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

March 27, 2016

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

Of course, atheism is a lack of belief. Do you believe in Zombies, unicorns or the Minotaur? No? What's your basis for that?

Reasonable people tend not to believe in concepts without evidence or probable cause.

Moonlight Graham · March 27, 2016

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

Exactly. They believe in nothing.

Moonlight Graham · March 27, 2016

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*

Good enough for me. I'm outta here.

cybercoma · March 27, 2016

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

We're not on the same page because you've drawn an incorrect conclusion—incorrect because it is clearly refuted in the paper, but you keep ignoring it when people point that out.

betsy · March 27, 2016

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/

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

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

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*

No, of course you're wrong....because, you're arguing about something you admittedly know nothing about.

The NAS had explained in its booklet whom they refer to when they use the term, Creationism/Special Creationists -

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

The NAS refers to those who take the Book of Genesis literally.

Theistic Evolution is creationism.....simply due to its very definition: the belief that God CREATED the universe.

You're knee-jerking to the fact that it is creationism.

You're simply reacting as an atheist who refuses to come to grips that science had indeed stated that there are evidences for creation by God.

You don't care to understand what Theistic Evolution is, or how it differs with the Creationism that the NAS refers to in their book.

All you see is the phrase, "God created".......and you can't accept the scientific facts. Your problem is not about my views.

Your problem is with the statements made by the National Academy of Sciences.

I hope you'll understand if I simply ignore your attempt at arguments on this. You admitted yourself (and it shows from your attempt at discussion), that this is way over your head because as you'd admitted earlier on, you don't know anything about it.

Edited March 27, 2016 by betsy

betsy · March 27, 2016

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.

I'm not asking why you should suspend your belief.

I'm simply asking what's the basis for the atheistic belief that God doesn't exists. If science blatantly contradicts that....what's the basis for that belief?

Surely, if an atheist is prepared to buck at science and insist that God doesn't exist....... there has to be a reasonable basis for that.

Edited March 27, 2016 by betsy

betsy · March 27, 2016

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

I don't know if this is good enough for you....you should read the explanation about the big bang, and the stretching universe.

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

Edited March 27, 2016 by betsy

GostHacked · March 27, 2016

No, of course you're wrong....because, you're arguing about something you admittedly know nothing about.

Quite right, I do not know anything about God.

You're simply reacting as an atheist who refuses to come to grips that science had indeed stated that there are evidences for creation by God.

What experiments did they use to come to that conclusion? Can they be repeated?

You don't care to understand what Theistic Evolution is, or how it differs with the Creationism that the NAS refers to in their book.

All you see is the phrase, "God created".......and you can't accept the scientific facts. Your problem is not about my views.

Your problem is with the statements made by the National Academy of Sciences.

Quite right, I don't care to understand Theistic Evolution as you have no desire to understand science and how it works.

I hope you'll understand if I simply ignore your attempt at arguments on this. You admitted yourself (and it shows from your attempt at discussion), that this is way over your head because as you'd admitted earlier on, you don't know anything about it.

Theistic Evolution is simply a new permutation (or evolution) of Creationism and Intelligent Design. The attempt at re branding has failed.

GostHacked · March 27, 2016

From Betsy's link http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

New observations could always cause the Big Bang theory to be abandoned, but that is not likely. Scientists have a theory of why the sky is blue. One day you could wake up to find the sky is green and the "blue-sky theory" was wrong, but that's not likely to happen either.

betsy · March 27, 2016

Quite right, I do not know anything about God.

What experiments did they use to come to that conclusion? Can they be repeated?

Quite right, I don't care to understand Theistic Evolution as you have no desire to understand science and how it works.

Theistic Evolution is simply a new permutation (or evolution) of Creationism and Intelligent Design. The attempt at re branding has failed.

Theistic Evolution is, "simply a permutation of Creationism/Intelligent Design."

That's the dead give away!

That serves to emphasize that you still don't know anything about Theistic Evolution.......you still hadn't even read what the NAS says about Theistic Evolution and Intelligent Design. You still don't have any clue at all.

You're simply knee-jerk reacting to the phrase, "GOD CREATED....."

You know nothing about this subject. I rest my case.

Edited March 27, 2016 by betsy

kimmy · March 27, 2016

Theistic Evolution is simply a new permutation (or evolution) of Creationism and Intelligent Design. The attempt at re branding has failed.

Not really. This is agreeing on the facts science has established-- evolution, the big bang, a very old universe that is expanding, a very old earth that isn't the center of the universe, and everything else.

You can look at all of these facts, and still believe that a god participated in the process. Maybe it was all part of a great plan. Maybe the big bang happened because god wanted it to. Maybe the physical constraints of our universe were designed brilliantly to produce conditions where life would be possible.

You could agree 100% with the facts as established by science, and still see these facts as being evidence of what a clever designer god is. That's what is meant by the quote Betsy keeps repeating.

One backpacker on a mountain might look at the sun setting and think "this is majestic." His friend looks at the same thing and thinks "God is an amazing artist." One scientist might look at some newly uncovered information about how our universe works and think "that's awesome" and his collaborator looks at the same information and thinks "God is a brilliant engineer."

It's a perspective on real science, not an alternative to real science.

-k

betsy · March 27, 2016

Not really. This is agreeing on the facts science has established-- evolution, the big bang, a very old universe that is expanding, a very old earth that isn't the center of the universe, and everything else.

You can look at all of these facts, and still believe that a god participated in the process. Maybe it was all part of a great plan. Maybe the big bang happened because god wanted it to. Maybe the physical constraints of our universe were designed brilliantly to produce conditions where life would be possible.

You could agree 100% with the facts as established by science, and still see these facts as being evidence of what a clever designer god is. That's what is meant by the quote Betsy keeps repeating.

One backpacker on a mountain might look at the sun setting and think "this is majestic." His friend looks at the same thing and thinks "God is an amazing artist." One scientist might look at some newly uncovered information about how our universe works and think "that's awesome" and his collaborator looks at the same information and thinks "God is a brilliant engineer."

It's a perspective on real science, not an alternative to real science.

-k

Except that......the NAS didn't use any terms such as "maybe," or "could be" in their statement as to Theistic Evolution - the belief that God created the universe. There aren't any "maybe(s)" in their statement.

The NAS doesn't talk about any Designer God. It doesn't say whether this was designed. I never brought up Design in this topic, either! You're conjuring up something that isn't there at all, and you're trying to put words in my mouth.

What we see from the NAS is a statement of facts! SCIENTIFIC FACTS!

Here, taken straight from their booklet:

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

Edited March 27, 2016 by betsy

BubberMiley · March 27, 2016

Exactly. They are saying that the concept of theistic evolution is grounded in the idea that there isn't necessarily a conflict in believing in the idea of "God" and believing what science teaches us. It doesn't say that science "supports" the concept of a pre-existing self-aware God, but that it allows for that possibility. That's where you got confused.

betsy · March 27, 2016

Exactly. They are saying that the concept of theistic evolution is grounded in the idea that there isn't necessarily a conflict in believing in the idea of "God" and believing what science teaches us. It doesn't say that science "supports" the concept of a pre-existing self-aware God, but that it allows for that possibility. That's where you got confused.

The term, "possibility" does not exist in that statement, either. The NAS isn't making any assumptions!

It isn't making any assumptions on what kind of God it is that they say created the universe, either.

It doesn't talk about concepts.

It does clearly says though that Theistic Evolution - the belief that God created the universe - is REFLECTED in the character of the PHYSICAL universe, and these are REVEALED by Cosmology, paleontology, Molecular Biology and many other disciplines of science.

They even named specific disciplines of science that revealed (evidences) of what they say, were revealed!

The NAS is simply stating a scientific fact, based on scientific findings!

So yes, with them saying that there are evidences to support Creation by God, actually says that scientific findings does support Creation by God!

Edited March 27, 2016 by betsy

BubberMiley · March 27, 2016

"Reflected in" not "supported by". That's where you went off the rails.

kimmy · March 27, 2016

What is that "it?" Theistic Evolution.

No, "it" is the fact that theistic evolution is not contradictory to science.

Science has revealed facts about the universe that are so amazing that scientists who are religious see these facts as testament to what an amazing work god has created.

The quote simply doesn't say what you wish it said. Sorry.

Theistic Evolution, in fact, reflects the character of the PHYSICAL universe, and that has been revealed by various areas of science. Why do they have to specify physical? Because they can only observe/study/analyze the physical.

Those observations/studies/researches/analyses had revealed evidences for Theistic Evolution.

If anybody had discovered physical evidence for god in 1998, we would have heard about it by now. It's not the sort of thing that would have just gone under the radar.

It would have launched massive discussion. It would be shouted from the rooftops by religious leaders. It would have turned the scientific community on its head.

But none of that happened. It's been 18 years, and none of this evidence for theistic evolution you think exists is actually anywhere to be found.

Contact the NAS and ask for details about them. They're the ones who issued the statement.

I am not going to waste my time hunting for something I know darned well doesn't exist. I've spent enough time looking at various arguments for and against a creator since 1998 to know that nobody has presented physical evidence that proves a god caused it to happen.

If you can point this evidence out, please do so. And while you're at it, maybe you should contact Alvin Plantinga and Ravi Zacharias and all the other top academics in the field of Christian Apologetics and as them why they aren't aware of this information that you have uncovered. Contact Albert Mohler. Contact the Pope's science department. Ask them why they aren't aware either. Or start small and and contact the department of theology at your local university and discuss the matter with them.

Perhaps what you should really be asking yourself is why you believe that you have uncovered information that the top minds in theology and Christian Apologetics don't seem to be aware of. Perhaps you should think about that and ask yourself whether you're really more well-informed than the people who've made reconciling religion and science their life's work.

-k

betsy · March 27, 2016

"Reflected in" not "supported by". That's where you went off the rails.

Wrong. It doesn't say "reflected in." Read it again.

"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.

While all the key phrases like "INDEED, IT REFLECTS," and "PHYSICAL universe," - since science can only deal with the physical - the most important phrase is, REVEALED BY!

betsy · March 27, 2016

If anybody had discovered physical evidence for god in 1998, we would have heard about it by now. It's not the sort of thing that would have just gone under the radar.

-k

Dead give away that you still fail to grasp this.

Science doesn't deal with the supernatural (and God is supernatural) - therefore, they cannot say that they have the physical evidence for God! They can't! That's beyond science's realm.

That's where logic or REASON come in.

Edited March 27, 2016 by betsy

March 27, 2016

Wrong. It doesn't say "reflected in." Read it again.

While all the key phrases like "INDEED, IT REFLECTS," and "PHYSICAL universe," - since science can only deal with the physical - the most important phrase is, REVEALED BY!

But what is revealed is the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe. Not God.

This is fun, isn't it?

betsy · March 27, 2016

But what is revealed is the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe. Not God.

......sorry, BCSapper, but I can't take you seriously when you show that you're having such difficulty understanding a simple statement.

Bye for now.

kimmy · March 27, 2016

Dead give away that you still fail to grasp this.

Science doesn't deal with the supernatural (and God is supernatural) - therefore, they cannot say that they have the physical evidence for God! They can't! That's beyond science's realm.

That's where logic comes in.

The same logic would apply if they had announced they had physical evidence for theistic evolution. (which they didn't, btw.)

Why don't you address the rest of my post? Why do you think you've discovered information that the top academics in theology and Christian Apologetics are unaware of?

Do you think it's more likely that you know more than they do about this subject?

-k

March 27, 2016

......sorry, BCSapper, but I can't take you seriously when you show that you're having such difficulty understanding a simple statement.

Bye for now.

I stopped taking this seriously pages ago.

betsy · March 27, 2016

If anybody had discovered physical evidence for god in 1998, we would have heard about it by now. It's not the sort of thing that would have just gone under the radar.

It would have launched massive discussion. It would be shouted from the rooftops by religious leaders. It would have turned the scientific community on its head.

But none of that happened. It's been 18 years, and none of this evidence for theistic evolution you think exists is actually anywhere to be found.

I am not going to waste my time hunting for something I know darned well doesn't exist. I've spent enough time looking at various arguments for and against a creator since 1998 to know that nobody has presented physical evidence that proves a god caused it to happen.

If you can point this evidence out, please do so. And while you're at it, maybe you should contact Alvin Plantinga and Ravi Zacharias and all the other top academics in the field of Christian Apologetics and as them why they aren't aware of this information that you have uncovered. Contact Albert Mohler. Contact the Pope's science department. Ask them why they aren't aware either. Or start small and and contact the department of theology at your local university and discuss the matter with them.

Perhaps what you should really be asking yourself is why you believe that you have uncovered information that the top minds in theology and Christian Apologetics don't seem to be aware of. Perhaps you should think about that and ask yourself whether you're really more well-informed than the people who've made reconciling religion and science their life's work.

-k

I'm sorry Kimmy. If there's anyone here who's already wasted so much time giving explanations, that's gotta be me.

I'll just have to let you go, too. You're halfway to getting it, except that something in you is resisting and refusing to see what the NAS is simply stating.

Come back to me when you've got something substantial to say.

waldo · March 27, 2016

The NAS is simply stating a scientific fact, based on scientific findings!

including the waldo, there are at least 4 MLW members who have asked you to provide examples of the "scientific finding evidence" you make your pronouncements on. Other than your flippant replies to those requests, I do believe the closest you came to actually providing an answer was to me... where you suggested I should contact the U.S. National Academies of Science to that end! Tell me, why is the onus not on you to be able to directly answer those requests and provide examples of your claimed "scientific finding evidence"? You're the one attempting to leverage that almost 2 decade old paper... why is the onus not on you?

MLW member kimmy nailed it when pointing out the all too obvious to you - if such "scientific finding evidence" actually existed it would be front-and-center and touted world-wide at every turn and opportunity, by any/every advocate promoting a 'creation by your preferred god'. And yet... it's not - why? And yet... you never heard of that NAS paper before - why? And yet... in all your prior MLW posts to this most recent pursuit of yours... you never plied this "scientific finding evidence" before - why?

you can't provide any examples of the supposed "scientific finding evidence"... and yet you remain resolute, steadfast and most spirited in your unsubstantiated nonsense! :lol: Of course you do - your faith is unwavering... it's all you have; it's all you need.

.

kimmy · March 27, 2016

I'm sorry Kimmy. If there's anyone here who's already wasted so much time giving explanations, that's gotta be me.

I'll just have to let you go, too. You're halfway to getting it, except that something in you is resisting and refusing to see what the NAS is simply stating.

Come back to me when you've got something substantial to say.

Does that mean you don't have an explanation why none of the top minds in Christian Apologetics or theology seem to be aware of any of this evidence for theistic evolution you keep going on about?

-K