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

The minute you typed "theistic" you stated clearly that what follows is religion, NOT science.

Then, true to your word, you said absolutely NOTHING about science other than casually referring to some areas of study created by science.

 

[/QUOTE]
The supernatural is only that which is yet not understandable by science.

 

This is just plain false. The NAS clearly separated itself from any issues of god or religion.

It stated clearly that religion and science are different realms.

In fact, it takes no more than a quick read of the definition of scientific method to realize that science has NO WAY of accepting, supporting or in any other way addressing the idea that there is or ever has been some all powerful being.

 

Which part of what you quote in the OP is being interpreted to mean this?

 

Obviously. NAS is a scientific organization and science can not say anything about the "supernatural" other than that it is not science.

Let's be clear that "theistic evolution" is not science - it is pure religion.

OK?

 

No, I think you have made a couple fundamental mistakes that have propagated through your posts.

Science and religion are different realms. The last two popes also state this, as does the NAS.

Expecting them to mix is ridiculous, as they have different foundations, different methods, different logic, etc.

The NAS was being generous concerning religion, and somehow you totally misinterpreted that to mean that the NAS thinks science and religion can mix - even though they clearly state that such is not the case.

 

BZZT Wrong!

Why do the home schooled have so many reading comprehension problems?

The Academy did nothing of the sort!

They declared that science and religion are separate.

Furthermore that said that it was WRONG to try and combine them which is what you are egregiously attempting to do.

So the OP is just another devious attempt by theists to distort the facts.

 

No sorry. Being an athiest is just as silly as believing in God. There is no proof whatsoever that there is a God but it is equally impossible to prove that there is no possibility of a God. Logic dictates that being an Agnostic is the only defensible position.

That being said. Taking any position on the existance or non-existance of a God requires first that "God" be defined which To my knowledge has not occured sucessfully at least on this forum or in literature that I am aware of.

Care to try?

 

Onus is on YOU to provide theses mythical "evidences" that you allege "support creation" by your deity.

And your "conclusion" is based upon an unfounded assumption.

 

Assumes facts not in evidence.

 

"'theistic evolution" is bogus nonsense!

 

Nowhere in that passage is any statement that proves the existance of a God. The words "reflects" or "revealed" only shows that the observable facts are the same but not that the causes or mechansms leading to those facts are identical.

 

Theistic Evolution - Old Earth Ministries
www.oldearth.org › theistic_evolution
Theistic Evolution is the old earth creationist belief that God used the process of evolution to create life on earth.

So you can say God is evolution is which case God does exist. Or you can say God used evolution which provides no evidence for God except the existance of evolution which is circular reasoning at it's finest.

 

Throughout recorded history there have been thousands of mythical deities and almost as many religions.

To assume that your current deity is different to the thousands of other mythical deities is the same mistake that the believers of those other deities all made.

Without hard factual reproducible evidence for the existence of a deity they are all mythical.

 

I don't believe that there can be a definition of God, and think defining God in terms that humans can understand would be to take away from and limit God's glory and omnipotence. But : "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. is as close to my opinion of what God is (not who) as I have ever heard; except that I don't believe God created the processes, I believe God is the creative processes that allow galaxies, and our solar system, pulsars, etc. to exist. I guess you could maybe say God is existence. God is life.

Pardon the proselytizing.

 

I have to agree with you there. I have not been able to accept the literal interpretation of Genesis, but I can accept the possibility of a God who is so far beyond our understanding that He could set this all in motion from the Big Bang (or even before that). This is the God I see when I contemplate the universe.

 

GOD= That which IS.

 

That's existence... but if someone wants to call that God, what can do?

 

Several calculations concerning the probability of complex life on earth as we know it today have been done over the years--all being 'astronomical in the odds of happening.

 

Researchers Accidentally Discover Hell, It Just Wasn’t Where They Expected It http://www.unilad.co.uk/science/res...er-hell-it-just-wasnt-where-they-expected-it/

 

"The arguments of creationists are not driven by evidence that can be observed in the natural world. Special creation or supernatural intervention is not subjectable to meaningful tests, which require predicting plausible results and then checking these results through observation and experimentation. Indeed, claims of 'special creation' reverse the scientific process. The explanation is seen as unalterable, and evidence is sought only to support a particular conclusion by whatever means possible."

 

How do you calculate the odds of something that you don't understand? Can you tell me what the odds are of rolling a given number if I don't tell you how many sides are on the dice?

 

True, but then the multiverse appears endless so astronomical is trivial.

 

Just common sense realizing that so many things have to be in play (goldilocks zone location, molten iron core to give a magnetic field for solar wind protection, atmosphere with ozone for distant gamma ray protection, right size planet to hold an atmosphere & thus liquid water, a large moon (almost a twin planet) to maintain tilt & season averaging temps across the globe, etc. etc.

No matter how you want to calculate the odds of all this plus 300 more parameters, the odds are 'HUGE" against not being a rarity....play it like you will. (not having to do with primitive life on or under any surface any other planet or moon, etc.)

And what are the odds that in this point of space & time that we sentient beings are communicating the study of our navels right now?

Every time you watch a science program trying to be purely objective, the same terminology comes around over and over again in regards to the earth's parameters, "We are lucky to have/or be....."

 

That is no problem, but it is hard to understand how an intelligent being can believe in something that they can't define or even understand. If the definition of God is just the gaps in human knowledge that would explain why God keeps shrinking as scientific knowledge increases.