What Have Darwinists Said That's True?

[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]

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

:sarcastic
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 )

:sleep:

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

:cover:
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]

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.

 

[Smoke]

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, 100 BC ( scriptural references also provided by Wikipedia )

 

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Yossarian:

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 this question.

Au contraire....Darwinism/Neo-Darwinism is full of POMPOUS PRETENSE with enormous theological/ cosmological implications ( this aside from the fact that we were also discussing ‘ Creationism’ which in and of itself, would make this topic fair game...)

Darwinism/ neo-Darwinism promotes a smug and IMO dangerous world view ( see Richard Darwkins ... see also the links between Darwinism and the Eugenics movment/ Nazism ) wherein supernaturalism/ The Creator is ‘ ostensibly’ rendered completely unnecessary/ obsolete ( see Nietzsche / Time Magazine's ' Is God Dead ?' etc )

...Darwinists contend that all and sundry ( inclusive of Abiogenesis and the origin of species ) can be explained by blind/ naturalistic/ pitiless/ purposeless forces of material ‘ cause and effect’ ( Which begs the question: What about first causes ? )

It’s been argued that the Strong Anthropic Principle weakens this naturalistic/materialist/ Darwinian/ Atheistic argument...How so ?

Well clearly...IF the cosmos was no accident, if follows that...LIFE WAS NO ACCIDENT !

 

[yossarian22]

Yossarian:

Au contraire....Darwinism/Neo-Darwinism is full of POMPOUS PRETENSE with enormous theological/ cosmological implications ( this aside from the fact that we were also discussing ‘ Creationism’ which in and of itself, would make this topic fair game...)

It has absolutely no theological implications besides calling instant creation a load of crap.
And this is Evolution vs Creationism. Not Materialism vs Creationism and its ilk. And evolution puts no stock in materialism or anything else for that matter

Well clearly...IF the cosmos was no accident, if follows that...LIFE WAS NO ACCIDENT !

Uh, no it doesn't.
And there are a few religions which disagree with you. I know Deism does.

Interesting how you totally sidestep my major points and instead attack my comment on your superfluous use of Latin and your attempts to drag this thread off topic.

 

[camanintx]

Darwinism/ neo-Darwinism promotes a smug and IMO dangerous world view ( see Richard Darwkins ... see also the links between Darwinism and the Eugenics movment/ Nazism ) wherein supernaturalism/ The Creator is ‘ ostensibly’ rendered completely unnecessary/ obsolete ( see Nietzsche / Time Magazine's ' Is God Dead ?' etc )

Do you really think that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is responsible for Hitler's final solution or the development of Eugenics? Should we also blame J.J. Thomson or Ernest Rutherford for the bombing of Hiroshima since they contributed to modern atomic theory? With so many people using religion to justify their racism, do you really think none of this would have happened were it not for Darwin?

As for the idea that atheism is a dangerous world view, while Hitler's religious beliefs are questionable, almost everyone involved in carrying out his orders was definitely Christian. So exactly how does a belief in God prevent things like the holocaust?

 

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Yossarian :

...your superfluous use of Latin and your attempts to drag this thread off topic.

For the second and final time....My use of LATIN was NOT superfluous! It had a crucial historical context which you were obviously IGNORANT OF... ‘ Creatio ex Nihilo’ was never off topic, as this doctrine presents a serious challenge to a materialist paradigm which also underpins Darwinism/ atheism and always has !

Furthermore, , I have ‘ FREE WILL’ ...Ergo... For future reference..I WILL DO/ SAY...Whatever I please here. I DON’T NEED UR ‘ FRUGGEN ‘ PERMISSION vis a vis subject MATTER/ MATERIALISM.

Notably, MATERIALISM actually DENIES MAN'S FREE WILL !... please hold onto that thought, as I have gotten ahead of myself...

Yossarian :

...And ( Darwinian ) evolution puts no stock in materialism or anything else for that matter

It is TO LAUGH...You’re spouting pure nonsense here. Without question, Darwinism is COMPLETELY & UTTERLY dependent on a materialist/ naturalistic world view. A world view which ( to reiterate ) DENIES the existence of Man's free will, which is just more materialist/ Darwinian NONSENSE !

An Atheistic Science Has No Ultimate Answers

Our universe ( as even mainstream/ materialist science/cosmology asserts ) simply appeared ( ‘ unbidden??? ’ ) from a dimension-less point ( infinitely smaller than an atom ) in an incomprehensible cataclysm called the Big Bang. Materialist scientists ( also known as ‘ physicalists ’ ) have gone on to assert that; ‘ the material cosmos is all that exists.’ In so doing , they have painted themselves into an intellectual corner. How could the physical cosmos, which is ‘ something ’, come from ‘ nothing ’? And how could consciousness emerge from insensate matter ?

Since their inception, our heavens - as Edwin Hubble ( 1889-1953 ) first discovered - have been expanding at a fantastic rate. In other words, all material objects are in a perpetual state of flux. But if nothing about material existence is ever absolute, how can a strictly materialist science ever claim to know the absolute truth about anything ?

Things only get fuzzier for materialists when they consider the subatomic realm of protons, neutrons, electrons , photons, etcetera. Here, ostensibly solid substances have a nebulous ‘ particle vs. wave duality’ which can only be viewed in one state or the other, but never both simultaneously. Strangely enough, it isn’t matter itself which determines this, but rather one’s state of mind.

The fact that conscious perceptions about ‘ reality ’ actually have the power to shape it, not only hints at the MIND'S PRE-EMINENCE OVER MATTER , but also lends credence to supernaturalist doctrines of ‘ CREATION OUT OF NOTHING ’ ( in Latin ‘ creatio ex nihilo ’ ) as described in Genesis chapter one, and elsewhere in Judeo - Christian scripture.

And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters ( Genesis 1:2 ; KJV )

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 ; The Jerusalem Bible )

Let’s play devil’s advocate and pretend that all supernaturalism is fantasy - that only ‘ physicalists ’ are on the right path. This would mean that the mind too, is naught but matter, and therefore at the mercy of naturalistic laws of cause and effect. This in turn, would seem to negate ‘ free will ’, which is sheer nonsense.

I can take a break for lunch , or keep writing. I can have a ham sandwich, or opt for a pizza slice. I’m certainly ‘ free’ to make these conscious decisions. They’re not predetermined by some arbitrary arrangement of atoms inside my cranium. Those atoms have no say in the matter.

By delving not only into the insights of ancient mystics, but equally into modernday quantum physics, we begin to appreciate the fatal flaw in conventional science's/ Darwinism/ Atheism's much favoured materialist paradigm - FOR THIS PRESUPPOSES AN OBJECTIVE REALITY, INDEPENDENT OF CONSCIOUS PERCEPTIONS, WHEN NO SUCH ANIMAL EXISTS !

***
Yossarian :

...Interesting how you totally sidestep my major points...

Hmmm....Some of your other points were no less laughable/ absurd ( than were your childish objections to my use of Latin/ your feeble attempts to deny the connection between Darwinsim and materialism ) ...One of my favorites was your preposterous commentary about some spurious universe ‘ ostensibly’ giving birth to this one.

That’s such wild conjecture ( bordering on SuperNaturalism ) that you might as well be arguing about the number of angels that might dance on the head of a pin

Spurious / ludicrous or not....I’ll respond to some of your other points in due course

CHEERS

 

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Camanintx:

...Do you really think that Darwin's Theory of Evolution is responsible for Hitler's final solution or the development of Eugenics?

Historically All...I REPEAT ALL...Of the leaders of the Eugenics movement on both sides of the Atlantic were ( and/or still are ) staunch Darwinists, that was NO ACCIDENT/ MERE COINCIDENCE. Eugenics was nothing less than the evil twin of ' Social Darwinism' ( whose name says it all ). Although there were also undeniable connections with Malthusianism, which likewise enormously influenced Darwin's own thinking/ writing/ world view

The ' survival of the fittest' dogmas of Darwinism/ Charles Darwin were not only cruel , but utterly racist. In fact, Darwin's ‘ The Origin of Species ’ had been subtitled, ‘ The Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’ ! In his 1871 book, ‘ The Descent of Man’, Darwin described Negroes as a‘ less evolved species’, also calling them ‘ savages,’ ‘ barbarians,’ and ‘ low and degraded inhabitants’. Darwin warned that if black Africans bred with ‘ civilized ’ human beings, their offspring would be ‘ feeble’ and ‘ sterile’

There is absolutely NO DOUBT that Darwinism played a major role / was a major influence on Nazi ideology/ the mind of Adolf Hitler and that of his cronies... as all manner of historians have admitted.

The following works of academia are among those which explore the various links between Darwinism; social Darwinism; eugenics; scientific racism; and the Nazi movement...Beyerchen, A.D., Scientists under Hitler, Yale university press, new haven, ct, 1977. ...Stein, G., Biological Science And The Roots Of Nazism, American Scientist 76(1):50–58, 1988. ...Tobach, E., Gianusos, J., Topoff, H. and Gross, C.G., The Four Horsemen; Racism, Sexism, Militarism, and Social Darwinism, Behavioral Publications, New York, 1974...Gasman, D., The Scientific Origin of National Socialism, American Elsevier, New York, p. xiv, 1971....King, J., The Biology Of Race, University of California Press, 2nd ed., Berkeley, Ca, p. 156, 1981. ...Stanton, W., The Leopard’s Spots; Scientific Attitudes Towards Race In America, 1815–1859, University of Chicago Press, Chicago, Il, 1960...Weindling, P., Health, Race and German Politics Between National Unification and Nazism 1870–1945, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, Ma, 1989...Mueller-hill, B., Murderous Science: Elimination By Scientific Selection Of Jews, Gypsies, And Others, Germany 1933–1945, Oxford University Press, Oxford, p. 23, 1988....
Gray, P., Cursed By Eugenics, Time, january 11, pp. 84–85, 1999...Jones, E. M. (Ed.), Darwin And The Vampire: Evolution’s Contribution To The Holocaust, Culture Wars 17:11, 1998....Haas, P.J., Nineteenth Century Science And The Formation Of Nazi Policy, Journal Of Theology, 1995....Youngson, R., Scientific Blunders; A Brief History Of How Wrong Scientists Can Sometimes Be, Carroll and Graf Pub., New York, 1998....Darwinism as a Factor in the Twentieth-Century Totalitarianism Holocausts Creation Research Society Quarterly. Vol. 39, June 2002]

Here’s a few more pertinent quotes

A scientific man ought to have no wishes, no affections, - a mere heart of stone.
Charles Darwin

His (Darwin's) theory of the survival of the fittest was warmly welcomed by the social scientists of the day, and they believed mankind had achieved various levels of evolution culminating in the white man's civilization. By the second half of the nineteenth century racism was accepted as fact by the vast majority of Western scientists.
Indian anthropologist Lalita Vidyarthi: ‘ Racism, Science and Pseudoscience ’

(Hitler) was a firm believer and preacher of evolution. …his book, ‘ Mein Kampf ’, clearly set forth a number of evolutionary ideas, particularly those emphasizing struggle, survival of the fittest and the extermination of the weak to produce a better society
Historian R. Hickman: ‘ Biocreation

Darwin’s characterization of history, in terms of selfish conflict, DID exact a cruel/bloody toll on humanity, throughout the 20th century, and continues to do so IMO. Marxists slanted social Darwinism, in efforts to promote class struggle. Totalitarian fascists and blue bloods, foresaw world domination by a race of super-men . Countless others similarly co-opted Darwin’s survivalist doctrine , to further their own selfish causes. While far from the whole story, a growing belief in the theory of evolution, helped to seed two World Wars

This quote from World War I general, Friedrich von Bernardi was nothing if not Darwinian in character :

War is a biological necessity...as necessary as the struggle of the elements of nature; ( it ) gives a biologically just decision, since its decisions rest on the very nature of things. ( For a more comprehensive study of the role of Darwinism in helping to inflame pre-World War I mind sets, see ‘ Europe Since 1870 ' by British historian James Joll .)

it's been said that cruel Darwinian racism/’ ‘ survival of the fittest’ ideology was also a driving force behind the slaughter of an estimated 15 million Congolese by King Leopold’s forces of Belgium in the early 20th century

Speaking of the Belgian Congo. Here’s another little known but Decidedly Dark Chapter in Darwinian history

The Death Of Ota- Benga !

In his 1871 book ‘ The Descent Of Man’, Charles Darwin claimed that non-white races were ‘ less evolved’ than civilized Europeans.’ This led to crazy and blatantly racist notions that surviving ‘ missing link’ human ancestors, could still be found in unexplored parts of the globe.

In 1904, Darwinist researchers captured and caged a Congolese Pygmy named Ota Benga. Still caged, Ota Benga was put on display at the St. Louis World’s fair, and later the Bronx zoo. Housed alongside chimpanzees and other apes, and treated like an animal , Ota Benga , who had a wife and 2 children in the Belgian Congo, was touted as "the closest transitional link to man."
After years of abuse, Ota Benga committed suicide; after years of racist deception and fraud ( masquerading as science ) its high time that Neo-Darwinism did the same !

***

To reiterate Darwin WAS a racist who condoned/ predicted genocide and who heinously saw this as contributing to Civilization’s advance/ the betterment of man ( again see ‘ The Descent of Man’ etc ) . Darwin’s writing’s/ Darwin’s savage ‘ survival of the fittest’ ideology was the driving force behind the entire Eugenics movement. Darwin was also a major influence on pretty much the entire ‘ Who’s Who’ of Communism, most especially on a young Joseph Stalin ( who gave up his studies for the priesthood and changed his name almost immediately after reading ‘ The Origin of Species’ ) again as all manner of scholars/ historians have admitted/documented

I would say that Charles Darwin/ his Dangerous ( albeit erroneous ) world-view HAS contributed indirectly to the death of tens of millions ( at a bare minimum ) ....Not that religious fundamentalism doesn’t similarly have the blood of millions of innocents on its hands. No doubt in my mind that it does...

A good book on this Darwinian / Nazi connection is ‘ FROM DARWIN TO HITLER: Evolutionary Ethics , Eugenics & Racism in Germany’ by Richard Weikart.

 

[logician]

Darwin was the greatest scientist that ever lived, the notion that his theories are reponsible for genocide are ludicrous.

 

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Darwin was a racist whose highly influential writings openly promoted/ supported genocide ...that's NOT even a matter for debate ! IT'S A FACT !

As for being a great scientist ? His theory of evolution was/is unsupported pseudoscience ENDOSTOREY...

Which brings us back to square one...' What have Darwinists said that is true ? '

 

[camanintx]

Camanintx:

Historically All...I REPEAT ALL...Of the leaders of the Eugenics movement on both sides of the Atlantic were ( and/or still are ) staunch Darwinists, that was NO ACCIDENT/ MERE COINCIDENCE. Eugenics was nothing less than the evil twin of ' Social Darwinism' ( whose name says it all ). Although there were also undeniable connections with Malthusianism, which likewise enormously influenced Darwin's own thinking/ writing/ world view

If you are going to condemn Darwinism because it was twisted to support eugenics and genocide, you would also have to condemn Christianity since it was equally used to support these causes.

A good book for you to read would be Preaching Eugenics: Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement, 2004, by Christine Rosen.

The ' survival of the fittest' dogmas of Darwinism/ Charles Darwin were not only cruel , but utterly racist. In fact, Darwin's ‘ The Origin of Species ’ had been subtitled, ‘ The Preservation of the Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life’ ! In his 1871 book, ‘ The Descent of Man’, Darwin described Negroes as a‘ less evolved species’, also calling them ‘ savages,’ ‘ barbarians,’ and ‘ low and degraded inhabitants’. Darwin warned that if black Africans bred with ‘ civilized ’ human beings, their offspring would be ‘ feeble’ and ‘ sterile’

If you think the subtitle of The Origin of Species is derogatory in any way, I suggest you bone up on the scientific definition of race. As for your claim that Darwin was racist, his own words refute this.

 

[camanintx]

Which brings us back to square one...' What have Darwinists said that is true ? '

Actually, the question you are asking is "what have Darwinists said that I will agree with?"

 

[Autodidact]

Well, let's start at the beginning. What is a Darwinist? Are you referring to all modern biologists who accept the theory of evolution? Or something else? If so, what?

 

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

ChristineES:

Darwin was not an atheist. (I know this is off-topic but I felt moved to write it)

Midnight Blue :

He ( Darwin ) was an agnostic.

ChristineES:

I think people sound desperate to prove that Darwin was an atheist, but he was not (at least from I have learned). I heard he was an agnostic, too. That means that he did not know if there were a God or gods or not.
I certainly could be wrong about it, since Darwin is no longer alive to ask for certain.

Hela :

Tut Tut....Why not cite Darwin’s volumous/massive written/ recorded thoughts to support your position. Otherwise, kindly stop insisting ( without a smattering of evidence ) that : ‘ Darwin was NOT an atheist ‘

Midnight Blue :

No, you're NOT wrong ( Christine )

Hela :

So ( Midnight Blue ) find the pertinent quote/ text ( where he/Darwin says he’s an ‘ agnostic’/has ‘ never been an atheist’ ) 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.

Midnight Blue :

I didn't keep insisting I was right

Hela:

You kept making the same claim , with no documentation to back it up...while calling me ' WILFULLY IGNORANT' which amounts to the same thing...in my books

Midnight Blue :

I have a quote and the citation for it at hand

I’ll wager dollars to donuts YOU GOT NOTHING

MidnightBlue :

I would have supplied them ( the documentation ) the first time if you ( Hela ) had asked in a CIVIL manner

.

So now I’m uncivil eh ? Talk about the kettle calling the pot black ! Earlier You called me ‘ WILFULLY IGNORANT’ ( among other condescending statements ) remember? Yet at no point did I respond in kind ...ah well....‘ SOME PEOPLE WILL BELIEVE WHATEVER THEY PLEASE REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE FACTS ARE...sound familiar ?

Hmmm...here’s the exact quotes

Midnight Blue :

When he was alive, he ( Darwin ) said very plainly that he was an agnostic and was not and never had been an atheist. However, some people ( read Hela ) WILL BELIEVE WHATEVER THEY PLEASE REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE FACTS ARE; PEOPLE WHO MAKE IT THEIR BUSINESS TO ATTACK DARWIN ARE ALWAYS THAT KIND OF PEOPLE.


That's okay. One of the things that makes my life so pleasant is that I never trouble myself about the opinions of the WILLFULLY IGNORANT. ( read Hela ) :

Not that we need to keep score here...BUT... Much of your previous response ( Midnight Blue ) to yours truly, was similarly condescending . Want another example ? ......

Midnight Blue :

You have demonstrated very clearly, though, that you ( Hela ) don't understand either Darwin or punctuated equilibrium.

Try me oh condescending one...scratch that ...doubtless you cannot...because once again ...when push comes to shove...YOU’VE GOT NOTHING!

Midnight Blue :

One may doubt whether genocide was inevitable, but there is no doubt that the Abrahamic god not only justifies it, but demands it, and that his followers have often been its enthusiastic proponents.

This is one of the few statements you’ve made that I AGREE WITH, Which is why I’m NO FAN of religious fundamentalism/ Biblical literalism. However, an oft times racist ‘ survival of the fittest’ Darwinism/ atheistic science ( which recognizes no penultimate moral/godly authority ) also has a lot of blood on its hands. In terms of body count, I would contend that an atheistic science is way ahead on points...IF death is how we’re keeping score

Midnight Blue:

Welcome ( Hela ) to my ignore list

Frankly my dear Blue/Scarlet....I don’t give a damn....don't care if you don't wanna share all your ' mythological' Darwinian secrets either...take your proverbial ' ball ' and ' go home' ...that's all prefectly kosher with me

CHEERS

 

[camanintx]

Blah, blah, blah

Once again, what does Darwin's religious belief have to do with the validity of his theory? Would you say that Christianity was wrong because Martin Luther was anti-semitic?

 

[Hela cells/lab pandemic]

Camanintx :

If you are going to condemn Darwinism because it was twisted to support eugenics and genocide, you would also have to condemn Christianity since it was equally used to support these causes.

A good book for you to read would be Preaching Eugenics: Religious Leaders and the American Eugenics Movement, 2004, by Christine Rosen.

Thank-you...I'll check into that !... Again , I'm NO FAN of religious
Fundamentalism ..or dogmatic atheism/dogmatic science...I believe the harmony and the ' TRUTH '....lies somewhere in the middle...

Kinda a YIN/YANG thing

CHEERS