Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[Youwerecreated]

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?

Sorry I am not, I don't know.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

I guess you are right that is random but I don't see that as order.

 

[DarkLion]

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?

Sorry I am not, I don't know.

Pascal's Triangle. Look deeply at it. It's sort of based on the Fibonacci sequence.

 

[Hollie]

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.

There is no "bad design" in the natural world. On the other hand, the gods who you claimed "designed" all of existence can only be described as incompetent if their "design" is nature.

 

[Hollie]

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.

As we see with regularity, the liars and phonies at AIG are best confronted simply by presenting them with facts.

If we look at his (Wieland's) background, we see another fundamentalist crank.

Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics

Response to Wieland: Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics

Dear Carl Wieland,
I have just come across your article on the Web entitled 'Junk-making' viruses neutralize an evolutionary argument, in which you claim that the evolutionary argument based on shared pseudogenes is invalid. As you may be aware, I have written an extensive article (posted at the Talk.Origins Archive) in which I outline in detail why retroposons/pseudogenes shared between species argue strongly for common ancestry and therefore support evolution. I am writing to you now to explain why I believe the conclusions of your article to be erroneous.

…

Because my Web article already links to sites with opposing points of view (and includes my responses to those sites) I plan to ask the Webmaster of Talk.Origins to include a link to your site, and a link to a copy of this response to it. I would appreciate any comments you might have to this response, and am sure that Talk.Origins would be willing to include a link to your comments. If you have any interest in providing the readers of your site with an opposing point of view so that they can make up their own minds based on a comprehensive review of the data, you might want to consider linking to my site.

Sincerely,

Edward E. Max


[Note added later:
Shortly after receiving this letter, Carl Wieland responded cordially, agreeing that his page on Answers in Genesis might have been misleading. He stated that he would remove his page, and it promptly disappeared from the Answers in Genesis site. ]

 

[Derideo_Te]

Quote: Originally Posted by Youwerecreated

Unfortunately for all evolutionists, such problems show no intention of going away.

- Thermodynamics vs. Evolutionism -

The fundamental flaw in that link is based in the inane creationist ASSUMPTION that the universe was "created from nothing".

The second law presents an insurmountable problem to the concept of a natural, mechanistic process: (1) by which the physical universe could have formed spontaneously from nothing,

That violates the law of conservation of matter and energy. Too bad ignorant creationists aren't willing to explain how they get around that "insurmountable problem" before they attack the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Not a problem,did matter always exist ? I would doubt it since our universe had a beginning and even if matter always existed, Where did the energy come from ? What ignited the bid bang ?

The singularity contained compressed matter so it existed before the Big Bang. The onus is on you to prove that matter was "created".

 

[Youwerecreated]

The fundamental flaw in that link is based in the inane creationist ASSUMPTION that the universe was "created from nothing".



That violates the law of conservation of matter and energy. Too bad ignorant creationists aren't willing to explain how they get around that "insurmountable problem" before they attack the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Not a problem,did matter always exist ? I would doubt it since our universe had a beginning and even if matter always existed, Where did the energy come from ? What ignited the bid bang ?

The singularity contained compressed matter so it existed before the Big Bang. The onus is on you to prove that matter was "created".

You would have to prove your claim.

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now.

The Beginning of Time - Stephen Hawking

 

[Hollie]

Not a problem,did matter always exist ? I would doubt it since our universe had a beginning and even if matter always existed, Where did the energy come from ? What ignited the bid bang ?

The singularity contained compressed matter so it existed before the Big Bang. The onus is on you to prove that matter was "created".

You would have to prove your claim.

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now.

The Beginning of Time - Stephen Hawking

That really puts the kabash on the silly 6,000 year old earth myth.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd part 4 is what we discussed but listen to the crux of your argument concerning the egg to a human.

Yes, he admits that locally things can get more ordered.

He admits his argument is wrong, but is too stupid to realize it.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Not a problem,did matter always exist ? I would doubt it since our universe had a beginning and even if matter always existed, Where did the energy come from ? What ignited the bid bang ?

The singularity contained compressed matter so it existed before the Big Bang. The onus is on you to prove that matter was "created".

You would have to prove your claim.

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now.

The Beginning of Time - Stephen Hawking

So YWC has just admitted that matter has always existed and will always exist. You should quit while you are only this far behind.

 

[itfitzme]

"When I gave a lecture in Japan, I was asked not to mention the possible re-collapse of the universe, because it might affect the stock market."-Stephan Hawking

And boom, down goes the rational behavior assumption in economics.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Todd part 4 is what we discussed but listen to the crux of your argument concerning the egg to a human.

Yes, he admits that locally things can get more ordered.

He admits his argument is wrong, but is too stupid to realize it.

No ,he admits things can get more ordered and complex because of coded genetic information because it forces it's will on matter,and that is is a temporary state. You see the friggen evidence all around you

Be careful slinging that term stupid around so recklessly.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The singularity contained compressed matter so it existed before the Big Bang. The onus is on you to prove that matter was "created".

You would have to prove your claim.

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now.

The Beginning of Time - Stephen Hawking

That really puts the kabash on the silly 6,000 year old earth myth.

Do you understand speculation and conjecture ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

The singularity contained compressed matter so it existed before the Big Bang. The onus is on you to prove that matter was "created".

You would have to prove your claim.

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now.

The Beginning of Time - Stephen Hawking

So YWC has just admitted that matter has always existed and will always exist. You should quit while you are only this far behind.

Listen, I did no such thing. You will not find any intelligent scientist saying what existed and what things were like before the Big Bang because they don't know. That would no longer be science either.

You must not understand the 2nd law if matter and energy existed before the Big Bang that would present problems because of the 2nd law. Did you not read Hawkings article ?

 

[Hollie]

You would have to prove your claim.

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now.

The Beginning of Time - Stephen Hawking

That really puts the kabash on the silly 6,000 year old earth myth.

Do you understand speculation and conjecture?

Yep. Even those terms are generous when applied to the 6,000 year old earth myth.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd part 4 is what we discussed but listen to the crux of your argument concerning the egg to a human.

Yes, he admits that locally things can get more ordered.

He admits his argument is wrong, but is too stupid to realize it.

No ,he admits things can get more ordered and complex because of coded genetic information because it forces it's will on matter,and that is is a temporary state. You see the friggen evidence all around you

Be careful slinging that term stupid around so recklessly.

No ,he admits things can get more ordered and complex

Yes, so his claim that they cannot is wrong........the opposite of right.

Like I said, stupid.

 

[Hollie]

You would have to prove your claim.

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now.

The Beginning of Time - Stephen Hawking

So YWC has just admitted that matter has always existed and will always exist. You should quit while you are only this far behind.

Listen, I did no such thing. You will not find any intelligent scientist saying what existed and what things were like before the Big Bang because they don't know. That would no longer be science either.

You must not understand the 2nd law if matter and energy existed before the Big Bang that would present problems because of the 2nd law. Did you not read Hawkings article ?

I can't help but note the absurdity of someone like you lecturing anyone on science.

 

[Derideo_Te]

You would have to prove your claim.

The conclusion of this lecture is that the universe has not existed forever. Rather, the universe, and time itself, had a beginning in the Big Bang, about 15 billion years ago. The beginning of real time, would have been a singularity, at which the laws of physics would have broken down. Nevertheless, the way the universe began would have been determined by the laws of physics, if the universe satisfied the no boundary condition. This says that in the imaginary time direction, space-time is finite in extent, but doesn't have any boundary or edge. The predictions of the no boundary proposal seem to agree with observation. The no boundary hypothesis also predicts that the universe will eventually collapse again. However, the contracting phase, will not have the opposite arrow of time, to the expanding phase. So we will keep on getting older, and we won't return to our youth. Because time is not going to go backwards, I think I better stop now.

The Beginning of Time - Stephen Hawking

So YWC has just admitted that matter has always existed and will always exist. You should quit while you are only this far behind.

Listen, I did no such thing. You will not find any intelligent scientist saying what existed and what things were like before the Big Bang because they don't know. That would no longer be science either.

You must not understand the 2nd law if matter and energy existed before the Big Bang that would present problems because of the 2nd law. Did you not read Hawkings article ?

The singularity consisted of matter and and energy and is entirely consistent with the 2nd law. You are pretending that your "creator" created matter but that would violate the 2nd law. Hawkings is correct that we do not know what form matter and energy took prior to the Big Bang but he is not saying that matter did not exist prior to the Big Bang. There are no intelligent scientists who are agreeing with your delusion that matter was "created".

Once again your creationist agenda obstructs your comprehension of reality.

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

As we see with regularity, the liars and phonies at AIG are best confronted simply by presenting them with facts.

If we look at his (Wieland's) background, we see another fundamentalist crank.

Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics

Response to Wieland: Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics

Dear Carl Wieland,
I have just come across your article on the Web entitled 'Junk-making' viruses neutralize an evolutionary argument, in which you claim that the evolutionary argument based on shared pseudogenes is invalid. As you may be aware, I have written an extensive article (posted at the Talk.Origins Archive) in which I outline in detail why retroposons/pseudogenes shared between species argue strongly for common ancestry and therefore support evolution. I am writing to you now to explain why I believe the conclusions of your article to be erroneous.

…

Because my Web article already links to sites with opposing points of view (and includes my responses to those sites) I plan to ask the Webmaster of Talk.Origins to include a link to your site, and a link to a copy of this response to it. I would appreciate any comments you might have to this response, and am sure that Talk.Origins would be willing to include a link to your comments. If you have any interest in providing the readers of your site with an opposing point of view so that they can make up their own minds based on a comprehensive review of the data, you might want to consider linking to my site.

Sincerely,

Edward E. Max


[Note added later:
Shortly after receiving this letter, Carl Wieland responded cordially, agreeing that his page on Answers in Genesis might have been misleading. He stated that he would remove his page, and it promptly disappeared from the Answers in Genesis site. ]

Thank you for bringing up Dr. Max ,now you can see his argument get shredded by Dr. Lee Spetner.

That shows integrity on Dr. wieland's part. Just like hawking did in that article I posted.

Now watch this destruction of Dr. Max's argument.

Spetner:

Now Ed, that’s ridiculous! Those two statements are not symmetrical. I don’t have to assume the series did not occur to make a case for the inadequacy of NDT. You, who are basing your theory of evolution on the occurrence of such a series, are required to show that it exists, or at least that it is likely to exist. You are obliged to show an existence. I am not obliged to prove a non-existence.
[LMS: IN MAX’S POSTING HE MOVED THIS REMARK OF MINE TO A LATER POINT IN THE DIALOGUE. I ORIGINALLY HAD IT HERE, AND HERE IS WHERE IT BELONGS.]

Dr. Max misleading.

Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max

 

[Youwerecreated]

So YWC has just admitted that matter has always existed and will always exist. You should quit while you are only this far behind.

Listen, I did no such thing. You will not find any intelligent scientist saying what existed and what things were like before the Big Bang because they don't know. That would no longer be science either.

You must not understand the 2nd law if matter and energy existed before the Big Bang that would present problems because of the 2nd law. Did you not read Hawkings article ?

The singularity consisted of matter and and energy and is entirely consistent with the 2nd law. You are pretending that your "creator" created matter but that would violate the 2nd law. Hawkings is correct that we do not know what form matter and energy took prior to the Big Bang but he is not saying that matter did not exist prior to the Big Bang. There are no intelligent scientists who are agreeing with your delusion that matter was "created".

Once again your creationist agenda obstructs your comprehension of reality.

There is no evidence showing matter existed before time,zero none. You simply don't know don't act like you do.