Evolution vs. Creationism[W:2571, 3239]

[calamity]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

If you want specific evidences....you better start researching.

The NAS had already said that, indeed....theistic evolution is reflected in the physical universe - as REVEALED by the various areas of science.



That statement is posted on the FAQ section of NASA, and it is meant for the public!

In other words, that's already stated in layman's terms!
Anyone with a modicum of intelligence/education ought to be able to understand that statement!



I don't know what to say ......and it's surprising to me that this is "mumbo jumbo" to you.

Anyway.....au revoir, Calamity.
If that NAS statement comes to you as "mumbo-jumbo," then, there's no sense trying to discuss it with you. :shrug:

:roll:

 

[tosca1]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Let's not even think that scientists are all above being dishonest....or incapable of errors.....

Hey, if Einstein could fudge the numbers to make the result fit into what he believed......:shrug:

 

[tosca1]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

I read it just fine. Please show the exact scientific evidence they presented to prove theistic evolution or God in that quote you continue to post. "Some scientists believe in it" or "it doesn't contradict science" is not scientific evidence. I can say I love my husband no less than any other wife on earth. Scientific evidence is not really possible to prove I love my husband any specific amount so such a statement would be unable to be proven or disproven using science, but it doesn't contradict science either.

So you agree that Creation by God - as in Genesis (through supernatural means), is quite possible.


Cool.

 

[Manc Skipper]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Nobody is perfect. That's why science is set up to self-correct. Creationism does no such thing.

 

[Threegoofs]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

So you're not calling the NAS, non-credible?

On a positive note, give yourself a pat on the back. You're trying .....at least, it's not completely mumbo jumbo to you. :lol:
I think you just have to throw out all the new atheist trash that's been stuffed in your head by all the Dawkins propaganda,......clear up your head, and try to read the statements with an open mind.


Now, read the last two statements again and please, focus.


If the NAS says that there are evidence(s) that support CREATION by GOD (Theistic Evolution) - how on earth can you say that it's not true without calling the NAS, non-credible?

They are not saying that.

 

[calamity]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Nobody is perfect. That's why science is set up to self-correct. Creationism does no such thing.

Their idea of correcting is to slaughter those who believe differently.

 

[roguenuke]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

So you agree that Creation by God - as in Genesis (through supernatural means), is quite possible.


Cool.

A lot of things are possible. Probable is a whole different thing. It is possible that we exist in a computer simulation that tells us we are alive. It is possible that we all just came into existence three days ago and were "downloaded" the memories of our lives. It is possible that when we die, thousands of different gods or entities all have a chance of deciding our fate after death.

But none of those things, nor creationism, nor theistic evolution has any evidence to support them. Now unlike creationism, there is no evidence to contradict that a higher power could have set evolution in motion. There is plenty of evidence against creationism. However, there is no evidence to support either theory.

 

[tosca1]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

A lot of things are possible. Probable is a whole different thing. It is possible that we exist in a computer simulation that tells us we are alive. It is possible that we all just came into existence three days ago and were "downloaded" the memories of our lives. It is possible that when we die, thousands of different gods or entities all have a chance of deciding our fate after death.

But none of those things, nor creationism, nor theistic evolution has any evidence to support them. Now unlike creationism, there is no evidence to contradict that a higher power could have set evolution in motion. There is plenty of evidence against creationism. However, there is no evidence to support either theory.

You said it yourself, roguenuke.

Scientific evidence is not really possible to prove I love my husband any specific amount so such a statement would be unable to be proven or disproven using science, but it doesn't contradict science either.

Here's what NAS has to say:

In science, explanations are limited to those based on observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists."

"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.


What more with the supernatural - that science cannot prove or disprove. :shrug:



But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each."


Science & Creationism



Therefore, it's not for science to say whether God exists or not. Not yet, anyway.
Maybe someday, when technology can get into the supernatural.

 

[roguenuke]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

You said it yourself, roguenuke.





Here's what NAS has to say:

In science, explanations are limited to those based on observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists."

"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.


What more with the supernatural - that science cannot prove or disprove. :shrug:



But science and religion occupy two separate realms of human experience. Demanding that they be combined detracts from the glory of each."


Science & Creationism



Therefore, it's not for science to say whether God exists or not. Not yet, anyway.
Maybe someday, when technology can get into the supernatural.

Which makes your whole argument presented so far invalid since you were trying to say that there was some sort of evidence for theistic evolution. This simply isn't true. Science can only provide evidence for evolution, not God which is part of theistic evolution by definition and therefore they cannot provide any sort of evidence to support that God or any higher power, consciousness put into place any of the mechanisms involved in evolution. It doesn't mean that theistic evolution isn't valid, only that it doesn't have evidence to support it. It is just as valid as earth being created by planet builders, commissioned by mice, inspired by a giant supercomputer to discover what "The" question is.

 

[William Rea]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

A lot of things are possible. Probable is a whole different thing. It is possible that we exist in a computer simulation that tells us we are alive. It is possible that we all just came into existence three days ago and were "downloaded" the memories of our lives. It is possible that when we die, thousands of different gods or entities all have a chance of deciding our fate after death.

But none of those things, nor creationism, nor theistic evolution has any evidence to support them. Now unlike creationism, there is no evidence to contradict that a higher power could have set evolution in motion. There is plenty of evidence against creationism. However, there is no evidence to support either theory.

The real problem here is that all we are doing is re-enacting arguments that have been made a thousand times (PRATTs). The fact is that the same method that these people are using to proselytise their superstitious dogma will also enable them to find out the facts and theories of science but, they don't want to. There are forums, personality websites, academic websites etc that are more than capable of taking people through the basics, from first principles and source so that they can be prepared for the nuances of the scientific method. I can speculate on why so many people persist with getting their science filtered by politicised religions but, that will probably not resolve the ignorance and the will to hold onto that ignorance despite the evidence.

I think that the challenge here is not to reproduce the reams of evidence to counter their Gish Galloping tactic but, to force them to present their evidence one piece at a time and make them stand by it one piece at a time.

 

[tosca1]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Which makes your whole argument presented so far invalid since you were trying to say that there was some sort of evidence for theistic[/SIZE] evolution. This simply isn't true. Science can only provide evidence for evolution, not God which is part of theistic evolution by definition and therefore they cannot provide any sort of evidence to support that God or any higher power, consciousness put into place any of the mechanisms involved in evolution. It doesn't mean that theistic evolution isn't valid, only that it doesn't have evidence to support it. It is just as valid as earth being created by planet builders, commissioned by mice, inspired by a giant supercomputer to discover what "The" question is.

Well, no! It's not invalid.

According to the NAS, there are evidences that support THEISTIC EVOLUTION! They're talking about PHYSICAL evidences, NOT SUPERNATURAL!


Read this 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.


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."




It's conclusive! Unless they discover something otherwise that might change their data, the evidences - plural form - that supports CREATION by GOD,
are existent!

 

[Chagos]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Well, no! It's not invalid.

According to the NAS,

Tis comical how you produce the same silly argument time and time again, peddle it as evidence time and time again and then, when it is refuted with simple logic as constituting no evidence at all (also time and time again), you repeat it once more as though nothing has happened in between. And shouting more and more with every (mis)representation.

This is getting to be like ground hog day.

 

[tosca1]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

I think that the challenge here is not to reproduce the reams of evidence to counter their Gish Galloping tactic but, to force them to present their evidence one piece at a time and make them stand by it one piece at a time.

Nope. Na-uh.
Presenting a challenge to have me (for example), present evidence one piece at a time.........is not a rational method to try to negate what
I'm saying. Are you for real? That's laughable!


First of all, I'm simply stating what the National Academy of Sciences, is saying.
I've got nothing to do with it, nor do I know....or care.....what those so-called evidences are!

I believe in Creation by the Judeo-Christian God. How the universe was created (the details) is not important to me - I'm just debating here because I love to argue with you guys! :mrgreen:



If you want to go about it the rational way - you write or contact the NAS, and have them provide you with an inventory of evidences that
they speak of.
If you want to refute them - direct your refutations to the scientist(s) whose discovery you're trying to refute!
Have a blast with it! Don't forget to let us know how it went. :lol:



Furthermore, ticking off each and every evidence and negating it on its own, is not a rational method either. There's such a thing called,
"cumulative evidences," which is used in criminal investigations, or investigative findings. They may not stand if you take each evidence on its own, alone - but together, they can convict and find you guilty! Or, lead to a conclusion.

Cumulative evidences - whether they can stand on their own or not - also, reinforce and provide strength for every one of these evidences!
The more corroborative evidences are (another term for "cumulative), the more reinforced the finding/ conclusion is!


So, with theistic evolution (CREATION by GOD) - the NAS is talking about multiple evidences, not only in one area of science, but in others
as well.



Multiple corroborating evidences that support creation by God. In various areas of science!

Just imagine how strong that is!

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Originally Posted by Manc Skipper View Post
Nobody is perfect. That's why science is set up to self-correct. Creationism does no such thing.

Their idea of correcting is to slaughter those who believe differently.

Is total denial of truth the whole basis of your thinking???

Who has been killed for spouting drivel?

Tosca and Logicman are here all the time spewing out nonesense, ignoring evidence and saying black is white. They are free to do so.

You are free to make up your own mind.

Good this freedom of thaught and speach, isn't it?

 

[Tim the plumber]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Well, no! It's not invalid.

According to the NAS, there are evidences that support THEISTIC EVOLUTION! They're talking about PHYSICAL evidences, NOT SUPERNATURAL!


Read this 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.


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."




It's conclusive! Unless they discover something otherwise that might change their data, the evidences - plural form - that supports CREATION by GOD,
are existent!

Such a prime example of 2+2 = 22 !!!

That there is no evidence that theistic evolution is in disagreement with the sensable basic obvious idea does not mean that there is evidence to support such a claim.

 

[tosca1]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Originally Posted by Manc Skipper
Nobody is perfect. That's why science is set up to self-correct. Creationism does no such thing.

:roll:


Creationism - the supernatural aspect of it - is faith-based.
Creationists believe God created the universe. Period.


If God created the universe, "self-correction" wouldn't apply, will it?


There won't be any need for Him to go through all the rigmarole to find answers how the universe got created, right?
The Creator will know everything about His own creation, wouldn't He?

 

[roguenuke]

Evolution vs. Creationism

Nope. Na-uh.
Presenting a challenge to have me (for example), present evidence one piece at a time.........is not a rational method to try to negate what
I'm saying. Are you for real? That's laughable!

First of all, I'm simply stating what the National Academy of Sciences, is saying.
I've got nothing to do with it, nor do I know....or care.....what those so-called evidences are!

I believe in Creation by the Judeo-Christian God. How the universe was created (the details) is not important to me - I'm just debating here because I love to argue with you guys! :mrgreen:

If you want to go about it the rational way - you write or contact the NAS, and have them provide you with an inventory of evidences that
they speak of.
If you want to refute them - direct your refutations to the scientist(s) whose discovery you're trying to refute!
Have a blast with it! Don't forget to let us know how it went. :lol:

Furthermore, ticking off each and every evidence and negating it on its own, is not a rational method either. There's such a thing called,
"cumulative evidences," which is used in criminal investigations, or investigative findings. They may not stand if you take each evidence on its own, alone - but together, they can convict and find you guilty! Or, lead to a conclusion.

Cumulative evidences - whether they can stand on their own or not - also, reinforce and provide strength for every one of these evidences!
The more corroborative evidences are (another term for "cumulative), the more reinforced the finding/ conclusion is!


So, with theistic evolution (CREATION by GOD) - the NAS is talking about multiple evidences, not only in one area of science, but in others
as well.

Multiple corroborating evidences that support creation by God. In various areas of science!

Just imagine how strong that is!

We aren't challenging the NAS statement. We are challenging your presented interpretation of that statement. It does not say what you believe it does, no matter how stubbornly you believe it.

The NAS said absolutely zilch about any evidence, specifically scientific evidence, of God. That is you adding stuff, making assumptions off of them saying that it could be. Scientific evidence involves facts, figures, not an opinion.

 

[roguenuke]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Well, no! It's not invalid.

According to the NAS, there are evidences that support THEISTIC EVOLUTION! They're talking about PHYSICAL evidences, NOT SUPERNATURAL!


Read this 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.


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."




It's conclusive! Unless they discover something otherwise that might change their data, the evidences - plural form - that supports CREATION by GOD,
are existent!

Some key words that help to show that the NAS is not presenting any sort of evidence with the statement you keep quoting from them, "belief", "remarkable", and "inspiring". The first one should be obvious. The second two are subjective terms. Science deals with objective evidence, not opinions like remarkable or inspiring.

If you disagree, then show the exact scientific evidence that NAS is referring to, not the opinion of the writer of that quote.

 

[tosca1]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

We aren't challenging the NAS statement. We are challenging your presented interpretation of that statement. It does not say what you believe it does, no matter how stubbornly you believe it.

The NAS said absolutely zilch about any evidence, specifically scientific evidence, of God. That is you adding stuff, making assumptions off of them saying that it could be. Scientific evidence involves facts, figures, not an opinion.

There is no interpretation to be made. Read it!

The statement is in layman's terms.

I know the anti-Gods love to hide behind smatterings of scientific words to try to look "knowledgeable," and/or mask their own ignorance on the matter, and/or obfuscate the opponent.
Well, the NAS had stripped that statement of such things. They made the statement easy to understand for us common people who don't have any specialized degrees in specific fields of science!



If you can't understand such a straight-forward and clear explanation - it's pointless for me to try to discuss, let alone debate, anything with you. :shrug:
You're like calamity, the statement is mumbo-jumbo to you, too?

 

[tosca1]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Some key words that help to show that the NAS is not presenting any sort of evidence with the statement you keep quoting from them, "belief", "remarkable", and "inspiring".

EH? READ!

I can't believe you'd say that! :doh

"This belief...," refers to Theistic Evolution! So what about it, that they refer to it as a belief?

Something tells me you define the term "belief," to something that automatically means, "not true?" :mrgreen:

The first one should be obvious. The second two are subjective terms. Science deals with objective evidence, not opinions like remarkable or inspiring.

If you disagree, then show the exact scientific evidence that NAS is referring to, not the opinion of the writer of that quote.

The statement is simple to understand. :lol:


You don't get why they use those words like "remarkable, inspiring," Roguenuke?
Read again and try to understand what they're saying.
They could be in awe, or exhilirated, or so excited, buoyed...etc., by the fact that RELIGION (creation by God) and SCIENCE, are not
at odds with one another!


Anyway, I'm ignoring you now. Your argument is getting too ridiculous. :2wave:

 

[roguenuke]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

There is no interpretation to be made. Read it!

The statement is in layman's terms.

I know the anti-Gods love to hide behind smatterings of scientific words to try to look "knowledgeable," and/or mask their own ignorance on the matter, and/or obfuscate the opponent.
Well, the NAS had stripped that statement of such things. They made the statement easy to understand for us common people who don't have any specialized degrees in specific fields of science!



If you can't understand such a straight-forward and clear explanation - it's pointless for me to try to discuss, let alone debate, anything with you. :shrug:
You're like calamity, the statement is mumbo-jumbo to you, too?

We're not the ones who are having problems understanding that quote Tosca. It very clearly is an opinion and says only that there is no evidence to contradict theistic evolution. However, no evidence to contradict it is not the same thing as evidence to support it. The only thing the NAS says about evidence to support it is completely opinion. It provides no actual evidence to support the existence of any God or higher power. As I said earlier, it is just as likely that mice were responsible for evolution in an attempt to explain the meaning of life as it being God.

 

[roguenuke]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

EH?

READ!


The statement is simple to understand. :lol:


You don't get why they use those words like "remarkable, inspiring," Roguenuke? Read again and try to understand what they're saying.
They could be in awe, or exhilirated, or so excited, buoyed...etc., by the fact that RELIGION and SCIENCE are not at odds with one another!

Anyway, I'm ignoring you now. Your argument is getting too ridiculous. :2wave:

You are building some ridiculous straw man here. Most of those in this thread countering your statements have said absolutely nothing about religion and science being at odds with each other, including myself. You are attempting to argue against claims that people are not making.

What most of us have been saying is that claiming that there is no evidence to contradict theistic evolution followed by an opinion (remarkable and inspiring indicate an opinion, not scientific evidence) is not the same as evidence of theistic evolution. Just as lack of evidence to contradict us being in the matrix is also not evidence of the matrix.

 

[maquiscat]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

I am glad you are at peace with it. However, if you take the bible literally, it definitely contradicts the bible. Creation in 7 days, and Noah's Ark are perhaps the most glaring contradictions that come to my mind immediately, though I'm sure I could find others.

The seven days is easy enough to deal with. We measure a day by the sun, be it noon to noon or sunset to sunset, or whatever. Since the sun was not created until the third day it is obvious that the days measured are not by the standard of our sun. Therefore we are talking in terms of God's days, which could well be in the billions of our years.

 

[calamity]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Is total denial of truth the whole basis of your thinking???

Who has been killed for spouting drivel?

Tosca and Logicman are here all the time spewing out nonesense, ignoring evidence and saying black is white. They are free to do so.

You are free to make up your own mind.

Good this freedom of thaught and speach, isn't it?

...and font yielding purple text apparently.

 

[tosca1]

Re: Evolution vs. Creationism

Roguenuke
The first one should be obvious. The second two are subjective terms. Science deals with objective evidence, not opinions like remarkable or inspiring.

If you disagree, then show the exact scientific evidence that NAS is referring to, not the opinion of the writer of that quote.

Originally Posted by tosca1 View Post
EH?

READ!


The statement is simple to understand.


You don't get why they use those words like "remarkable, inspiring," Roguenuke? Read again and try to understand what they're saying.
They could be in awe, or exhilirated, or so excited, buoyed...etc., by the fact that RELIGION and SCIENCE are not at odds with one another!

Anyway, I'm ignoring you now. Your argument is getting too ridiculous.

You are building some ridiculous straw man here.

Most of those in this thread countering your statements have said absolutely nothing about religion and science being at odds with each other, including myself. You are attempting to argue against claims that people are not making.

Cant' you understand what you read?



I'm not saying anyone here is claiming that! I was responding to your silly claim!
I'm saying that's what the NAS statement is saying! Golly......:doh

Bye roguenuke. I'll try to remember not to get into any discussion with you.



Roger and out.