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

[GostHacked]

If there is no evidence it EVEN exists....you can't understand it.

Your mental gymnastics must be tiring. Take a break.

That would be like you saying you understand about the SASQUATCH, yet you've got no evidence to prove

it even exists at all!

I understand that is does not appear there is any solid evidence for the Sasquatch.

WOW! Speaking of the Sasquatch.....

Yeah there is a good 'mom' joke in here somewhere.

.......from your rationale, evolutionists are beginning to sound like the ones most likely to believe in unicorns and fairies!

Actually quite the opposite.

But let's play this little game for a bit. The narwhal could be considered the 'unicorn of the sea'. Rhino's also have a horn on their head. Antelopes and many other animals can be called binicorns??? Duocorns? Damn I had something for this.

[betsy]

But let's play this little game for a bit. The narwhal could be considered the 'unicorn of the sea'. Rhino's also have a horn on their head. Antelopes and many other animals can be called binicorns??? Duocorns? Damn I had something for this.

So you try to fit them into the "mythical, magical unicorn," New Atheists love to mock religious people with?

Guess what, your response actually supports my argument.

If, as you say, there's a basis for the "mythical" unicorn (and you gave the narwhal and the Rhino) - then you've provided

a good comparison as to the basis for the belief in creation by God.

If the National Academy of Sciences had stated that there are evidence to support Theistic evolution -

that must be a fact!

Edited May 15, 2016 by betsy

[Guest]

If anyone at the National Academy of Sciences had stated that there is evidence to support Theistic evolution they would have been branded as loonies and kicked out immediately.

So I'm fairly sure they didn't.

Unless they wanted to go home early, or needed a smoke break, or something like that.

[waldo]

If the National Academy of Sciences had stated that there are evidence to support Theistic evolution - that must be a fact!

and you'd have absolutely no problem in detailing that supposed "NAS evidence" you keep referring to! Somehow... somehow... you can write a brazillion MLW posts yet, as a matter of established fact, you can't find any cycles - no cycles, none - to take up and respond to the many, many, many requests/challenges in this thread asking you to detail what that supposed "NAS scientific based evidence for God creation" is. Facts are facts, yes?

.

[betsy]

If anyone at the National Academy of Sciences had stated that there is evidence to support Theistic evolution they would have been branded as loonies and kicked out immediately.

So I'm fairly sure they didn't.

Unless they wanted to go home early, or needed a smoke break, or something like that.

Hello? Come again? You're not making any sense here....

Somebody from the NAS, obviously, already did say that, and the NAS had issued that public statement.

The NAS, if you hadn't noticed, spoke as an ORGANIZATION!

If you are not willing to accept the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES as an AUTHORITY ON SCIENCE ISSUES........

.......whom are you gonna accept as an authority on the subject?

IN other words, you only agree with science when it suits you? Atheists cites science only when it's convenient, and agreeable to you?

What? Should we just accept personal opinions for facts? That, my friend, would be the height of stupidity.

Edited May 16, 2016 by betsy

[Guest]

Hello? Come again? You're not making any sense here....

Somebody from the NAS, obviously, already did say that, and the NAS had issued that public statement.

No they didn't, they said something that you interpreted as that. It wasn't, I'm afraid.

[betsy]

No they didn't, they said something that you interpreted as that. It wasn't, I'm afraid.

Oh we're not going back to that circular argument.

If you don't want to accept the clear NAS statement, as it is clearly stated - that's your choice.

Edited May 16, 2016 by betsy

[waldo]

Oh we're not going back to that circular argument.

If you don't want to accept the clear NAS statement, as it is clearly stated - that's your choice.

if you don't want to accept that all other MLW members posting in this thread don't accept your interpretation of that rather obscure and dated article you suddenly saw in a vision... that's your choice.

if you don't want to accept that all other MLW members posting in this thread don't accept your refusal to directly point out the "scientific based findings that support God creation"... that's your choice.

if you don't want to accept that all other MLW members posting in this thread accept that your position is simply "faith based" rather than "evidence based"... that's your choice.

.

[betsy]

if you don't want to accept that all other MLW members posting in this thread don't accept your interpretation of that rather obscure and dated article you suddenly saw in a vision... that's your choice.

if you don't want to accept that all other MLW members posting in this thread don't accept your refusal to directly point out the "scientific based findings that support God creation"... that's your choice.

if you don't want to accept that all other MLW members posting in this thread accept that your position is simply "faith based" rather than "evidence based"... that's your choice.

.

So what if a bunch of you don't want to accept the NAS statement, as it's clearly stated - and corroborated by other scientists that gave the evidence for their change in position (from atheists to creationists)? It's been pointed out that for some, atheism is a BLIND faith-based belief - and you only prove that by how you reject scientific facts.

More so with you, whom we know has serious problem with "getting it!" Is that so surprising?

Edited May 16, 2016 by betsy

[waldo]

So what if a bunch of you don't want to accept the NAS statement, as it's clearly stated - and corroborated by other scientists that gave the evidence for their change in position (from atheists to creationists)? It's been pointed out that for some, atheism is a BLIND faith-based belief - and you only prove that by how you reject scientific facts.

More so with you, whom we know has serious problem with "getting it!" Is that so surprising?

no - the only one not accepting that article's "clear statement" is you! And no, creationists don't get to corroborate their own misinterpretations. Don't hesitate to relate just what, as you say, "scientific facts" I'm rejecting. While you're doing that, make sure to also relate your claimed, "NAS claimed scientific based findings for God creation". How long should I give you in waiting for your response?

as for what I get, I most certainly get that you're nothing but a 'faith fanatic' who insists all other engaged MLW posters are wrong, while you're the sole shining beacon of right/righteousness - onward Christian soldiers!

.

[Peter F]

So what if a bunch of you don't want to accept the NAS statement, as it's clearly stated - and corroborated by other scientists that gave the evidence for their change in position (from atheists to creationists)? It's been pointed out that for some, atheism is a BLIND faith-based belief - and you only prove that by how you reject scientific facts.

The National Academy of Sciences disagrees with your position.

"Intelligent design" creationism is not supported by scientific evidence.

From Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. © 2008 National Academy of Sciences

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

[betsy]

The National Academy of Sciences disagrees with your position.

From Science, Evolution, and Creationism, National Academy of Sciences and Institute of Medicine. © 2008 National Academy of Sciences

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

We're not talking about Intelligent Design Creationism.

We're talking about the creationism for Theistic evolution - the belief that God created the universe and all the processes that made evolution possible.....etc.

Edited May 17, 2016 by betsy

[Peter F]

But betsy "Theistic evolution - the belief that God created the universe and all the processes that made evolution possible.....etc."

is Intelligent Design Creationism.

[cybercoma]

But betsy "Theistic evolution - the belief that God created the universe and all the processes that made evolution possible.....etc."

is Intelligent Design Creationism.

Peter...it won't help.

[betsy]

But betsy "Theistic evolution - the belief that God created the universe and all the processes that made evolution possible.....etc."

is Intelligent Design Creationism.

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:

.......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

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?

Edited May 17, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

But betsy "Theistic evolution - the belief that God created the universe and all the processes that made evolution possible.....etc."

is Intelligent Design Creationism.

It's a knee-jerk reaction when an atheist sees the term, "God created."

They automatically assume it's Intelligent Design, or Biblical Creationism. Objectivity is thrown out, and the

shutters come down.

Of course, I do understand what the NAS statement means for atheism........atheists cannot afford to

make any concession.

Open-mindedness, is out of the question with atheism. It stands on close-minded position.

There must be no creation!

Edited May 17, 2016 by betsy

[The_Squid]

It's a knee-jerk reaction when an atheist sees the term, "God created."

They automatically assume it's Intelligent Design, or Biblical Creationism. Objectivity is thrown out, and the

shutters come down.

Of course, I do understand what the NAS statement means for atheism........atheists cannot afford to

make any concession.

Open-mindedness, is out of the question with atheism. It stands on close-minded position.

There must be no creation!

So when the NAS says this, they mean people who actually believe in the entire Theory of Evolution and also believe in God. Not your strange version where you don't believe in evolution as proven by science.

[betsy]

So when the NAS says this, they mean people who actually believe in the entire Theory of Evolution and also believe in God.

What the NAS stated - as an organization - was their official view of Theistic Evolution.

The NAS spoke for ALL its members!

Not your strange version where you don't believe in evolution as proven by science.

There's nothing strange about my disbelief in evolution, after all I have a solid basis for it.

It's the evolutionists on this board however, who are unable to defend their position.

They can't even come up with a single evidence for macro evolution. And they insist it exists. Go figure.

Edited May 18, 2016 by betsy

[kimmy]

What the NAS stated - as an organization - was their official view of Theistic Evolution.

The NAS spoke for ALL its members!

The piece of text you're referring to quite clearly says that *some* scientists see the majesty of the universe as evidence of a Creator. It's certainly not an official position of the organization or any sort of consensus among scientists of the NAS or any other organization or the scientific community as a whole. Your ongoing efforts to misrepresent it as such are a sign of either dishonesty, desperation, disability, or perhaps delusion.

-k

[Moonlight Graham]

Betsy, the quotes from the NAS paper in your OP are incomplete and not in full context with the NAS conclusions. The very beginning of the NAS paper's conclusion is quoted by NASA and you, but here's the full conclusion I'll now quote below:

Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science's realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world.

The claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted. Scientific investigators seek to understand natural phenomena by observation and experimentation. Scientific interpretations of facts and the explanations that account for them therefore must be testable by observation and experimentation.

Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.

No body of beliefs that has its origin in doctrinal material rather than scientific observation, interpretation, and experimentation should be admissible as science in any science course. Incorporating the teaching of such doctrines into a science curriculum compromises the objectives of public education. Science has been greatly successful at explaining natural processes, and this has led not only to increased understanding of the universe but also to major improvements in technology and public health and welfare. The growing role that science plays in modem life requires that science, and not religion, be taught in science classes.

[cybercoma]

Aesthetic and moral perceptions are beyond science's domain....gee.

[Moonlight Graham]

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

Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science's realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world.

Aesthetics (what is beautiful or ugly) and morality, as they refer above, are completely subjective and based on opinion, not hard fact. We can acquire knowledge by reading moral philosophical works of Plato and Nietzsche and Rousseau, but this knowledge is not science as NAS points out, it is subjective belief not based on testable observation of the universe.

The same is true for belief in a god. This is a belief, but there is no scientific, testable, observable evidence for a god. Zero. Belief in god is not based on evidence. There`s absolutely no rational reason to believe that a single monotheistic god exists over believing that 2 gods exist or 5 gods exist and created the universe. There is absolutely no evidence to show that something intelligent or supernatural, like a god or gods, created the universe. 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):

Some claim that Earth and the universe are relatively young, perhaps only 6,000 to 10,000 years old. These individuals often believe that the present physical form of Earth can be explained by "catastrophism," including a worldwide flood, and that all living things (including humans) were created miraculously, essentially in the forms we now find them. 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."

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

Suggested Citation: "The Origin of the Universe, Earth, and Life." National Academy of Sciences. Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1999. doi:10.17226/6024.

×

Nor is there any evidence that the entire geological record, with its orderly succession of fossils, is the product of a single universal flood that occurred a few thousand years ago...The detailed knowledge required to sustain our civilization could only have been derived through scientific investigation....

The arguments of creationists are not driven by evidence that can be observed in the natural world. Special creation or supernatural intervention is not subjectable to meaningful tests, which require predicting plausible results and then checking these results through observation and experimentation. Indeed, claims of "special creation" reverse the scientific process. The explanation is seen as unalterable, and evidence is sought only to support a particular conclusion by whatever means possible.

Re: that last sentence. Your religious/creationist-based arguments on MLW have entirely been made up of this "reverse of the scientific process". You try to cherrypick or shoehorn evidence to fit your pre-determned conclusions, and ignore all the other facts/evidence that may show your conclusions to be false.

Edited May 18, 2016 by Moonlight Graham

[betsy]

The piece of text you're referring to quite clearly says that *some* scientists see the majesty of the universe as evidence of a Creator. It's certainly not an official position of the organization or any sort of consensus among scientists of the NAS or any other organization or the scientific community as a whole. Your ongoing efforts to misrepresent it as such are a sign of either dishonesty, desperation, disability, or perhaps delusion.

-k

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.

The NAS went on further to declare that theistic evolution is NOT IN DISAGREEMENT with the SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATIONS of evolution.

That, in fact, theistic evolution reflects the character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."

The NAS was clearly talking about the physical, the natural - which can be observed and analyzed - thus it can say that theistic evolution is not in disagreement with the scientific explanation of evolution.

How can they have concluded that theistic evolution is not in disagreement with the SCIENTIFIC explanations

if they had not observed and scientifically analyzed, if scientific methodology wasn't applied?

How can the NAS say creation is not in disagreement with the SCIENTIFIC explanations of evolution, if there is nothing that gives any evidence that indeed, it's not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution?

That puts CREATION, on the table!

And we all know what that means for atheism....thus there's such desperate effort from some atheists to deny the logically undeniable.

And yes, the NAS definitely say that there are evidences to support theistic evolution as revealed by various scientific disciplines. In fact, it went further to be precised, as to mention three specific scientific disciplines that provide the evidence.

To have specifically named three scientific disciplines (cosmology, paleontology and molecular biology), does indeed firmly, and clearly refers to EVIDENCE being present! It would be irrational to think otherwise!

Furthermore, the NAS statement was corroborated by some scientists who'd ended up converting to theism due to the evidence they found. Harmony and order of complexity, was the most cited reason - and those two characteristics of the physical universe leaves so many scientists in AWE!

Yes. "AWE," was the term used by the NAS!

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

Awe,is defined as an emotion variously combining dread, veneration, and wonder that is inspired by authority or

by the sacred or sublime.

However, the NAS cannot squarely say that indeed God created the universe and all the processes...etc, because

scientific methodology doesn't deal with the supernatural. That's were LOGIC (critical thinking), steps in!

The fact that the NAS went that far to make its official view about theistic evolution publicly known, is amazing!

Surely the NAS, of all science organization, isn't going to gamble on its reputation just to appease a few creationists!

Edited May 18, 2016 by betsy

[betsy]

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

Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science's realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world.

Where science cannot delve into - that's where logic comes in. Thus we have philosophers discussing the meaning of life,

the existence of God...etc..,

My argument on this thread is ALSO based on logical thinking. If science says there is evidence that a professional baker had baked this cake.....obviously, the logical conclusion is that: the professional baker must exist!

How do you gain knowledge about the world through.....religious experience? Can you explain that?

Here's where you showed that you misunderstood the OP, and the argument given.

The same is true for belief in a god. This is a belief, but there is no scientific, testable, observable evidence for a god. Zero. Belief in god is not based on evidence. There`s absolutely no rational reason to believe that a single monotheistic god exists over believing that 2 gods exist or 5 gods exist and created the universe. There is absolutely no evidence to show that something intelligent or supernatural, like a god or gods, created the universe. 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):

There is no reference to any specific God.....not even the Biblical God.

With theistic evolution - the NAS wasn't talking about the Bible, although it talks about a God created world.

Furthermore, the NAS wasn't trying to discredit the Bible. The NAS isn't saying that the Biblical God is non-existent.

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.

It's true, the Bible is not meant to be a science book.

The NAS opposes the teachings of Biblical creationism and Intelligent Design in schools, because it claims that they are, allegedly, not based on scientific facts. It refers to the literal Genesis.

Edited May 18, 2016 by betsy

[waldo]

How can they have concluded that theistic evolution is not in disagreement with the SCIENTIFIC explanations if they had not observed and scientifically analyzed, if scientific methodology wasn't applied?

How can the NAS say creation is not in disagreement with the SCIENTIFIC explanations of evolution, if there is nothing that gives any evidence to that?

And yes, the NAS definitely say that there are evidences to support theistic evolution as revealed by various scientific disciplines. It went further to be precise as to mention three specific scientific disciplines that provide the evidence.

bloody amazing! In the face of every other participating MLW members interpretations... and direct quotes from that article... you're back on the "evidence bandwagon"! Rather than continue to ask you for examples of that evidence... and have you either ignore yet another request or revert to your standby deflection, "go contact the NAS yourself", let me instead quote you from the same article:

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.

.