And for those of you who attempts to rebut with "quantum this....and quantum that....," you guys better quantum this. http://www.unm.edu/~hdelaney/cosmoquotes.html
You're wrong. IF he's a religionist, that means he's adhering to a religion. He is an agnostic and a non-believer. You said it too, yourself.....not too long ago. Just the previous page, in fact. You flip flop any which way you want! Oh boy.......when desperation calls....... That hurts credibility, you know.
So does other scientists! Apparently. If he's looking for some explanations.....what makes you think he didn't also talked to biologists? Read the article again. He's been asking fellow-scientists! You saying, biologists are not scientists? I can understand you thinking about Richard Dawkin's pathetic pseudo-science.....but not all biologists are like Dawkins. With Tour's calibre, you can't be suggesting he is dumb.
So...your plan is to simply accuse me of exactly what you do thereby distracting from it and avoiding replying to my actual commentary? This is the actual statement in it's entirety: "Compatibility of Science and Religion Science is not the only way of knowing and understanding. But science is a way of knowing that differs from other ways in its dependence on empirical evidence and testable explanations. Because biological evolution accounts for events that are also central concerns of religion including the origins of biological diversity and especially the origins of humans evolution has been a contentious idea within society since it was first articulated by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in 1858. Acceptance of the evidence for evolution can be compatible with religious faith. Today, many religious denominations accept that biological evolution has produced the diversity of living things over billions of years of Earths history. Many have issued statements observing that evolution and the tenets of their faiths are compatible. Scientists and theologians have written eloquently about their awe and wonder at the history of the universe and of life on this planet, explaining that they see no conflict between their faith in God and the evidence for evolution. Religious denominations that do not accept the occurrence of evolution tend to be those that believe in strictly literal interpretations of religious texts. Science and religion are based on different aspects of human experience. In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. Religious faith, in contrast, does not depend only on empirical evidence, is not necessarily modified in the face of conflicting evidence, and typically involves supernatural forces or entities. Because they are not a part of nature, supernatural entities cannot be investigated by science. In this sense, science and religion are separate and address aspects of human understanding in different ways. Attempts to pit science and religion against each other create controversy where none needs to exist." http://www.nas.edu/evolution/Compatibility.html Please point out to me where the "God Did It" part can be found....I would appreciate it.
the problem is that you are lying about what the NAS stated, and it's been pointed out to you dozens of times.
I don’t flip-flop nor do I have a credibility problem.. If you don’t understand what “self-professed “means look up the definition
Of course, understandably, the NAS cannot come outright to say, God exists! The explanation above by the NAS, is meant to explain why creationists and special creationists - referring to literal Biblical creation narratives and Intelligent Design - must not be taught in schools. The NAS is not trying to negate the existence of God. Read this part: In science, explanations must be based on evidence drawn from examining the natural world. Scientifically based observations or experiments that conflict with an explanation eventually must lead to modification or even abandonment of that explanation. However the NAS says, the belief that GOD CREATED the universe and all the processes etc - known as THEISTIC Evolution - is compatible with scientific explanations of evolution. That puts creation squarely on the table. That's undeniable. Furthermore, other leading scientists - based on scientific findings - had corroborated the NAS statement. They're pointing to creation!
So...instead it is left to YOU to imagine they have and twist the comments in order to fit your narrative? The NAS simply stated that many people who follow creation and thus need to get it to work within scientific fact, can and will adjust the data as required and that is Okay. At least you have admitted that the basic premise put forward in this thread is invalid...now you simply need to admit your commentary is generally inaccurate as well.
Robert Jastrow is a nut!! If he actually wrote...and this from your post....."Recent developments in astronomy have implications that may go beyond their contribution to science itself. In a nutshell, astronomers, studying the Universe through their telescopes, have been forced to the conclusion that the world began suddenly, in a moment of creation, as the product of unknown forces."...end quote Robert Jastrow. If Jastrow actually wrote that then he should be thrown out of any College or University that he might be a Professor at and I cannot even believe any Professor could be so stupid, ill informed...or in this case COMPLETELY OUT OF HIS MIND!!! Now....even the damn VATICAN AND POPE are well aware that our Universe...as it is NOT the only one.....was generated by the White Hole ejection of Quantum Particle/Wave Forms in s super excited state...ie...BIG BANG. Now a person can logically conclude that the Big Bang is the result of a self replicating and ongoing Multiversal System in which Alternate Divergent Universal States of Reality are constantly being generated such was our Universe at the moment of the Big Bang......and that LOGICALLY since no evidence or proof is currently existing a person can say THEY BELIEVE that it is POSSIBLE that a GOD created this Multiversal System....or a person could say that THEY BELIEVE a GOD did not create this Multiversal System as a GOD does not exist. EITHER WAY.....such a person would be logically correct in their ASSUMPTION. HOWEVER......any person who say's.....A GOD DID CREATE THIS MULTIVERSAL SYSTEM......and any person that say's.....A GOD DID NOT CREATE THIS MULTIVERSAL SYSTEM......would in fact have ABSOLUTELY NO LOGICAL PROOF TO MAKE EITHER STATEMENT!!!! BUT YET AGAIN.......what I just posted was based on POSSIBILITY. So let's look at PROBABILITY. The person who assumes that the existing Multiversal System that is continually generating Alternate Divergent Universal States of Reality such as our Universe is NOT created by a GOD.......has a MUCH HIGHER PROBABILITY OF BEING CORRECT......then the MUCH LOWER PROBABILITY than the person who assumes that the existing Multiversal System that is continually generating Alternate Divergent Universal States of Reality such as our Universe IS created by a GOD. AA
Possibility my foot! The possibility of Creation is the most logical answer than your theory of chance! We did look at.....improbability! What you're suggesting would've been the product of a miracle! You're actually arguing for the existence of God.....but you just don't know it yet.
You are talking nonsense. There is absolutely ZERO evidence to support a GOD existing and your statement..."The possibility of Creation is the most logical answer than your theory of chance!".....is akin to saying...."Well the Universe exists because a giant 3 mile wide purple elephant farted and that is what generated the Big Bang!" Both you statement and mine about the farting elephant has EXACTLY the same Probability of being a fact. AA
Speak for yourself! You don't even understand what you're reading here! Corrections: I'm arguing over science and math by quoting what scientists had discovered! If there's anyone who understand anything about this, it would be them! Obviously, I'd just proven that AA doesn't know what he's on about either!
What many in this forum understand is that you're guilty of quote mining and spinning statements to fit your personal narrative.
In order for "creation" to be "fact" it needs to be peer reviewed and the results deemed to be correct by credible scientists. Anyone can make any claim they like but that does NOT make it factual. - - - Updated - - - No credible scientist makes that claim. Prior to the Big Bang there was the Singularity.
Macro-evolution can be seen in us all,... genetically,... We have two fused chromosomes which came from an Ape mother with 24 chromosomes. These fused chromosomes where an Act-of-God,... back 7 million years ago,... and the first "man" was created then: //// Chromosome 2 is consistent with the common ancestry of humans and other apes. According to researcher J. W. IJdo, "We conclude that the locus cloned in cosmids c8.1 and c29B is the relic of an ancient telomere-telomere fusion and marks the point at which two ancestral ape chromosomes fused to give rise to human chromosome 2." [11] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chromosome_2_(human)
I took a look at your link and it really spirals to an ever increasing degree of stupidity after this quote..... "What is a big deal - the biggest deal of all - is how you get something out of nothing. Don't let the cosomologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either - despite the fact that they are doing a pretty good job of convincing themselves and others that this is really not a problem. "In the beginning," they will say, "there was nothing - no time, space, matter, or energy. Then there was a quantum fluctuation from which ...." Whoa! Stop right there. You see what I mean? First there is nothing, then there is something. And the cosmologists try to bridge the two with a quantum flutter, a tremor of uncertainty that sparks it all off. Then they are away and before you know it, they have pulled a hundred billion galaxies out of their quantum hats" David Darling, "On creating something from nothing", New Scientist, 151 (2047), (1996), p 49. You see that LINK is to a site where it has a quoted list of people's statements that are incredibly ignorant and even more disingenuous. Right after the one I posted all those quotes settle into a central theme which is the extremely flawed assumption and supposition that as it say's in the one I quoted....."Don't let the cosomologists try to kid you on this one. They have not got a clue either - despite the fact that they are doing a pretty good job of convincing themselves and others that this is really not a problem. "In the beginning," they will say, "there was nothing - no time, space, matter, or energy."...end quote. Oh...and just to give members an idea just how incapable and how unqualified David Darling the author of the book called "On creating something from nothing", New Scientist, 151 (2047), (1996), p 49.....well......good old DAVY DARLING could not even SPELL cosmologists as WAVY DAVY SPELLED COSMOLOGISTS.........THIS WAY.............cosomologists....instead of cosmologists....the correct spelling. Sooooooo......what does it say to the credibility of a man trying to make light of the work and discredit the theories of COSMOLOGISTS......when WAVY DAVY CANNOT EVEN SPELL....COSMOLOGISTS!!!??? Ahhhhh!! HA! HA! HA! HA! HAAAaaaaaaaaaaaa!!! AA
Tosca1 is a master gatherer of others' nonsense and woo woo. He's so good at it, he deserves recognition and a prize.
You gotta admit though...this last post of his is his crowning achievement!! LOL!! The author who criticizes Cosmologists being the author WHO CANNOT SPELL COSMOLOGISTS!!! LOL!!! Best laugh I have had in a while!! AA
