What Have Darwinists Said That's True? (Abiogenesis, evolution, genesis, atheist)

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Yossarian :

....Meanwhile I will wait for a single prediction to come from ID.

Odds are about as good as me coughing up the hope diamond.

Hmmm you're about as good at assigning odds as most self-proffessed statisticians

My Tip would be to remove that oversized gemstone from your gullet tout suite Kemosabey. Don’t wanna swallow and make it come out the other end

FYI Yossarian... IDers/Creationists were making true statements / predictions , which contemporary research would one day affirm, untold centuries before what we recognize as modern ‘ science’ even existed.

Creationists/ ID advocates were the first ( in recorded history ) to assert/predict that the cosmos had a beginning ( Yup, those early Judeo-Christians WERE ID advocates ); and even St. Augustine recognized that ‘ The Beginning’ wasn’t merely a beginning for matter/ materiality , BUT also a beginning to all time and space . Contemplating A Dawn of everything ' FINITE' , in turn, pointed to a first cause / uncaused cause/ SuperNatural Agency / Deity... transcending/ superceding this entire temporal/physical dimension...

There was no time and no space, before the beginning ( St. Augustine )

Riddle me this Yossaian et al :

How did the Void know it was pregnant with a universe ? ( My answer would be Omniscience )
- sorry, I'm recalling this quote from memory, but don't remember its source/author

Scientists still clung to notions that the universe had always existed ( see ‘ The Steady State Theory’ ) in more or less in its present form, even decades after Edwin Hubble’s ‘ Red Shift’ discovery led him to conclude that the heavens are expanding - and must therefore have been compressed to an infinitely small/ dimension-less point, at some point in the distant past.
( This deduction was arrived at simply via extrapolating backwards in time )


Many Astrophysicists/ Atheistic Men of Science continued to stubbornly support ‘ the Steady State theory’ despite Hubble’s findings ....since many recognized the ‘ theological’ implications of doing otherwise...i.e. that scientifically recognizing a‘ birth to the cosmos’ would lend support to ancient Judeo-Christian assertions/ scripture/ spiritualist beliefs...

The discovery of the Cosmic background radiation / the echoes of the ‘ BIG BANG’ , in 1965 by Penzias and Wilson sounded the final death knell for the steady state theory. But it also confirmed that those early Judeo Christian seers/ mystics/ prognosticators had been right all along vis a vis their predictions/ assertions concerning the universe’s nativity , and equally about the fact that the cosmos had emerged out of nothing/void ( Creatio ex Nihilo )

***
So what else have Creationists/ ID’ers said that is true ? Well they’ve always insisted ( and continue to insist ) that life/ nature/ the cosmos was NOT an accident ...that the ‘ Majesty of the heavens/ their implicit order... offer mute testimony to the existence of a godly Creator ...The Apostle Paul said something about this ( sorry too lazy to go looking through scripture )


The Strong Anthropic Principle/ Confirming the Creator

In 1973, in Krakow Poland , at a scientific symposium commemorating the 500 year anniversary of the birth of Nicolas Copernicus, an astrophysicist named Brandon Carter presented a paper with the rather cumbersome title: " Large Number Coincidences and the Anthropic Principle in Cosmology."

In Greek, the word ‘anthropos’ simply means man. Carter’s ‘ Strong Anthropic Principle, ’ was actually a forthright admission that : the fundamental laws of physics, appear astoundingly coincidental, and beneficently ' fine tuned'...at least insofar as carbon based biology, such as we human beings, are concerned.


Lending further credence to Carter’s assertions, nowadays many of the world’s leading physicists have admitted that : every one of the fundamental prerequisites/ physical laws/constants, which flesh and blood would need, must have already been present, within one nanosecond of the universe’s inception , also known as ‘ the Big Bang.’

Carter’s insights were not exactly new. For decades , many ostensibly atheistic cosmologists had been quietly contemplating the universe’s seemingly purposeful order. One noted Nobel prize winner even became a strong proponent of ID. ( scratch that he didn't win the Nobel Prize, but a co-workers - who later acknowledged his primary contributions to his own work - William Alfred Fowler did, but many are convinced he deserved to be a co-winner of The Nobel Prize and was unfairly snubbed )

Way back in the early fifties, Fred Hoyle a former Atheist, converted to spiritual beliefs/ became a strong advocate of ID...Almost immediately after contemplating the seemingly tailor-made properties of a single element. That element was carbon.

he ( Hoyle ) observed that one particular nuclear reaction, the triple-alpha process, which generated carbon, would require the carbon nucleus to have a very specific energy for it to work. The large amount of carbon in the universe, which makes it possible for carbon-based lifeforms (e.g. humans) to exist, demonstrated that this nuclear reaction must work. Based on this notion, he made a PREDICTION of the energy levels in the carbon nucleus that was later borne out by experiment.( From Wikipedia )

Since Hoyle reasoned that the unique properties of carbon would be astronomically improbable in a cosmos whose physical laws were arrived at purely by chance, he saw this as a sure sign of Omniscience , writing that :

Would you not say to yourself, "Some super-calculating intellect must have designed the properties of the carbon atom, otherwise the chance of my finding such an atom through the blind forces of nature would be utterly minuscule." Of course you would . . . A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question

The odds against our Anthropic Universe appearing strictly by chance are mind boggling , and that’s putting it mildly ( sorry, too lazy to look up these estimates made by some of the worlds greatest physicists just now ) ...However, here’s a few pertinent quotes :

A life-giving factor lies at the centre of the whole machinery and design of the world. - John Wheeler

everything about the universe tends toward humans, toward making life possible and sustaining it.- Hugh Ross

... the Anthropic Principle says that the seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants in physics have one strange thing in common--these are precisely the values you need if you want to have a universe capable of producing life. - Patrick Glynn

More and more , cutting edge science seems to be confirming the wisdom of ancient mystics/ theologians/ early advocates of ID .

Now we could go on to contemplate ‘ irreducibly complex’ fleshly design features/ mind boggling biochemical intricacies/ the cooperative aspects of complex ecosystems ( encompassed by millions of thoroughly interdependent species ) / etcetera etcetera....BUT we’ve already discussed these things in some detail in a parallel thread. Besides , it seems like overkill...

The bottom line is that not only Darwinism ( which is not but pseudoscience anyway ) BUT also scientific Atheism ARE ON THEIR LAST LEGS !

Peace Out

[yossarian22]

Originally Posted by Hela cells/lab pandemic

Yossarian :

Hmmm you're about as good at assigning odds as most self-proffessed statisticians

Hmmm, several universities disagree with you.
Believe me or not, I have no reason to validate myself in your eyes. I couldn't, quite frankly, care less about what you think about me.

FYI Yossarian... IDers/Creationists were making true statements / predictions , which contemporary research would one day affirm, untold centuries before what we recognize as modern ‘ science’ even existed.

And they were also saying patently absurd things.
But hey, picking and choosing is great isn't it?

Creationists/ ID advocates were the first ( in recorded history ) to assert/predict that the cosmos had a beginning

I hope you realize how idiotic that statement was.
I have yet to meet a Darwinist who existed before Darwin. So every single piece of science which came before Darwin could be attributed to creationistic lines of though

Riddle me this Yossaian et al :

Using Latin does not make you appear any smarter

Scientists still clung to notions that the universe had always existed ( see ‘ The Steady State Theory’ ) in more or less in its present form, even decades after Edwin Hubble’s ‘ Red Shift’ discovery led him to conclude that the heavens are expanding - and must therefore have been compressed to an infinitely small/ dimension-less point, at some point in the distant past.
( This deduction was arrived at simply via extrapolating backwards in time )

Many Astrophysicists/ Atheistic Men of Science continued to stubbornly support ‘ the Steady State theory’ despite Hubble’s findings ....since many recognized the ‘ theological’ implications of doing otherwise...i.e. that scientifically recognizing a‘ birth to the cosmos’ would lend support to ancient Judeo-Christian assertions/ scripture/ spiritualist beliefs...

Have you read the Judeo-Christian assertions? To argue that a beginning implies support for creationism is absurd.
I can throw a dozen theories at you about the universe forms without a creation, but still satisfies the red shift.
A pity none of them are substantiated. A shame we can't determine what happened before the Big Bang yet...
Anyhow, this is not a 'prediction' under any definition of the word.
Creationists predicted a beginning. Big fuggin deal.
Did they predict the red-shift?
Nope.
The vast majority of what you posted was little more than useless cruft which has no bearing to this conversation

So what else have Creationists/ ID’ers said that is true ? Well they’ve always insisted ( and continue to insist ) that life/ nature/ the cosmos was NOT an accident ..

Oh? This has become a truth now?

The Strong Anthropic Principle/ Confirming the Creator

No it doesn't.
Next question please...

The odds against our Anthropic Universe appearing strictly by chance are mind boggling , and that’s putting it mildly ( sorry, too lazy to look up these estimates made by some of the worlds greatest physicists just now ) ...However, here’s a few pertinent quotes :

Oh goody goody. Something concrete methinks?

A life-giving factor lies at the centre of the whole machinery and design of the world. - John Wheeler

everything about the universe tends toward humans, toward making life possible and sustaining it.- Hugh Ross

... the Anthropic Principle says that the seemingly arbitrary and unrelated constants in physics have one strange thing in common--these are precisely the values you need if you want to have a universe capable of producing life. - Patrick Glynn

Have you gleaned nothing from our last "discussion"
This does not support your claim in the slightest. It is slightly amusing that you cite the strong form of the same principle which tears this line of attack to shreds

More and more , cutting edge science seems to be confirming the wisdom of ancient mystics/ theologians/ early advocates of ID .

Vague, inane, and useless words.
Speaking a great deal yet saying nothing...

Now we could go on to contemplate ‘ irreducibly complex’ fleshly design features/ mind boggling biochemical intricacies/ the cooperative aspects of complex ecosystems ( encompassed by millions of thoroughly interdependent species ) / etcetera etcetera....BUT we’ve already discussed these things in some detail in a parallel thread. Besides , it seems like overkill...

Ah yes, this parallel thread you oft cite.
Oh wait, you simply stopped responding to that, saying you need time to set up a model that a two year old with a squirt gun couldn't tear apart.

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Midnight Blue :

No, you're not wrong. When he ( Darwin ) was alive, he said very plainly that he was an agnostic and was not and never had been an atheist.

So find the pertinent quote/ text ( where he says this ) rather than keep on insisting that you're right/ you heard it through a friend / a friend of a friend/ blah blah blah...all based on NO documentation.

Even if Darwin claimed to be an agnostic and not an atheist ( which I seriously doubt ) all his writings/ expressed op(s) are profoundly atheistic in character.

My guess is that If he said this...he was merely playing the part of the ostensibly objective / detatched man of science, since of course he could neither prove nor disprove God's existence...Lets not forget either that in Darwin's time atheism was much less common/ accepted...Nevertheless ( again If you are correct ) this claim to being agnostic was all an act IMO, A hypocritical ACT. Darwin was a huge hypocrite again IMO...for example, Darwin once wrote that:

...small trifling particulars of structure often make me very uncomfortable. The sight of a feather in a peacock's tail, whenever I gaze at it, makes me SICK !

Sick ? WhY would signs of Intelligent Design bother an Agnostic ? A staunch atheist, sure I could see that....In any case, so much for the myth of Charles Darwin the noble/ objective/detatched man of science. Until further notice/ till I hear better... I'll file that with the ‘ agnostic’ myth

CHEERS

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Yossarian :

Creationists predicted a beginning. Big fuggin deal.

Who was it suggested that Creationists/ ID'ers had never made/ would never make... any predictions which proved accurate ? Ah yes, that was you...How’s that Hope Diamond you’re hatching ?

Y: ...

The vast majority of what you posted was little more than useless cruft which has no bearing to this conversation

Me thinks thou doth protest too much...IF this is all useless ' cruft?' Why do you bother responding to it with such regularity/ vitriol

For the record, contemplating the Origins of the universe/ matter/ space/ time....DOES have enormous bearing vis a vis spiritual vs. secularist discussions/ world views ? ITS PURE NONSENSE / TOTALLY DISENGENUOUS TO PRETEND OTHERWISE

Y:

It is slightly amusing that you cite the strong form of the same ( Anthropic ) principle which tears this line of attack to shreds

The Strong Anthropic Principle does indeed lend credence to notions of our cosmos being purposefully created. The weak Principle , simply says well : Our universe appears beneficently organized / designed to give rise to carbon based life forms. Because if it was NOT. We would NOT be here to discuss it. This is simply a ‘ weak kneed’ circular argument. Really, its no argument at all, and tears NOTHING to shreds. But nice try

Y:

Ah yes, this parallel thread you oft cite.
Oh wait, you simply stopped responding to that,

Some of my responses were 10,000 characters long. I was responding to several smug secularist attackers at once. It was becoming AT LOT OF WORK !


Y:

...saying you need time to set up a model that a two year old with a squirt gun couldn't tear apart

Hmmm...Seems to me I provided you will a few challenges in that other thread.... vis a vis arguments that ' DNA is a code' etcetera...REPEATEDLY DARING YOU TO TRY TO ' TEAR THEM APART' Challenges you bravely/ repeatedly chose to ignore...as for the rest ....surely, your mommy doesn’t let you play with guns y-man ?

CHEERS

[yossarian22]

Originally Posted by Hela cells/lab pandemic

Yossarian :

Who was it suggested that Creationists/ ID'ers had never made/ would never make... any predictions which proved accurate ?

Declaring there is a beginning is not a valid prediction.
There is the inevitable cop out of "oh, it was just a long long long time ago"
Similarly, I can hide behind the idea of an infinity of multiverses to render any talks about creation moot. Oh sure, this universe had a beginning. But it's just a product of another universe which did not have a beginning.
This is a zero sum game. No winner, no loser.
Still waiting for a testable prediction which you have conveniently omitted

Y: ...

Me thinks thou doth protest too much...IF this is all useless ' cruft?' Why do you bother responding to it with such regularity/ vitriol

I didn't. I addressed the major points then disregarded the rest. Besides, someone might actually think the massive wall of text you posted had some bearing to Darwinism

For the record, contemplating the Origins of the universe/ matter/ space/ time....DOES have enormous bearing vis a vis spiritual vs. secularist discussions/ world views ? ITS PURE NONSENSE / TOTALLY DISENGENUOUS TO PRETEND OTHERWISE

I am sorry, we were discussing the origin of the universe?
I was under the impression we were discussing darwinism which does not pretend to answer that question.
Another topic, another thread

Y:
The Strong Anthropic Principle does indeed lend credence to notions of our cosmos being purposefully created. The weak Principle , simply says well : Our universe appears beneficently organized / designed to give rise to carbon based life forms. Because if it was NOT. We would NOT be here to discuss it. This is simply a ‘ weak kneed’ circular argument. Really, its no argument at all, and tears NOTHING to shreds. But nice try

Nope.
The strong anthropic principle does nothing of the sort.
"A universe must allow for the existence of life or said universe does not exist"
It states that a universe exists only if it allows for observation.
If anything, that destroys the notion of an deity exterior to the universe because a consequence of it is "what we do not have the potential to observe does not exist"
Your view of the weak principle is similarly skewed
"It should not be surprising in the least that conditions in the universe are just right for our form of life, else we would not be able to observe the univserse"
In no way is design implied. It also renders moot all discussions of "It is unlikely for the universe to have conditions allowing life".
Such an argument is fallacious anyways.

Y:

Some of my responses were 10,000 characters long. I was responding to several smug secularist attackers at once. It was becoming AT LOT OF WORK !

So what? It has been quite some time since you have posted anything in that thread as a counterpoint to the hoards of secularists.

Y:
Hmmm...Seems to me I provided you will a few challenges in that other thread.... vis a vis arguments that ' DNA is a code' etcetera...REPEATEDLY DARING YOU TO TRY TO ' TEAR THEM APART' Challenges you bravely/ repeatedly chose to ignore...as for the rest ....surely, your mommy doesn’t let you play with guns y-man ?

They had no relevance to what I objected to, so I ignored it.
I am more than willing to start another debate on it, here if you want, but that is retooling this thread beyond its initial purpose.

[MidnightBlue]

Originally Posted by Hela cells/lab pandemic

Midnight Blue :

So find the pertinent quote/ text ( where he says this ) rather than keep on insisting that you're right/ you heard it through a friend / a friend of a friend/ blah blah blah...all based on NO documentation.

I didn't keep insisting I was right; I didn't say anything at all about that in my last post. Nor did I say anything else you say I said. As it happens, I have a quote and the citation for it at hand, and I would have supplied them the first time if you had asked in a civil manner.

However, since you obviously can't be civil, I have no interest in bantering with you, and you may do your own homework. If any of the other members are interested, I'll give it to them privately.

Welcome to my ignore list.

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Yossarian:

Using Latin does not make you ( Hela ) appear any smarter

So sayeth thou...but then again... that comment makes YOU appear IGNORANT

I mentioned ‘ Creatio ex Nihilo’ because it’s a highly pertinent theological doctrine whose roots can be traced all the way back to the early gnostics. The notion that not only matter but also time and space had a beginning was an exceedingly profound insight for its time ( the first centuries of Christianity ) IMO; particularly in light of more recent astronomical observations / cosmological theories ( ie. The BIG BANG ) ...In other words, it took what we call 'science' nearly two thousand years to catch up with the doctrine of ' Creatio ex Nihilo' ...and of course Darwinists are still lagging far behind when it comes to recognizing that LIFE WAS NO ACCIDENT !

Here’s another pertinent blurb from Wikipedia :

Ex nihilo is a Latin term meaning "out of nothing". It is often used in conjunction with the term creation, as in creatio ex nihilo, meaning "creation out of nothing". Due to the nature of this term, it is often used in philosophical or creationistic arguments, as many Christians, Muslims and Jews believe that God created the universe from nothing. This contrasts with "creatio ex materia," which is creation out of eternally preexistent matter, and "creatio ex deo," which is creation out of the being of God.
A number of philosophers in ancient times attained a highly developed concept of God as the supreme ruler of the world, but did not develop a concept of God as the absolute cause of all finite existence. Before the biblical idea of creation, myths envisioned the world as being preexisting matter acted upon by a god or gods that reworked this material into the present world. Only in the Bible and the religious thought that developed out of its world-view do we see the formulation of ex nihilo creation.[1]
Son, look upon heaven and earth, and all that is in them: and consider that God made them out of nothing.
(2 Maccabees 7:28,