or plan

So now how would you ever get order and complexity from unguided natural processes ?

How would you get the genetic language with an absence of intelligence ?

The big bang produced chaos how did chaos produce order and complexity ?

The only chance in a chaotic event you would have to regain order is quickly, the more time that goes by the worse the disorder.

The bibles account makes much more sense according to the evidence.That order was at it's highest level after creation, and since creation the universe and everything in it has been affected by disorder, and it just keeps getting worse, being supported by the 2nd law.

Carl Weiland didn't do anything but demonstrate himself to be a scam artist. You have to be either a lunatic or a moron to think otherwise. His entire presentation was as rediculous as the mathematical "proofs" that "prove" 1=0

He does a pretty good job pointing out the important points of this issue. He showed the fallacy in your sides thinking that that 2nd law can be violated in some areas and not others. His presentation, I wished I could have seen it not just hear it. His easy to understand why theories of naturalism like abiogenesis and macroevolution violate the 2nd law. I was not intending on offending you but make you better understand why creation believe as they do. Dr. Carl made an awesome argument for creationism. In the process showed the rediculous views of your side.

He showed the fallacy in your sides thinking that that 2nd law can be violated in some areas and not others.

Where did anyone on my side claim the 2nd Law could be violated?
I demand proof of your claim.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Carl Weiland didn't do anything but demonstrate himself to be a scam artist. You have to be either a lunatic or a moron to think otherwise. His entire presentation was as rediculous as the mathematical "proofs" that "prove" 1=0

He does a pretty good job pointing out the important points of this issue. He showed the fallacy in your sides thinking that that 2nd law can be violated in some areas and not others. His presentation, I wished I could have seen it not just hear it. His easy to understand why theories of naturalism like abiogenesis and macroevolution violate the 2nd law. I was not intending on offending you but make you better understand why creation believe as they do. Dr. Carl made an awesome argument for creationism. In the process showed the rediculous views of your side.

He showed the fallacy in your sides thinking that that 2nd law can be violated in some areas and not others.

Where did anyone on my side claim the 2nd Law could be violated?
I demand proof of your claim.

If you watched the Dr. Carl's videos he mentions one famous scientist that participates in debates not sure but I am thinking Professor Adler.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The second law is concerned with entropy, which is a measure of disorder. The second law says that the entropy of the universe increases.

I may have put on a few pounds, but I'm not the universe yet.
Still confused? Still pushing your error?

No because when you answered the spin part of my article you should have done a better job it was revealing.

You have been making the argument for increasing complexity and then deny it. The theory of evolution don't call for the same thing increasing in complexity to make us better fit and survive our surroundings. lol If macro-evolution did take place that is exactly what happened. lol

Read over your answers then consider reality.

You have been making the argument for increasing complexity and then deny it.

I denied increasing complexity? Where?
What were you smoking when I did that?
Perhaps you can point it out?

Read over your answers then consider reality.

I consider reality, that's why I can keep pointing out your errors.

I didn't mean you and itfitzme. sorry for that error,but many who try to argue against intelligent design that are evolutionist they argue that there is bad design and there is no order.