Do or do not as you wish.
They are both respected contributions to classic literature.
And such accounts of events of that period that coincide can provide insight into the actual events of those days.
If you accept the Holy Bible as the exact word of god, and any conflicting account to be in error, that's fine.
But for those with inquisitive, sincere, open minds, that find truth where it resides, and not where (and what) they wish to find it; no objective examination of history is off-limits.
I do get it. It was taken from a faq sheet and was an answer to a question. You are cherry picking because you are only quoting a faq sheet that was answering one question about the relationship with religion. While ignoring anything in the booklet itself that shows how wrong you are.You may have read the booklet, but you didn't understand what you've read.
The fact too, that you're ignoring the quotes I gave were taken from NASA (space program), and yet you insist that it was me who cherry-picked, shows that you're the one being dishonest in your attempt to rebutt...... or your logic is warped.
You don't get it why NASA quoted those parts from the NAS!
And yes, this statement......
....followed this statement:
WHY? Because,
the NAS is showing the contrast between Theistic Evolution and Creationists (Genesis-related creationism).
NAS is saying that there are scientific evidence to support theistic evolution (and the science disciplines that revealed them are mentioned), but no scientific evidence supports creationism (special creation).
If you can't understand the contrast between the two - what more can I say? :shrug:
In this booklet, both these "Young Earth" and "Old Earth" views are referred to as "creationism" or "special creation."
There are no valid scientific data or calculations to substantiate the belief that Earth was created just a few thousand years ago.....
Nor is there any evidence that the entire geological record, with its orderly succession of fossils, is the product of a single universal flood that occurred a few thousand years ago, lasted a little longer than a year, and covered the highest mountains to a depth of several meters. On the contrary, intertidal and terrestrial deposits demonstrate that at no recorded time in the past has the entire planet been under water. Moreover, a universal flood of sufficient magnitude to form the sedimentary rocks seen today, which together are many kilometers thick, would require a volume of water far greater than has ever existed on and in Earth, at least since the formation of the first known solid crust about 4 billion years ago. The belief that Earth's sediments, with their fossils, were deposited in an orderly sequence in a year's time defies all geological observations and physical principles concerning sedimentation rates and possible quantities of suspended solid matter.....
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.
t1 asserts, in reply to the comparison."You can examine anything all you want.....who's stopping anyone?
But that still doesn't take away from the fact that the two are not comparable!" t1 #298
I do get it. It was taken from a faq sheet and was an answer to a question. You are cherry picking because you are only quoting a faq sheet that was answering one question about the relationship with religion. While ignoring anything in the booklet itself that shows how wrong you are.
No, it does not. It says nothing of the sort. It once again is you being dishonest and cherry picking out only the sentences that support you. if you had read the booklet you would know that what you have printed comes from the chapter entitled." Creationist Views of the Origin of the Universe, Earth, and Life" not a scientific view as you are pretending.
if you had bothered to read the whole chapter instead of just settling for a few lines out of a faq sheet the you would have also read the statements i have already printed but will print again because you wish to do nothing more than deny the existence of them.
From the same chapter of which you have cherry picked a few lines.
You can keep denying that these words are written in the booklet in the same chapter from which you have cherry picked from a faq sheet that was given to aswer a question
That question was" I am religious and I also find science very exciting. Is there a conflict between science and religion?" The answer of course is no, there is no conflict because theistic evolution has nothing to do with science it is simply made up crap that has no scientific value and is only held in belief by the same kind of dishonest cherry picking you are demonstrating.
https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html
I am religious and I also find science very exciting. Is there a conflict between science and religion?
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS):
"Science is a particular way of knowing about the world. In science, explanations are limited to those based on observations and experiments that can be substantiated by other scientists."
"Progress in science consists of the development of better explanations for the causes of natural phenomena. Scientists never can be sure that a given explanation is complete and final. Some of the hypotheses advanced by scientists turn out to be incorrect when tested by further observations or experiments. Yet, many scientific explanations have been so thoroughly tested and confirmed that they are held with great confidence."
"Truth in science, however, is never final, and what is accepted as a fact today may be modified or even discarded tomorrow. Science has been greatly successful at explaining natural processes, and this has led not only to increased understanding of the universe but also to major improvements in technology and public health and welfare."
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.
That question was" I am religious and I also find science very exciting. Is there a conflict between science and religion?"
The answer of course is no, there is no conflict because theistic evolution has nothing to do with science it is simply made up crap that has no scientific value and is only held in belief by the same kind of dishonest cherry picking you are demonstrating.
No it is not. it is merely stating that creationist call it theistic atheism. it does not support it at all. It goes on to explain that there are two types of creationist.Those who believe that the earth is 6000 years old and they have no credibility with science. And those that follow the science of evolution but still insist on a godidit. Those are the ones that are not in disagreement with science. But those are the ones who have no credibility just because they agree with the science yet still insist a godidit which has no credible science behind it. There is absolutely no scientific evidence that supports creation by a god. that is the lie that is not compatible with science. Theistic evolution is nothing more than the theft of a scientific explanation and the adding on of a completely unscientific answe as to why it all happened.So now you know why NASA cherry-picked and lifted those explanations from the NAS in response to the question of religion. What's the problem??? Don't you get it?
NASA is quoting the NAS about its (NAS) view on religion! Bang-on!
NASA is pointing out that there's scientific evidence to support creation by God with Theistic Evolution!
See the full definition of Theistic evolution! And...... NASA points to the NAS' booklet as its source!
Can you please sit down for a minute and try to digest that.
That is because science deals with reality not fiction. there is no neeed for science to negate fiction.To be clear:
For all its comment on Genesis-related statement, nowhere does the NAS negate the
existence of the Biblical God.
Again you cherry pick by taking only part of the statement and not including the summary of this statement which is;It's issue is that, it shouldn't be taught in a science class, since it's not science.
There's no way to observe, test and analyze the supernatural, since science is very much limited to
what it can do. It can only examine the natural.
Science does not have the capability to analyze the supernatural.
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.
https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html
That 's the full statement in the NASA FAQ section, which was lifted from the NAS.
You just proved without any doubt, that you didn't understand what you'd read!
Therefore, there's no point trying to discuss with you.
I'll be ignoring you for now until you've got something worth responding to.
Cheers.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?