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

[waldo]

This thread also aims to give corroborating evidences by scientists, most of whom are former atheists.

will you continue to avoid any/all requests asking you to provide examples of the "scientific finding evidence" you make your pronouncements on. Your lame fall-back suggestion to (I paraphrase), "contact the NAS"... doesn't cut it here. Evidence based, hey!

.

[betsy]

will you continue to avoid any/all requests asking you to provide examples of the "scientific finding evidence" you make your pronouncements on. Your lame fall-back suggestion to (I paraphrase), "contact the NAS"... doesn't cut it here. Evidence based, hey!

.

Are you blind?

Read the previous post about Einstein! There's one common evidence given there.

But, let's see if you can spot it.

Edited May 5, 2016 by betsy

[waldo]

Are you blind?

Read the previous post about Einstein! There's one common evidence given there.

But, let's see if you can spot it.

are you unable to respond directly? Just state your latest claim for the physical evidence of "God creation" - waiting, waiting, waiting....

.

[betsy]

are you unable to respond directly? Just state your latest claim for the physical evidence of "God creation" - waiting, waiting, waiting....

.

You're unable to spot one that was given. As for the rest, you can contact the NAS.

[BubberMiley]

You're unable to spot one that was given. As for the rest, you can contact the NAS.

Actually you gave no physical evidence. I'm guessing you didn't read the citation you posted or you would know that.

[eyeball]

She took it on faith.

[waldo]

You're unable to spot one that was given. As for the rest, you can contact the NAS.

so you're reverting to "contact the NAS" again! And you refuse to directly state the evidence you claim you just posted when you resurrected this thread a short while back.

why did you bother... you've added nothing new here other than to confirm, once again, that you can't substantiate your statements that speak to the existence of evidence based scientific findings that support your claims of "God creation".

.

[cybercoma]

Actually you gave no physical evidence. I'm guessing you didn't read the citation you posted or you would know that.

Her misunderstandings have been pointed out repeatedly yet she continues to ignore it. Ignorance is bliss.

[cybercoma]

You guys are asking for evidence that 1) you know doesn't exist and 2) you know Betsy will never acknowledge that it doesn't exist. Let's stop beating the dead horse. I've said it before, never argue with anyone who believes their own lies.

[betsy]

If you can't even grasp the full implication of this simple part, "....revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines," it's highly questionable you'll understand anything more complicated than that.

So gimme a break. Asking for details is merely posturing on your part. It's apparent....you'll not get it anyway.

The OP's quote of the National Academy of Sciences, speaks for itself.

Take it, or leave it.

Edited May 6, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

I did not always embrace these perspectives. As a graduate student in physical chemistry in the 1970s, I was an atheist, finding no reason to postulate the existence of any truths outside of mathematics, physics and chemistry.

I had always assumed that faith was based on purely emotional and irrational arguments, and was astounded to discover, initially in the writings of the Oxford scholar C.S. Lewis and subsequently from many other sources, that one could build a very strong case for the plausibility of the existence of God on purely rational grounds.

My earlier atheist's assertion that "I know there is no God" emerged as the least defensible. As the British writer G.K. Chesterton famously remarked, "Atheism is the most daring of all dogmas, for it is the assertion of a universal negative."

I have found there is a wonderful harmony in the complementary truths of science and faith. The God of the Bible is also the God of the genome. God can be found in the cathedral or in the laboratory.

By investigating God's majestic and awesome creation, science can actually be a means of worship. - Francis Collins

Francis Sellers Collins (born April 14, 1950) is an American physician-geneticist noted for his discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project. He is director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

Before being appointed director of the NIH, Collins led the Human Genome Project and other genomics research initiatives as director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), one of the 27 institutes and centers at NIH. Before joining NHGRI, he earned a reputation as a gene hunter at the University of Michigan. He has been elected to the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences, and has received the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the National Medal of Science.

Collins also has written a number of books on science, medicine, and religion, including the New York Times bestseller, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.

After leaving the helm of NHGRI and before becoming director of the NIH, he founded and served as president of The BioLogos Foundation, which promotes discourse on the relationship between science and religion and advocates the perspective that belief in Christianity can be reconciled with acceptance of evolution and science, especially through the advancement of evolutionary creation.^[1] In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI appointed Collins to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

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

[cybercoma]

If you can't even grasp the full implication of this simple part, "....revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines," it's highly questionable you'll understand anything more complicated than that.

So gimme a break. Asking for details is merely posturing on your part. It's apparent....you'll not get it anyway.

The OP's quote of the National Academy of Sciences, speaks for itself.

Take it, or leave it.

It's sheer arrogance to think that literally EVERYONE else has the misunderstanding and believe that you're right. It's been pointed out ad nauseum where your misunderstanding is, by numerous posters no less. You're not convincing anyone here of anything other than your own poor understanding of the report you're claiming as evidence.

[cybercoma]

But hey, it's cool that you accept evolution now. Baby steps, I guess.

[betsy]

But hey, it's cool that you accept evolution now. Baby steps, I guess.

This is not about me....... whether I accept evolution, or not.

This is about the NAS' statement about creation by God (Theistic Evolution).

[cybercoma]

If it was about that, then you would listen to people's feedback.

[Bonam]

Einstein's "cosmological constant" was something he incorporated into his model to explain why the universe was seemingly stationary. Edwin Hubble's discovery that the universe wasn't stationary rendered the "cosmological constant" completely unnecessary and was simply dropped from the model.

As always, science is superceded... by better science.

-k

Interestingly, nowadays we are actually finding that the cosmological constant is a good mathematical representation of the effects of the theorized dark energy that is thought to make up the majority of the energy in the observable universe and is thought to be behind its accelerating (rather than decelerating as one would expect due to gravity) expansion.

Einstein said introducing the cosmological constant was his biggest blunder, but it may turn out to represent a real physical phenomenon after all!

Edited May 7, 2016 by Bonam

[betsy]

If it was about that, then you would listen to people's feedback.

I did listen.

Do you think feedbacks are accepted as they are....just because they're "feedbacks?"

They're opinions! Not refutations. One or two who seriously tried to refute it....were counter-refuted.

The NAS statement on creation (Theistic Evolution), is clear. Take it, or leave it.

Edited May 7, 2016 by betsy

[waldo]

The NAS statement on creation (Theistic Evolution), is clear. Take it, or leave it.

as before, as always - your interpretation of that statement is incorrect. Your inability to present a single example of 'scientific finding evidence' for "God creation" is a fitting testament to your failed interpretation. The very fact you thumped for years without that NAS article reference showcases its obscurity and insignificance... there is NO there, there! If there was, clearly, it would be the focal point of all related discussion/debate and would be the over-riding reference measure.

.

[betsy]

as before, as always - your interpretation of that statement is incorrect. Your inability to present a single example of 'scientific finding evidence' for "God creation" is a fitting testament to your failed interpretation. The very fact you thumped for years without that NAS article reference showcases its obscurity and insignificance... there is NO there, there! If there was, clearly, it would be the focal point of all related discussion/debate and would be the over-riding reference measure.

.

I accidentally stumbled on the FAQ (while researching for the Big Bang), only sometime last year. How many do researches on the NAS itself?

Especially about a particular issue like, "creation by God?" The anti-God propaganda of Dawkins was what was more talked about....he sold the idea that religion and science are incompatible.

How do you know it hasn't been used in discussions?

Despite what Richard Dawkins (and his disciples insist), why do you think there are those who argue that religion and science can go along together? Some are scientists like Francis Collins. Some scientists have become deists or Christians

due to their findings!

Anyway, the NAS statement is there for all to see. It's in layman's terms.....and speaks clearly for itself.

Take it, or leave it.

Edited May 7, 2016 by betsy

[cybercoma]

It is there for all to see. You're right about that. And everyone but you understands perfectly well what it says.

[waldo]

Anyway, the NAS statement is there for all to see. It's in layman's terms.....and speaks clearly for itself.

Take it, or leave it.

no one here, other than yourself... is "taking it". And yes, it absolutely speaks for itself; it's unfortunate you are blinded by your own false interpretation. In pointing out the relative obscurity of that NAS article, in pointing out that if it had any weight to it, it would be championed up the 'ying yang' as the preeminent go-to "proof/source" so many of the "faithful" are forever seeking... in pointing that out, you now come back with an implication to suggest your linked NAS article, "has been used in discussions". Can you elaborate on that further... are you able to cite examples of same... can you present some of that "ying yang"?

.

[betsy]

ANTHONY FLEW - from atheist to theist.

Flew’s rejection of atheism would not be such a problem for atheists if he hadn’t been the foremost atheist thinker of the 20th century. In Oxford, Flew was part of the Socratic club, a forum for debate between atheists and Christians, of which C.S. Lewis was the president for over a decade.

At the most recent debate in 2004, at New York University, he declared that he ‘now accepted the existence of a God’ (p. 74). In that debate, he said that he believed that the origin of life points to a creative Intelligence,

‘almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.

It’s the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence’ (p. 75).

Flew’s belief in God hinges on three aspects of nature: ‘The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life … The third is the very existence of nature’ (p. 89).

Flew identifies his god as the god of Aristotle, with the attributes of ‘immutability, immateriality, omnipotence, omniscience, oneness or indivisibility, perfect goodness and necessary existence’ (p. 92).

He is adamant that his conversion to theism does not represent a paradigm shift, because his paradigm remains simply to follow the argument where it leads (p. 89).

http://creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew

Edited May 8, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the

work of intelligence’ - Flew

"Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. -

National Academy of Sciences

Edited May 8, 2016 by betsy

[Guest]

ANTHONY FLEW - from atheist to theist.

Flew’s rejection of atheism would not be such a problem for atheists if he hadn’t been the foremost atheist thinker of the 20th century. In Oxford, Flew was part of the Socratic club, a forum for debate between atheists and Christians, of which C.S. Lewis was the president for over a decade.

At the most recent debate in 2004, at New York University, he declared that he ‘now accepted the existence of a God’ (p. 74). In that debate, he said that he believed that the origin of life points to a creative Intelligence,

‘almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together.

It’s the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence’ (p. 75).

Flew’s belief in God hinges on three aspects of nature: ‘The first is the fact that nature obeys laws. The second is the dimension of life … The third is the very existence of nature’ (p. 89).

Flew identifies his god as the god of Aristotle, with the attributes of ‘immutability, immateriality, omnipotence, omniscience, oneness or indivisibility, perfect goodness and necessary existence’ (p. 92).

He is adamant that his conversion to theism does not represent a paradigm shift, because his paradigm remains simply to follow the argument where it leads (p. 89).

http://creation.com/review-there-is-a-god-by-antony-flew

Why would his conversion be a problem for Atheists? People change their minds all the time. He finds God in complexity. Those of us who don't have not suddenly been made aware of the complexity of life and decided against Theism. We've always known life was complex. Still an accident.

[betsy]

Why would his conversion be a problem for Atheists? People change their minds all the time. He finds God in complexity. Those of us who don't have not suddenly been made aware of the complexity of life and decided against Theism. We've always known life was complex. Still an accident.

It was a problem for atheism because of his prominence.

He was one of the leading atheist Philosophers who for decades, debated with theists. He also wrote books.

It would be like Dawkins suddenly changing his mind and acknowledging God's existence.......that's the comparison

that comes to mind.

Edited May 9, 2016 by betsy