National Academy of Sciences says about creation of the universe by Go

[Guest]

I agree that there are certain things that need to be pushed back against. Personal beliefs is not that thing. Free association is also not that thing. What is that thing is theists pushing to have their religious views codified into law and forced on others, essentially undermining free association and freedom of thought and conscience. So when you have religious regressives who want their dogmas taught as scientific thought, people ought to be vocally opposed to those things. I would also argue, however, that we should be vocal against anti-theists who want to dismantle religious association and not allow people freedom of conscience and freedom of association.

I mostly agree here. For the most part I don't care that some people believe in gods, or horoscopes or that little bracelets can improve your posture. However, I also have no problem with those who challenge ideas that are not supported by reality. Teaching people, especially children, to suspend critical thinking and accept false concepts can be a big problem for societies. Gathering in groups is certainly beneficial, charitable activities are certainly beneficial, but those acts can and do take place without religion. If the actions of vocal anti-theists lead to a more secular, reasonable future then I don't see the harm in challenging the assertions of the faithful.

I'd say vocal anti-theists promoting skepticism and evidence based thinking in the media or at large talks and debates is far more fruitful than arguing with someone that is either a troll or delusional of an obscure internet forum. If this member is actually sincere about the content in her posts, imagine communities full of similar people. Imagine more western nations with significant portions of their government behaving like the current GOP.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Guest

[cybercoma]

The problem is that people are free to choose their own destinies and that means raising children in a manner that they see fit. I'm not interested in a state of affairs where bureaucrats begin telling people what values and beliefs people can instil in their children, unless those values are threatening to society and anti-social (i.e., raising your kids to be violent or criminals).

Anti-theists are going to argue that religion is threatening to society and some people do use religion as a tool for violence and anti-social behaviour. However, the vast majority of religious people carry a personal belief and couldn't care less about proselytizing, recruiting, and forcing their beliefs on others. As you've recognized, religious associations generally provide health and well-being benefits for its members, just like any other involvement in communities, but religious organizations also carry out broader social welfare initiatives that are necessary to the balanced functioning of our society. Despite governments spending billions on social welfare projects, there is in an unaccounted for sum that is being spent by the third sector and especially religious organizations. Yes, those activities can exist without religion, but that doesn't matter. They exist with religion and on a very large scale with religion too. The benefits are there.

When atheists challenge irrational thought in the public sphere, that's a different matter altogether. When people like OP spread lies, such as the National Academy of Sciences has evidence for creationism, then they absolutely need to be challenged. If they want to bring their irrational discourse to the public sphere then it should be challenge as all public discourse is. You don't expect politicians' views to go unchallenged, so religious zealots, who want to enter the political sphere spread lies and misinformation with their proselytizing, should also be challenged on their public pronouncements.

What I won't stand for, however, are atheists who are rabidly ANTI religion. People have a right to their own conscience, to their own moral codes, to their own destinies. You'll notice that even Richard Dawkins tempered his message later on. In the God Delusion, he was quite adamantly anti-religious, whereas a few years later in The Greatest Show on Earth he rolled that back and began showing some respect for people's beliefs. He narrowed the scope of his attacks to only those who deny the settled science on evolutionary biology and even stated outright that he has no problem with those who hold religious convictions but also recognize our established knowledge of the natural universe.

What I'm getting at is this. I agree with you that religious people need to be challenged, but only sometimes, and only in specific context. Religion shouldn't be challenged just for being religion. People shouldn't be ostracized and abused because they have religious beliefs or are involved in religious communities. That is their right. Their self-actualization, consciousness, and destinies ought to be in their own hands. What needs to be challenge are those instances where very specific religious people and groups spread lies, misinformation, and hatred. They need to be challenged where fail to recognize settled and well-established facts about the natural world. It's not their religion that needs to be challenged. It's their misunderstanding or in extreme cases like betsy's, where they spread lies even after being corrected, it is their lies that need to be challenged. We don't accomplish anything by stripping people the freedom to hold their own personal religious beliefs and convictions. We must fight against the ignorance and not the ignorant.

[eyeball]

My point is based on critical thinking......... yours is not.

/facepalm

[betsy]

/facepalm

Indeed.

[betsy]

The problem is that people are free to choose their own destinies and that means raising children in a manner that they see fit. I'm not interested in a state of affairs where bureaucrats begin telling people what values and beliefs people can instil in their children, unless those values are threatening to society and anti-social (i.e., raising your kids to be violent or criminals).

Anti-theists are going to argue that religion is threatening to society and some people do use religion as a tool for violence and anti-social behaviour. However, the vast majority of religious people carry a personal belief and couldn't care less about proselytizing, recruiting, and forcing their beliefs on others. As you've recognized, religious associations generally provide health and well-being benefits for its members, just like any other involvement in communities, but religious organizations also carry out broader social welfare initiatives that are necessary to the balanced functioning of our society. Despite governments spending billions on social welfare projects, there is in an unaccounted for sum that is being spent by the third sector and especially religious organizations. Yes, those activities can exist without religion, but that doesn't matter. They exist with religion and on a very large scale with religion too. The benefits are there.

When atheists challenge irrational thought in the public sphere, that's a different matter altogether.

When people like OP spread lies, such as the National Academy of Sciences has evidence for creationism, then they absolutely need to be challenged. If they want to bring their irrational discourse to the public sphere then it should be challenge as all public discourse is. You don't expect politicians' views to go unchallenged, so religious zealots, who want to enter the political sphere spread lies and misinformation with their proselytizing, should also be challenged on their public pronouncements.

What I won't stand for, however, are atheists who are rabidly ANTI religion. People have a right to their own conscience, to their own moral codes, to their own destinies. You'll notice that even Richard Dawkins tempered his message later on. In the God Delusion, he was quite adamantly anti-religious, whereas a few years later in The Greatest Show on Earth he rolled that back and began showing some respect for people's beliefs. He narrowed the scope of his attacks to only those who deny the settled science on evolutionary biology and even stated outright that he has no problem with those who hold religious convictions but also recognize our established knowledge of the natural universe.

What I'm getting at is this. I agree with you that religious people need to be challenged, but only sometimes, and only in specific context. Religion shouldn't be challenged just for being religion. People shouldn't be ostracized and abused because they have religious beliefs or are involved in religious communities. That is their right. Their self-actualization, consciousness, and destinies ought to be in their own hands. What needs to be challenge are those instances where very specific religious people and groups spread lies, misinformation, and hatred. They need to be challenged where fail to recognize settled and well-established facts about the natural world. It's not their religion that needs to be challenged. It's their misunderstanding or in extreme cases like betsy's, where they spread lies even after being corrected, it is their lies that need to be challenged. We don't accomplish anything by stripping people the freedom to hold their own personal religious beliefs and convictions.

We must fight against the ignorance and not the ignorant.

When theists challenge irrational thought in public sphere, that's a different matter altogether. ESPECIALLY when challenging the irrational thought of the NEW ATHEIST, that seek not only to spread their hateful message, but also to spread disinformation and propaganda. And that's what apologists are doing - openly challenging them..... some, even in obscure forums.

You must mean, IMAGINED or FANCIED lies.

It's people like Dawkins, who spread downright lies with their propaganda. He's always promoted the message that science and religion cannot go hand-in-hand. And he's been deliberately spreading that message, all the while the NAS had issued their views about Theistic Evolution.

As everyone can see.....Dawkins deliberately goes against the NAS.

He is SOUNDLY REFUTED by the NATIONAL ACADEMY of SCIENCES!

So, who's lying? Dawkins, or the NAS?

It's hard to give fault to the atheist who fail to understand....or refuses to understand the full implication of the statement by the NAS. Their reaction would be like that of a theist, who's suddenly been given the empirical, rational evidence that God is non-existent. It then, all boils down to faith. What then is different between a faithful theist and a faithful atheist?

Thus contrary to what people like Dawkins love to espouse......atheism does not necessarily equate with reason, or rational thinking. God could reveal Himself in the flesh to an atheist....and still, similar to the responses we read now among some atheists here on this thread, their reaction to the NAS statement.......the atheist could try to find all sorts of excuses, not to believe Him.

Ha-ha-ha. Do we have to wonder why Dawkins had to temper his message after the fiasco of the God Delusion?

He was publicly shamed. Even some of his fellow-atheists had turned against him!

His ignorance shone through, and it was him who proved to be the one, delusional.

Edited May 11, 2016 by betsy

[cybercoma]

You've never read a single book by Dawkins. If you had, you would know that he already said people can believe in a Watchmaker. He doesn't have a problem with that. He has a problem with fanatics like the ones who built the Creationism Museum that is filled with complete garbage. Science is not an opinion. As for NAS, give it a rest. You clearly aren't equipped to understand what they wrote, as it's been explained numerous times and you're still intransigent.

[betsy]

You've never read a single book by Dawkins. If you had, you would know that he already said people can believe in a Watchmaker. He doesn't have a problem with that. He has a problem with fanatics like the ones who built the Creationism Museum that is filled with complete garbage. Science is not an opinion. As for NAS, give it a rest. You clearly aren't equipped to understand what they wrote, as it's been explained numerous times and you're still intransigent.

I think I'd take the word of philosophers who'd pointed out that Dawkins ought to stick to his lab. A philosopher, he's not.

Only a fool would still believe Dawkins after the God Delusion! Dawkins is blinded, and driven by his own agenda.

Mind you, Dawkins isn't exactly credible as a scientist, either.

Dawkins was publicly accused by Lewontin, of peddling pseudo-science and making unsubstantiated claims.

In other words, he's a quack!

And a critique of his God Delusion seems to confirm that he does peddles pseudo-science, and makes unsubstantiated claims:

Dawkins' claim about differing probabilities appears very naive. Whatever explanation you give for the existence of our universe, whether you believe that the ultimate source of all reality is a mindless cosmic machine, an infinite cosmic chaos, or a purposeful creative force; they are all logically impossible.

Without a shred of evidence to support it, the only difference between cosmological evolution and any other kind of creation myth is that it is cleverly shrouded in scientific words. Dawkins does this a lot throughout his book. He takes questionable concepts and shrouds them in scientific words in order to give them the look of scientific legitimacy. Intelligent design theorists use the same tactic.

Copyright © 2006, The Journal of Evolutionary Philosophy.

http://www.evolutionary-philosophy.net/review_god_delusion.html

EXACTLY! You got that right, science is not an opinion! Thank you, for stating that point!

That's why the statement by the NAS is a general consensus among its members - whether they are atheists or not.

The statement is backed by scientific evidence.......

.........otherwise the NAS wouldn't be sticking its neck out making unsubstantiated claims!

Edited May 11, 2016 by betsy

[waldo]

The statement is backed by scientific evidence.......

.........otherwise the NAS wouldn't be sticking its neck out making unsubstantiated claims!

why can't anyone... why can't YOU... state what that evidence is? You keep falling-back to your ready go-to, "just ask the NAS"! Why isn't that supposed evidence published anywhere? Why can't you readily point to that scientific evidence? Why did you need to find some obscure reference in a most dated article for you to even thump forward with this latest nonsense of yours... something you never even heard about before in spite of all your many years of trying to convert the unwashed/unfaithful?

state the evidence... or point to where it can be found.

.

[cybercoma]

There is no evidence. Stop asking for it. It's time to ignore the blissfully ignorant, who refuses to present anything to support her claims, despite being challenged to for the last 20 pages.

[waldo]

There is no evidence. Stop asking for it.

stop your 'stop asking for it' routine! I want more, I need more than an undetectable celestial teapot... and if it's there, if in the remote possibility that MLW member betsy can present or direct towards that supposed evidence, that world-shattering, heads-exploding supposed evidence... well then - we must remain ever vigilant and keep the requests flowing! I just know she'll come through; I just know it!

.

[cybercoma]

It doesn't exist. Give it up.

There's only one way to prove me wrong....and well, 20 pages of this and it hasn't happened.

[waldo]

It doesn't exist. Give it up.

There's only one way to prove me wrong....and well, 20 pages of this and it hasn't happened.

my faith is waning... MLW member betsy is wearing me down. I see how those, those... believers, so blissfully wander about, smiles so broad, so ever content with their being. I wants me some of that... and only the supposed evidence will bring me there! I just think MLW member betsy is purposely stretching this out in the spirit of those grand tent-show fundamentalist revivals - saving the best for the last. If only she would get there soon! I don't know how much longer I can wait.

.

[betsy]

An atheist scientist combined facts of science and became a theistic evolutionist, and then a progressive creationist.

Dr. Parker began his teaching career as a non-Christian and evolutionist. The details of his spiritual and scientific conversion, From Evolution to Creation (available as a booklet and DVD), include comic incidents. For example, he was a participant in a debate where his science department, defending the Bible, debated the Bible department, which was defending evolution!

En route to his BA in biology/chemistry, MS in biology/physiology, and EdD in biology/geology from Ball State, Dr. Parker earned several academic awards, including admission to Phi Beta Kappa (the national scholastic honorary), election to the American Society of Zoologists (for his research on tadpoles), and a fifteen-month fellowship award from the National Science Foundation.

He has published five programmed textbooks in biology and six books in creation science (the latter have been translated into eight languages), has appeared in numerous films and television programs, and has debated and lectured worldwide on creation.

Below is an excerpt from a long interview:

GARY PARKER

When I first believed in evolution, I had sort of a romantic idea about evolution as unending progress. But in the closing paragraphs of the Origin of Species, Darwin explained that evolution, the "production of higher animals," was caused by "the war of nature, from famine and death." Does "the war of nature, from famine and death" sound like the means God would have used to create a world all very good?

"In that sense, then, it was really the scientific data that completed your conversion from evolution, through theistic evolution and progressive creation to Biblical, scientific creationism?"

So again, instead of challenging my creationist ideas, all the geology I was learning in graduate school was supporting it. I even discussed a creationist interpretation of paraconformities with the professor, and I finally found myself discussing further evidence of creation with fellow graduate students and others.

"What do you mean by ‘evidence of creation?’"

All of us can recognize objects that man has created, whether paintings, sculptures, or just a Coke bottle. Because the pattern of relationships in those objects is contrary to relationships that time, chance, and natural physical processes would produce, we know an outside creative agent was involved. I began to see the same thing in a study of living things, especially in the area of my major interest, molecular biology.

All living things depend upon a working relationship between inheritable nucleic acid molecules, like DNA, and proteins, the chief structural and functional molecules. To make proteins, living creatures use a sequence of DNA bases to line up a sequence of amino acid Rgroups. But the normal reactions between DNA and proteins are the "wrong" ones, and act with time and chance to disrupt living systems. Just as phosphorus, glass, and copper will work together in a television set only if properly arranged by human engineers, so DNA and protein will work in productive harmony only if properly ordered by an outside creative agent.

http://www.icr.org/article/from-evolution-creation-personal-testimony/

The article below is quite a lengthy read....detailing some evidence for The Flood.

The Grand Canyon

The Fossil Evidence (March 28, 2016)

Evolutionists recognize the problem of rock layers (“150 million years’ worth”) missing from the Grand Canyon—but they also have a ready solution to the problem: erosion. Stage 2, 3, and 4 rocks really were deposited, they suggest, but they were uplifted and eroded away; then stage 5 rock (Mississippian Redwall) was laid down directly on top of stage 1 rock (Cambrian Muav). It’s as if erosion tore out three chapters from the story of evolution.

That evolutionary argument is certainly logical and potentially correct. We see erosion erasing rock layers today, and we can infer that erosion also did so in the past. So evolutionists went looking for evidence of erosion, but they were honest enough to admit that they did not find it, at least not on a sufficient scale.

We find evidence of creation not only in the design and complexity of the “first” fossils found of each group, but also in the wonderfully constructed “language” of DNA; in the intricate way a baby develops in his or her mother’s womb according to the plan fully present at conception; in the similarities that point to a “common Creator,” not common ancestry, in classification; in marvelously interdependent adaptations, like those of the woodpecker; in the incredible variability, like all the human skin tones, stored in the first parents of each created kind.

In another research breakthrough that earned him further grudging respect from evolutionary antagonists, Dr. Steve Austin documented the rapid, catastrophic death of perhaps four billion nautiloids and other sea creatures preserved in a six-foot (2 m) bed near the base of the Redwall Limestone. In one dramatic pulse, a colossal sandy debris flow buried fossils along a path at least 135 miles (217 km) long and 30 miles (50 km) wide, stretching from the east end of the Grand Canyon westward past Las Vegas. As of this writing, multiple research papers are being prepared, as well as proposals for permits to do further research in the canyon.3

Then somebody reminded me of what I should have known already: dunes also form underwater. Ripple marks in sand at the beach are just “mini-dunes,” and my students and I have actually watched much bigger dunes form and travel underwater while on scuba dives (in rough seas) to the Florida Keys. The weight of evidence now favors the formation of the Coconino as an underwater dune deposit. Most telling is the work by Dr. Leonard Brand on the abundant animal trackways for which the Coconino is famous.4

In this case, my confidence in Flood geology was confirmed by further research. There are surely many other questions to be researched, but the weight of evidence we have available now (and that’s as far as science can go) seems to suggest strongly that the horizontal rock layers at the Grand Canyon were formed rapidly, not by a lot of time, but by a lot of water instead!

https://answersingenesis.org/geology/grand-canyon-facts/fossil-evidence-grand-canyon/

Edited May 13, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

Just to point out the corroborating statements by Gary Parker and the National Academy of Sciences:

All of us can recognize objects that man has created, whether paintings, sculptures, or just a Coke bottle. Because the pattern of relationships in those objects is contrary to relationships that time, chance, and natural physical processes would produce, we know an outside creative agent was involved. I began to see the same thing in a study of living things, especially in the area of my major interest, molecular biology. - Gary Parker

This belief, which sometimes is termed 'theistic evolution,' is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. Indeed, it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines." - National Academy of Sciences

Edited May 13, 2016 by betsy

[waldo]

Just to point out the corroborating statements by Gary Parker and the National Academy of Sciences:

really? You presume to now leverage a non-evolution believing creationist to... substantiate your repeated claims of the existence of "scientific based findings for (God) creation"? Why this long drawn out charade with your referenced NAS article? Why didn't you just... "cut to the chase" and bring your want to debate evolution versus creationism at the onset and identify that you are a creationist and that you believe in creationism?

and no, you can't presume to point out a corroboration to the (NAS) statement you're misrepresenting in the first place.

.

[betsy]

really? You presume to now leverage a non-evolution believing creationist to... substantiate your repeated claims of the existence of "scientific based findings for (God) creation"? Why this long drawn out charade with your referenced NAS article? Why didn't you just... "cut to the chase" and bring your want to debate evolution versus creationism at the onset and identify that you are a creationist and that you believe in creationism?

and no, you can't presume to point out a corroboration to the (NAS) statement you're misrepresenting in the first place.

.

I'm not presuming anything! I'm just pointing out the corroborating statements between Park and the NAS.

And of course I'm a creationist! What makes you think I'm not?

Just because I gave the NAS statement, and argued for it? Read again why I quoted the NAS!

You need a head shake.

Furthermore, why do you think I wouldn't create a topic against Evolution? You presume too much.....

Presume - another term you don't seem to understand.

Edited May 13, 2016 by betsy

[waldo]

And of course I'm a creationist! What makes you think I'm not?

I don't (usually) waste time with your religious focused threads; given your OP reference, I tweaked on this one. If you've been upfront in past threads and identified yourself as a creationist, I would have missed that - you have acknowledged that previously, yes?

in any case, "creation science" has a wealth of suspect riches for you to draw upon... you certainly didn't need to misrepresent that rather obscure and dated article in your thread OP.

.

[betsy]

I don't (usually) waste time with your religious focused threads; given your OP reference, I tweaked on this one. If you've been upfront in past threads and identified yourself as a creationist, I would have missed that - you have acknowledged that previously, yes?

in any case, "creation science" has a wealth of suspect riches for you to draw upon... you certainly didn't need to misrepresent that rather obscure and dated article in your thread OP.

.

You don't "usually" waste time with my religious focused threads.

You've been dogging me, and only too quick to respond........ you even tried to inject religion in a USA Section thread! Which is a non-religious thread! You bring religion where it's not discussed! The lines seems to be blurred with you. You can't tell the difference.

And he says, he "don't "usually" waste time with my religious focused thread."

"Usually," "religious focused"- more terms you don't seem to understand.

Edited May 13, 2016 by betsy

[waldo]

in the past, in prior MLW threads, have you identified yourself as a creationist prior to the recent post in this thread - yes or no?

.

[betsy]

in the past, in prior MLW threads, have you identified yourself as a creationist prior to the recent post in this thread - yes or no?

.

YES!

And.....????? Did I ever identify myself as a non-creationist?

It clearly looks like you're lost, Waldo. I don't mean, spiritual-wise (although you are lost, from a Christian POV).

I mean you're lost in this thread. You don''t know whether you're coming or going.

Where's Waldo? There. Lost somewhere in the NAS thread!

Edited May 13, 2016 by betsy

[waldo]

good, so you're a self-acknowledged, self-professing creationist - good to know! By the by, which branch of "theistic creationism" did your particular version of a gawd follow? But again, why the charade with this thread and your misrepresentation of that obscure/dated article... you have a veritable treasure-chest of "creation science" nuggets to draw from - you didn't need to make shyte up more shyte up! Just go for it - create the end all, be all, MLW Creation versus Evolution thread - I'm sure it would be a winner.

pro-tip: those ultra-sensitive, over-compensating types who feel obligated to pronounce "self-winning" - haven't... notwithstanding, its suspect internet value as an anonymous persona!

.

[betsy]

good, so you're a self-acknowledged, self-professing creationist - good to know! By the by, which branch of "theistic creationism" did your particular version of a gawd follow? But again, why the charade with this thread and your misrepresentation of that obscure/dated article... you have a veritable treasure-chest of "creation science" nuggets to draw from - you didn't need to make shyte up more shyte up! Just go for it - create the end all, be all, MLW Creation versus Evolution thread - I'm sure it would be a winner.

pro-tip: those ultra-sensitive, over-compensating types who feel obligated to pronounce "self-winning" - haven't... notwithstanding, its suspect internet value as an anonymous persona!

.

What part of, "God created...." is too hard for you to comprehend?

Really, Waldo.....you're floundering.

So what if the statement is dated 1999. The NAS still peddles it....therefore, It still stands.

Why? You think the theory of gravity is obsolete now....because it reached its best-before date? Outdated?

Oh boy, Waldo....you're the gift that keeps on giving.....

Edited May 13, 2016 by betsy

[waldo]

What part of, "God created...." is too hard for you to comprehend?

Isn't that creationism?

clarification request: is your brand of creationism the belief in a literal 6-day creation of the world? I didn't think you'd disavow Christians who accept evolutionary creation. Did you get the short-straw and the MLW assignment... better than trying to lobby for school science curriculum's to include the Flintstones, yes?

.

[betsy]

clarification request: is your brand of creationism the belief in a literal 6-day creation of the world? I didn't think you'd disavow Christians who accept evolutionary creation. Did you get the short-straw and the MLW assignment... better than trying to lobby for school science curriculum's to include the Flintstones, yes?

.

Unlike atheists.....I can go where the evidence leads.

You concern yourself too much about what I personally believe. That's not the issue, Waldo.

I've brought out the NAS statement, and I'm simply arguing for its clear statement.

Now, whether I believe evolution to be a fact, or not.....is irrelevant.

Me, taking the side of the NAS on Thiestic Evolution seems to bother you.

Haven't you heard of debates where debators take the position contrary to their own beliefs?

Edited May 13, 2016 by betsy

[DogOnPorch]

Unlike atheists.....I can go where the evidence leads.

Dandelions that lay on their side in grass evolved since the invention of the lawnmower. Popping-up only to release their seeds.

Evolution and natural selection in action.