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

Again Theistic evolution says that evolution was designed by God. The fact that evolution is proven science does not mean that the existence of God is proven. This is such simple logic.

Nowhere in the article does it state that there is any evidence for God or for the assumption that evolution was designed by a God. If the NAS had actually wanted to make the claim that there is any science behind Theistic Evolution they would have said so.

Theistic evolution, theistic evolutionism, or evolutionary creationism are views that regard religious teachings about God as compatible with modern scientific understanding about biological evolution.
Theistic evolution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Wikipedia › wiki › Theistic_evolution

 

Try looking up the definition of revealed. Then try again.

 

Your "case" is RIP because you never had one to begin with.

 

So You think grasping at imaginary straws doesn't actually make a case. How judgemental of you.

 

Yes I am!

So much so that I am going to point out that you misspelled judgmental too!

 

My source cites NASA, if we are having a battle of authorities. I am guessing they have at least one or two scientists of their own.

 

If you compare this (from your post) with the original text from NAS (as you posted in the first page) you will see that the NAS said it was "the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe" that was REVEALED by the scientific disciplines. The fact that you misquoted it above suggests that you are subconsciously inserting what you want to see ("evidences") instead of what is really there.

 

That's simple and straight to the point. Religious creationism (aka intelligent design), which includes all of the different religious beliefs in "creation" and not just the Judeo-Christian belief in "creation" by god, are not science and have no place in a science classroom.

These are philosophical beliefs and do have an appropriate place in a philosophy class but in such a classroom setting ALL of the different religious forms of "creationism" must logically be addressed equally. For example the Shinto belief in the creation of the universe has just as much validity in the philosophy classroom as the Judeo-Christian beliefs.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions/shinto/beliefs/universe.shtml

Academically all religious beliefs in creation are equal but the "Christian creationists" disparage all other religious beliefs in creationism as being based upon myth and superstition. Of course all of those other religions, in return, claim that other "creationist" beliefs are also based upon myth and superstition. If we address the fact that each and every religious creationist belief claims that the creationist beliefs of all other religions are "myth and superstition" then all creationist beliefs are based upon myth and superstition. Each one claims theirs is the "true belief" while hundreds claim it's myth and superstition.

Bottom line the "Christian Creationists" don't want "creationism" discussed in the classroom because it's a very broad subject covering the "creationist" beliefs of all religions that include both historic as well as current beliefs in creationism. What the Christian Creationist wants is "religious indoctrination" without academic review and that's only an appropriate subject in a church where religious indoctrination takes place and not in a classroom where education takes place.

 

Not all Christians believe in the literal translation of Genesis btw. And whether Christian Religion disparage all other religions,
is irrelevant in that NAS statement.



[video=youtube;d9h-hmlMz5c]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9h-hmlMz5c[/video]




But yes, I agree with you that it's very simple and straight to the point:

 

0no, it is you who should read the OP.

Several posters have pointed out serious and obvious mistakes in that post.

 

there was no evidence that a God exists, this was just a Christians spouting off nonsense to support his beliefs... theistic evolution btw doesn't support the Bible

.

 

the fact that people have blood, shows the stories of Dracula are true

 

I'm not sure what kind of the point you're trying to make. They're saying some believe that God created the universe and natural processes that created the galaxies and planets and life and man. A deistic belief, popular amongst several of our founding fathers.

They are basically defining God as equivalent to nature. It doesn't really matter how it started because if it were God he started it in motion but then let things evolve according to natural processes. If you have this definition, then God and science do not conflict, because what science attempts to explain in the natural world and processes.

 

The title of the thread has it backwards. In concluding that the realms of science and religion do not overlap, the NAS is saying that there is no scientific evidence for the existence of God.

They are denying even the possibility of such evidence.

 

Again, odds are meaningless unless you understand the system. If I roll one dice, what are the odds that I will roll a "1"?

Unless you can show where the PhD author is on this forum, I'll have to settle for pointing out your mistake for using this to support your argument for creation. Our galaxy is 100,000 light years across, which means SETI has only manage to scan 1/4 of 1/10th of a percent of it. Drawing inferences from a insignificant sample size is another statistical mistake you are making.

 

Then you better go back and read the posts. You should at least understand the OP.
Knee-jerk opinion(s) don't count. I'm lumping you with the others I'm ignoring....unless you give something worth responding to.
Bye for now.

 

First, they're not saying God is equivalent to nature. They're saying God created the universe AND THE PROCESSES.....etc - which means,
God created nature. Big difference. The Creator is not the equivalent of His Creation!


They're talking about a "generic" (for lack of a better word) Creator God. They're not specifically saying that it is the Christian God -
although several atheist scientists throughout history, had converted to Christianity as a result of their scientific findings.

I have arguments to prove that the Creator God is none other than the Abrahamic God - but that's for another topic.



My point is clear: If science says there are many physical evidences that support the belief that God created the universe....

.........then, God must exists!



Belief in God is shown to have a good basis......

.........whereas the belief that God is a myth, and that He doesn't exist, is shown to be a delusion......

.......or a wishful thinking that's based on nothing!

 

Science does not say that there is any evidence god created the universe you keep deliberately misinterpreting what the source in the OP states

 

This says nothing about evidence of God.

It basically says there are religious people in the world.

We already knew that.

 

No, *I* said *if* God = nature then there is no conflict with science and God. If God =/= nature then there is a conflict.

Regardless of how it initially started, if all we have are natural processes that lead to the creation of galaxies and planets and life and man, then there is no conflict.

1. The OP is not saying there are many physical evidence that support God. Just that many hold that.
2. The fact that there is some evidence of God does not mean that God must exist.

If you are so sloppy in your reasoning I can understand how you could have such arguments and beliefs.

 

Hmmmm, why can't theists handle legitimate criticism of their fallacies?

Does it make them uncomfortable to have to face up to the reality that there is no actual evidence for their deity?

Or would they rather remain in the comfort of their ignorance instead of having to be honest and admit that there is no actual evidence?

Speaking for myself it is the outright dishonesty of the OP that caused me to reply to this thread.

And now the OP won't defend the legitimate criticism of that dishonesty which is a de facto admission of failure on the OP's part.

In which case this thread is toast because the OP has tacitly admitted that it cannot be defended.

 

Baseically, wasn't the Subject Line of this OP...


proven false, pages ago, simply by reading what was linked to?


That the NAS doesn't say "God exists".

 

Basically...the theist cannot truly agree with the sciences and retain the faith they rely on for eternal happiness. Thus do we see the outcry against Evolution, Abiogenesis, Geology, diversity of biology, and many other areas shown accurate to everyone else. Often we even see purposeful ignorance manifest as threads started to do so...and then cries of the replies being attacks on their Gods.

 

Proven false from the first page, no less.

 

Does it matter that 93% of members of the NAS are atheists?

Look it up!