:lol: All you're gvng us is to say, "it's a failed argument with nothing in the way of scientific evidence to bolster it." That's not an evidence!
I didn't say it was. Obviously, it's a point of logic. How could you not understand that?
You don't agree with the National Academy of Sciences about the compatibility that it says exists between Theistic Evolution and Scientific evidence. I'm listing all the evidence and looks like you aren't even reading them!
It is a belief system, not a proven theory, or even an hypothesis based upon evidence. I went through all this in the ID thread and you failed to understand it then.
Let's settle this! Let's clarify your position here. Please answer yes or no to these questions:
You don't agree with science that the universe had a beginning?
Yes I do.
You don't agree with science that the universe is stretching?
Yes I do, however 'expanding' is a better term.
You don't agree with science that infant earth was covered with gases and clouds?
Yes I do.
You don't agree with science's claim that in the early times, there were only one ocean
and one super continent?
Yes I do.
You don't agree with science that the human body is comprised of elements found in the dirt (earth's crust)?
We are stardust, as the saying goes, and it's true.
You don't agree with science the world is round?
Yes I do.
You don't agree with science that there are creatures that are asexual?
Yes, I do.
Obviously, I beg to differ, as the connection to Theistic Evolution is tenuous and based upon a nothing more than a belief system. But I've been through all this before in the ID thread and it went nowhere.
WMPA isn't the only evidence I give.
As evidence for Theistic Evolution, it is quite a stretch
I'm giving the scientific findings that had gotten scientists that are referred by WMAP to become Theistic Evolutionists!
Scientists may believe this is evidence, but there is a leap of logic involved, that is 'I am in awe, therefore God'.
I'm trying to give the evidences (from various scientific disciplines), that the WMAP Faq had mentioned!
And I'm repeatedly telling you that as evidence it is tenuous. Francis Collins believed in God when he saw a frozen waterfall. I just see a frozen waterfall, but that was his evidence and it is tendentious to say the least. It is meaningless.
So what if it's all about creation by God?
And what if it isn't? You cannot prove it is and the evidence is somewhat lacking.
....... 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.
And that is their belief. They cannot prove thus, or even present any credible evidence for such a belief system. It always comes down to an argument from ignorance: 'I do not know, therefore God'.
I never said it was. People of all walks of life hold beliefs that lack evidence. It is claimed that 1500 architects and engineers believe the World Trade Centre was bought down with bombs planted by the government, but this is ridiculous on so many levels that no rational being would believe such silliness, and one doesn't need to be an architect or engineer to realise this.
You're proving that just because it's about creation - you're automatically closing your mind? Is that it?
No, that would be an assumption on your part. As I went through repeatedly in the ID thread, possibility does not denote plausibility and there is a distinct lack of physical evidence to support such a claim. One must take a leap of logic in order to accept Theistic Evolution, as it an unsound hypothesis on a scientific level.
You're proving that atheists are close-minded?
No, are you proving the those who believe in Theistic Evolution are stupid (see how easy that is?)? There's an old response to accusations of 'close-mindedness' from the ignorant and that is, 'some minds are so open that the brain fell out'.
