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?

[JoeyKnothead]

...
... and I will create a separate thread asking a simple question for debate, as it pertains to fine tuning and the implications.

I suggest...

How proud is the puddle?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #590]

How about admitting that it does matter, and I will create a separate thread asking a simple question for debate, as it pertains to fine tuning and the implications...and in the second post to the thread I will address whatever post you want me to address from this thread...just tell me which one and we can take it from there?

I have no problem admitting that initial conditions matter, but (for example) the initial conditions for preparing a cake do not influence the outcome of the baseball game I'm watching on TV. That is the basic point I'm trying to make.

The initial conditions for the Big Bang may well be as Penrose describes in terms of the precision (fine tuning) needed for those conditions to have the event result in the exact universe we have, but once that event happened and played out for some 9 billion years, and Earth formed, the development of life on Earth going forward had no dependence on the initial conditions of the Big Bang (or the details of how those conditions came about). Obviously, the existence of our solar system depends on having star formation occur, planets for from accretion disks around stars, etc., but that stuff was in place long before Earth formed or life had any chance of developing on it.

It seems to me the "probability of life" should start with the initial conditions of the pre-life Earth, and working from there. At least the number of assumptions is far less than in starting with the Big Bang, which has yet to even be confirmed as the mechanism for origin of this universe. Starting with Earth's formation 4.6 billion years ago, once all the physical constants, etc. were established, is a far easier problem to attempt probability estimates for (as far as life arising).

Fair enough?

Yep ... this discussion is way off topic for this OP anyway (but nearly every OP wanders into tangents the longer it runs, so nothing unusual there).

[Inquirer]

You do grasp what your position amounts to here? It amounts to an admission that you have no idea what you mean when you ask me about "true" you need me to do the work for you?

I've said it before, I'll say it again...

Choose the definition you deem most apt, and answer the question...

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

Not to you, no; I doubt it's truth in your eyes.

I think this sort of dodging, or skirting around an issue is all too prevalent in the Christian community.

If one has the Truth[tm] on their side, how can a simple question cause such hemming and hawwing, and wringing of hands? I contend it's cause the god concept is designed to comfort folks on difficult, unanswerable questions.

But let's see if, now aware of all that, our Christian can muster up something approaching a direct, unambiguous answer...

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

Yyhh Tghli Tbui nttgjh Uhhu.

[Inquirer]

As I've said before, the odds of something occurring, that has occurred, is 1.

A six has been known to occur when a dice has been thrown, therefore (according to Joey's reasoning) the probability of a six being thrown is 1.

Yet as most of us are aware, it is in fact 1/6 Joey, will you be retracting your claim now?

[Inquirer]

[Replying to William in post #551]

Again, there is no way that can can know this as true.

OK ... I give up. Evolution, by definition, says nothing about HOW life originated. It doesn't care or depend on that mechanism, and it makes no sense to say "there is no way that we can know this as true." It isn't a subjective question ... it is a definition. Evolution can only work once life does exist ... it makes no statements on how that happened.

If you have some scenario where the processes that unfolded on Earth after it formed 4.6 billion years ago depend on whether the universe came into existence naturally (eg. Big Bang, or other mechanism), or was created by a god, please describe how that works. You obviously think that is the case, so how about an example.

Lets not forget the foundations of science here, specifically the well tested law of biogenesis, its as well established as the conservation laws.

[Difflugia]

As I've said before, the odds of something occurring, that has occurred, is 1.

A six has been known to occur when a dice has been thrown, therefore (according to Joey's reasoning) the probability of a six being thrown is 1.

Yet as most of us are aware, it is in fact 1/6 Joey, will you be retracting your claim now?

Your arguments really seem to gravitate toward straw men built on equivocation.

By Joey's logic, if I threw a 6, then the odds that I threw a 6 are 1. The prior probability of having thrown a 6 is 1 in 6. The probability that I throw a 6 next time is 1 in 6. This is one of those cases where I would have expected you to know that and I'm not sure if it's more polite to assume that you did or didn't.

While Christian apologetics is rife with such equivocation, both intentional and not, please stop doing it when you're aware of it.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #595]

Lets not forget the foundations of science here, specifically the well tested law of biogenesis, its as well established as the conservation laws.

The "law" of biogenesis is not a law in the sense of laws of physics or conservation laws ... it is just a statement that we've never observed life from nonlife and have only observed only life creating life. Henry Charlton Bastian apparently first coined the word biogenesis to distinguish it from spontaneous generation that people used to believe happened (maggots from meat, etc.). If biogenesis were a "law" it would rule out abiogenesis, but that can't be done (yet).

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #595]

Lets not forget the foundations of science here, specifically the well tested law of biogenesis, its as well established as the conservation laws.

The "law" of biogenesis is not a law in the sense of laws of physics or conservation laws ... it is just a statement that we've never observed life from nonlife and have only observed only life creating life. Henry Charlton Bastian apparently first coined the word biogenesis to distinguish it from spontaneous generation that people used to believe happened (maggots from meat, etc.). If biogenesis were a "law" it would rule out abiogenesis, but that can't be done (yet).

I'm not so sure though. The "sense" in which the conservation laws are so named, is the same, we've never observed mass, charge, angular momentum disappearing or appearing, that's the only reason they are regarded as laws, there is no other reason, there's no proof for example.

I'd argue that on that basis, an empirical basis, biogenesis just as much a law as all these others.

[JoeyKnothead]

You do grasp what your position amounts to here? It amounts to an admission that you have no idea what you mean when you ask me about "true" you need me to do the work for you?

I've said it before, I'll say it again...

Choose the definition you deem most apt, and answer the question...

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

Not to you, no; I doubt it's truth in your eyes.

I think this sort of dodging, or skirting around an issue is all too prevalent in the Christian community.

If one has the Truth[tm] on their side, how can a simple question cause such hemming and hawwing, and wringing of hands? I contend it's cause the god concept is designed to comfort folks on difficult, unanswerable questions.

But let's see if, now aware of all that, our Christian can muster up something approaching a direct, unambiguous answer...

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

Yyhh Tghli Tbui nttgjh Uhhu.

This is Christian 'debate'?

I remind the observer my question is in response to Inquirer asking if someone thought it was a myth. I had no qualms answering.

But we see so often here, many promoters of "Truth(tm)" can have em a hard time when ya ask em to answer questions about their "Truth(tm)".


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

[Jose Fly]

The "law" of biogenesis is not a law in the sense of laws of physics or conservation laws ... it is just a statement that we've never observed life from nonlife and have only observed only life creating life. Henry Charlton Bastian apparently first coined the word biogenesis to distinguish it from spontaneous generation that people used to believe happened (maggots from meat, etc.). If biogenesis were a "law" it would rule out abiogenesis, but that can't be done (yet).

That's exactly it. This law was a direct result of Pasteur's work showing that spontaneous generation ideas were wrong. It has no bearing at all on the origin of the first life on earth.

Apparently the creationists who argue otherwise actually think all the scientists who have been, and are conducting OOL research don't realize their entire body of work is in violation of a scientific law! I can just see Dr. Szostak..."What? You mean to tell me all of our work violates a fundamental scientific law? Gosh, I guess we'll shut it all down!"