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?

[We_Are_VENOM]

Why bring in the entire cosmic system when we're talking about life developing on a tiny planet in a tiny solar system in one of billions or trillions of galaxies each with billions of stars and planets?

Because your world view (which I assume is atheism/agnostism/naturalism), is based upon an entire cosmic, low entropy system.

Everything had to be in order from the very moment of the expansion.

That is what we are dealing with here.

The chemistry and environment of the early Earth is all that matters, and how those conditions materialized doesn't factor in either.

Unless you have low entropy has an initial condition of the big bang, you wouldn't even have chemistry.

That is the point.

You can't (logically) just gloss over elements of your the theory which are so fundamental in getting the theory off the ground.

Our planet formed some 4.6 billion years ago, and the earliest life forms we've discovered so far appeared around 4 billion years ago.

According to the theory...4 billion.

Sure.

The question is how those life forms came to be, and we don't yet know they answer to that question but if doesn't default to the work of a god being.

Then you don't have a theory of evolution. Not an adequate one, at least.

If abiogenesis is impossible, then evolution can't possibly be...POSSIBLE.

You do understand that, right?

So? This is irrelevant if the "permitting" of life by the universe did not happen by mere chance. Chemistry is not random or mere chance, so there's no reason to believe that life developed that way.

That is nonsense. Either something happens by chance, or it happens by choice. I understand you have a world view to cling on too, and you don't like the idea of a Cosmic Creator.

But lets not sacrifice our logical reasoning because we have a world view to protect.

If God does not exist, there was no order to cosmic happenings after the big bang...just like there is no order to a 52 card deck that was thrown in the air with cards floating everywhere.

For life to originate, you must have the right ingredients, with the right amount, at the right time, and in the right environment...and those things have to be EXACT...with mathematical precision.

There is nothing ordered about all space, time, energy, and matter expanding from a singularity point...and the fact that it wasn't ordered would mean that it was random and chaotic, by DEFAULT.

So it isn't looking good for your side of things...but lets not trade in logical reasoning for falsehoods.

Why doesn't Mars "permit" rain, or have lakes of H2O today? The reason is that the atmospheric conditions and good old chemistry and thermodynamics don't permit it (the surface pressure on Mars is about 1/100 that of Earth which is below the triple point pressure of H2O, prohibiting the formation of any significant amounts of liquid H2O).

Ummm..that is my point, the conditions have to be just right, doesn't it?

Pemrose's calculation, if based on purely random events, is not applicable to a planet where chemistry and thermodynamics nonrandomly control how things proceed.

Yeah, controlled by fine-tuned parameters as so dictated by the Cosmic Engineer (God). If there is no God (on your view), then there are no fine tuned parameters.

Otherwise, the universe would be a giant canvas full of paint that had spilled everywhere...it wouldn't be a giant canvas full of pictures of skyscrapers, human beings, cars, trees, and buildings.

It is the standard definition of thermodynamic entropy (S) in the statistical mechanics world:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boltzmann ... py_formula

S = kLogW is on Boltzmann's headstone.

Point?

Since he's God, it should be trivial to do a little reverse alchemy and turn that gold into H2O and drop a few million acre-feet into Lake Mead and Lake Powell. Ask him about it next time you see him in the break room.

On judgement day, you ask him.

Speak freely, too.

Don't hold back.

[brunumb]

Unless you have low entropy has an initial condition of the big bang, you wouldn't even have chemistry.

Don't just gloss over it, explain why not.

[brunumb]

If God does not exist, there was no order to cosmic happenings after the big bang...just like there is no order to a 52 card deck that was thrown in the air with cards floating everywhere.

So you think that the big bang was like throwing a deck of cards in the air. You don't need a god for there to be order. Natural forces like gravity and electrostatics will work to create some order out of the chaos.

For life to originate, you must have the right ingredients, with the right amount, at the right time, and in the right environment...and those things have to be EXACT...with mathematical precision.

How can you claim all of that has to be exact with mathematical precision when you don't even know what mechanism was involved, over what time scale or how the environment contributed? You are just flinging out unsupported claims hoping that the clueless will buy what you say, rather like a sermon from the pulpit.

There is nothing ordered about all space, time, energy, and matter expanding from a singularity point...and the fact that it wasn't ordered would mean that it was random and chaotic, by DEFAULT.

Another wild, unsupported claim. If it had any merit it would not merely be in the domain of evangelical creationists.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #370]

If abiogenesis is impossible, then evolution can't possibly be...POSSIBLE.

You do understand that, right?

Who says abiogenesis is impossible? I believe it is entirely possible and we just don't know the mechanistic details yet. It has not been proven to be impossible meaning there is a nonzero probability that it is possible. It also makes sense as a general idea for how life came to be ... especially when compared to a supernatural alternative.

That is nonsense. Either something happens by chance, or it happens by choice.

Chemistry doesn't have a brain to enable it to make choices. Atoms combine to form molecules based on their outer electron configurations and the rules for forming ionic and covalent bonds, crystal structures, etc. Molecules combine to make structures, proteins, and countless other assemblies based on the rules of chemistry. These are neither chance, nor choice, and anything but nonsense.

For life to originate, you must have the right ingredients, with the right amount, at the right time, and in the right environment...and those things have to be EXACT...with mathematical precision.

And? I'll admit the probability of this all happening is very small (although I'd replace mathematical precision with chemical precision), but is isn't zero. We know we had an atmosphere on Earth, land and lots of water 4 billion years ago, volcanic eruptions providing more chemicals, sunlight providing photons at wavelengths from the UV to the IR which can initiate chemical reactions and provide heat, lighting, etc. And this is some 600 millions years after Earth formed. Nonzero probability of life forming in those conditions and time frame.

There is nothing ordered about all space, time, energy, and matter expanding from a singularity point...and the fact that it wasn't ordered would mean that it was random and chaotic, by DEFAULT.

Nothing to with the processes on Earth starting 4.6 billion years ago. How the universe formed is irrelevant if the clock starts 4.6 billion years ago, which it does if the problem is the development of life on Earth. No need to even consider the mechanisn of origin of the universe at all.

Ummm..that is my point, the conditions have to be just right, doesn't it?

Yep ... and it appears to have taken some 600 million years after Earth formed to get there.

Otherwise, the universe would be a giant canvas full of paint that had spilled everywhere...it wouldn't be a giant canvas full of pictures of skyscrapers, human beings, cars, trees, and buildings.

The canvas you describe is just the development of this one tiny planet we live on ... Earth. We've yet to discover if there are other worlds that may have skyscrapers, life, and whatever that life may have produced. But we do know that things like stars, planets, comets, nebulas, black holes, neutron stars, etc. are spread throughout the observable universe and that these structures arose from matter behaving according to the (nonrandom) laws of physics, chemistry, gravity and other forces. No supernatural being was needed to orchestrate or plan it all, and pure randomness would not produce specific structures (and gazillions of them) like stars and planets. There is a lot of nonrandomness in the universe.

On judgement day, you ask him.

Sure ... when is judgement day so I can put it on my calendar?

[We_Are_VENOM]

Unless you have low entropy has an initial condition of the big bang, you wouldn't even have chemistry.

Don't just gloss over it, explain why not.

Excerpt for your question.

"A Universe with too much matter-and-energy for its expansion rate will re-collapse in short order; a Universe with too little will expand into oblivion before it's possible to even form atoms.

Yet not only has our Universe neither re-collapsed nor failed to yield atoms, but even today, some 13.8 billion years after the Big Bang, those two sides of the equation appear to be perfectly in balance."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... 8425e34b87

And guess what, you can't have chemistry without atoms, can you? No, you can't.

Don't think this is one of those isolated articles in favor of creationism or intelligent design, either.

Everyone in scientific circles knows about the various laws/constants which governs our universe, and if either of them were off by the tiniest degree, life would not be permitted.

[We_Are_VENOM]

So you think that the big bang was like throwing a deck of cards in the air.

Yeah, and until you can refute anything I said (which you've NEVER been proven guilty of), then what I say stands.

It was an analogy to demonstrate how ridiculous the idea of so much order (card house) coming from so much disorder. That is not how entropy works.

If you don't expect a card house to formulate from cards floating in the air and landing, then you shouldn't expect human bodies to formulate with irreducible complexity....from a mindless, blind, random, disordered process.

If you do, then this is an obvious taxi cab fallacy, as you just don't like the idea of a God...but sounds like a personal problem.

Natural forces like gravity and electrostatics will work to create some order out of the chaos.

Throw some cards in the air, and see if gravity will create some "card house" order out of the chaos.

If not, then this is obviously just one of those "knee jerk" responses, basically a "yes it can" without any substance whatsoever.

That isn't science, unfortunately.

How can you claim all of that has to be exact with mathematical precision when you don't even know what mechanism was involved, over what time scale or how the environment contributed? You are just flinging out unsupported claims hoping that the clueless will buy what you say, rather like a sermon from the pulpit.

Nonsense.

I already posted the link to Penrose with his equations and probabilites...and the fine-tuning parameters of our universe is will known/established in science.

Just Google "fine tuned universe" or "cosmological constants".

It is called "science"...you know, observable, testable stuff....unlike your beliefs in evolution and abiogensis...the stuff I am speaking of can actually be tested and observed.

You atheists/agnostics all want to act like you are so in tuned with science, but once some science is laid which actually supports intelligent design, then all of a sudden you want to get all skeptical and wish washy.

No.

Deal with it.

Another wild, unsupported claim. If it had any merit it would not merely be in the domain of evangelical creationists.

We know how entropy works. Throw cards in the air and see if you will get a card house. Throw paint on to a canvas and see if you will get the Mona Lisa painting.

Set off an explosion at a printing factory and see if you will get a dictionary.

That isn't how entropy works.

If you start off with a big bang, you won't get, whether slowly or gradually, configured human bodies with consciousness.

That ain't how entropy works.

[brunumb]

Unless you have low entropy has an initial condition of the big bang, you wouldn't even have chemistry.

Don't just gloss over it, explain why not.

Excerpt for your question.

"A Universe with too much matter-and-energy for its expansion rate will re-collapse in short order; a Universe with too little will expand into oblivion before it's possible to even form atoms.

Yet not only has our Universe neither re-collapsed nor failed to yield atoms, but even today, some 13.8 billion years after the Big Bang, those two sides of the equation appear to be perfectly in balance."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswith ... 8425e34b87

And guess what, you can't have chemistry without atoms, can you? No, you can't.

Don't think this is one of those isolated articles in favor of creationism or intelligent design, either.

Everyone in scientific circles knows about the various laws/constants which governs our universe, and if either of them were off by the tiniest degree, life would not be permitted.

So what? It is what it is. If it wasn't, it would be something else. The universe is not there to make us possible. We are possible because of the universe. You've really not made any point at all. No gods necessary.

[brunumb]

So you think that the big bang was like throwing a deck of cards in the air.

Yeah, and until you can refute anything I said (which you've NEVER been proven guilty of), then what I say stands.

Sound bites and emojis are somewhat difficult to refute. The rest is just unsupported claims that you try to pass off as facts.

It was an analogy to demonstrate how ridiculous the idea of so much order (card house) coming from so much disorder. That is not how entropy works.

If you don't expect a card house to formulate from cards floating in the air and landing, then you shouldn't expect human bodies to formulate with irreducible complexity....from a mindless, blind, random, disordered process.

If you do, then this is an obvious taxi cab fallacy, as you just don't like the idea of a God...but sounds like a personal problem.

Natural forces like gravity and electrostatics will work to create some order out of the chaos.

Throw some cards in the air, and see if gravity will create some "card house" order out of the chaos.

If not, then this is obviously just one of those "knee jerk" responses, basically a "yes it can" without any substance whatsoever.

That isn't science, unfortunately.

How can you claim all of that has to be exact with mathematical precision when you don't even know what mechanism was involved, over what time scale or how the environment contributed? You are just flinging out unsupported claims hoping that the clueless will buy what you say, rather like a sermon from the pulpit.

Nonsense.

I already posted the link to Penrose with his equations and probabilites...and the fine-tuning parameters of our universe is will known/established in science.

Just Google "fine tuned universe" or "cosmological constants".

It is called "science"...you know, observable, testable stuff....unlike your beliefs in evolution and abiogensis...the stuff I am speaking of can actually be tested and observed.

You atheists/agnostics all want to act like you are so in tuned with science, but once some science is laid which actually supports intelligent design, then all of a sudden you want to get all skeptical and wish washy.

No.

Deal with it.

Another wild, unsupported claim. If it had any merit it would not merely be in the domain of evangelical creationists.

We know how entropy works. Throw cards in the air and see if you will get a card house. Throw paint on to a canvas and see if you will get the Mona Lisa painting.

Set off an explosion at a printing factory and see if you will get a dictionary.

That isn't how entropy works.

More hand waving and bluff. How can anyone seriously suggest that the expansion of the universe at the big bang can somehow be compared with throwing cards in the air. Order and disorder. Saying "that's not how entropy works" in no way demonstrates that you actually know how entropy works. Laughable nonsense.

By the way your link to Penrose was a Wiki article that did not contain any of the calculations that you suggested, and the other link misrepresented what his probability described. This stuff might work in a sermon from the pulpit with the uninformed target audience lapping it up and shouting "Hallelujah Brother", but you will have to do better here.

If you start off with a big bang, you won't get, whether slowly or gradually, configured human bodies with consciousness.

And yet, here we are.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Sound bites and emojis are somewhat difficult to refute.

........

The rest is just unsupported claims that you try to pass off as facts.

Reminds me of evolution.

More hand waving and bluff. How can anyone seriously suggest that the expansion of the universe at the big bang can somehow be compared with throwing cards in the air. Order and disorder. Saying "that's not how entropy works" in no way demonstrates that you actually know how entropy works. Laughable nonsense.

I already explained it...I need a direct response to what I said..you know, a response with actual substance.

When you make these red herring responses, that in no way demonstrates you know actually know refutations/rebuttals work in a debate.

There is no substance in your responses whatsoever.

But anyways like I said before, and I will say it again; that's not how entropy works.

The highlight of your entire responses to me as it relates to this subject was "gravity can do it with order"...without explaining why or how.

No details, no substance whatsoever.

SMH. Youve got nothing, so you offer nothing.

By the way your link to Penrose was a Wiki article that did not contain any of the calculations that you suggested, and the other link misrepresented what his probability described. This stuff might work in a sermon from the pulpit with the uninformed target audience lapping it up and shouting "Hallelujah Brother", but you will have to do better here.

No substance.

I am finish speaking to you on this matter, as my time/energy will be directed to those who offer substance...but for now, check out Penrose and his sentiments and if you have any questions, email him.

That 10^10^123 number is ugly (watch video).

Very ugly.

Until then,

And yet, here we are.

Gen 1

And yet, here we are.

[brunumb]

Until then,

Okay. Another Claytons response followed by a hasty retreat. I can understand that. Perhaps you could start again by explaining the difference between living and non-living matter.