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

Actually, the OP's citation directly and clearly says that Zeus, in fact, DID creat everything.

 

Let's focus on that statement again:

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."

If you view the various processes as nature.....you can't say that God = nature.
The statement says God CREATED the variuos processes.

Therefore it says, God CREATED nature!

 

Your zeal for this reads like one of those evangelical websites.

 

I think he has a problem with reading comprehension.

 

Either that, or basic intellectual honesty.

 

Okay....so the NAS says the same thing most say, that God must be taken into consideration when discussing out universe and life. Religious folk then say God is obviously real and made everything.

Firstly.... no one said this except the religious folk.
Secondly....which version of "God" should we give credit for this Everything.
Third....with no physical evidence, and merely a suggestion from science that it should be considered, why is it now an absolute.

Do religious people simply need to grab onto anything remotely close to truth to support the entity they worship?

 

And let's face it. Zeal, in this case, is just another word for 'extremism'. And we all know how dangerous that can be, and often is.

 

Yes. It's explained....read what you just quoted.

So yes, definitely I understand the word evidence. Do you?

 

Good point.

But that's for another topic.

 

Excellent! Then you admit that you lied in your OP and that the National Academy of Sciences never actually said that there is evidence for Creation by God.

Thanks for coming clean about that.

 

It's amazingly cute how non-religios people only care what scientists say when it supports their narrative.

When was it when Richard Dawkins, the guru of the new atheists had said that religious people don't use reason, and had spread the propaganda that God and science don't jive. Religious folks were mocked for believing in "fairy tales," and "fantasy," and "pie in the sky".
His rhetorics were parrotted by so many new atheists.

It came as a surprise to me when I stumbled on that old statement (1999) by the NAS! Imagine that. Since 1999.
So all that time, Dawkins has been spinning yarns of fairy tales, and feeding his flocks with sky pie.
Busy....busy Dawkins. No wonder he chickened out and refused to defend his book, "The God Delusion" in a debate with William Lane Craig.

Lo and behold! The shoe is on the other foot. There is no basis for the belief that God does not exist.

Nice try....but no way, Jose. The ones who give so much resistance is actually people like you (no offense), based on your reasoning right now.

And look at that statement! The NAS doesn't care about your opinion.....or the belief of other atheist scientists that are members
of the NAS. The NAS had issued its position as whole body - and it speaks for its members. That statement by the NAS is the general consensus of that organization. So there goes your theory about the NAS "always trying to find the path of least resistance."

No. The NAS had stated what it considers facts, based on their scientific findings.


You're implying the NAS issues inaccurate statements....that it aims more to appease?
Are you now saying the NAS is without credibility? So now, you're questioning the credibility of scientists?



Furthermore....no one is talking about the Christian God.

No one talks about Jesus....and here you are bringing up an automatic knee-jerk! That's a senseless attempt at muddling the issues.
It also shows that your fanatical belief is preventing you from being objective.

 

There is no evidence of a god or creation by God.

The national academy of sciences did not claim that their was evidence of either.

You and the op have mistated their position.

No one insists that God does not exist.

God is myth and that is proven fact. The burden is on you to prove it is more than myth and you can offer no proof.

 

Did you throw your back out reaching for this?

 

Proven fact, my foot. Dead give-away right there!

That's not a rebuttal. That's more like a knee-jerk statement by someone......in denial.

I know that statement would come as a shock for the new atheists. It's understandable.
All this time you've been fed lies about science and religion....and suddenly, this!
It's like getting the rug pulled from under your feet. Just take a moment to sit down, have a beer and reflect on it....with an open mind!



That's another thing: the new atheists are supposed to be the ones to be open-minded, right?
Isn't that what Dawkins kept on saying?


If you can't turn to science....who you gonna turn to?

 

LOL! Says the troll who lies about science. Too rich.

 

Speaking of Dawkins and the God Delusion - that was his fall from "grace." Everybody was calling him to come out and debate!
Even Christopher Hitchens!

He became a parody due to his refusal to defend his own book, that he'd rather let it get ripped apart by Lane Craig - page by page!


[video=youtube;KVjd1yDXNTM]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVjd1yDXNTM[/video]

 

I didn't see the word evidence in the OP link, only the thread title.
Another waste of time, "evidence for creation by God" - lol

 

You offer some good basis for further thought and discussion. Can we or should we assume and / or conclude that perceptions of various kinds are indeed subjects that are beyond the realm of science ? I say that we should not make that conclusion because we very well may be making that conclusion but is our understanding of science, nature, or of the existence or lack of an existence in a God.

Our understanding of science which we conclude is what explains the physical world must be limited to a partial understanding. I say this because whenever we reach a point where some start to conclude that we have hit the limit of knowledge because there cannot possibly be any higher or expanded level we are sooner or later hit with a "new" revelation of science or nature whichever we want to call it.

We can claim that there is no other reality except the physical therefore there must not be a God since we have not seen any physical manifestation of a God. Yet we talk about there being this concept of nature which we have never seen this nature "thing" so how are we to conclude that there is some "thing" such a a nature.

We say that God cannot exit because because we have not been able to see this God guy or otherwise prove that the God guy exists. We have never seen radio waves which are "invisible" but we know that they exists because we have seen the effects of radio waves which our knowledge of science tells us are electro-magnetic waves. Anyone ever see an electro-magnetic wave ? We know that there must be something we call gravity yet we have never seen a "gravity" ( ok the movie ). There are many "things" that se have never seen but we know exit besides as I noted electromagnetic waves and gravity. We know that there is heat. Yet we have never see a heat. What we have seen is the effects of heat because we can feel it's effects and we can see the sources from were heat comes from. Which we now believe is some physical source .

It is my thinking that we very well will some day reach the realm of understanding that we will be able to explain what "things" such as heat, electromagnetism or gravity are. They may be physical particle so minute and our current level of technology is not able to detect them. Or they could be non physical and what we assume is energy. So great we still need to learn what is energy. Or is heat,electromagnetism and gravity really neither physical or energy but some other state of being that exists somewhere between the physical and what we call energy.

Therefore the "proof" for or against the existence of God cannot be based upon showing a physical existence of Gad.
It is possible that science some day can explain this God guy after we explain what is energy, what is physical existence, or what is there between those two that explains the effects we "see" in the universe.

So science and God need not be opposite concepts.

 

You do realize that your entire thread is an appeal to authority, right?

Oh, and Dawkins (he's not an "atheist guru," whatever that means) was not the first atheist to claim that religion is fairy tales. All atheists know this. Mark Twain said as much and he died long before 1999.

All the NAS is doing is trying to simmer hostility so that the religitards don't blow a gasket and set us back 300 years. Religion and science are perfectly "compatible" so long as no religitards try teaching creationism or force school to ban evolution or whatever. (If you think that the NAS condones anti-evolution/pro ID ideas, you're off your rocker.)

What do you mean when you say "there is no basis that God does not exist"? Um, the "basis" is that there's no evidence for your god's existence.

 

You think atheists don't have "open minds." Very often, it's only the atheists who have the open minds.

Of course, if your mind is too open, your brain will fall out and you'll end up believing that a Jewish zombie floated into outer space 2,000 years ago.

 

Yes it is right to keep.open mind but does not alter the fact that we know somethings.

Among them is that God is myth. Sorry but that is proven fact and is not a dead giveaway of anything. It is reality you cannot and will not refute.

Once again this thread and op is misleading and blatantly dishonest. There is no claim by the national academy of sciences concerning evidence of God or creation. They have no such evidence. They did not claim to have such evidence and the op lies about what they said.

They claimed that religion like philosophy can help one to understand oneself which is true.

That is a vastly different claim than the lie told here about evidence.

 

While I do believe God was the creator of the universe, I do not believe this statement stands as evidence for a God-created universe.

They say:
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."

This statement actually says the belief in theistic evolution reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe. In effect, the character of the physical universe (as revealed by these scientific disciplines) naturally leads to such a belief. It does not provide evidence that the belief is true or false.

 

The very next page in the NAS book you quote refutes your own argument.

 

We can say that radio waves, gravity and heat exist even though they cannot be "seen" because their effects are testable and predictable. How would you go about testing or predicting the effects of God?

 

Those are the words of the OP, not those of the National Academy of Sciences.

“Not in disagreement” does not necessarily mean “in agreement.” Do “scientific explanations of evolution” say that “God created the Universe”? The possibility is allowed, not denied, but this does not constitute an endorsement, just as NAS members’ belief does not constitute a scientific endorsement.

Furthermore, evolution is a process of change, whereas creation is a process of bringing into existence or, in more loose terms of human endeavor, a production.

OK, so NAS is pushing a soft-sell to cushion the gap.

Reflections, awe, and inspiration do not constitute scientific evidence.

I think speculation of what’s further up in the multiverse hierarchy is more suggestive of a possible creator, or at least some very big shot types in key roles. It’s a guessing game between source makes beings or beings make source.