Yes Virginia, there is a God.

Just about everyone has,you cannot explain why "force" becomes being. You just deflect over and over hoping someone will lose patience.

 

Specious arguments do not prove anything.

 

You have yet to prove you right. Pray tell, how do blank spaces on a graph prove “nothing” existed?

If I post a map of the earth surround by blank space, does that “prove” nothing exists and surrounds the Earth?

 

Deflect over and over, round and round.

,you cannot explain why "force" becomes being.

 

Lol

 

Theistic Evolution does not identify the god that created the universe.

I don't know if all scientists who believe in theistic evolution, are Christians.
Why do you assume that?
For all we know, some could be deists.....or belong to some other religion that believe in creation.

 

Your understanding is apparently delusional.

 

Actually they said noting of the sort. But nice try. Or can you actually give link to the NAS report that said what you claim. Thought not.

 

Yes, Virginia, there is a God......his name is Krishna. Prove me wrong.

PS and when you're done with Krishna, we'll move on to Wotan.....and then onto Zeus.....yeah, you get my point.

 

BIGFOOT is also invisible.
Wait - bigfoot has supposed video evidence, but god does not, so arguably bigfoot has more evidence for his existence than god does.

 

Onus was entirely on YOU to prove that your fallacy could withstand peer review and it can't which is why it wasn't published as science.

 

No, it proves that mind thinks.

Omit thought and you omit mind.
You are not your mind.
Reality is not thought.
Reality is not the world or the universe. Those are products of mind.
Reality is one. You are that.
What changes is not real; what is real does not change.
You preexisted your own appearance.
Before you knew yourself, that was your true state
You are what you seek.

 

Refer to page 3 of the booklet released by the NAS. Scroll down.

NOTE: Theistic Evolution is not the same as the literal narrative of creation in Genesis.
Keyword is "evolution."

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


It still boils down to CREATION!

 

Actually a good link. Suggest you read the part on the link called " About This Book" which says


" While the mechanisms of evolution are still under investigation, scientists universally accept that the cosmos, our planet, and life evolved and continue to evolve. Yet the teaching of evolution to schoolchildren is still contentious.

In Science and Creationism, The National Academy of Sciences states unequivocally that creationism has no place in any science curriculum at any level.

Briefly and clearly, this booklet explores the nature of science, reviews the evidence for the origin of the universe and earth, and explains the current scientific understanding of biological evolution. This edition includes new insights from astronomy and molecular biology.

Attractive in presentation and authoritative in content, Science and Creationism will be useful to anyone concerned about America's scientific literacy: education policymakers, school boards and administrators, curriculum designers, librarians, teachers, parents, and students."

Absolutly unarguably states that the book says creationism has no place in any science curriculum at any level. We are done with your missrepresentations of what the book says.

 

Read the quoted NAS statement about Theistic evolution.
The NAS stance on Theistic evolution, is in-lined with that.

Read this part again:

The National Academy of Sciences states unequivocally that creationism has no place in any science curriculum at any level.


What did the NAS specifically makes clear about what it refers to by "creationism?"

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


Theistic evolution, isn't lumped along with "creationism." You know why?
Because, it is not in disagreement with the scientific explanation 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.

No.
You simply failed to comprehend what the NAS was explaining.

 

I'm not reading 6 pages...

Why do theists want so much to argue the existence of God?

What happens to a non believer when they commit suicide?

 

Nope you sited NAS as supporting Creation which it does not do. Read your post #114 again. Nor does it support theistic evolution.

Here is part of the conclusion of your NAS document:

" 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."

What part of " creationism, intelligent design and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of a species are not science" do you have trouble understanding.

 

the NAS of course does not say what you keep pretending they do, and you have been shown this numerous times. It's been quite a while since you trotted this proven lie out, but it remains a proven lie.

 

"The far left depicts the Big Bang"

what does the far right depict.... magic.. poof? Flat Earth Theory? 6000 year old universe?

and the "left" does not think there is "nothing" outside our universe, where did you get that idea, check out M-Theory

 

Can only shake your head and laugh at the ultimate saps (a.k.a. believers).

They still have absolutely nothing to validate their fantastical hypothesis that some god was responsible for all creation.

Wonder if this alleged god has a big magic wand so that it can *poof* planets and stuff into existence whenever it feels like it ... LOL.

Just hilarious watching believers wallow in their utterly childish beliefs and delusions...

 

Hey, the universe in your pics looks like a drink glass, turned on its side, spilling out what must be some granular looking beer.

But it also shows that outside of this tumbler, is what the author of the pic says is nothing. Which looks like space with no matter in it. But of course, it cannot really be space lacking matter, because space time, and matter all arose with the banging of the Big Bang. And so it cannot logically be nothing and yet it cannot be something either. Which leaves neither nothing nor something. But getting thought around this seems to be beyond the ability of the mind to do. For when the universe of time space matter expands, this expansion is the movement of time space matter into neither nothing, space, and neither something. We may as well say that the universe expands into consciousness, and it would make just as much sense. Consciousness being infinite means the universe is expanding into the infinite, or the expansion into consciousness. And since the big bang manifested out of consciousness, and it expands into an infinite consciousness, this means that consciousness if fundamental instead of matter being fundamental, and that the material universe is a creation of consciousness, which cannot be measured, and so immeasurable. So, the universe and all that it contains, manifests out of an infinite consciousness, and expands, moves into an infinite consciousness. Or as the author of my signature said, Multiplicity is only apparent, in truth, there is only one mind.

 

My understanding is spot on.

 

Many things are invisible yet we believe they exist. Do you believe love exists?

 

Peer review? LOL!