• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is Richard Dawkins an Associate of The National Academy of Sciences?

<alt>doxygen said:
Please inform Ken Ham, all of the young earthers and so-called "creation scientists" that they have a flawed interpretation of Genesis.
Click to expand...

It's an interpretation, right?

I don't know how you can say creation scientists have a flawed interpretation when not only is creation not off the table at all, but in fact it's very much on the table for consideration!


....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."
Click to expand...
https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html


The statement made by the NAS is very clear.
Anyway you slice and dice Theistic Evolution - it still boils down to creation!
 
William Rea said:
Produce your resurrection. If you can't show it, you don't know it.
Click to expand...

Wrong! Flawed logic.

You can know something...... even if you can't produce it.



Careful.....you're contradicting what the NAS had explained:


"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."
Click to expand...
https://wmap.gsfc.nasa.gov/site/faq.html



If creation is ruled out, the NAS ought to edit their statement.
 
Last edited:
Logicman said:
Read all about it in the Bible. It won't bite you or hurt you to do your own research for a change.
Click to expand...

You have a problem distinguishing between a claim, and the evidence for a claim. The accounts in the bible is the claim.
 
Logicman said:
Why haven't you studied it yourself?



When you can bust the Resurrection then you'll BEGIN to have some credibility with your fairy tale claims.
Click to expand...

When you can prove the Resurrection then we will take you seriously.
 
Logicman said:
Read all about it in the Bible. It won't bite you or hurt you to do your own research for a change.
Click to expand...

I have. Many holy books make claims. By your logic they all all true.
 
tosca1 said:
It's an interpretation, right?

I don't know how you can say creation scientists have a flawed interpretation when not only is creation not off the table at all, but in fact it's very much on the table for consideration!
Click to expand...

Please review the post. I said that Logicman was disagreeing with the young earth creationists. You Christians get on the same page with each other about what the Bible means, then you can discuss THAT with everyone else.

Ignoring the NAS reference. You can't seem to understand what they wrote.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
Please review the post. I said that Logicman was disagreeing with the young earth creationists. You Christians get on the same page with each other about what the Bible means, then you can discuss THAT with everyone else.

Ignoring the NAS reference. You can't seem to understand what they wrote.
Click to expand...

You never see any heated discussions between YEC and Big Bang Christians here. God created the universe. Doesn't matter when.
 
Logicman said:
Why haven't you studied it yourself?
Click to expand...

I know what words are in there. I know you refuse to answer the question because no matter what your answer is you'll be arguing with other Christians about it.

When you can bust the Resurrection then you'll BEGIN to have some credibility with your fairy tale claims.
Click to expand...

You still have this process backwards. The burden of proof is on the claimant. Resurrection? You don't even have written accounts from supposed actual witnesses. The accounts you have are all very different. Lane Craig's excuse for that in the Strobel book was outright laughable.
 
zyzygy said:
You never see any heated discussions between YEC and Big Bang Christians here. God created the universe. Doesn't matter when.
Click to expand...

That's pretty true, although I have heard YE folks telling a "god assisted evolution" believer that he was denying Original Sin by believing that Genesis isn't literally true.
 
tosca1 said:
First of all, just to be clear....here's an explanation what the National Academy of Sciences is all about:



Overview: Membership



I tried to do a search on Richard Dawkins - nothing came up.

I found his tweet, though:



https://twitter.com/RichardDawkins/status/635594201997135872


Well I know membership is not open to foreigners. But, are you an associate?

Winning a Nobel Prize - which you have not - couldn't have been a criteria to be an associate since out of 460 associates, only 200 had won them.

Is he an associate? If not.....why isn't Dawkins an associate of the most prestigious organization?
Click to expand...

Because these positions are typically reserved for practicing, active research scientists. Dawkins has, for a long time, been a public speaker and science popularizer. While talented science popolarizers are respected in the scientific community for their outreach, they are not (typically) considered practicing scientists unless they are currently outputting research papers, advise graduate students, hold a position at a research institute, and/or similar criteria. In most cases, both is more than a full time job, and so it is often one or the other (and when they are "both", their research typically greatly suffers).

I would imagine this is why Dawkins is not an associate. I doubt Neil de Grasse Tyson is, either.
 
<alt>doxygen said:
You still have this process backwards. The burden of proof is on the claimant. Resurrection? You don't even have written accounts from supposed actual witnesses. The accounts you have are all very different.
Lane Craig's excuse for that in the Strobel book was outright laughable.
Click to expand...

That's absolute nonsense. All four Gospels and various epistles, including a number of eyewitnesses, confirm the resurrection. There's nothing different about that. The resurrection happened. You're probably referring to ancillary events of secondary importance.

What's more, you've never been able to refute any of that. If you think you can, hop out here with your best ONE (1 - JUST ONE) example, and cite the appropriate scripture(s) and make your argument. I'm calling you out to back up your claim.
 
Logicman said:
That's absolute nonsense. All four Gospels and various epistles, including a number of eyewitnesses, confirm the resurrection. There's nothing different about that. The resurrection happened. You're probably referring to ancillary events of secondary importance.

What's more, you've never been able to refute any of that. If you think you can, hop out here with your best ONE (1 - JUST ONE) example, and cite the appropriate scripture(s) and make your argument. I'm calling you out to back up your claim.
Click to expand...

YOu are again confusing the claim (the various gospels) with evidence for a claim. You are assuming that the New Testament is true and historically accurate. That can not be shown to be true.
 
RAMOSS said:
YOu are again confusing the claim (the various gospels) with evidence for a claim. You are assuming that the New Testament is true and historically accurate. That can not be shown to be true.
Click to expand...

Tell that drivel to your like-minded brethren.
 
Logicman said:
Read all about it in the Bible. It won't bite you or hurt you to do your own research for a change.
Click to expand...

The bible is a book promoting a particular religion. That is why it was written. It was not written as an objective history of things that actually happened. Words in a book, without any genuine historical artifacts to back them up, mean absolutely nothing. Remember, it requires genuine artifacts, not hoax ones. And even then, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The bible is fictional metaphor at best, complete propaganda at worst.
 
devildavid said:
The bible is a book promoting a particular religion. That is why it was written. It was not written as an objective history of things that actually happened. Words in a book, without any genuine historical artifacts to back them up, mean absolutely nothing. Remember, it requires genuine artifacts, not hoax ones. And even then, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The bible is fictional metaphor at best, complete propaganda at worst.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion, which is hereby summarily rejected.
 
Logicman said:
That's your opinion, which is hereby summarily rejected.
Click to expand...

Not just my opinion, but an actual fact. The bible was compiled by those promoting a particular religion. That is the exact reason it was written and compiled. By and for those who believed in certain religious dogma.
 
devildavid said:
Not just my opinion, but an actual fact. The bible was compiled by those promoting a particular religion. That is the exact reason it was written and compiled. By and for those who believed in certain religious dogma.
Click to expand...

Nope, that's your opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom