Re: Just Exactly What the Heck is "Naturalistic Theory"?
Just what the hell are you talking about when you say "naturalistic theory"?
I would think that "naturalistic theory" would be the counterpart to "supernaturalistic theory", aka "Goddidit". And "Goddidit" is about all that "supernaturalistic theory" has to it.
"Naturalistic theory" deals in the physical evidence (aka "worldly reality"). Which is the only thing real science has available to work with.
Re: Just Exactly What the Heck is "Naturalistic Theory"?
Yeah, well, that was not the question.
Sure, we could all try to guess what the creationists meant by what they had said. But that is all nothing more than idle speculation.
Please keep in mind an unspoken and utterly false fundamentalist prejudice that a naturalistic explanation for anything would serve as disproof of God.
PorknCheese's postings so far seem to support that idea that he would view any naturalistic explanation for any phenomenon would conflict with and disprove his theology.
So then trying to guess what creationists mean is meaningless. What we need to do is to demand that they explain to us just what the fuck they are talking about.
Re: Just Exactly What the Heck is "Naturalistic Theory"?
Let's give PorknCheese the chance to start explaining what he/she meant with "the naturalistic theory" before he/she does anything else. It was in the first sentence of the OP. Lets first ignore the rest before the hopefully forthcoming explanation.
I tried to call ToE something else as not to provoke irrational conclusions about my beliefs and motives which instantly renders ToE false in my eyes. I didn't want to do a part on religion but i will have to because its obviously a huge part of this theory.
The first illustration is very similar to the ones iv seen being shown to primary school kids. If u don't agree then show me what is used.
Are we allowed to copy and paste large sections of text like RAZD has? I was never allowed so I'm not addressing it.
No one is able to show any pre cambrian evolution. So dust off ur hands and move on.
So quit trying to act like i invented all this and try convince me of ToE.
Applied science, u seriously want an explination. It's really just a ploy to deflect the focus from the topic. Google it if u don't know it. Do u ask for a verbal explination every time u hear a new term. Absurd LoL. "Mummy what does this mean?"..."Look it up son" Hahahaha
The first illustration is very similar to the ones iv seen being shown to primary school kids. If u don't agree then show me what is used.
You're not attributing your answers so it's difficult to know who you expect to reply to you, but I'll guess this is aimed at me?
You claimed...
quote:“As this is presented to public school students as a fact Im going to use the higher scientific standards of evidence which is used in the applied sciences where evidence has to be 100% accurate.“
So I think it totally reasonable to ask you to show when and where the diagram was used and to whom and to explain why you think it's a problem. That's a basic minimum if you want to comply with your own high standards.
If you can't actually do that your premise fails at the first fence.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona
"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android
"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
I tried to call ToE something else as not to provoke irrational conclusions about my beliefs and motives which instantly renders ToE false in my eyes. ...
A ploy that failed evidently. What you need to do is be honest and say the Theory of Evolution (ToE), and then be sure you have the scientific ToE and not some scurvy Creationist dishonest version.
Are we allowed to copy and paste large sections of text like RAZD has? ...
Yes, particularly of previous posts or posts on other threads that discussed the matter, and it was ignored,
Yes if they are properly referenced and credited, and you then put your comments in your words ...
Message 20: Last time I was asked for references only for them to be rejected. ...
Not because you cited them but because the references themselves were trash and not good references for the science you seem to be applying them to.
Nobody is suggesting that you invented anything. They're suggesting that the creationists who invented it are misleading you.
For your own benefit, if you want to learn something, go to the people who know about it - i.e. scientists. Don't go to science-deniers to learn about science.
You could have been more forthcoming about the fact that you're a creationist. Are you young-earth or old-earth?
So far only defensive tactics and false accusations to avoid explaining the evidence of the missing fossils. Im not being drawn into it. I just record these types of arguments as i will tally them up at the end of it all to reflect the attitude and response to ToE being questioned.
I've stated my position and belief in the past so be my guest, repeat your mistakes from a year ago. That should really help the strength of your explination
I've given my references. They are scientists. Perhaps start there if you've never heard anyone express this skepticism. (doubtful)
And to people that are incapable of using internet this is the definition of naturalism. "Naturalism is the idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world" I couldn't imagine stopping to ask someone a definition when its so easily obtained. Obviously a defensive tactic.
No one is able to show any pre cambrian evolution. So dust off ur hands and move on.
I think you mean "I've refused to look at the ample evidence for pre-Cambrian evolution". The fossils are often hard to find, because none of them had bones, but they're out there and well-known.
It sure would be nice if you used the features of this forum to identify the posts you are referring to...
So far only defensive tactics and false accusations to avoid explaining the evidence of the missing fossils.
Well, maybe you think you provided evidence of missing fossils, but we didn't see it. You asserting that there are missing fossils is not evidence.
Im not being drawn into it. I just record these types of arguments as i will tally them up at the end of it all to reflect the attitude and response to ToE being questioned.
I didn't see the ToE being questioned but rather your mistaken version of ToE. I saw you making false assertions about the fossil record. You refer to the fossil record from 150 years ago, not the state of our knowledge today.
And to people that are incapable of using internet this is the definition of naturalism.
No one asked for a definition of naturalism. We asked why you are using naturalistic theory and what you think it means.
I couldn't imagine stopping to ask someone a definition when its so easily obtained. Obviously a defensive tactic.
Yeah, we know, but this is a science forum and we want to know what the fuck YOU mean when you use certain words.
Using definitions for words that are not the way science defines them is an obvious creationist defensive tactic that we are very familiar with here at EvC.
What if Eleanor Roosevelt had wings? -- Monty Python
One important characteristic of a theory is that is has survived repeated attempts to falsify it. Contrary to your understanding, all available evidence confirms it. --Subbie
If evolution is shown to be false, it will be at the hands of things that are true, not made up. --percy
The reason that we have the scientific method is because common sense isn't reliable. -- Taq
I've given my references. They are scientists. Perhaps start there if you've never heard anyone express this skepticism.
Which of those references describe a methodology for determining if a species has no evolutionary predecessors? How do you look at a fossil and determine if it had no ancestors?
™ Version 4.0 Beta
(1)
