Why is naturalism considered scientific and creationism is not ?

[orogenicman]

And that proves evolution can't happen?

You poor boy. Your brain is decaying in this thread.

Thanks for agreeing with over time all objects are affected by decay which is the result of disorder that leads to death. What we exp over time is devolution. Things are not getting better or improving in complexity,that is what you need for evolution to trend upwards. You should know by now the basics of macro evolution. Micro-adaptations do happen but they are minor changes and the genetic information is already in the Genome to adapt.

It's true, the entropy of the universe is increasing.
At the same time things can get more complex.
Just look how complex your ignorance has become.

Increasing entropy does not imply increasing complexity, just as evolution does not imply increasing complexity. The human genome, for instance, has less complexity and fewer genes than many other species. For instance, humans have 46 chromosomes, while chimpanzees have 48.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thanks for agreeing with over time all objects are affected by decay which is the result of disorder that leads to death. What we exp over time is devolution. Things are not getting better or improving in complexity,that is what you need for evolution to trend upwards. You should know by now the basics of macro evolution. Micro-adaptations do happen but they are minor changes and the genetic information is already in the Genome to adapt.

It's true, the entropy of the universe is increasing.
At the same time things can get more complex.
Just look how complex your ignorance has become.

Increasing entropy does not imply increasing complexity, just as evolution does not imply increasing complexity. The human genome, for instance, has less complexity and fewer genes than many other species. For instance, humans have 46 chromosomes, while chimpanzees have 48.

Increasing entropy does not imply increasing complexity

I never claimed it did.

 

[orogenicman]

It's true, the entropy of the universe is increasing.
At the same time things can get more complex.
Just look how complex your ignorance has become.

Increasing entropy does not imply increasing complexity, just as evolution does not imply increasing complexity. The human genome, for instance, has less complexity and fewer genes than many other species. For instance, humans have 46 chromosomes, while chimpanzees have 48.

Increasing entropy does not imply increasing complexity

I never claimed it did.

At the same time things can get more complex.

Those are not your words?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Increasing entropy does not imply increasing complexity, just as evolution does not imply increasing complexity. The human genome, for instance, has less complexity and fewer genes than many other species. For instance, humans have 46 chromosomes, while chimpanzees have 48.

Increasing entropy does not imply increasing complexity

I never claimed it did.

At the same time things can get more complex.

Those are not your words?

Why yes, they are.
Maybe you should reread my original post?
It's clear you're confused

 

[Hollie]

Signs of the fault of humanity and disorder which we have been discussing. The only way those problems would have never been experienced was for man to obey God.

As predictable as clockwork. Whenever you are faced with irrefutable facts you start spewing superstitious drivel while you beat a hasty retreat back into your shell.

Is this your weak Attempt at suggesting no intelligent creator would have created things the way they currently are ?

As Tom said earlier any natural process arising through without being guided would in fact be miraculous, hmm,now what ?

You are chronically confused. A natural process would suggest such process is without the need or requirement for "guidance" from your gawds or anyone else's gawds.

Most processes in nature have an established hierarchy of causes and effects that are understood as to the mechanisms.

So, tell us what "miracles" you see occurring in nature that are not guided by the gods.

 

[orogenicman]

Increasing entropy does not imply increasing complexity

I never claimed it did.

At the same time things can get more complex.

Those are not your words?

Why yes, they are.
Maybe you should reread my original post?
It's clear you're confused

Perhaps I am. I'm just going on what you posted, dude. If you want to clarify, go right ahead.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Those are not your words?

Why yes, they are.
Maybe you should reread my original post?
It's clear you're confused

Perhaps I am. I'm just going on what you posted, dude. If you want to clarify, go right ahead.

Look at the Sun, entropy is increasing.
Look at a tree growing in the Sun, it's getting more complex.

You think there is a conflict between those two statements?

 

[orogenicman]

Why yes, they are.
Maybe you should reread my original post?
It's clear you're confused

Perhaps I am. I'm just going on what you posted, dude. If you want to clarify, go right ahead.

Look at the Sun, entropy is increasing.
Look at a tree growing in the Sun, it's getting more complex.

You think there is a conflict between those two statements?

Yes. First of all, I don't have to look at the sun to know that entropy in the universe is increasing. That is a product of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But the 2nd law only applies to closed systems. Trees don't live in a closed system. They can just as easily become LESS complex. Evolution does not have an arrow of complexity.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Perhaps I am. I'm just going on what you posted, dude. If you want to clarify, go right ahead.

Look at the Sun, entropy is increasing.
Look at a tree growing in the Sun, it's getting more complex.

You think there is a conflict between those two statements?

Yes. First of all, I don't have to look at the sun to know that entropy in the universe is increasing. That is a product of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But the 2nd law only applies to closed systems. Trees don't live in a closed system. They can just as easily become LESS complex. Evolution does not have an arrow of complexity.

I didn't say you had to look at the sun to know the entropy of the universe is increasing.
I didn't say trees lived in a closed system. I didn't say trees couldn't evolve into a less complex tree, I said a growing tree is growing more complex.
I know that evolution does not have an arrow of complexity.

So help me out, what was the conflict?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Hello. I just stumbled upon this thread, and haven't read it all the way through. So without getting into all of the other issues likely brought up, I would like to address the above. The answer to your first question is that there is nothing "supernatural". Either it occurs naturally or it doesn't. The term supernatural is just a made up concept given to something people don't understand or can't themselves explain. It is rooted in 19th century mysticism. Since there is nothing that is in this universe that cannot be explained by natural means, resorting to so-called supernatural agents is simply irrational and lazy thinking. Creationist views are left out of science for a very simple reason. "God did it" doesn't actually explain anything. Science is a process for understanding and explaining the world around us and within us. If "God did it" were all you needed to explain the world, we wouldn't have cars, television, cell phones, computers, and all the other technological conveniences that we enjoy. Moreover, we wouldn't understand how to breed cats, dogs, horses, and all of the animal we have created for our own purposes. And I say created because we most certainly have created them. The dog is a human bred species. It never existed in the wild. Same with modern cattle and horses and many other domestic animals. Artificial selection is the method we have used to create these animals. The only difference between artificial selection and natural selection is time, and the agent doing the selection, in this case, nature itself.

If an animal likes termites, but has a short snout and a short tongue, it is going to have to tough time getting at them to eat them. But if 1/3 of those animals have a snout with a tongue that is just long enough to reach the termites in their mound, they will be more successful in acquiring the food they like. And so over time, they will be more successful in breeding than the ones with shorter snouts, so eventually there will be more longer snouted critters eating termites. Today we call them aardvarks. No need to resort to a creator to explain their existence. No need to be lazy and say "god did it". This is how science works, how it has answered so many questions and so enriched all of our lives.

So to answer your last question - "God did it" - Doesn't explain anything, and is not scientific.

Yes it does it just gets ignored. No naturalistic processes can't account for origins of any object except through programmed information.

A rainbow can be accounted for through the fact of refraction of incident sunlight on rain droplets in the atmosphere using Snell's law.

In contrast, "god did it", still does not explain the rainbow (or anything else).

God did it never explains a process. God did it is merely an inference. No different then a natural cycle is extrapolated from for evidence for naturalism.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Perhaps I am. I'm just going on what you posted, dude. If you want to clarify, go right ahead.

Look at the Sun, entropy is increasing.
Look at a tree growing in the Sun, it's getting more complex.

You think there is a conflict between those two statements?

Yes. First of all, I don't have to look at the sun to know that entropy in the universe is increasing. That is a product of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But the 2nd law only applies to closed systems. Trees don't live in a closed system. They can just as easily become LESS complex. Evolution does not have an arrow of complexity.

Are you trying to suggest the universe has no affect on a closed system ? If all the different organisms were a product of macro-evolution didn't they get more complex ?

It's pretty simple for as long the universe has been around and the whole time decreasing in order how did organisms get more complex ?

I don't believe evolution ever happened the way they currently teach. I believe small changes happens within in a family but not enough to account for all the different organisms that has ever existed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Look at the Sun, entropy is increasing.
Look at a tree growing in the Sun, it's getting more complex.

You think there is a conflict between those two statements?

Yes. First of all, I don't have to look at the sun to know that entropy in the universe is increasing. That is a product of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But the 2nd law only applies to closed systems. Trees don't live in a closed system. They can just as easily become LESS complex. Evolution does not have an arrow of complexity.

Are you trying to suggest the universe has no affect on a closed system ? If all the different organisms were a product of macro-evolution didn't they get more complex ?

It's pretty simple for as long the universe has been around and the whole time decreasing in order how did organisms get more complex ?

I don't believe evolution ever happened the way they currently teach. I believe small changes happens within in a family but not enough to account for all the different organisms that has ever existed.

You should probably just sit there.
Every time you open your mouth, you say something silly.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Look at the Sun, entropy is increasing.
Look at a tree growing in the Sun, it's getting more complex.

You think there is a conflict between those two statements?

Yes. First of all, I don't have to look at the sun to know that entropy in the universe is increasing. That is a product of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But the 2nd law only applies to closed systems. Trees don't live in a closed system. They can just as easily become LESS complex. Evolution does not have an arrow of complexity.

I didn't say you had to look at the sun to know the entropy of the universe is increasing.
I didn't say trees lived in a closed system. I didn't say trees couldn't evolve into a less complex tree, I said a growing tree is growing more complex.
I know that evolution does not have an arrow of complexity.

So help me out, what was the conflict?

I don't know but I think you guys are wasting your time. Going from an amoeba to a microbiologist, I would say according to your theory you do have an arrow pointing towards complexity.

How can an organism get less complex and survive it's environment ?

You need to quit using a cycle of an organism as your argument ,that is a bad analogy.

 

[HUGGY]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qgcy-V6YIuI]Skeeter Davis -- The End Of The World - YouTube[/ame]

Why? Oh Why?...

If enough people stopped believing in god would it be the end of the world?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yes. First of all, I don't have to look at the sun to know that entropy in the universe is increasing. That is a product of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But the 2nd law only applies to closed systems. Trees don't live in a closed system. They can just as easily become LESS complex. Evolution does not have an arrow of complexity.

Are you trying to suggest the universe has no affect on a closed system ? If all the different organisms were a product of macro-evolution didn't they get more complex ?

It's pretty simple for as long the universe has been around and the whole time decreasing in order how did organisms get more complex ?

I don't believe evolution ever happened the way they currently teach. I believe small changes happens within in a family but not enough to account for all the different organisms that has ever existed.

You should probably just sit there.
Every time you open your mouth, you say something silly.

Does the universe have an effect on the supposed open system earth ?

Sorry I just noticed I said a closed system.

 

[HUGGY]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bB10MHhftXc]Gene McDaniels Sings A Hundred Pounds of Clay 2010 - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes. First of all, I don't have to look at the sun to know that entropy in the universe is increasing. That is a product of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But the 2nd law only applies to closed systems. Trees don't live in a closed system. They can just as easily become LESS complex. Evolution does not have an arrow of complexity.

I didn't say you had to look at the sun to know the entropy of the universe is increasing.
I didn't say trees lived in a closed system. I didn't say trees couldn't evolve into a less complex tree, I said a growing tree is growing more complex.
I know that evolution does not have an arrow of complexity.

So help me out, what was the conflict?

I don't know but I think you guys are wasting your time. Going from an amoeba to a microbiologist, I would say according to your theory you do have an arrow pointing towards complexity.

How can an organism get less complex and survive it's environment ?

You need to quit using a cycle of an organism as your argument ,that is a bad analogy.

Texas Blind Salamander (Eurycea rathbuni)

 

[HUGGY]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7ogV49WGco]God Only Knows - Bioshock Infinite - YouTube[/ame]

 

[orogenicman]

Look at the Sun, entropy is increasing.
Look at a tree growing in the Sun, it's getting more complex.

You think there is a conflict between those two statements?

Yes. First of all, I don't have to look at the sun to know that entropy in the universe is increasing. That is a product of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But the 2nd law only applies to closed systems. Trees don't live in a closed system. They can just as easily become LESS complex. Evolution does not have an arrow of complexity.

Are you trying to suggest the universe has no affect on a closed system ?

The universe IS a closed system.

If all the different organisms were a product of macro-evolution didn't they get more complex ?

No. Humans, for instance, are genetically LESS complex than their ape cousins, the chimpanzee. I can cite many other examples, if you like.

It's pretty simple for as long the universe has been around and the whole time decreasing in order how did organisms get more complex ?

It is irrelevant. On a planet that is NOT a closed system, organisms can become more, or less, complex. Natural selection makes no requirement that an organism be more complex than its predecessor. The only requirement is that any modification result in offspring having a survival advantage over its predecessors. If that advantage means that it becomes LESS complex, that's what happens.

I don't believe evolution ever happened the way they currently teach. I believe small changes happens within in a family but not enough to account for all the different organisms that has ever existed.

And that's because you are illiterate on the subject. There is a cure for your ailment. Take some biology classes.

 

[orogenicman]

Look at the Sun, entropy is increasing.
Look at a tree growing in the Sun, it's getting more complex.

You think there is a conflict between those two statements?

Yes. First of all, I don't have to look at the sun to know that entropy in the universe is increasing. That is a product of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. But the 2nd law only applies to closed systems. Trees don't live in a closed system. They can just as easily become LESS complex. Evolution does not have an arrow of complexity.

I didn't say you had to look at the sun to know the entropy of the universe is increasing.
I didn't say trees lived in a closed system. I didn't say trees couldn't evolve into a less complex tree, I said a growing tree is growing more complex.
I know that evolution does not have an arrow of complexity.

So help me out, what was the conflict?

To say that a growing tree is growing more complex, is a broad statement that doesn't apply to every tree, in fact, it probably doesn't apply to any tree. Saplings have exactly the same number of genes that a full grown tree has, and its cells function in exactly the same way that adult tree cells do. So how is it getting more complex? Larger, yes? But more complex? Doubtful. If there is any difference in complexity between a sapling and an adult tree it is in the adult tree's ability to reproduce. But that is simply a matter of genetic programming - genes that turn on or off when a tree reaches a certain age, genes it already possesses.