Evidence that universe created itself

[Hollie]

Look. Even your boy Darwin had his doubts. OTOH, creation science is on solid ground.

"That many and serious objections may be advanced against the theory of descent with modification, I do not deny. I have endeavoured to give them their full force. Nothing at first can appear more difficult to believe than that the more complex organs and instincts should have been perfected, not by means superior to, though analogous with, human reason, but by the accumulation of innumerable slight variations, each good for the individual possessor. Nevertheless, this difficulty, though appearing to our imagination insuperably great, cannot be considered real if we admit the following propositions, namely, — that gradations in the perfection of any organ or instinct which we may consider, either do now exist or could have existed, each good of its kind, — that all organs are, in ever so slight degree, variable, — and, lastly, that there is a struggle for existence leading to the preservation of each profitable deviation of structure or instinct. The truth of these propositions cannot, I think, be disputed."

In Darwin, the Descent of a PR Man | Evolution News

Darwin’s reiteration here and elsewhere of the phrase “we may confidently believe” veils the tenuous truth-value of what he proposes.

evolutionnews.org

Flat Earth'ers. Leave it to the xtian extremists.

Catholic flat-Earthers-almost anyway - U.S. Catholic

From the pages of the you-cannot-be-serious in yesterday’s Chicago Tribune: There is a group of Catholics–actually members of the schismatic Society of St. Pius X–who believe that the sun revolves around the earth, contrary to all demonstrable scientific fact. I mean, for God’s sake, there are...

uscatholic.org

U.S. Catholic magazine - Faith in Real Life
ABOUT
MAGAZINE
SECTIONS
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
Catholic flat-Earthers–almost anyway
Published July 5, 2011
From the pages of the you-cannot-be-serious in yesterday’s Chicago Tribune: There is a group of Catholics–actually members of the schismatic Society of St. Pius X–who believe that the sun revolves around the earth, contrary to all demonstrable scientific fact. I mean, for God’s sake, there are astronauts in the space station who can actually confirm centuries after Galileo that the earth indeed revolves around the sun. Thank God for Guy Consolmagno, curator of meteorites for the Vatican Observatory, who offers this bit of comic relief: “I have no idea who these people are. Are they sincere, or is this a clever bit of theater?”


The geocentrists claim that they are defending “original church teaching.” I am not sure the position of the sun in relation to the earth was ever properly “church teaching,” but about 1,600 years ago St. Augustine warned that believers who say stuff like this impede the spread of the gospel. Honestly, who would want to join a group who, in effect, insist that the moon is made out of Swiss cheese, as if the facts of science (evolution, anyone?) are open to interpretation. St. Augustine went as far as to say that if scripture contradicts human scientific knowledge, we must seek another understanding of scripture, which, after all, is a source of religious truth rather than scientific explanation.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

what means you accept something without any will

That is not what "I dont know" means. That is yet another in a long series of you misrepresenting me rudely. So go diddle yourself.

 

[LittleNipper]

elevantmagazine.com/culture/movies/how-lee-strobel-tried-to-disprove-god-and-failed/

 

[Hollie]

elevantmagazine.com/culture/movies/how-lee-strobel-tried-to-disprove-god-and-failed/

#377: Lee Strobel

Lee Strobel is a popular Christian apologetics speaker, creationist, newspaper writer, intelligent design panderer, forme...

americanloons.blogspot.com

Lee Strobel is a popular Christian apologetics speaker, creationist, newspaper writer, intelligent design panderer, former legal editor at the Chicago Tribune television host (“Faith under Fire”), and author of several books, all with titles starting with “The case for …”. In his publications and interviews Strobel’s approach is to claim to assume the role of an investigative reporter but take anything that agrees with his position at face value (regardless of how vague, foggy, or unsupported it is; examples here and here). His tactic against people he disagrees with is to take a quote out of context and use it to erect a strawman. Note that his point is not to argue that faith is compatible with science - he does indeed perceive a conflict between science and religion; fortunately, his armchair arguments for God are supposedly good enough to refute the parts of science he doesn't fancy.

So for instance his collection “The Case for A Creator” (mild critique of some of it here), which was supposed to have an unbiased, critical approach to the question of whether there is, you know, a designer, contained one rant against evolution by Discotute fellow Jonathan Wells, a discussion of the relationship between science and religion (and abiogenesis) by Discotute fellow Stephen Meyer, a discussion of the Big Bang and the cosmological argument by William Lane Craig, Robin Collins using the anthropic principle to argue for design, Guillermo Gonzalez & Jay Richards using Rare Earth to argue for design, Michael Behe discussing irreducible complexity, and J.P. Moreland arguing that out-of-body experiences near death is good evidence for dualism (seriously). You see where this is going – to make the scientific case for the Creator, use the hardcore science denialists. Some of the “The case for …” books also exist in kids’ versions (“The case for a Creator for kids”), which is also entirely expectable for these people, whose goal is not truth but converting as many people as possible.

You can find balanced assessment of The Case for Christ here; of The Case for Easter here; of The Case for Faith here; and of the Case for a Creator here.

Strobel’s own arguments against evolutionary theory are mostly based on ignorance and distortion, for instance “Evolution is defined as a random, undirected process” [no, it isn’t], and “Darwinism offers no explanation for human consciousness. The gaps in science point to a creator.” It is followed by “700 scientists of impeccable credentials signed the Dissent from Darwinism statement. Believing in evolution requires a leap of fatih. This isn't faith versus science it's science versus science.” Right.

As with so many of these people, Strobel claims to be a former atheist who was converted by the gaps in and failures of science.

Diagnosis: One of the central figures of the Dishonest Apologists movement. He is enormously influential (example: Oklahoma legislator Josh Brecheen used Strobel’s rant in defense of introducing creationism in Oklahoma schools), and one of the most dangerous threats to science alive in the US.

 

[22lcidw]

Flat Earth'ers. Leave it to the xtian extremists.

Catholic flat-Earthers-almost anyway - U.S. Catholic

From the pages of the you-cannot-be-serious in yesterday’s Chicago Tribune: There is a group of Catholics–actually members of the schismatic Society of St. Pius X–who believe that the sun revolves around the earth, contrary to all demonstrable scientific fact. I mean, for God’s sake, there are...

uscatholic.org

U.S. Catholic magazine - Faith in Real Life
ABOUT
MAGAZINE
SECTIONS
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
Catholic flat-Earthers–almost anyway
Published July 5, 2011
From the pages of the you-cannot-be-serious in yesterday’s Chicago Tribune: There is a group of Catholics–actually members of the schismatic Society of St. Pius X–who believe that the sun revolves around the earth, contrary to all demonstrable scientific fact. I mean, for God’s sake, there are astronauts in the space station who can actually confirm centuries after Galileo that the earth indeed revolves around the sun. Thank God for Guy Consolmagno, curator of meteorites for the Vatican Observatory, who offers this bit of comic relief: “I have no idea who these people are. Are they sincere, or is this a clever bit of theater?”


The geocentrists claim that they are defending “original church teaching.” I am not sure the position of the sun in relation to the earth was ever properly “church teaching,” but about 1,600 years ago St. Augustine warned that believers who say stuff like this impede the spread of the gospel. Honestly, who would want to join a group who, in effect, insist that the moon is made out of Swiss cheese, as if the facts of science (evolution, anyone?) are open to interpretation. St. Augustine went as far as to say that if scripture contradicts human scientific knowledge, we must seek another understanding of scripture, which, after all, is a source of religious truth rather than scientific explanation.

So what is it to you? You spout all of these flat earth and other spews of Christianity and still the Euro Race has invented damn near everything and advanced the world. Other Races were not so encumbered by your words and what? Asians did not do so bad themselves.

 

[LittleNipper]

THE EVIDENCE OF GOD by Lee Strobel (a former Atheist).
An excerpt from his writing:
POSSIBILITY #1 --- DARWIN
As I considered the evidence afresh, I tried to honestly weight which hypothesis--- Darwinism or Design--- best account for the most current data of science. Looking at the doctrine of Darwinism, which under-girded my atheism for so many years, it didn't take me long to conclude that it was simply too far-fetched to be credible. I would have to believe:

>Nothing produces everything
>Non-life produces life
>Randomness produces fine-tuning
>Chaos produces information
>Non-reason produces reason

Based on this, I was forced to conclude that Darwinism would require a blind leap of faith that I was not willing to make. The central pillars of evolutionary theory quickly rotted away when exposed to scrutiny. For example, naturalistic processes have utterly failed to explain how non-living chemicals could somehow self-assemble into the first living cell.

In addition,the overall fossil record has stubbornly refused to confirm the grand claim of Darwinian transitions. The majority--or, according to some experts, all---of the world's forty phyla, the highest in the animal kingdom, virtually sprang forth with unique body plans more than five hundred million years ago. The sudden appearance of these radically new life forms, devoid of prior transitions, has turned Darwin's Tree of Life on its head.

POSSIBILITY #2 ---- DESIGN

One has to consider many different issues and see whether they point toward or away from the existence of an intelligent designer. Consider some of the evidence that was adduced in my investigation:

THE EVIDENCE of COSMOLOGY
As described by William Lane Craig, the argument is simple yet elegant: first, whatever begins to exist has a cause.....second, the universe had a beginning.....therefore, the universe has a cause, Even once-agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow conceded the essential elements of Christianity and modern cosmology are the same: "The chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply....."

THE EVIDENCE OF PHYSICS
One of the most striking discoveries of modern science has been that the laws and constants of physics unexpectedly conspire in an extraordinary way to make the universe habitable for life. For instance, physicist-philosopher Robin Collins has said, "gravity is fine-tuned to one part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion."

THE EVIDENCE OF ASTRONOMY
Similar to the fine tuning of physics, Earth's position in the universe and its intricately choreographed geological and chemical processes work together with exquisite efficiency to create a safe place for humans to live. "If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision, we could never have come into existence." said Harvard-educated astrophysicist John A. O'Keefe of NASA. "It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."

THE EVIDENCE OF BIOCHEMISTRY
Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Biochemist Michael Bebe has demonstrated exactly that through his description of "irreducibly complex" molecular machines.
These complicated, microscopic contraptions, such as cilia and bacterial flagella, are extremely unlikely to have been built piece-by-piece through Darwinian processes because they had to be fully present in order to function. Other examples include the incredible system of transporting proteins within cells and the intricate process of blood clotting.

THE EVIDENCE OF BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION
The six feet of DNA coiled inside every one of our body's one hundred trillion cells contains a four-letter chemical alphabet that spells out precise assembly instructions for all the proteins from which our bodies are made. Whenever we find a sequential arrangement that's complex and corresponds to an independent pattern or function (books, computer code, DNA), this kind of information always implies an intelligent source.

THE EVIDENCE OF CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
Many scientists are concluding that the laws of chemistry and physics cannot explain our experience of consciousness. Professor J. P. Moreland defined consciousnesses as our introspection, sensations, thoughts, emotions etc. that make us alive and aware. He said, "You can't get something from nothing." If the universe began with dead matter having no conscience, "how then, do you get something totally different----conscious, living, thinking, feeling creatures--- from material that don't have that?'

 

[james bond]

Flat Earth'ers. Leave it to the xtian extremists.

You are stuck on flat Earth Flattie Hollie. I never seen anyone try so hard to prove a flat Earth . There must be something in your life that keeps reminding you of flatness instead of spherical. What do you think it is?

 

[Hollie]

THE EVIDENCE OF GOD by Lee Strobel (a former Atheist).
An excerpt from his writing:
POSSIBILITY #1 --- DARWIN
As I considered the evidence afresh, I tried to honestly weight which hypothesis--- Darwinism or Design--- best account for the most current data of science. Looking at the doctrine of Darwinism, which under-girded my atheism for so many years, it didn't take me long to conclude that it was simply too far-fetched to be credible. I would have to believe:

>Nothing produces everything
>Non-life produces life
>Randomness produces fine-tuning
>Chaos produces information
>Non-reason produces reason

Based on this, I was forced to conclude that Darwinism would require a blind leap of faith that I was not willing to make. The central pillars of evolutionary theory quickly rotted away when exposed to scrutiny. For example, naturalistic processes have utterly failed to explain how non-living chemicals could somehow self-assemble into the first living cell.

In addition,the overall fossil record has stubbornly refused to confirm the grand claim of Darwinian transitions. The majority--or, according to some experts, all---of the world's forty phyla, the highest in the animal kingdom, virtually sprang forth with unique body plans more than five hundred million years ago. The sudden appearance of these radically new life forms, devoid of prior transitions, has turned Darwin's Tree of Life on its head.

POSSIBILITY #2 ---- DESIGN

One has to consider many different issues and see whether they point toward or away from the existence of an intelligent designer. Consider some of the evidence that was adduced in my investigation:

THE EVIDENCE of COSMOLOGY
As described by William Lane Craig, the argument is simple yet elegant: first, whatever begins to exist has a cause.....second, the universe had a beginning.....therefore, the universe has a cause, Even once-agnostic astronomer Robert Jastrow conceded the essential elements of Christianity and modern cosmology are the same: "The chain of events leading to man commenced suddenly and sharply....."

THE EVIDENCE OF PHYSICS
One of the most striking discoveries of modern science has been that the laws and constants of physics unexpectedly conspire in an extraordinary way to make the universe habitable for life. For instance, physicist-philosopher Robin Collins has said, "gravity is fine-tuned to one part in a hundred million billion billion billion billion billion."

THE EVIDENCE OF ASTRONOMY
Similar to the fine tuning of physics, Earth's position in the universe and its intricately choreographed geological and chemical processes work together with exquisite efficiency to create a safe place for humans to live. "If the universe had not been made with the most exacting precision, we could never have come into existence." said Harvard-educated astrophysicist John A. O'Keefe of NASA. "It is my view that these circumstances indicate the universe was created for man to live in."

THE EVIDENCE OF BIOCHEMISTRY
Darwin said, "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." Biochemist Michael Bebe has demonstrated exactly that through his description of "irreducibly complex" molecular machines.
These complicated, microscopic contraptions, such as cilia and bacterial flagella, are extremely unlikely to have been built piece-by-piece through Darwinian processes because they had to be fully present in order to function. Other examples include the incredible system of transporting proteins within cells and the intricate process of blood clotting.

THE EVIDENCE OF BIOLOGICAL INFORMATION
The six feet of DNA coiled inside every one of our body's one hundred trillion cells contains a four-letter chemical alphabet that spells out precise assembly instructions for all the proteins from which our bodies are made. Whenever we find a sequential arrangement that's complex and corresponds to an independent pattern or function (books, computer code, DNA), this kind of information always implies an intelligent source.

THE EVIDENCE OF CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
Many scientists are concluding that the laws of chemistry and physics cannot explain our experience of consciousness. Professor J. P. Moreland defined consciousnesses as our introspection, sensations, thoughts, emotions etc. that make us alive and aware. He said, "You can't get something from nothing." If the universe began with dead matter having no conscience, "how then, do you get something totally different----conscious, living, thinking, feeling creatures--- from material that don't have that?'

That's a catalog of all the failed religious claims for supernatural design.

 

[Hollie]

You are stuck on flat Earth Flattie Hollie. I never seen anyone try so hard to prove a flat Earth . There must be something in your life that keeps reminding you of flatness instead of spherical. What do you think it is?

I'll take the above as your inability to support your Flat Earth claims.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So what is it to you? You spout all of these flat earth and other spews of Christianity and still the Euro Race has invented damn near everything and advanced the world. Other Races were not so encumbered by your words and what? Asians did not do so bad themselves.

Yes, recall the sioentific enlightenment happened quite in spite of religion. When the european world colonized much of africa and asia, these riches allowed more people to spend their time in universities and laboratories and studios, leading to more art and scientific discoveries. So thank the aggressive and violent colonization by europeans for much of the renaissance and enlightenment.

 

[LittleNipper]

That's a catalog of all the failed religious claims for supernatural design. Nope, it's everything atheists have no logical answer for.

 

[Hollie]

LittleNipper said:;Nope, it's everything atheists have no logical answer for.

That long cut and paste had no logical proposal. “Quoting” William Lane Craig is not a logical argument. Religionism is not a position of logical steps. Magic and supernaturalism do not make the case for logical arguments.

Religionism is, at best, a "philosophical argument" that has no utility for proofs or validation and ultimately has no requirement to be true. Belief in Bibles and Korans and Books of the Dead filled with supernatural events is a retreat to the safe zone of religionism when reason and dogma conflict. We choose to embrace either reason or dogma. Religioners find it less stressful to follow dogma, to believe what they’re told and to do what they're told by authority figures, especially religious figures. I am certain that ignoring the obvious is much more comforting to you than doubting that certain absurdities are true. You may want to believe that the planet is 6,000 years old, that Noah’s Ark is real, that snakes talk and that the earth is the center of the universe but wanting to believe in such absurdities doesn’t make those absurdities real.

 

[zaangalewa]

That is not what "I dont know" means. That is yet another in a long series of you misrepresenting me rudely. So go diddle yourself.

Make correct quotes and stop it to make senseless monologues tarned as dialogues.

 

[zaangalewa]

Hollie james bond

Keeps the problem that all the "flat Earth" nonsense is only an US-American myth. Columbus was not clever when he started. He made a big miscalculation about the distance to India. What he made was wrong - but he was lucky.

 

[zaangalewa]

Yes, recall the sioentific enlightenment happened quite in spite of religion.

The enlightenment amd humanism is without renaissance and the Christian religion not thinkable.

When the european world colonized much of africa and asia,

... and specially America - the greatest colony at all ...

these riches allowed more people to spend their time in universities and laboratories and studios, leading to more art and scientific discoveries.

That's now an absolutelly stupid anglocentristic nonsense.

So thank the aggressive and violent colonization by europeans for much of the renaissance and enlightenment.

You are totally weird. It were not the kings, nobles and soldiers who made a better world. It was their misuse of knowledge and techniques which leaded to mass-murder all over the world. Renaissance and enlightenment found their next step in industrialisation. And all this steps are parts of the "information age" which started with a wide spread printing of books (first with mass printings of the bible) - and which is not over yet. Meanwhile we evolved machines which are able to simulate all thinkable machines. But this all never was inspired from colonialisation and slavery. It was inspired from division of work, education and free speech.

 

[james bond]

You may want to believe that the planet is 6,000 years old, that Noah’s Ark is real, that snakes talk and that the earth is the center of the universe but wanting to believe in such absurdities doesn’t make those absurdities real.

You've been told the correct and true answers so many times, but still don't get it .

 

[Hollie]

You've been told the correct and true answers so many times, but still don't get it .

ID'iot creationer nonsense is neither true or correct.

 

[frigidweirdo]

>Nothing produces everything
>Non-life produces life
>Randomness produces fine-tuning
>Chaos produces information
>Non-reason produces reason

Problem is we don't know what the rules are.

Science is the study of the rules that govern our part of the universe at our time.

Beyond this we have no idea. The rules outside of the universe could be totally different. The rules of the universe as it chances might change.

We have no idea.

Trying to say "this is what happens here, so it must happen everywhere" is like saying "It's not raining here, so it's raining nowhere."

 

[frigidweirdo]

You are stuck on flat Earth Flattie Hollie. I never seen anyone try so hard to prove a flat Earth . There must be something in your life that keeps reminding you of flatness instead of spherical. What do you think it is?

I'll take the above as your inability to support your Flat Earth claims.

It's difficult to follow your conversation, because you both seem to be accusing the other of being a flat earther.

 

[zaangalewa]

Flat Earth'ers. Leave it to the xtian extremists.

Catholic flat-Earthers-almost anyway - U.S. Catholic

From the pages of the you-cannot-be-serious in yesterday’s Chicago Tribune: There is a group of Catholics–actually members of the schismatic Society of St. Pius X–who believe that the sun revolves around the earth, contrary to all demonstrable scientific fact. I mean, for God’s sake, there are...

uscatholic.org

U.S. Catholic magazine - Faith in Real Life
ABOUT
MAGAZINE
SECTIONS
SUBSCRIBE
DONATE
Catholic flat-Earthers–almost anyway
Published July 5, 2011
From the pages of the you-cannot-be-serious in yesterday’s Chicago Tribune: There is a group of Catholics–actually members of the schismatic Society of St. Pius X–who believe that the sun revolves around the earth, contrary to all demonstrable scientific fact. I mean, for God’s sake, there are astronauts in the space station who can actually confirm centuries after Galileo that the earth indeed revolves around the sun. Thank God for Guy Consolmagno, curator of meteorites for the Vatican Observatory, who offers this bit of comic relief: “I have no idea who these people are. Are they sincere, or is this a clever bit of theater?”


The geocentrists claim that they are defending “original church teaching.” I am not sure the position of the sun in relation to the earth was ever properly “church teaching,” but about 1,600 years ago St. Augustine warned that believers who say stuff like this impede the spread of the gospel. Honestly, who would want to join a group who, in effect, insist that the moon is made out of Swiss cheese, as if the facts of science (evolution, anyone?) are open to interpretation. St. Augustine went as far as to say that if scripture contradicts human scientific knowledge, we must seek another understanding of scripture, which, after all, is a source of religious truth rather than scientific explanation.

The teaching of the church had been the model of the natural philosopher Claudius Ptolemaeus. The Earth was in this model in the center. When the Catholic canon Nicolaus Copernicus found out that the world turns arond the sun no one of his Christian friends had any problem. Reason: The Earth turns around the sun (=the light) like a human being turns around god. Very nice picture. Indeed a much more "Christian" picture than to see the Earth in the center.

But Copernicus feared the discussions in the academic world of his time, so he decided to let publish this after his death. When and where this what he said leaded to a conflict I don't know now. But if this caused conflicts at all then I guess it had been political conflicts. When Galileo Galilei had been young - a scientific superstar, who earned an unbelievable amount of money with science in the Catholic world - in all Catholic universities all over Europe had been taught the model from Nicolaus Copernicus, because it was much more easy to calculate what happens in the sky with this modell.

Copernicus, Galilei and Kepler (a Protestant who got only jobs from Catholics) were essential for the ideas of Newton. But Galileo Galilei for example had been against the teachings of Johannes Kepler - what was absurde for a scientist. Einstein had been a little frustrated, when he found this out. But this shows very well that always all models and ideas were under heavy critics. The ideas of Newton about gravity - Newton had been by the way also a very special meta-physicist - were very popular, because they explained the beautiful laws of Johannes Kepler.

All this stories around the birth of physics as a new form of natural science are used today from many people to show that the ugly powerful Catholic church fought the underdogs who made this birth - but indeed she had been more a kind of midwife, because she had created the whole structure in which such discussions were possible - with universities which were organized in the structure of the philosophy of Aristotle. All universities in the world come somehow from this root. And for this all another name is also important: Averroes. He was the "Catholic" Muslim - who had been called "the interpreter" of the philosophy of the "Catholic" Pagan Aristotle.