Do you understand those on the other side?

[Jose Fly]

As I've pointed out many times (probably too many times), I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian environment. I was taught young-earth creationism from an early age, was told prayer and reading the Bible were the answer to most of life's problems and questions, and witnessed all sorts of "interesting" things such as speaking in tongues, faith healing, end times predictions, etc.

Yet despite being completely immersed in this culture, I can't recall a time in my life when I ever believed any of it. However, unlike some of my peers at the time I didn't really find it boring. In fact, I found a lot of it to be rather fascinating because.....very little of it made any sense to me. I just could not understand the people, their beliefs, their way of thinking, or much of anything that I saw and heard. When I saw them anointing with oil someone who had the flu and later saw the virus spread (of course), I could not understand what they were thinking. When I saw them make all sorts of failed predictions about the Soviet Union and the end times, yet never even acknowledge their errors while continuing to make more predictions, I was baffled. Speaking in tongues was of particular interest to me because it really made no sense to me.

In the years that I've been debating creationists it's the same thing. When I see them say "no transitional fossils" or "no new genetic information" only to ignore examples of those things when they're presented, I can't relate to that way of thinking at all. When I see them demand evidence for things only to ignore it after it's provided, I can't relate. When I see them quote mine a scientific paper and after someone points it out they completely ignore it, I can't relate.

Now to be clear, I think I "understand" some of what's behind these behaviors (i.e., the psychological factors), but what I don't understand is how the people engaging in them seem to be completely oblivious to it all. What goes on in their mind when they demand "show me the evidence", ignore everything that's provided in response, and then come back later and make the same demand all over again? Are they so blinded by the need to maintain their beliefs that they literally block out all memories of it? Again....I just don't get it.

So the point of discussion for this thread is....how about you? For the "evolutionists", can you relate to the creationists' way of thinking and behaviors? For the creationists, are there behaviors from the other side that baffle you, and you just don't understand? Do you look at folks like me and think to yourselves, "I just cannot relate to his way of thinking?"

Or is it just me?

[Inquirer]

Yes, this is self evident though, why you feel the need to establish this is unclear.

Here's the point....

You claim that the process that generated the fossil record was discontinuous. You know of no such discontinuous process, and you didn't reach that conclusion based on the fossil record itself being discontinuous. You agree that generation of fossils is discontinuous as is their subsequent discovery.

Given all that, what exactly is the basis for your claim?

I know of no (that is I do not claim to understand any) process discontinuous or continuous. The basis of my claim is clearly called out for you below in bold:

So you'll agree then that we cannot insist that things existed in the past without fossil evidence that they did exist, agreed? We can by extension agree that it is entirely feasible that unfound fossils are unfound not just because they were not formed, not just because they have not yet been found, but because they actually never existed at all, yes?

You asked if I could "prove from the fossil record that unfound things would exist". That's what I answered "no" to.

Very well so we cannot claim something did exist in the past when we have no fossil evidence that it existed, it seems we're in agreement at last.

That is a matter of interpretation.

That's not a rebuttal, it's a wave of the hand dismissal.

I agree it was not a rebuttal, it was a dismissal. I dismiss it because it is fallacious, the implication - by you - that even if you were right, this somehow has bearing on the efficacy of the fossil record. I think (if my memory serves) that you once referred that kind of reasoning by the rather vulgar term "whataboutism".

It is also a diversion from what we were discussing, the claim that fossil record serves as compelling evidence for evolution.

LOL...what? The fact that we see evolution generating new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species is a diversion from whether evolution is the process that created the organisms in the fossil record?

As I said it is a matter of interpretation, the fossil record could well be a record of something else entirely. If the fossil record is not compelling evidence for evolution (we even you now agree with) then how can you then argue that the fossil record exists because of evolution?

[Jose Fly]

I know of no process discontinuous or continuous. The basis of my claim is clearly called out for you below in bold:

So you'll agree then that we cannot insist that things existed in the past without fossil evidence that they did exist, agreed? We can by extension agree that it is entirely feasible that unfound fossils are unfound not just because they were not formed, not just because they have not yet been found, but because they actually never existed at all, yes?

That very much looks like a rephrasing of what you said was not the basis for your claim.

I asked you if your reasoning is that since the fossil record is discontinuous, then the process that generated it must also be discontinuous. You said no, it isn't.

But here you cite the discontinuous nature of the fossil record as the basis for your claim (i.e., fossils not found didn't actually exist).

Can you clarify?

Very well so we cannot claim something did exist in the past when we have no fossil evidence that it existed, it seems we're in agreement at last.

That's not what I said at all. Again, you asked if I could "prove from the fossil record that unfound things would exist", and I answered no. As we covered before (and you apparently forgot, and is rather shocking that you didn't know it in the first place), science does not deal in "proof". Also, the notion of universal common descent is not based solely on the fossil record (again, shocking that you don't know that).

I agree it was not a rebuttal, it was a dismissal.

Then you have conceded the point.

I dismiss it because it is fallacious, the implication - by you - that even if you were right, this somehow has bearing on the efficacy of the fossil record.

It has bearing on the generation of the fossil record. Again, it's rather shocking that you didn't grasp that.

As I said it is a matter of interpretation, the fossil record could well be a record of something else entirely.

Which, as you agreed, is not a rebuttal but merely a wave of the hand dismissal.

[William]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #525]

Why would you think that if the universe were created by a god or other entity, versus if it arose naturally via some means, that the development of planet Earth many billions of later would know or care, or be dependent on that origin mechanism?

I don't think that at all.

As I pointed out; It isn't a matter of who or what caused the universe to come into existence as that has no known bearing on what unfolded [and continues to unfold]

The unfolding [development of planet Earth - no matter how long after the initial act] knowing or caring isn't relevant to the process either. A particular lifeform [human] has a little knowledge and a little care about the details...but you have given an opinion in statement form which appears to claim outright that the unfolding event is disconnected from the initial event - something which cannot be found evident in nature, any more than we can observe anything in the universe which comes from nothing.
Everything within the universe comes from itself - that is what is observed.

The Earth is within the universe - and while we humans do not understand much of the mechanism, it is best to keep our statements aligned with what it is we do know, and not assume that because we do not understand how life unfolded on the planet - we do understand that everything prior to that being the case is not separate and is in fact - and regardless of how much time was involved - something which couldn't have happened any other way than it did -

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to William in post #543]

I don't think that at all.

As I pointed out; It isn't a matter of who or what caused the universe to come into existence as that has no known bearing on what unfolded [and continues to unfold]

Which was exactly my point.

... but you have given an opinion in statement form which appears to claim outright that the unfolding event is disconnected from the initial event ...

That is not at all what I said or implied. To repeat, you seem to be missing the word MECHANISM. My comment was that the details of how processes on Earth proceeded after Earth formed are independent of the MECHANISM for how the universe formed (god, natural, etc.). I don't know of any clearer way to say it and have repeated this comment already, and you seem to agree with that, but then want to claim I said something that I didn't. Obviously, Earth wouldn't be here if the universe itself had never came into existence, and I've made no claim to the contrary. MECHANISM is the key word you seem to be misssing (or misunderstanding).

[William]

[Replying to William in post #543]

I don't think that at all.

As I pointed out; It isn't a matter of who or what caused the universe to come into existence as that has no known bearing on what unfolded [and continues to unfold]

Which was exactly my point.

A particular lifeform [human] has a little knowledge and a little care about the details...but you have given an opinion in statement form which appears to claim outright that the unfolding event is disconnected from the initial event - something which cannot be found evident in nature, any more than we can observe anything in the universe which comes from nothing.
Everything within the universe comes from itself - that is what is observed.

That is not at all what I said or implied. To repeat, you seem to be missing the word MECHANISM. My comment was that the details of how processes on Earth proceeded after Earth formed are independent of the MECHANISM for how the universe formed (god, natural, etc.). I don't know of any clearer way to say it and have repeated this comment already, and you seem to agree with that, but then want to claim I said something that I didn't. Obviously, Earth wouldn't be here if the universe itself had never came into existence, and I've made no claim to the contrary. MECHANISM is the key word you seem to be misssing (or misunderstanding).

I agree that I may be misunderstanding.
Perhaps you can explain what the MECHANISM is?

[We_Are_VENOM]

No ... you're comparing apples and oranges but maybe don't realize it. Let's start at the beginning.

You first made the statement (post 368, p. 37) that Roger Penrose ...

"Calculated that the chances of our universe being life permitting by mere chance" at 10^123 (corrected later to 10^10^123).

Then you referenced (same post) an allaboutphilosopy.org article which claimed this huge number (10^10^123) related to this:

"Looking just at the initial entropy conditions, what is the likelihood of a universe supportive of life coming into existence by coincidence?

Neither of these are what Penrose is referring to.

Penrose uses this huge number to describe the precision, or fine tuning, required for the initial conditions of the Big Bang, based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics, to produce a universe identical to the one we have, rather than some other universe.

Yes it is what Penrose is referring to. The entire conversation is about the FINE TUNING required for life to exist in this universe.

So you pointing out "Penrose uses this number......to produce a universe identical to the one we have" does nothing for you, considering the fact that the number is based on the parameters for this universe.

Every detail in our universe (including life as we know it) had to materialize from this single initial condition

Now all of a sudden there is more and more talk of the initial condition(s) of the universe...but when I first mentioned it, no one knew what was going on with it.

Smh.

, out of all the other 10^10^123 minus 1 initial conditions that are possible (according to Penrose). All of these other initial conditions would produce a universe with some differences to our own, however miniscule.

Those other conditions wouldn't be life permitting, though.

So 10^10^123 represents the total number of possible initial conditions for the Big Bang, only one of which would lead to our exact universe.

And those odds aren't achieved by mere chance...that is the point.

But importantly, there is no consideration as to whether life may come to exist in any of the possible 10^10^123 universes, but obviously to be identical to ours life would have to develop because we do have it in this universe. Other initial conditions may produce universes with no life, or with different life forms, etc.

Nonsense. Without the proper fine tuning, you wouldnt even have the chemistry needed to have the right chemical bonds for atoms to even form.

No life would form.

This is the mistake you're making, as well as the allaboutphilosophy article. Your are misrepresenting Penrose's huge number as the probability of a universe with life arising from mere chance, when it actually represents the total number of possible universes that could arise (with or without life of any kind) for all of the possible inititial Big Bang initial conditions.

You are misrepresenting what the number means, and what the concept of what the initial conditions entails.

I tried illustrate that point with the Walmart video, but you ignored it and i am not explaining it again.

So, please get accurate knowledge what is meant by initial conditions and we can carry the conversation further.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
Do you think the resurrection of Christ described in the New Testament is truth?

Why do you want to know what I think?

Yet again you refuse to answer questions put to ya, but have no problem asking you some of em for yourself

I think this points to how theists're reticent to examine their own beliefs, but all too happy to fuss on someone else for theirs.

Which definition out of the many, do you use for "truth" unless I understand exactly what you're seeking I won't attempt an answer.

You ask an ambiguous question, I seek clarification and you leap on that opportunistically to then argue I'm avoiding the question.

I've writ it before, but maybe you need this written more clearly...

Step 1:
Choose the definition you think applies.

Step 2:
Answer the question.


Unfortunately, I can't think of any way to simplify this any more than that.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to William in post #545]

Perhaps you can explain what the MECHANISM is?

By mechanism I mean the exact method by which the universe first came into existence. That is why I've been adding in parentheses (a god, natural, etc.) to indicate that there could be any number of potential mechanisms involved for how the universe first came to be. But that whatever that method/mechanism was it did in fact happen, and how things unfolded on Earth many billions of years later is not dependent on the exact mechanism (or method) for how the initial universe came into existence.

I also made the analogy to evolution in that it does not depend on the exact mechanism for how life first arose (although many anti-evolutionists try to redefine evolution and claim it should explain origin of life), only that it did by some mechanism (method) whether that is a god being, abiogenesis, etc. Same idea.

[JoeyKnothead]

I've asked Joey, in fact several people, perhaps I asked you, for an example of an event from ancient history that you regard as "true" yet no answer has been forthcoming, I must have asked this over several months now.

Well let's fix that right now...

I think it's true that after several centuries of asking the question, Inquirer doesn't want to answer it, for fear it'll expose his faulty thinking.

Do you think the resurrection of Christ described in the New Testament is truth?

You want to discuss the truth of just one single recorded event from antiquity

I want to know your answer to a question that is an inverse of a question that you asked.

Do you think the resurrection of Christ described in the New Testament is truth?

you do not want to discuss the general problem of how to establish the truth of recorded events from ancient history.

Any such problem could be addressed within the post which the answer is presented.

Do you think the resurrection of Christ described in the New Testament is truth?

I want to see what principles you apply for determining "truth" of such claims so we can - impartially - apply the very same principles to the resurrection, an entirely reasonable and sensible approach, but all I get is evasion, refusal, dismissive even impolite responses to my request.

The principle I apply is such...

When someone refuses to answer a simple question by making up excuses, it's most likely true they think the answer'll expose their faulty thinking.

Do you think the resurrection of Christ described in the New Testament is truth?

You want to apply scrutiny and analysis and logic to one specific claim but never think to subject other claims to the same level of scrutiny.

I want to apply answers to questions as honest as I can when I get asked em, and have no fear of how my answers might be perceived, as long as I learn me something new, or teach someone something new.

Do you think the resurrection of Christ described in the New Testament is truth?

Therefore the motive is not to seek some "truth" with an open mind but simply to attack the resurrection claim by any and all means available, how can such an endeavor be regarded as impartial?

If there's a nefarious motive here, I propose it's you don't wanna answer the question cause ya fear it'll expose your faulty thinking.

Do you think the resurrection of Christ described in the New Testament is truth?

How can we ever know how someone's gonna respond to an answer you refuse to provide[/b]?

Do you think the resurrection of Christ described in the New Testament is truth?

Your excuses're no bettering me telling the pretty thing it was the dog who hopped up and cut out a slice of that pie she fixed for her hen gatheing.

Do you think the resurrection of Christ described in the New Testament is truth?

[Clownboat]

I am not aware of what principles I'm applying for determining the truth of the moon landing or 911.

That's where we differ then, I respectfully suggest you put some effort into this area.

You want me to put in effort for determining the principles I use for accepting the truth of the moon landing and 9/11?

I do not share this level of self worth that you seem to have placed upon yourself. I'll put in my effort where I see fit, not where you suggest. Currently, I'm trying to better understand those on the religious side, not the moon landing.

Therefore the motive is not to seek some "truth" with an open mind but simply to attack the resurrection claim by any and all means available, how can such an endeavor be regarded as impartial?

Spoken like someone defending a flat earth belief. Ask me to defend the attacks on the Twin Towers and see if I attack your motives or see if I can defend my belief in the truth of the attacks.

I assume you quote mine'd this out because you realize I can defend the historical event that was the attack on the Twin Towers, unlike what can be done for most claims in religious texts.

Readers:
Inquirer = Copy/past: I've asked Joey, in fact several people, perhaps I asked you, for an example of an event from ancient history that you regard as "true" yet no answer has been forthcoming, I must have asked this over several months now.

It was unanswered because it was silly to ask. Now that I answered it, just to appease Inquirer, it's no longer worthy to discuss. Odd huh?