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

[betsy]

Moonlight Graham, on 18 May 2016 - 12:23 AM, said:

Let's take a look at the 1st paragraph of the conclusion you quoted in your OP:

Your belief in God is yours to believe, but it isn`t based on any evidence. The only evidence religious people have to point to is the Bible, which is of course shown by science to be filled with stories that are not true and never actually happened. Sure some bible stories may have happened, or have been partly true, but saying it happened is not evidence, it has to be backed up by other observable evidence, like archeology etc. Here's what the NAS says about the Bible/creationism (this follows your quote in the OP):

Other advocates of creation science are willing to accept that Earth, the planets, and the stars may have existed for millions of years. But they argue that the various types of organisms, and especially humans, could only have come about with supernatural intervention, because they show "intelligent design."

In this booklet, both these "Young Earth" and "Old Earth" views are referred to as "creationism" or "special creation."

There are no valid scientific data or calculations to substantiate the belief that Earth was created just a few thousand years ago.

This document has summarized the vast amount of evidence for the great age of the universe, our galaxy, the solar system, and Earth from astronomy, astrophysics, nuclear physics, geology, geochemistry, and geophysics. Independent scientific methods consistently give an age for Earth and the solar system of about 5 billion years, and an age for our galaxy and the universe that is two to three times greater. These conclusions make the origin of the universe as a whole intelligible, lend coherence to many different branches of science, and form the core conclusions of a remarkable body of knowledge about the origins and behavior of the physical world.

Yes, let's take a look at what the NAS has to say.....AND WHAT IT DID NOT SAY!

It focused on the young earth creationism.

For all it says that special creationism isn't real science -

the NAS however, cannot refute what old earth creationists believe.

Edited May 18, 2016 by betsy

[cybercoma]

You're kidding, right? They said plainly that they reject creationist hypotheses. It doesn't get more clear than that. Do you want to address that statement?

[waldo]

You're kidding, right? They said plainly that they reject creationist hypotheses. It doesn't get more clear than that. Do you want to address that statement?

geejaz! Now she's reverting to cannibalization... sacrificing the "young earthers"... the "specials". Now, apparently, only the "oldsters", only the "old earth creationists" are worthy!

in case MLW member betsy missed it the first time:

Some wish to see “creation science”— which posits that scientific evidence exists to prove that the universe and living things were specially created in their present form—taught together with evolution as two alternative scientific theories.

Scientists have considered the hypotheses proposed by creation science and have rejected them because of a lack of evidence. Furthermore, the claims of creation science do not refer to natural causes and cannot be subject to meaningful tests, so they do not qualify as scientific hypotheses.

.

[betsy]

geejaz! Now she's reverting to cannibalization... sacrificing the "young earthers"... the "specials". Now, apparently, only the "oldsters", only the "old earth creationists" are worthy!

in case MLW member betsy missed it the first time:

.

The NAS had explained that explicitly.....however, as usual, that too, went smooth-sailing over Waldo's head.

Let me lead you by the hand Waldo, and try to help you understand this. Focus, now:

The advocates of "creation science" hold a variety of viewpoints. Some claim that Earth and the universe are relatively young, perhaps only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. In this booklet, both these "Young Earth" and "Old Earth" views are referred to as "creationism" or "special creation."

http://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/3#7

Let's read this again Waldo, to hammer it in:

In this booklet, both these "Young Earth" and "Old Earth" views are referred to as "creationism" or "special creation."

The NAS refers to both young earth and old earth creationists.

"Creation science," that the NAS talks about, does not include THEISTIC Evolution.

Edited May 18, 2016 by betsy

[kimmy]

No, Kimmy. The NAS statement states that, many scientists believe God created the universe and all the processes driving physical and biological evolution...etc, That belief is called, THEISTIC evolution.

There you go. You just solved your own problem. Now that you understand where you went wrong, we can let this silly thread rest.

-k

[betsy]

There you go. You just solved your own problem. Now that you understand where you went wrong, we can let this silly thread rest.

-k

So you've resorted too, to editing my post....and taking it out of context?

If you're happy to imagine you've smugly won the argument - by blatant dishonesty - I can be magnanimous to just let you go on with your delusion.

For those interested about my edited view point (which was deliberately taken out of context), refer to my post # 348.

Edited May 18, 2016 by betsy

[DogOnPorch]

So you've resorted too, to editing my post....and taking it out of context?

If you're happy to imagine you've smugly won the argument - by blatant dishonesty - I can be magnanimous to just let you go on with your delusion.

For those interested about my edited view point (which was deliberately taken out of context), refer to my post # 348.

How do you explain away stellar metallicity in terms of your creation fable?

[betsy]

How do you explain away stellar metallicity in terms of your creation fable?

This thread is not about Biblical creation.

If you're so keen to discuss that, by all means....let's do it. Create a thread, and pm me.

[DogOnPorch]

This thread is not about Biblical creation.

If you're so keen to discuss that, by all means....let's do it. Create a thread, and pm me.

I see. You do it by not confronting the very question. Well, ignorance is bliss and all.

[eyeball]

This thread is not about Biblical creation.

Is it about the macro-creation in which the biblical-creation evolved?

Edited May 19, 2016 by eyeball

[kimmy]

So you've resorted too, to editing my post....and taking it out of context?

I quoted the only important part of your message-- the first sentence-- and trimmed the unimportant part, which is all the rest of it.

You complain that I took it out of context, but I didn't. The portion I quoted explains the real context of the whole NAS quote you've been misinterpreting. It is a fact that they are explaining the opinion of *some* scientists, not issuing an official position of the organization. That's the context of the quote you've been continuing to misuse. It has been explained to you over and over, but you stubbornly shut out every bit of information that contradicts your fantasy-world.

-k

[betsy]

I quoted the only important part of your message-- the first sentence-- and trimmed the unimportant part, which is all the rest of it.

You complain that I took it out of context, but I didn't. The portion I quoted explains the real context of the whole NAS quote you've been misinterpreting. It is a fact that they are explaining the opinion of *some* scientists, not issuing an official position of the organization. That's the context of the quote you've been continuing to misuse. It has been explained to you over and over, but you stubbornly shut out every bit of information that contradicts your fantasy-world.

-k

It has no importance at all, if it's taken out of context. You latched on to that phrase, and dismissed the rest of

the NAS statement.

Furthermore....

You ignored the most important part - the rest of the post that countered your claim!

If that phrase is your idea of "context".......then, your understanding of context is quite askewed!

The real context of the whole NAS quote is that THEISTIC BELIEF is not in disagreement with the scientific explanations of evolution. That's the context!

It doesn't make any difference whether many or few scientists believe in theistic evolution, or not.

The fact remains the same. Theistic evolution is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution.

So, there goes your askewed thinking that it's all about the scientists who believe in it. It's not!

Since the NAS is all about scientific methodology - and they went to great lengths explaining that......it's about their

scientific finding! Theistic evolution is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution.

Go back and read my post # 348.

If you're going to attempt any counter at all, counter the argument!

Edited May 21, 2016 by betsy

[Peter F]

Now, think about it Peter. If Theistic Evolution is Intelligent Design.....then why would the National Academy of Sciences give an official statement like this:

http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

Note: Quotes from: 1999 report "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition"

That's the view from the National Academy of Sciences. It's still on their site, and the book is still for sale.

That view, therefore, still stands.

If the NAS contradicts itself, you're saying it's without any credibility?

If you can't rely on the NAS........then who can you rely on for science matters?

The NAS' position is simple: Theistic creation of all things is unsupported by science.

Yes, they also said, as you have pointed out, that Theistic creation beliefs are not contradicted by science.

The two statements are 100% in agreement: There is no evidence to support Theistic creation and there is no evidence to counter the same.

Science has shown that all observed phenomena can be explained without the need to invoke a God. For unexplained phenomena Science is pretty sure it will find a non-Theist explanation for that too - they're working on it. The actions of God need not be invoked to explain things.

You have somehow come to the conclusion that if the NAS "officially declared evidences to support of God created universe in numerous areas of science" , then they have evidence of such.

The NAS never said that. Ever. You have jumped to a conclusion.

And that is what everyone for the last 20odd pages have been trying to tell you.

Edited May 19, 2016 by Peter F

[betsy]

The NAS' position is simple: Theistic creation of all things is unsupported by science.

Yes, they also said, as you have pointed out, that Theistic creation beliefs are not contradicted by science.

The two statements are 100% in agreement: There is no evidence to support Theistic creation and there is no evidence to counter the same.

You better read it again, Peter:

"Many religious persons, including many scientists, hold that God created the universe and the various processes driving physical and biological evolution and that these processes then resulted in the creation of galaxies, our solar system, and life on Earth.

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."

http://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

KEYWORDS:

SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATIONS (methodology)

INDEED, IT REFLECTS (in fact, it shows)

PHYSICAL universe (you can only observe the physical)

REVEALED BY (made known by, as proven by) cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, etc..,

What's so hard to understand about that?

Deliberate refusal to acknowledge facts, does not make a legitimate refutation. It's juvenile!

If you guys refuse to wrap your heads around that.....that's your choice.

Edited May 19, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

Science has shown that all observed phenomena can be explained without the need to invoke a God. For unexplained phenomena Science is pretty sure it will find a non-Theist explanation for that too - they're working on it. The actions of God need not be invoked to explain things.

There's no real explanation for the harmonious order of complexity, Peter, that science can invoke.

They'll also be making speculations and gross extrapolations - as they do with macro evolution - if they even try.

THUS, Creation is on the table!

If creation is not in disagreement with SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATIONS of evolution, how can it not be?

That's just simple logic, no?

Edited May 19, 2016 by betsy

[DogOnPorch]

Okay...then what do you tell yourself to explain away Stellar Metallicity in regards to your Creation Fable?

[betsy]

Okay...then what do you tell yourself to explain away Stellar Metallicity in regards to your Creation Fable?

We're talking about the NAS statement.

Edited May 19, 2016 by betsy

[DogOnPorch]

What about it? Explain.

Stellar metallicity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity

How do you explain it away?

[DogOnPorch]

We're talking about the NAS statement.

Your not understanding the question does not make it invalid. Read about stellar metallicity and then let me know how you explain away these facts next to your creation fable. Or are you afraid of where the science will take you?

[waldo]

c'mon MLW member betsy - you presume to selectively leverage the National Academies of Science for your own design, intelligent or other... while selectively ignoring statement quotations provided to you from the same referenced article. Perhaps you've just missed them; again, your feedback on the following statement taken from your same provided reference is most anticipated:

Some wish to see “creation science”— which posits that scientific evidence exists to prove that the universe and living things were specially created in their present form—taught together with evolution as two alternative scientific theories.

Scientists have considered the hypotheses proposed by creation science and have rejected them because of a lack of evidence. Furthermore, the claims of creation science do not refer to natural causes and cannot be subject to meaningful tests, so they do not qualify as scientific hypotheses.

.

[eyeball]

We're talking about the NAS statement.

Which stems from this statement

In Science and Creationism, The National Academy of Sciences states unequivocally that creationism has no place in any science curriculum at any level.

[GostHacked]

So you've resorted too, to editing my post....and taking it out of context?

It's called trimming posts, something that has been discussed many times here by moderation.

[betsy]

Stellar metallicity.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metallicity

How do you explain it away?

What is there to explain?

What's your point?

[betsy]

Which stems from this statement

In Science and Creationism, The National Academy of Sciences states unequivocally that creationism has no place in any science curriculum at any level.

With the term, "creationism" or "special creationism," NAS refers to Biblical creation and Intelligent Design.

In this booklet, both these "Young Earth" and "Old Earth" views are referred to as "creationism" or "special creation."

http://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/3#7

On that same link, the NAS had talked about theistic evolution (what was cited in the OP).

The difference between theistic evolution and the "creationism" that the NAS refers to in that booklet is that the NAS claims there are scientific evidence for THEISTIC EVOLUTION - that it is based on scientific methodology....and the other two, are not!

Boy, just the differentiation alone given by the NAS between theistic evolution and creationism, should be obvious enough that there is that claimed difference between them:

THEISTIC EVOLUTION is claimed to be backed by scientific methodology!

The NAS can cite all the differences between theistic evolution and creationism til it's blue in the face.......it still boils down to one thing. If Theistic Evolution is defined as a, "God-Created universe blah-blah-blah.........."

..................................then, CREATION, is on the table.

Theistic evolution and Creationism/Special Creationism, just don't agree on how the universe was created.

That's the difference.

Your misconception has been claimed by some posters, too. I'd like to assume that you haven't read that NAS

book well enough.

Edited May 22, 2016 by betsy

[eyeball]

Unequivocally it says.