National Academy of Sciences says there is evidence for Creation by God

Ignoring the infinite possibilities of a multiverse, do you have any idea how many planets there are in this universe alone?

 

Again, not talking about 1-cell primitive life that will never become complex such as on the earth due to local hostile conditions, but YOU tell me how many planets are in the Identical situation the earth is presently (i.e same parameters to foster complex intelligent life forms) --not millennia ago or millennia to come?! Right now!

You like all in every day life have become desensitized to our wonderful home planet.

Even scientists today who study the universe are still in 'awe' of the plethora of variations of stars & galaxies, black holes, black energy, black matter, etc. etc. and admit to knowing little but speculating much to answers the questions of the day.

And, btw, the term and theory of multi-verses can just be considered a copout as there is no proof of such...

 

There are billions of galaxies in our universe, with billions of stars in each galaxy, with planets around most of those stars, so the odds are actually pretty good that one of those planets would have conditions conducive to life. And like all of the atheist scientists who study this universe, I am perfectly able to find 'awe' in this planet and the life that exists on it without need of fairy tales.

 

So 'right now' give me a number of planets exactly like earth with its high diversity of intelligent complex life...I'll be waiting


Methinks maybe those contrails you're experiencing are coming from what you've been smoking and have dulled your senses..

EDIT: Whenever one says when dealing with an infinite number over infinite periods of time then anything, including the typewriter monkey, is possible...cheap talk!

Sound no more believable than ...a super-natural almighty creative intelligence did it!

 

Let me help you:

When you take in the many planets orbiting the billions of stars in the billions of galaxies does that compare with the previous number I gave:

1 chance in 10^282(million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one identical such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe

 

Then proof that he is a myth is overwhelming.

The only clue to the existence of a god is the texts of what ever religion you adhere to such as the bible. Unfortunately like all such texts it is full of contradictions out right falsehoods and errors. The idea of a supreme omnipotent and omniscient being is impossible with such holes in the document which establishes such a being. For example the exodus which never happened. The planet wide flood which never happened. BAsic idiotic mistakes such as snakes with legs or mustard seeds being the smallest seed on earth and growing into trees. Also blatant and clear proven plagiarizing from older myths such as the epic of gilgamesh.

Tons of evidence prove that all such texts are myth and none whatsoever prove that there is really a god.

Your feeling is not evidence. You have none.

 

Some atheists react to the words "God," "Created," "Theistic"....like Dracula would react to the Cross!

READ THE OP!


It wasn't me who brought up the term, "theistic." It was the National Academy of Sciences!
That's what they say the belief that God created the Universe and all the processes, etc..., is called!

You insist to argue without reading that's why your response is rubbish.
Goodbye for now. If you want to be able to discuss....you better learn how to read. I won't be wasting time on senseless responses.

 

You're in denial. Or, you didn't understand what you've read.

READ THE OP AGAIN.




Anyway, your personal opinion doesn't count in a discussion....unless you can prove your point.

 

You just don't get it.
It wasn't me who said the NAS had found scientific evidences from various areas of science that support the belief that God created the universe. It was the NAS who's made that claim. I merely quoted what the NAS had said.

If you want the specific evidences, then you go to the source. Contact the NAS and ask for the list.

I know this OP comes as a shock to atheists, especially those who'd been brainwashed by Dawkins all this years.
Like I've said, you're barking at the wrong tree.

Your "outrage" should be directed at the NAS.....not me. Tell them, "how dare they, to make 'mythical assumptions.'



So now, you're saying the prestigious National Academy of Sciences is full of crap?
Then the same goes for NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Admin), since your so-called, "mythical assumption," is posted
in their FAQ Section!

The most prestigious organization of scientists, whose members are made up of Nobel Prize winners.....are now without credibility?
And yet you atheists are supposed to rely on science (as instructed by Dawkins), for facts!
And yet here you are accusing reputable scientists of making mythical assumptions! Now, you're against science?

If you can't trust science, who can you trust?


You guys have been hoodwinked by Dawkins' propaganda. Plain and simple. Time to wakey-wakey.

 

Science cannot come outright to say God exists. They can't.
Proving God is beyond them....since they don't deal with the supernatural. That's where Philosophy/Logic comes into play.

Science deals with what can be observed, and that are testable.



What they do claim to have, are, evidences of the PHYSICAL universe......


......REVEALED BY COSMOLOGY, PALEONTOLOGY, MOLECULAR BIOLOGY AND
MANY OTHER DISCIPLINES OF SCIENCE.........


..........which they say support the belief that God created the universe.



Therefore, those claims by the NAS have gone through the scientific methods of having been observed and tested.



For some reasons, some of you seem to have a mental block with that enlarged, and bolded phrase!
Can't get any clearer than that! That statement is made for the public - in layman's terms.

 

As I said earlier, EVERY science program I've seen on TV attempting to explain the uniqueness of the earth uses the terminology "How lucky we are to have this & that (pick a parameter)...."

I'm still waiting for an algorithm or power series to explain 'luck"........

 

I don't know anything about that group. Dawkins made some stupid claims, too....and was publicly accused by Lewontin of
peddling pseudo-science. Not every group of scientist are credible. There are quacks, too.

If you're equating that group with my source, then that shows just how much you know....or don't know.


My source for this thread though is the National Academy of Sciences.

 

That's been explained already.

Re-read, and understand what the NAS refers to when they talk about "creationists," and "special creation."
They made a point of explaining that!

 

Irony CUBED in that post of yours.

But let me PROVE BEYOND ANY DOUBT WHATSOEVER that you are LYING about your allegations regarding "evidence" in the OP.

I did a search for the term "evidence" on your OP and then I took a screenshot to show where the term "evidence" was HIGHLIGHTED and below is that screenshot.



If you click on it EVERYONE can see that the term "evidence" is ONLY HIGHLIGHTED TWICE!

The FIRST time is in YOUR disingenuous thread title.

The SECOND time is in YOUR utterly fallacious and deceitful allegation at that bottom.

NOWHERE in the QUOTED NAS TEXT does the term "evidence" appear.

Local community colleges offer adult remedial reading comprehension classes.

 

That would be the "1" in 1 chance in 10^282(million trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion) exists that even one such life-support body would occur anywhere in the universe

You'll have to go back to the PhD author of the ref link I previous posted..as I've said many have attempted to provide the statistics but in all attempts the answer becomes 'astronomical' as in infinitely large.

And lets say 'not exactly' like earth, then not just 1 sigma (99.5%) or 2 sigma (95%) but how about 3 sigma (68%) similar to our earth. That's pretty low in the study of statistics, huh?

SETI hasnt found anything over the past 25 yrs that approaches even rudimentary evidence of intelligent civilizations

 

Your reading comprehension shortcoming is your problem.

Furthermore you have deliberately and maliciously taken what NAS was saying OUT OF CONTEXT.

NAS was ONLY stating that some of it's members believe in a deity.

Trevor provided the CONCLUSION that NAS had actually reached that you omitted.

http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=451809&page=2&p=1066066283#post1066066283

NAS refuted everything you are fallaciously alleging in their conclusion.

 

Pure science cant explain the 'why' of this universe; where as the spirit of men can per scriptures like "He holds all in all" (gravity, dark matter/energy, etc?) and "All was created for His good pleasure."

I'll stick with the 'romantic' side of science, and not be narrow/closed-minded as the '2-dimensional soul-less human organisms.'

 

Some of us actually have a familiarity with the subtleties of the English language.

Reveal | Definition of Reveal by Merriam-Webster
Merriam-Webster › dictionary › reveal
transitive verb. 1 : to make known through divine inspiration. 2 : to make (something secret or hidden) publicly or generally known <reveal a secret>

Not very complicated now is it?

 

Life, AS WE KNOW IT, gets "lucky" when it evolves on a planet in the Goldilocks zone. We are not the only planet in that zone. We also don't know if life can evolve outside of the Goldilocks zone. That is still TBD in which case luck has nothing whatsoever to do with life.

 

The lack of logical reasoning by creationists is clearly demonstrated with the above.

Science is based upon evidence.
Religion is based upon beliefs.

There's no evidence that god exists but that doesn't imply that a person can't believe in god and creationism without any evidence of god or that god had anything to do with the creation of the universe. The fact that someone believes something doesn't imply there is any evidence to support the belief.

The title of this thread "National Academy of Sciences says there is evidence for Creation by God" is a lie because all NASA and the National Academy of Sciences are stating is that people have religious beliefs without scientific evidence.

 

25 years ago we had zero evidence for planets around other stars. SETI can start refining their search criteria instead of just randomly searching the entire universe.

 

WRONG!

Here's straight from the NAS.
You and the other poster did not understand what you've read, or had missed this part where-in the NAS had explained what they refer to by the term, "creationists" or "special creation."

For your own edification, let me show you again.

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




And here's the conclusion:

http://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/6



In other words, "creationism" and "special creation," refer to those who take the Book of Genesis literally, and Intelligent Design.


That doesn't include THEISTIC Evolution (creation by God).

The NAS has claimed that there are evidences for Theistic Evolution as REVEALED BY cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology and many other science disciplines.

In other words, these had undergone the rigorous scientific methods described above.




.....UNLESS you're saying that the NAS is without any credibility?




You shouldn't simply quote-mine.....without understanding exactly what's being said.

 

Oh the IRONY given that is what your entire disingenuous thread is based upon...quote-mining without a single clue as to the meaning of the terminology being used by NAS.

 

Refer to post #123 again.

See? You should try to understand what you read.

I rest my case.