Evolution

[tosca1]

you dont seem to understand what you read

"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."

pretty much just saying theirs no observation that disprove gods and gods fiddling around with things so many scientist can and do have religious faith

no where is it stated that science has found evidence of gods or divine meddling with the universe or biology

possibility of gods is on the table but its not supported or ruled out by science

the source from your NASA quote

https://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/3#7


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.

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.

iv posted this before why have you gone back to it and learned noting?

Read my response to Quag above.

You're confusing Special Creation (literal interpretation of Genesis),
with Theistic Evolution.



There are evidences. If the NAS says that they were REVEALED - that means, they were observed! Furthermore, the NAS has specifically stated PHYSICAL universe.....and it even nmed some particular disciplines of science that had observed these!

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


Why would the NAS mention these disciplines? For what?


It's the complexity and order that got them.

 

[blarg]

You're ignoring the articles given. And no one has given a single evidence on this thread!

I reject macroevolution (common descent), not because it's not 100% proven.....but, because
there's nothing to really prove it at all!

Furthermore, the evidence(s) are turning out to proving it false!






Well....actually... you're the one who has some serious explaining to do. Your position is not rational.

Seems to me that you haven't been reading my posts - and the articles given, particularly the statement by the National Academy of Sciences.

The NAS is claiming evidences observed in the PHYSICAL universe, from various disciplines of science that is compatible with THEISTIC EVOLUTION.



Read the NAS statement again (given below), and try to understand it.
You cannot go on trying to debate this without acknowledging that. Otherwise, there's no point in going on with you. It'll be like talking to a brick wall!





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



Theistic Evolution is the belief that God created the universe, and all the processes that make evolution possible.

The NAS claims that there are evidences to support the compatibility with Theistic evolution.

Of course, logically, that means - CREATION IS ON THE TABLE! The Possibility of God's existence is also on the table!

If there are evidences to support the possibility of God's existence - where does that leave atheism?




In other words, your position is contradictory with the National Academy of Sciences.
You're going against the claim by the NAS.


Now, here's what you have to explain:

If science says the possibility of creation by God, exists....

Where do you base your belief that CREATION BY GOD,
IS NOT POSSIBLE?

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.

The claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted. Scientific investigators seek to understand natural phenomena by observation and experimentation. Scientific interpretations of facts and the explanations that account for them therefore must be testable by observation and experimentation.

Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.

https://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/6

https://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/7#30

https://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/4#22

 

[blarg]

Read my response to Quag above.

You're confusing Special Creation (literal interpretation of Genesis),
with Theistic Evolution.



There are evidences. If the NAS says that they were REVEALED - that means, they were observed! Furthermore, the NAS has specifically stated PHYSICAL universe.....and it even nmed some particular disciplines of science that had observed these!


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


Why would the NAS mention these disciplines? For what?


It's the complexity and order that got them.

you still seem unable to read im not confusing theist evolution with other kinds of creationism they all are not supported by scientific observation its just theistic evolution wher you attribute nature to an unseen god cant be disprove unlike flood and young earth bull****

 

[tosca1]

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.

The claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted. Scientific investigators seek to understand natural phenomena by observation and experimentation. Scientific interpretations of facts and the explanations that account for them therefore must be testable by observation and experimentation.

Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science. These claims subordinate observed data to statements based on authority, revelation, or religious belief. Documentation offered in support of these claims is typically limited to the special publications of their advocates. These publications do not offer hypotheses subject to change in light of new data, new interpretations, or demonstration of error. This contrasts with science, where any hypothesis or theory always remains subject to the possibility of rejection or modification in the light of new knowledge.

https://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/6

https://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/7#30

https://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/4#22

Understand what you quoted, Blarg!


All that is saying is that the NAS doesn't want Special Creationism to be taught in a science class!


The NAS refers to the literal interpretation of Genesis, as Special Creation.

In this booklet, both these "Young Earth" and "Old Earth" views are referred to as "creationism" or "special creation."

https://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/3#7



Here it is again:


Conclusion

The claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted.

The growing role that science plays in modem life requires that science, and not religion, be taught in science classes.



The NAS doesn't want special creation in a science curicullum!
That's all it is....nothing to get excited about it.

It doesn't change the fact what the NAS claims about Theistic Evolution.

 

[blarg]

Read my response to Quag above.

You're confusing Special Creation (literal interpretation of Genesis),
with Theistic Evolution.



There are evidences. If the NAS says that they were REVEALED - that means, they were observed! Furthermore, the NAS has specifically stated PHYSICAL universe.....and it even nmed some particular disciplines of science that had observed these!


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


Why would the NAS mention these disciplines? For what?


It's the complexity and order that got them.

you understand that this
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.

dose not mean fields of science support god being behind the proprtys and laws of nature just that believers in those fields believe all the neat things about nature could have come form their god

notice how the source document never says any wher that sciene suggests the existence and actions of gods and instead says to keep religious belith separate while going on to mention that different field of science just support evolution

 

[blarg]

Understand what you quoted, Blarg!


All that is saying is that the NAS doesn't want Special Creationism to be taught in a science class!


The NAS refers to the literal interpretation of Genesis, as Special Creation.



https://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/3#7



Here it is again:

The claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted.

The growing role that science plays in modem life requires that science, and not religion, be taught in science classes.


The NAS doesn't want special creation in a science curicullum!
That's all it is....nothing to get excited about it. It doesn't change the fact what the NAS claims about
Theistic Evolution.

Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.

 

[blarg]

Understand what you quoted, Blarg!


All that is saying is that the NAS doesn't want Special Creationism to be taught in a science class!


The NAS refers to the literal interpretation of Genesis, as Special Creation.



https://www.nap.edu/read/6024/chapter/3#7



Here it is again:


Conclusion

The claim that equity demands balanced treatment of evolutionary theory and special creation in science classrooms reflects a misunderstanding of what science is and how it is conducted.

The growing role that science plays in modem life requires that science, and not religion, be taught in science classes.



The NAS doesn't want special creation in a science curicullum!
That's all it is....nothing to get excited about it.

It doesn't change the fact what the NAS claims about Theistic Evolution.

Other advocates of creation science are willing to accept that Earth, the planets, and the stars may have existed for millions of years. But they argue that the various types of organisms, and especially humans, could only have come about with supernatural intervention, because they show "intelligent design."

In this booklet, both these "Young Earth" and "Old Earth" views are referred to as "creationism" or "special creation."

 

[Quag]

Theistic Evolution, boils down to creationism.



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


See that? GOD CREATED.....

The NAS had clearly stated that there are NUMEROUS evidences that support Theistic Evolution.



Just like Tim and some others here, you're in denial, Quag.
I can't do any more in discussing this, when you're all in that state.

Theistic evolution accepts evolution, and so no it isn't against evolution. What it claims is that God was the initiating force in the universe and creation of life. Evolution is not about the creation of the universe or of life, it is about how life has changed over time
Now if you want to switch your claim to theistic evolution you must accept evolution.

 

[tosca1]

you understand that this
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.

dose not mean fields of science support god being behind the proprtys and laws of nature

Of course not. I didn't understate anything.

Science and the supernatural, are two separate realms, and science's capability is admittedly limited to the physical. Therefore, it cannot make any conclusive statements about the existence of God.........
.....however, science supports the possibility of creation by God.....which logically means, it supports the possibility of God's existence.

just that believers in those fields believe all the neat things about nature could have come form their god

Well, no. It's not limited to only those scientists.
Evidence that came from various disciplines support theistic evolution.


The NAS speaks as an organization, with its title, "1999 report "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition" - and it speaks for all its members (whether they agree with it or not).

Those quotes are also being used by NASA (the space organization) to answer questions in its FAQ.
That's the consensus.

notice how the source document never says any wher that sciecne suggests the existence and actions of gods and instead says to keep religious belith separate while going on to mention that different field of science just support evolution

Exactly.
Because, it cannot make a conclusive stance on the existence of God, for the simple reason that
science does not, and cannot deal with the supernatural.



Remember that the NAS had also said:

"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......"

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



Here is where Philosophical reflections apply - logical thinking.

If science says there are physical evidences that support Theistic Evolution (the belief that God created the universe and all the blah-blah-blah)..........

......................then, that means, the possibility of God, is very real.

 

[tosca1]

Theistic evolution accepts evolution, and so no it isn't against evolution. What it claims is that God was the initiating force in the universe and creation of life. Evolution is not about the creation of the universe or of life, it is about how life has changed over time
Now if you want to switch your claim to theistic evolution you must accept evolution.

At last! You finally saw it!


And no, I never said Theistic Evolution is against evolution. It is evolution (the name says it), but it claims.....

GOD was the initiating force.

Read what you just wrote: ".....what it claims is that God was the initiating force"




So, now you agree that science is saying the possibility of God exists.



Actually, it's a very strong statement for pro-God.............

..............but, understandably.........

...............the NAS seems to restrain itself from saying it outright: God exists!

 

[Quag]

At last!

GOD was the initiating force.

That is the belief of those who propose theistic evolution

So, now you agree that science is saying the possibility of God exists.

No Science doesn't say anything about the possibility/impossibility of Gods, there are scientists who believe and those who dont

Actually, it's a very strong statement for pro-God.............but the NAS seems to restrain itself from saying it outright: God exists!

NAS is not science and stating that some scientists believe in God has no bearing on whether that belief is true or not

Now I ask you again do you accept evolution or not? If not then you are against theistic evolution as well.

 

[calamity]

At last! You finally saw it!

GOD was the initiating force.

Read what you just wrote: .....what it claims is that God was the initiating force


So, now you agree that science is saying the possibility of God exists.
Actually, it's a very strong statement for pro-God.............but the NAS seems to restrain itself from saying it outright: God exists!

An initiating force does not have to be a god. It could just be an initiating force. And, it probably was a force combined of the three forces we've isolated today. Gods are not required.

 

[calamity]

Creationism, intelligent design, and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science because they are not testable by the methods of science.

There is no substantiated evidence supporting intelligent creation. If anything, observations suggest the opposite.

 

[blarg]

Of course not. I didn't understate anything.

Science and the supernatural, are two separate realms, and science's capability is admittedly limited to the physical. Therefore, it cannot make any conclusive statements about the existence of God.....however, science supports the possibility of creation by God.....which logically means, it supports the possibility of God's existence.




Well, no. It's not limited to only those scientists.
Evidence that came from various disciplines support theistic evolution.


The NAS speaks as an organization, with its title, "1999 report "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences, Second Edition" - and it speaks for all its members (whether they agree with it or not).

Those quotes are also being used by NASA (the space organization) to answer questions in its FAQ.
That's the consensus.






Exactly.
Because, it cannot make a conclusive stance on the existence of God.
Science does not, and cannot deal with the supernatural.



Remember that the NAS had also said:


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



Here is where Philosophical reflections apply - logical thinking.

If science says there are physical evidences that support Theistic Evolution (the belief that God created the universe and all the blah-blah-blah)..........

......................then, that means the possibility of God, is very real.

Science and the supernatural, are two separate realms, and science's capability is admittedly limited to the physical. Therefore, it cannot make any conclusive statements about the existence of God.....however, science supports the possibility of creation by God.....which logically means, it supports the possibility of God's existence.

yes as far as we are keeping in mind their is as of yet no scientific support (observations or experiments) for gods actually existing or that have done anything and science supports theistic evolution in the same way it supports a magical purple eye ball poofing reality as we know it into existence last week

Well, yes. It's limited to only those scientists im refereeing to their belief in gods but yes for every one gods are possible as far as we dont know they are impossible regardless of how we feel true

no ther is no evidence in science for your god being responsible for evolution science just dosent deny thats possible your falsely still trying to spin these statements to say science has fond evidence for theistic evolution

this mean Science does not, and cannot deal with the supernatural. that this is (Evidence that came from various disciplines support theistic evolution.) false

yes the possibility is real that any science supports that possibility being the case is false

 

[blarg]

At last! You finally saw it!


And no, I never said Theistic Evolution is against evolution. It is evolution (the name says it), but it claims.....

GOD was the initiating force.

Read what you just wrote: ".....what it claims is that God was the initiating force"




So, now you agree that science is saying the possibility of God exists.



Actually, it's a very strong statement for pro-God.............

..............but, understandably.........

...............the NAS seems to restrain itself from saying it outright: God exists!

no im prety sure you either cnat read or your leting your faith hsow you jsut what you want to see in this case

as an exiercise in logc sure gods can be valid ( which is not the same as true )

but no experiments and observations have yet shown gods exist or that anything is their doing

your taking a statement to the effect of we dont know gods are fake and literally making it out to men gods are real

its an olive branch to believers not confirmation of their faith

 

[Deuce]

In other words, you're actually saying, the origin did not start out randomly.

Someone had mixed these elements in the "right fashion!"

Unfounded assumption. Given the sheer scale of the universe, mixing these elements in the right fashion is inevitable. Roll dice enough, eventually you get the needed result.

Even Darwin himself, had this to say:



12 Famous Scientists On The Possibility Of God

Irrelevant. Darwin was merely stating a subjective opinion and outright admitted it wasn't a compelling argument.

 

[Deuce]

Of course not. I didn't understate anything.

Science and the supernatural, are two separate realms, and science's capability is admittedly limited to the physical. Therefore, it cannot make any conclusive statements about the existence of God.........
.....however, science supports the possibility of creation by God.....which logically means, it supports the possibility of God's existence.

More accurately, science does not have any evidence for or against the existence of God.

Which has never been in dispute. You're attacking a straw man here.

Science doesn't support God because no evidence exists to support a deity of any sort.

 

[Deuce]

...............the NAS seems to restrain itself from saying it outright: God exists!

Here's why you're struggling:

You're making basic reading comprehension errors with the subject of the NAS statement.

They aren't saying that God is revealed through study of these disciplines. They're not saying theistic evolution is revealed through the study of these disciplines.

They're saying "remarkable character" is revealed. Which is true. The universe is a fascinating place and these scientific fields reveal that.

And to many who already believe in God, that remarkable character is a reflection of God.

This is not an indication that the evidence supports God's existence. "Remarkable character" is not a testable scientific criteria. Surely you agree.

 

[SoulFire77]

Wow! These arguments sure go round and round!

Here's a question: If you believe in an all-powerful Creator, is that Creator capable of having created the world exactly as it is right now?... In other words: Is it within God's capabilities to have created the world seven seconds before this post?... All of us having stepped straight out of the ether with imagined histories in our head?

Second question: If you were God, wouldn't you want your creation to become more mysterious as you learn more about it? (Sort of like it is now....)

 

[Chagos]

Here's why you're struggling:

You're making basic reading comprehension errors with the subject of the NAS statement.

They aren't saying that God is revealed through study of these disciplines. They're not saying theistic evolution is revealed through the study of these disciplines.

They're saying "remarkable character" is revealed. Which is true. The universe is a fascinating place and these scientific fields reveal that.

And to many who already believe in God, that remarkable character is a reflection of God.

This is not an indication that the evidence supports God's existence. "Remarkable character" is not a testable scientific criteria. Surely you agree.

She's been trying to peddle that for months now, no matter how often it's been pointed out that she totally fails to grasp the meaning of what NAS actually states.

Just waits a day or so and then comes back with exactly the same thing.

Sad when one's faith is so frail that such antics need to be resorted to and sad when junk science has to be constantly invoked in ever increasing frenzy, just to persist in the futility of countering real science with something supposedly equal.

 

[Chagos]

~................................Irrelevant. Darwin was merely stating a subjective opinion and outright admitted it wasn't a compelling argument.

What is also conveniently omitted (conveniently ignored?) is the fact that Darwin later abandoned the stance cited here. In his autobiography, started 3 years after the letter that creationist so love to cite, he states

the more we know of the fixed laws of nature the more incredible do miracles become

and

disbelief crept over me at a very slow rate, but was at last complete. The rate was so slow that I felt no distress, and have never since doubted even for a single second that my conclusion was correct.

It was published in 1887 and has (had) his last words on the matter, yet his son had removed several passages about Darwin's critical views of God and Christianity. But his granddaughter restored them for the 1958 edition.

 

[tosca1]

That is the belief of those who propose theistic evolution

A belief that the NAS says, is not in disagreement with the scientific explanation of evolution. And that, indeed, there are evidences that support it.



Quag......it's clear that you, yourself, had admitted to it.
You're just being silly now.....so I'll have to ignore you.

 

[tosca1]

An initiating force does not have to be a god. It could just be an initiating force.

Initiating force, yes. HOWEVER....the NAS says, GOD!

Theistic Evolution is the belief that GOD created the universe and blah-blah-blah.....

The NAS is referring to theistic evolution, therefore.....the NAS isn't just talking about a "force."



It's funny that you refuse to acknowledge what's clearly stated....and yet, you're trying to inject something that's not. You're blinded by bias, and therefore, you don't have the credibility.

 

[tosca1]

Science and the supernatural, are two separate realms, and science's capability is admittedly limited to the physical. Therefore, it cannot make any conclusive statements about the existence of God.....however, science supports the possibility of creation by God.....which logically means, it supports the possibility of God's existence.

yes as far as we are keeping in mind their is as of yet no scientific support (observations or experiments) for gods actually existing or that have done anything and science supports theistic evolution in the same way it supports a magical purple eye ball poofing reality as we know it into existence last week

Well, yes. It's limited to only those scientists im refereeing to their belief in gods but yes for every one gods are possible as far as we dont know they are impossible regardless of how we feel true

no ther is no evidence in science for your god being responsible for evolution science just dosent deny thats possible your falsely still trying to spin these statements to say science has fond evidence for theistic evolution

this mean Science does not, and cannot deal with the supernatural. that this is (Evidence that came from various disciplines support theistic evolution.) false

yes the possibility is real that any science supports that possibility being the case is false

:roll:

Did I say there is PHYSICAL evidence for God? You're trying to make an argument out of nothing.



There's no spin. It's clear.

You're the one who's using only your feelings about this - meaning, your bias.

Are those limited only to religious scientists? Of course not. An evidence is an evidence.
The NAS had recognize them as evidence.



If the NAS is publicly stating that there are physical evidences that support theistic evolution -
where do you base your belief that existence of God is impossible?

You don't make any sense.

 

[blarg]

A belief that the NAS says, is not in disagreement with the scientific explanation of evolution. And that, indeed, there are evidences that support it.



Quag......it's clear that you, yourself, had admitted to it.
You're just being silly now.....so I'll have to ignore you.

still not true on that 2nd claim now think about it please

religious explanations like the universe works the way it dose because an unseen god arranged it that way are not testable

unobserved untestable claims can not be science the same source says as much

therefore theistic evolution is not in contradiction with science because we cant test for that not because we have found evidence for it

in fact that mean the sciences cant find evidence for it or against it

do you understand now?