Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
betsy

National Academy of Sciences says about creation of the universe by Go

Recommended Posts

I'm bumping this up due to its relevance with Evidences for God, and science.

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/25/2016 at 11:07 AM, betsy said:

"...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.

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."

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

I don't think this says what you think it says, Betsy.

I think it's just saying that if you want to believe that God directed evolution, it wouldn't disagree with science.  

And if you want to believe that evolution happened without any direction from a God, that belief also does not disagree with science.

In other words, we all believe in the evolutionary process.  Some attribute it to God, some do not.

I think it's a great way for the NAS to state things so as to not completely alienate religious fundies from taking an interest in science. I'm guessing that's probably why they put it in the FAQ's......

I find it interesting that up to this point in time, religious people utterly rejected the idea of evolution.  Now that it's proven, they are still trying to make it fit in with a God-scenario.  Which is fine. I'm just not sure why it matters to you whether "science" believes in God or not. You're going to believe in God no matter what science discovers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Goddess said:

I don't think this says what you think it says, Betsy.

I think it's just saying that if you want to believe that God directed evolution, it wouldn't disagree with science.  

And if you want to believe that evolution happened without any direction from a God, that belief also does not disagree with science.

In other words, we all believe in the evolutionary process.  Some attribute it to God, some do not.

I think it's a great way for the NAS to state things so as to not completely alienate religious fundies from taking an interest in science. I'm guessing that's probably why they put it in the FAQ's......

I find it interesting that up to this point in time, religious people utterly rejected the idea of evolution.  Now that it's proven, they are still trying to make it fit in with a God-scenario.  Which is fine. I'm just not sure why it matters to you whether "science" believes in God or not. You're going to believe in God no matter what science discovers.

 

 

Oh boy.  Trying to downplay, huh?

It 's more than just not disagreeing with scientific explanations, goddess.

 

Indeed,

it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."

 

You guys can try to ignore that, but that's what it is.  No wonder scientists who are open-minded, have been converting to theism, or Christianity.  And a lot of these scientists have been convinced by their own findings!

 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, betsy said:

 

Oh boy.  Trying to downplay, huh?

It 's more than just not disagreeing with scientific explanations, goddess.

 

Indeed,

it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."

 

 

 

I really think you're reading Waaaaay more into this than what they're saying......

 

it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."

Translation:  The universe is remarkable and inspiring and may lead some to believe in a God-directed evolutionary process.

It is not saying that without a doubt, God directed the process.  It's just saying it's fine to believe that and such a belief is compatible with science at this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I really think you're reading Waaaaay more into this than what they're saying......

 

it reflects the remarkable and inspiring character of the physical universe revealed by cosmology, paleontology, molecular biology, and many other scientific disciplines."

Translation:  The universe is remarkable and inspiring and may lead some to believe in a God-directed evolutionary process.

It is not saying that without a doubt, God directed the process.  It's just saying it's fine to believe that and such a belief is compatible with science at this time.

 

And you're putting words in my mouth.

 

 I'm saying that the NAS has opened the possibility for creation by God! 

 

They even have a term for it: THEISTIC EVOLUTION!

 

 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, betsy said:

 I'm saying that the NAS has opened the possibility for creation by God! 

This wasn't a possibility before?  Seems to me, it's always been a possibility - a miniscule one, but yes, a possibility.

NAS acknowledging that it's fine if some people want to stick to a belief in God-directed evolution; seems more like a little pat on the head for creationists, like agreeing with and patting a child on the head who still believes in Santa.

Edited by Goddess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Goddess said:

This wasn't a possibility before?  Seems to me, it's always been a possibility - a miniscule one, but yes, a possibility.

 

So you're an authority to say that it's miniscule? 


 

Quote

 

NAS acknowledging that it's fine if some people want to stick to a belief in God-directed evolution; seems more like a little pat on the head for creationists, like agreeing with and patting a child on the head who still believes in Santa.


 

It's more like a reluctant acknowledgement - of what can't be swept under the rug any longer, considering the almost surety of it! 

Dang, too many theories been hitting the brick wall. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, betsy said:

It's more like a reluctant acknowledgement - of what can't be swept under the rug any longer, considering the almost surety of it! 

I view it more like: Not wanting to alienate God believers, hoping they'll continue to look at science further and in greater depth.

I've read a lot about it, but I'm not an expert, as apparently you are:

Quote

considering the almost surety of it! 

I don't see anything in what you've posted that is saying God is an "almost surety".  

I still think you're seeing what you want to see.

Edited by Goddess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Goddess said:

I view it more like: Not wanting to alienate God believers, hoping they'll continue to look at science further and in greater depth.

I've read a lot about it, but I'm not an expert, as apparently you are:

I don't see anything in what you've posted that is saying it's an "almost surety".  

I still think you're seeing what you want to see.

 

I don't remember you backing up your claim that the possibility of God is "miniscule."  Just because you say so, doesn't mean science agrees with you, you know.  This time, science is more on my side. :)

I'm throwing the gauntlet at you - where does science say that possibility of God is miniscule?  Support you claim with something credible.  Don't even think of using Richard Dawkins.

Cite!

 

If you can't support it - ZIP IT!

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, betsy said:

This time, science is more on my side. :)

You do realize that theistic evolution is not a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Goddess said:

You do realize that theistic evolution is not a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, right?

 

Support your "miniscule" claim!  Don't change the channel until you do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religious people:  "God created everything just as it is now."

Science people:  "Here's all the proof of the evolutionary process."

Religious people:  "OK, well, God directed it though...."

Science people:  "We have no proof of that one way or the other, so....."

                            **pats on the head**

                             "Let's keep looking, shall we?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, betsy said:

 

Support your "miniscule" claim!  Don't change the channel until you do.

I already have.

I take the evolutionary process over the talking snake theory.

You started the thread.  Support your claim that God directed evolution is accepted by the scientific community as a "surety".

Edited by Goddess
One too many "c's" in accepted

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Goddess said:

  Seems to me, it's always been a possibility - a miniscule one, but yes, a possibility.

 

 

In other words,

you're admitting that there's evidence to support the possibility of God's existence!!! :lol:

 

But really......science never said the possibility is miniscule.  How can they, when the compatibility with THEISTIC evolution extends to various disciplines of science such as cosmology, paleontology, etc..,

 

So - cite your scientific reference for your claim "miniscule."

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, betsy said:

 

In other words,

you're admitting that there's evidence to support the possibility of God's existence!!! :lol:

No. 

I'm admitting it's a possibility, but I do not see any evidence of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Goddess said:

No. 

I'm admitting it's a possibility, but I do not see any evidence of it.

 

Cite your scientific reference for the possibility being "miniscule!" 

 

I'd be surprised if you can come up with something credible because as far as I know.......YOU CAN'T! 

You're in denial.  :lol:

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, betsy said:

 

Cite your reference for the possibility being "miniscule!" 

 

I'd be surprised if can come up with something credible because as far as I know.......YOU CAN'T!  You're in denial.  :lol:

As I said, I've proven this to myself by many years of research.  I did it because it was important to me to find out the truth.

If you choose to not research the subject and prefer to acccept theistic evolution by "faith", that's your choice.  

But don't pick some vague FAQ and read into it what you want and then claim scientists "admit" that God is a "surety".  That's not even close to what that says.

Edited by Goddess

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, betsy said:

Cite your scientific reference for the possibility being "miniscule!" 

The uncertainty principle pretty much clinches it.  Ironically the universe wouldn't exist without it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The uncertainty principle pretty much clinches it.  Ironically the universe wouldn't exist without it.

I'm not so sure...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Goddess said:

As I said, I've proven this to myself by many years of research.  I did it because it was important to me to find out the truth.

 

:lol:

 

I openly question what you'd read, and how you took them.   You can't blame me for questioning your comprehension skills, especially after you stated this:


 

Quote

 

If you choose to not research the subject and prefer to acccept theistic evolution by "faith", that's your choice.  

But don't pick some vague FAQ

 

 

EXACTLY, why I question your comprehension skills! :lol:

You were referring to NASA's FAQ - which is meant to explain.....

 

Quote

 

The National Academy of Sciences also says:

"Science is not the only way of acquiring knowledge about ourselves and the world around us. Humans gain understanding in many other ways, such as through literature, the arts, philosophical reflection, and religious experience. Scientific knowledge may enrich aesthetic and moral perceptions, but these subjects extend beyond science's realm, which is to obtain a better understanding of the natural world."

"Scientists, like many others, are touched with awe at the order and complexity of nature. Indeed, many scientists are deeply religious. But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each."

"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. 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."

 

https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html

 

.............and you say that's "vague?"  :lol:

 

If that explanation, which was deliberately given in layman's terms, is vague to you.....how do you expect me to believe that you understood what you'd read in your so-called research?

 

Goddess, you made a very bold claim.  So I ask again......

......where does science says, the possibility of God is "miniscule?"

 

CITE YOUR REFERENCE!

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, eyeball said:

The uncertainty principle pretty much clinches it.  Ironically the universe wouldn't exist without it.

:rolleyes:

Explain the uncertainty principle, and why you say it "pretty much clinches it."

 

Why do you think it proves there's no God?

 

 

Edited by betsy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't say it proves there's no God, all I said is that it reduces the likelihood to a vanishingly small degree.

But that means there's hope betsy.  There are theists who actually cite the principle to prove God exists so.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...