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?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to William in post #498]

Can you please explain "has no relationship to the mechanism that created the universe" re "How things proceeded on Earth" because I am unclear as to why this should logically be the case.

The mechanism for how the universe came into existence (Big Bang, some other natural mechanism, god did it, anything else) has no bearing on how Earth developed (its geology, atmosphere, life, etc.) once it formed some 4.6 billions years ago. They are independent events, unrelated to each other.

Of course, if someone believes that the universe was created by a god as the mechanism, and that Earth did not form from the accretion disk surrounding the sun but was also simply poofed into existence by a god, I suppose you could argue that they both had the same mechanism for their formation.

[JoeyKnothead]

Why do you want to know what I think?

It helps to understand those on the other side.

Said Clownboat in a dry nod to the OP topic.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #500]

Abiogenesis is impossible, but you believe it is possible.

But it isn't impossible ... that's the problem. You're just declaring it to be impossible when there's no reason to believe it isn't even if the probability is low. A low probability, and impossible, are very different things.

How the universe originated, is where the contention lies between theism/atheism.

It is just one of them. The existence of god beings at all ... whatever they may be claimed to have done ... is the main bone of contention.

[We_Are_VENOM]

But it isn't impossible ... that's the problem. You're just declaring it to be impossible when there's no reason to believe it isn't even if the probability is low. A low probability, and impossible, are very different things.

10^10^123 is the probability.

That is 123 zeros, in the EXPONENT, and you don't defy those odds with mindless and blind processes.

It is just one of them. The existence of god beings at all ... whatever they may be claimed to have done ... is the main bone of contention.

Which makes the conversation relevant, because on Christian theism, one of the things "claimed" is that God created the universe.

[brunumb]

But it isn't impossible ... that's the problem. You're just declaring it to be impossible when there's no reason to believe it isn't even if the probability is low. A low probability, and impossible, are very different things.

10^10^123 is the probability.

If that's meant to be the probability that abiogenesis occurred, please supply the working calculations that led to that result and the corresponding mechanism to which it applies.

[JoeyKnothead]

But it isn't impossible ... that's the problem. You're just declaring it to be impossible when there's no reason to believe it isn't even if the probability is low. A low probability, and impossible, are very different things.

10^10^123 is the probability.

That is 123 zeros, in the EXPONENT, and you don't defy those odds with mindless and blind processes.

The probability of something occurring, which has occurred, is 1.

...
Which makes the conversation relevant, because on Christian theism, one of the things "claimed" is that God created the universe.

"Claimed".

[Difflugia]

But it isn't impossible ... that's the problem. You're just declaring it to be impossible when there's no reason to believe it isn't even if the probability is low. A low probability, and impossible, are very different things.

10^10^123 is the probability.

That is 123 zeros, in the EXPONENT, and you don't defy those odds with mindless and blind processes.

The probability of something occurring, which has occurred, is 1.

Even aside from that, most of the probability arguments that come up with astronomical numbers like that are for something other than evolution. It's hard to know which one We_Are_VENOM is referring to (or if there's even a specific one), but they're usually something like "the odds of an average protein assembling itself from scratch" or "the probability that a 102-base-pair gene arose in a single mutation." Since neither of those is how evolution works, they're actually arguments for why biological complexity arose via evolution rather than something instantaneous.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #514]

10^10^123 is the probability.

That is 123 zeros, in the EXPONENT, and you don't defy those odds with mindless and blind processes.

I've linked to this old Talkorigins article many times before, but it still is a good summary of why anti-evolutionists (or anti-abiogenesists if that's a word) get it so wrong:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

You've even upped the ante from your original number by sneaking in another 10. Way back in post 368 your probability was 10^123, now it is 10^10^123. Those are gigantically different numbers (not 123 in the exponent, but 10^123)! But who's counting ... both are just made up numbers.

[otseng]

How arrogant must one be to think a god created all this, and us, and cares so much about us he's willing to condemn us to Hell to show it?

It's a hubris I'll never understand.

So the majority of people who are registered at this forum, the same forum that welcomes you as a guest and lets you participate, are all perceived by you as "arrogant", that sums you up perfectly I think.

Moderator Comment

Let's please avoid all the accusation of arrogance.

Please review the Rules.



______________



Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I've linked to this old Talkorigins article many times before, but it still is a good summary of why anti-evolutionists (or anti-abiogenesists if that's a word) get it so wrong:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

I posted links for my position(s), too.

You've even upped the ante from your original number by sneaking in another 10. Way back in post 368 your probability was 10^123, now it is 10^10^123. Those are gigantically different numbers (not 123 in the exponent, but 10^123)!

10^123 was way back as I relied on memory.

10^10^123 was recent as I relied on research.

And I can assure you, the correct number is the latter, not the former.

So the number that you should focus on is the one meant to keep you up at night...which is 10^10^123.

That is a 10 at the base, followed by a 10 as an exponent to the base, followed by a 123 as an exponent to the 10 as the exponent to the base.

That is one ugly number for your position, sir.

If your position was drowning in the middle of the ocean, 10^10^123 is the brick that is tied to its ankle.

But who's counting ... both are just made up numbers.

Roger Penrose is counting, and the number is not made up.

And BTW, since you went back and found which post I made now corrective error, perhaps you can go back and find that post where I provided the video of Penrose discussing this very topic.

You can be as dismissive about it as you like, but the number isn't going anywhere, especially not while I am around.