cybercoma Posted March 25, 2016 Report Share Posted March 25, 2016 It doesn't say what you wish it did. It indicates that many scientists believe that god created the universe in a way compatible with scientific observations. It doesn't mean that Trying to represent that as the general consensus is false. It's purpose is to explain that science and religion are not necessarily incompatible beliefs, not that this is what the scientific consensus is. Trying to make it say more than that is The quote you've provided is an excerpt from this publication. The first statement after the credits is this: The portion you've quoted is from page 7 of this publication, and it's the prefix to a beat-down of young earth creationists, 6 Days creation, Great Flood geology, Adam's rib, etc. The main message here is: the facts are the facts. The universe is expanding. Evolution happened. You can still believe that god was the ultimate force driving all of this if you want. -k I think it's important to note that they're leaning on the watchmaker analogy which is deism and not theism. Adeism is a different thing from atheism, just as deists and theists are different. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 25, 2016 Report Share Posted March 25, 2016 Yes, but can you produce any evidence of it. How much does glory weigh for example? Is power a liquid or a gas? What happens when you bring glory and power together in a super-collider? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted March 25, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2016 (edited) It doesn't say what you wish it did. It indicates that many scientists believe that god created the universe in a way compatible with scientific observations. It doesn't mean that You better read it again. I know this must come as a shock, especially for those who've believed in the anti-God propaganda of Dawkins (and minions).......but the National Academy of Sciences (as a body/organization) is directly quoted in the FAQ section (of all places, which makes it all the more attention-grabbing!) It's setting the record straight, and speaking to the public! IN LAYMAN'S TERMS! Trying to represent that as the general consensus is false. When the Organization makes a statement as a body, or as the organization itself - it is considered a general consensus among members! Otherwise it wouldn't purport to speak for its members! It's purpose is to explain that science and religion are not necessarily incompatible beliefs, not that this is what the scientific consensus is. Trying to make it say more than that is The statement is quite clear. It's in layman's terms. The quote you've provided is an excerpt from this publication. The first statement after the credits is this: Yes. Let's read it again: "Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the view of the organizations that provided financial support for this project." OrganizationS! See the plural form? It does not refer to the National Academy of Sciences! It refers to the DONORS! It refers to those who provided financial support! Furthermore, this is at the bottom of the WMAP FAQ: Quotes from: 1999 report "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition" which is available online from the National Academy Press: http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=6024 You see that? A view from the National Academy of Sciences! As an organization! As a body! The portion you've quoted is from page 7 of this publication, and it's the prefix to a beat-down of young earth creationists, 6 Days creation, Great Flood geology, Adam's rib, etc. We're not talking about 7-day Creationists! We're talking about Theistic Evolution! Stick to the issue! It's been a common practice among anti-Gods to refer to all Creationists as young-earth creationists, to try to discredit every creationists! So many Creationists do not take Genesis literally! The NAS explains that when they refer to the term, Creationists, they refer to the young earth Creationists or those who take Genesis declaration of creation, literally! The main message here is: the facts are the facts. The universe is expanding. STRETCHING, is the more appropriate word.....which btw, has been the words used in the Old Testament numerous times, in its description of space/universe. That's baffling. I don't know where you found "expanding universe" in the simple statement the NAS had issued about Theistic evolution! You should read it again. The main message as far as I can read, is that Creation by God (theistic evolution) is supported by evidences! PLURAL evidences. From many, many areas of science! Those are the facts - unbearable to acknowledge for some - but that's the glaring facts! Evolution happened. According to the NAS, it did. But they also stated that there are evidences that support Creation by God (which started the ball rolling for evolution, so to speak). You can still believe that god was the ultimate force driving all of this if you want. With or without science, I do believe in Creation. But my point is: science is on my side, on this one. If there are numerous evidences for Creation by God, surely no logical person can say God does not exists! You're contradictory to science. The question is: as an atheist, where do you base your argument? I'm still waiting for the explanation. Edited March 25, 2016 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2016 Report Share Posted March 25, 2016 (edited) The last paragraph is most interesting. The belief that God created the universe (also known as "theistic evolution"), is not in disagreement with scientific explanations of evolution. "INDEED, it (theistic evolution) REFLECTS the remarkable and inspiring CHARACTER of the PHYSICAL universe REVEALED by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines. From that official statement......the National Academy of Sciences is actually officially DECLARING that there are evidences for a God-created universe in numerous areas of science. Your last sentence is quite a ridiculous leap. The NAS didn't declare there is evidence for a God created universe at all. The statement simply points out that the idea of theistic evolution has been setup to be consistent with the scientific evidence collected thus far. This idea is really just a god of the gaps argument. The gaps have just become small enough to push the belief system closer and closer to deism. Edited March 25, 2016 by Guest Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2016 Report Share Posted March 25, 2016 If you don't agree with science, kindly explain the reasonable basis for your belief that God does not exists. I agree with those scientists who don't believe in God. You don't need a basis for not believing in something, surely. You either do or you don't. I did, for a few years. Then, between about 13 - 16, I wasn't sure, and then I didn't. I still don't. It seems obvious to me that Gods were invented as ways to explain the unexplainable, and went on to become ways to excuse a really crappy life. During that time the smartest among us saw a way to alleviate some of that crappiness by exploiting the idea. It took off from there and never looked back. If there is a God, I hope it's Odin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted March 25, 2016 Report Share Posted March 25, 2016 If by "creation" you mean the circumstances that resulted in the existence of the universe, then everyone who believes the universe exists is a creationist. If you have some other interpretation, like a watchmaker did it, then you will have to account for the creation of the watchmaker. It makes more sense that as this creation force (i.e., "God") came to be, so did the universe. One does not exist without the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted March 25, 2016 Report Share Posted March 25, 2016 I agree with those scientists who don't believe in God. But surely you believe that you exist. Why not then call the circumstances that led to your existence "God" and just admit you don't know all the details? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2016 Report Share Posted March 25, 2016 (edited) Edit> Deleted. Not as funny as I thought it was. Edited March 25, 2016 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2016 Report Share Posted March 25, 2016 (edited) But surely you believe that you exist. Why not then call the circumstances that led to your existence "God" and just admit you don't know all the details? If that's all it takes to believe in God then what do all those prezzies on Christmas morning say about Santa? I believe I'm an accident. Edit> I readily admit I know none of the details. Edited March 25, 2016 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted March 25, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2016 (edited) Your last sentence is quite a ridiculous leap. The NAS didn't declare there is evidence for a God created universe at all. The statement simply points out that the idea of theistic evolution has been setup to be consistent with the scientific evidence collected thus far. This idea is really just a god of the gaps argument. The gaps have just become small enough to push the belief system closer and closer to deism. The statement which is addressed to the public in a FAQ section (in layman's terms), speaks for itself. Read it again. What more can i say? I know it's quite a hard lump for some to swallow. Edited March 25, 2016 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted March 25, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2016 (edited) This is hardly earth-shattering. You cannot look at the complexity of a living cell or the elegance of the cosmos without seeing the power and the glory. Not earth-shattering for those who already see and believe. Some scientists had become theists and Christians due to their own scientific findings. But it must be quite earth-shifting for those who don't believe in the existence of God - it's like getting the rug pulled from under their feet. If they can't point to science for support - in fact, they're now contradictory to science, where's the basis for their belief that God doesn't exists? None. Thin air! It's all just wishful thinking and....some, could actually be in denial. Edited March 25, 2016 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2016 Report Share Posted March 25, 2016 (edited) Not earth-shattering for those who already see and believe. But it must be quite earth-shifting for those who don't believe in the existence of God - it's like getting the rug pulled from under their feet. If they can't point to science for support - in fact, they're now contradictory to science, where's the basis for their belief that God doesn't exists? None. Thin air! It's all just wishful thinking and....some, could be in denial. No it isn't. Those people who believe in God no more pull the rug out from under the feet of those who don't than the other way around. It doesn't matter what they do for a living. I think you're really grasping at straws here. Perhaps that says something about the tenuous nature of your beliefs? Edited March 25, 2016 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 25, 2016 Report Share Posted March 25, 2016 Betsy, can you REASONABLY explain why you don't believe in the many gods of Ancient Greece? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Queenmandy85 Posted March 25, 2016 Report Share Posted March 25, 2016 If there is a God, I hope it's Odin. Better get yourself a sword and never let it out of you hand. Of course you will have an interesting time explaining to airport security that it is your religious right to get into Valhalla. When that day comes, I'll see you there and we can share tales or power and glory over a few pots of ale. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted March 25, 2016 Report Share Posted March 25, 2016 If you truly believed your (and everyone else's) existence was purely accidental, it would have no value and you would see no point in continuing to live or in helping others to live. Instead, your intuition tells you to work to maintain and perpetuate life. This intuition can also be referred to as "God." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted March 25, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2016 (edited) No it isn't. Those people who believe in God no more pull the rug out from under the feet of those who don't than the other way around. It doesn't matter what they do for a living. I think you're really grasping at straws here. Perhaps that says something about the tenuous nature of your beliefs? Eh? I didn't say people who believe had pulled the rug from under their feet! It's the statement from the NAS! All this time you hear anti-Gods pointing to science (thanks to Dawkins)....as their ultimate "reason" why they don't believe in creation by God (and the existence of God). They paint all creationists and God-believers as someone without "reason" or logic. And then along comes a statement from the National Academy of Sciences, that pulled the rug from under their feet! Edited March 25, 2016 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2016 Report Share Posted March 25, 2016 (edited) If you truly believed your (and everyone else's) existence was purely accidental, it would have no value and you would see no point in continuing to live or in helping others to live. Instead, your intuition tells you to work to maintain and perpetuate life. This intuition can also be referred to as "God." It could be, but that doesn't mean anything at all. It does not imply any sort of belief in a Creator, or Supreme Being. Edited March 25, 2016 by bcsapper Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted March 25, 2016 Report Share Posted March 25, 2016 If you truly believed your (and everyone else's) existence was purely accidental, it would have no value and you would see no point in continuing to live or in helping others to live. Instead, your intuition tells you to work to maintain and perpetuate life. This intuition can also be referred to as "God." No, it's simply the result of genetics. Organisms that are not motivated to survive and procreate died out, those that were motivated to survive and procreate reproduced. Therefore any organism alive today has a billion generations of ancestors that were all hardwired to want to survive and procreate. Humans are able to think about all these concepts in the abstract unlike other animals, but that does not change the underlying hardwiring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Squid Posted March 25, 2016 Report Share Posted March 25, 2016 If by "creation" you mean the circumstances that resulted in the existence of the universe, then everyone who believes the universe exists is a creationist. If you have some other interpretation, like a watchmaker did it, then you will have to account for the creation of the watchmaker. It makes more sense that as this creation force (i.e., "God") came to be, so did the universe. One does not exist without the other. That's not the common use of the word "creationist". You are creating definitions... A creationist is someone who believes God (or gods) created the universe. Let's not make up new definitions of words and muddle the topic.... that's what Betsy is doing when she claims scientists are saying there's evidence for god and that it created the universe in the OP. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 25, 2016 Report Share Posted March 25, 2016 Eh? I didn't say people who believe had pulled the rug from under their feet! It's the statement from the NAS! All this time you hear anti-Gods pointing to science (thanks to Dawkins)....as their ultimate "reason" why they don't believe in creation by God (and the existence of God). They paint all creationists and God-believers as someone without "reason" or logic. And then along comes a statement from the National Academy of Sciences, that pulled the rug from under their feet! No it didn't. I'm still standing. That statement seems to mean something different to you than it does to me. To me it says that if you want to hold that God created the Universe in such a way that it developed along all the lines that science dictates it must, well, fill your boots. Alternatively, if you think it just did that, with no help from a God, well, that's okay too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted March 25, 2016 Report Share Posted March 25, 2016 That's not the common use of the word "creationist". You are creating definitions... A creationist is someone who believes God (or gods) created the universe. Let's not make up new definitions of words and muddle the topic.... that's what Betsy is doing when she claims scientists are saying there's evidence for god and that it created the universe in the OP. I think the topic has already been muddled by people thinking they fully understand definitions that in reality are very abstract (like " God"). I think a semantic approach that deconstructs these terms can help to show that there really isn't that much disagreement between theists (or deists) and atheists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 25, 2016 Report Share Posted March 25, 2016 Science says there's evidence for creation by God.No it does not. What's the atheistic basis for their belief other than their insistence that God doesn't exists?Theists are the only people insisting on anything here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted March 25, 2016 Author Report Share Posted March 25, 2016 (edited) I agree with those scientists who don't believe in God. You don't need a basis for not believing in something, surely. I'm not surprised. That's why there are scientists who'd been called quasi-scientists .....like Dawkins (who's been publicly accused of peddling "unsubstantiated assertions and counter-factual claims," by Lewontin. http://www.firstthings.com/article/1997/11/002-the-unraveling-of-scientific-materialism Some scientists are in it for the money! Dawkins cater to a certain demograph of people who has serious grievances against God or the religious. Ka-ching, ka-ching.That's the basis for their stance - to churn out anti-God books for these niche of folks. What kind of mind believe in something that has no basis at all? Edited March 25, 2016 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted March 25, 2016 Report Share Posted March 25, 2016 Therefore any organism alive today has a billion generations of ancestors that were all hardwired to want to survive and procreate. Was it necessary to use the passive voice in that sentence? Couldn't you have said "God hardwired those organisms" with the disclaimer that you don't know the details of what this "God" is? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted March 25, 2016 Report Share Posted March 25, 2016 No it does not. Theists are the only people insisting on anything here. No, I'm by no means a theist and I insist that I exist and that some circumstance has put me here. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.