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

[betsy]

I remember attending a lecture by a well known scientist who was asked in the post presentation question period, "Do you believe in a God?" He answered, "When we scientists are able to explain infinity and draw a picture of the universe then we will not need faith"

“Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who sets the planets in motion.” - Isaac Newton

Perhaps the National Academy of Sciences missed the answer of that scientist?

Who's got more credibility to you.....that scientist, or the National Academy of Sciences?

Are you suggesting the National Academy of Sciences is........... unreliable? Without any credibility?

Edited March 26, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

Science doesn't say there's evidence for this anywhere. You posted things that say belief in a creator is not incompatible with science and evolution. That's entirely different than saying science says God created the universe.

Read the entire statement. Obviously, we're not on the same page.

[GostHacked]

Anyway, the issue is about Theistic Evolution. I'm not talking about Intelligent Design.

What is the difference between the two?

Theistic Evolution just the new permutation of the Creationist aka Intelligent Design argument. Seems to me that the creationists constantly need to morph and evolve into something that can be peddled to people as genuine intelligent scientific discussions to back up creationism. Failing, every step of the way.

So are you genuinely interested in what athiests think?

[The_Squid]

Doesn't matter even if most scientists don't see the hand of God in it. It's not about what they see. It's about the scientific findings, which the NAS says support Theistic Evolution.

What, specifically, are the scientific findings that prove a god?

[betsy]

Yes. that is how a forum works. You asked, and you got responses, however not the responses you were looking for. You are not looking for opinions on what atheist think.

What is pathetic is your lack of understanding of what science is and how it differs from belief. Otherwise, you are simply trolling.

Oh boy......I'd advice you to re-reread. I won't even bother with those.

Do you want to discuss what NAS said or are you interested in what athiests think?

haven't I been discussing what the NAS said?

And yes, I've been asking atheists, and still waiting for a reasonable answer......maybe you're the one to do it.

Here's the question:

If the NAS had stated there are evidences for creation by God (known as Theistic Evolution), then what's the basis for the atheist belief that God doesn't exists?

Edited March 26, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

What is the difference between the two?

You don't know? You don't know the difference between Theistic Evolution and Intelligent Design?

Definitely.....you've got to go back and read. Do your homework.

Bye-bye.

Edited March 26, 2016 by betsy

[The_Squid]

Read the entire statement. Obviously, we're not on the same page.

That's because you are making up ridiculous conclusions about what the statement said.

And of course you ignored parts of the paper that clearly refute your claims about what the NAS is saying.

[The_Squid]

Bye-bye.

You keep saying this, and yet come back post after post to discuss this with the same people you say you won't discuss it with.

Why is that?

[GostHacked]

You don't know? You don't know the difference between Theistic Evolution and Intelligent Design?

Definitely.....you've got to go back and read. Do your homework.

Bye-bye.

This is the first time I am hearing the term 'Theistic Evolution'. I was hoping you would explain instead of 'bye bye'.

And yes, I've been asking atheists, and still waiting for a reasonable answer......maybe you're the one to do it.

Here's the question:

If the NAS had stated there are evidences for creation by God (known as Theistic Evolution), then what's the basis for the atheist belief that God doesn't exists?

There is no reasonable response that one can make that would satisfy you. As you seem to not understand the NAS statement to begin with.

[Moonlight Graham]

What do you mean? Explain.

OK:

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.

Well, they're right that it doesn't disagree with scientific explanations of evolution. But a belief 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" is based on zero evidence. There's no credible reason to believe. No proof, nothing. There's nothing to say that 5 god's working together didn't create the universe vs 1 god. Or that some super-powerful alien species living outside of our universe didn't create our universe as a science experiment. Some old book saying it happened isn't evidence.

I'm done beating this dead horse. I wish you a happy easter weekend though.

There's no

[betsy]

This is the first time I am hearing the term 'Theistic Evolution'. I was hoping you would explain instead of 'bye bye'.

There is no reasonable response that one can make that would satisfy you. As you seem to not understand the NAS statement to begin with.

Read the OP!

[betsy]

OK:

Well, they're right that it doesn't disagree with scientific explanations of evolution. But a belief 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" is based on zero evidence. There's no credible reason to believe. No proof, nothing. There's nothing to say that 5 god's working together didn't create the universe vs 1 god. Or that some super-powerful alien species living outside of our universe didn't create our universe as a science experiment. Some old book saying it happened isn't evidence.

I'm done beating this dead horse. I wish you a happy easter weekend though.

There's no

Who's got the credibility when you say zero evidence, and in contrast, the NAS says there are numerous evidences in various areas of science?

Are you saying that The National Academy of Sciences is without any credibility?

Happy Easter to you too. Actually....I'm amused by what you implied about the NAS.

There's politics within the science community, and it involves evolution, too. But that's for another subject.

Edited March 26, 2016 by betsy

[GostHacked]

Read the OP!

I did , and I don't by the premise you framed with the OP.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution I think I am already in trouble when I post something from 'rationalwiki'.

Theistic evolution (also evolutionary creationism) is a theological response to the scientific theory of evolution, aimed at reconciling that theory with religious myths involving a creator deity. Supporters of theistic evolution generally believe in the creator deity unreservedly, and also accept the theory of evolution to varying degrees.

Sounds like rebranded creationism to me.

[GostHacked]

Who's got the credibility when you say zero evidence, and in contrast, the NAS says there are numerous evidences in various areas of science?

So what are they?

[betsy]

I did , and I don't by the premise you framed with the OP.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Theistic_evolution I think I am already in trouble when I post something from 'rationalwiki'.

Sounds like rebranded creationism to me.

Well of course it's creationism - what do you think the belief that the universe was created by God, means?

Isn't that quite clear?

What do you think I'm on about here....I've been saying that if there are evidences that God created the universe, therefore, the logical conclusion is God must exist!

If they say there are evidences a Baker baked the cake.....the only logical conclusion is, the Baker must exist!

And if the evidences point to the existence of God (since apparently there are evidences that He created the universe).....then as an atheist, where do you go from here? If science contradicts you.......

What's the basis for the atheistic belief? None!

Edited March 26, 2016 by betsy

[bush_cheney2004]

If they say there are evidences a Baker baked the cake.....the only logical conclusion is, the Baker must exist!

A book has an author....a painting a painter....and creation a creator.

[GostHacked]

Go, correct the NAS. Tell them they have no credibility.

Tell them, your source is Rationalwiki.

From your article 'I am religious and I also find science very exciting. Is there a conflict between science and religion?'

YES there is a conflict.

http://www.nas.edu/evolution/

Darwin's Insights Continue to Inspire the Academy's Work

The ideas of Charles Darwin and the concept of evolution by natural selection continue to have a profound influence on modern biology – they permeate almost every area of scientific exploration. The Academies have long been involved in educational activities and publications on many aspects of evolution, and especially during the past five years. For example, in 2008 the National Academy of Sciences and the Institute of Medicine jointly published Science, Evolution, and Creationism, to help people who are interested in evolution better understand its underlying principles and how evolution is an integral component of scientific research and thinking.

And a link on that page gets me here, a book for sale.

http://www.nap.edu/catalog/11876/science-evolution-and-creationism

Description

How did life evolve on Earth? The answer to this question can help us understand our past and prepare for our future. Although evolution provides credible and reliable answers, polls show that many people turn away from science, seeking other explanations with which they are more comfortable.

So this is not an issue of the correct answer, just one you are comfortable with. So looks like I was right about the OPs real intention of this thread.

*drops mic*

[Moonlight Graham]

Who's got the credibility when you say zero evidence, and in contrast, the NAS says there are numerous evidences in various areas of science?

When did they say that? What evidence are they referring to?

Are you saying that The National Academy of Sciences is without any credibility?

I don't ever remember even eluding to that. Strawman. I honestly know next to nothing about NAS. I'm saying there's no credible evidence of god or gods any or higher being(s) existing, what form they may or may not take etc. We just don't know what's out there beyond what we can observe.

I've never seen, touched, smelt, or heard a god or gods or any of god's representatives or anything else supernatural. Nothing has ever appeared to me, or talked to me, or recorded by anyone etc. Heresay isn't evidence.

[Big Guy]

Perhaps the National Academy of Sciences missed the answer of that scientist?

Who's got more credibility to you.....that scientist, or the National Academy of Sciences?

Are you suggesting the National Academy of Sciences is........... unreliable? Without any credibility?

Credibility is something that someone gives to someone else.

I believe that the more science delves into the building blocks of life then the more they open doors to questions for which they have no answers.

As for this particular scientist, I have yet to hear one describing infinity or being able to sketch what the Universe looks like.

[Guest]

A book has an author....a painting a painter....and creation a creator.

Cute...except the universe, earth, life aren't a creation.

[The_Squid]

Credibility is something that someone gives to someone else.

I believe that the more science delves into the building blocks of life then the more they open doors to questions for which they have no answers.

As for this particular scientist, I have yet to hear one describing infinity or being able to sketch what the Universe looks like.

This is an argument from ignorance fallacy. Science cannot explain it therefore GOD!

[Big Guy]

This is an argument from ignorance fallacy. Science cannot explain it therefore GOD!

OK - If not God then the Great Spaghetti Monster! Whatever cranks your wheel.

[The_Squid]

OK - If not God then the Great Spaghetti Monster! Whatever cranks your wheel.

...and still an argument from ignorance fallacy.

[eyeball]

What's the basis for the atheistic belief? None!

More importantly though why would an atheist suspend their disbelief? Impending death is a good one. I've seen that happen close up and I understand why it happens. That said, and given the sheer abundance of confused thinking there is in the world I don't think the capacity to suspend disbelief is something people or society should take too lightly.

I think much of the capacity to suspend one's disbelief simply stems from the inappropriate and lazy way people process what they learn and hear - without critically thinking about it in other words. People learn fantastical thinking from an early age and that's reinforced with all the micro-delusions and superstitions they hear, use and subscribe to just about everyday. It's easy to see how our cultural acceptance and even encouragement of not thinking critically has led to an easy acceptance of things like anti-vaxxing...Truthers...chemtrails...ghosts...the list just keeps going on and on.

It's more accurate to say a lot of beliefs have people than it is to say people have these beliefs. Getting a grip is the wrong prescription, shaking it off would be more appropriate.

Edited March 27, 2016 by eyeball

[Guest]

OK - If not God then the Great Spaghetti Monster! Whatever cranks your wheel.

It is always alright to say we don't know and look for the answer. In fact, I'd say that is always preferable to inventing one.