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 Inquirer in post #332]

Is the statement true though? Can you meaningfully explain nature in terms of anything other than nature? I'd appreciate a straight honest answer here.

Since I don't believe that the supernatural exists in any form, and science has done a very good job to date of explaining how nature works in a huge number of cases, I believe there are naturalistic explanations for everything in nature including the many unsolved problems that still exist. I see no reason to believe otherwise, because I have never seen any convincing (to me) evidence for the existence of the supernatural which is the realm I'd place god beings in. To explain nature without using nature (guessing what you actually mean by that term), you'd need to believe in the supernatural and I don't.

I never ever said that not possessing and explanation proves that there is no explanation, you have misunderstood me if you really think that is what I have been saying.

I never suggested that you claimed there is no explanation. What I said, which you quoted, was this:

"Since we don't know the physical mechanism(s) involved in its origination, or if had an origin, or if it is the only universe that exists, etc., there is no way to rule out the possibility that some natural sequence of events led to it. Not knowing the answer to a scientific question does not rule out a potential natural explanation, and how the universe that we now about came into existence is an unsolved scientific problem."

Nowhere does that state or imply that you claimed there was no explanation ... the point was that you can't rule out a naturalistic explanation.

Anyway my statement was true and you agree it leads to an absurdity - so how to escape from the absurdity? or are you prepared to claim that physical reality actually makes no sense?

I agree you worded it so that you could claim an absurdity. I'm not prepared to claim that physical reality makes no sense. There are many unsolved scientific problems out there, but so far our progress at explaining nature scientifically has worked far better than anything else and I see no justification to bring in nonnatural explanations for physical reality as an alternative as such explanations have yet to be shown to have any validity.

Are you prepared to argue that a thing can be regarded as the explanation for its own presence?

Well, when you use such broad terms as "nature" and "universe" which include (by definition) virtually all of physical reality that we know about, then the anwser would have to be yes because there is no realm left where an explanation could come from (that is not a member of the set called physical reality). But I expect that will circle back to your many prior attempts to argue that it is logically impossible for there not to be some sort of supernatural cause or creator because otherwise something would have to create itself (no point beating that dead horse argument again here).

[Inquirer]

There are different kinds of truth Joey, ask a Judge or a lawyer if you don't believe this; which type are you asking me about with respect to the resurrection? life is a journey, where is yours taking you? round and round in circles perhaps?

If you know what you mean by "truth" then simply tell me, if you do not then this conversation can serve no purpose, you'll have to find someone else to insult, I'm done.

Let's not confuse our Christian by asking anything ever again that contains it the word "truth" in it...

It's just too confusing a word for 'im.

To those interested in knowing how our Christian may have answered, I pologize most sincerely for phrasing my question with so much grease.

Grease is the stuff ya use to make something slippery.

Slippery's when ya can't get holt to something.

Anyone else confounded by my eighth grade cabulary?

I heard a rumor that you once picked a fight with a mule and it kicked you in the head, is there any truth to that?

[JoeyKnothead]

I heard a rumor that you once picked a fight with a mule and it kicked you in the head, is there any truth to that?

It's absolutely hilarious how you refuse to answer a simple question, and keep coming up with new questions in order to deflect from that fact.

I once got in an argument with a guy on a website, but Sam Clemens summed it up best...

[Inquirer]

I heard a rumor that you once picked a fight with a mule and it kicked you in the head, is there any truth to that?

It's absolutely hilarious how you refuse to answer a simple question, and keep coming up with new questions in order to deflect from that fact.

I once got in an argument with a guy on a website, but Sam Clemens summed it up best...

Some questions can't be answered if they are phrased ambiguously, in such cases one ordinarily asks for clarification, most people I debate with understand that, but one can lead a horse (or mule, if one knows how to handle them) to water...

So, anyway, didya get a kicking from a mule or dintcha? it might help explain some things if you did, that's why I'm asking, but if you're embarrassed that's OK, I'm sure it wasn't the first time you've licked your wounds...

[brunumb]

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

At best.

Do you think it's literal truth?

As opposed to what other kind of truth?

Do you think it’s truth?

What is truth? does it differ from literal truth?

But you claimed it is myth, how did you establish that?

To establish any proposition about the past (that is if you subscribe to science and logic) you must first assert premises and then reason from them, so tell us please, what premises did you use when establishing it was a myth?

It's a simple, straightforward question that I am sure you understand, so why the reluctance to answer? Do you think the resurrection of Christ described in the New Testament actually happened? Not too hard to say yes or no is it?

[JoeyKnothead]

So, anyway, didya get a kicking from a mule or dintcha? it might help explain some things if you did, that's why I'm asking,

Refuses to answer a question I put to him, continues to ask me unrelated questions.

This, ladies and germs, is the cutting edge in Christian 'debate'.

But let's not get on him too much for it. Who here ain't ever tried to divert attention away when to answer a question honestly'll make us look goofier'n a cartoon dog?

I, for one, applaud Inquirer's stellar ability to make excuses for why he refuses to answer a simple question, while asking me a series of questions totally unrelated to the issue at hand. It just goes to show that trying to get an honest answer out of some Christians is harder'n pulling hens teeth, and ya got someone to hold their beaks open when ya do.

I might as well fetch on out and ask ole one eye on the one side but not none on the other'n Henry there what he thinks about all this, for what good this'n here's adoing.

but if you're embarrassed that's OK, I'm sure it wasn't the first time you've licked your wounds...

I'm just embarrassed you ain't been embarrassed enough to answer a simple question.

Alas, when honor and integrity mean nothing, we're all apt to hear a Bible thumping in the background.

[brunumb]

So, anyway, didya get a kicking from a mule or dintcha? it might help explain some things if you did, that's why I'm asking, but if you're embarrassed that's OK, I'm sure it wasn't the first time you've licked your wounds...

So, not enough to dodge the question, but it is then necessary to snidely attack the questioner.

(Readers should recall that Inquisitor first asked about JK being kicked in the head by a mule).

[We_Are_VENOM]

Since evolution isn't random, it does not fall into this category of process. So it would be very much in the running for "giving you that."

Um, the entire cosmic system is one of low entropy....and if that weren't the case, you wouldn't even have the cosmic chemistry to create the environment needed for life, nor the organic chemistry to create species, much less the evolution of species.

So, your theory has problems, my man.

There is far more to entropy than this simple high school level analogy. Here is an explanation:

https://www.science20.com/train_thought ... rder-75081

Well, lets take it to higher levels then...

Roger Penrose..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Penrose

Calculated that the chances of our universe being life permitting by mere chance...

10^123 to 1

That is 1, followed by 123 zeros.

Astronomical number.

https://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/tele ... py-faq.htm

Now, this is common knowledge now in scientific/philosophical circles so you can do your own due diligence for your own research.

So yeah, 10^123 to 1.

It aint happening.

Boltzmann is rolling over in his grave. Take any statistical mechanics class and see what the definition of entropy is from that perspective (or see the link above, or the Wikipedia link you provided which also has the microstate/macrostate definition).

The definition I provided matches the context of the discussion...which is the amount of disorder/randomness.

Now, what you are talking about, I don't know.

I was referring to evolution, not origin of life (which is a different subject entirely that evolution has nothing to say about, or any dependence on).

Well, I know you would PREFER that evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life....but if abiogenesis is false, then evolution is false.

If life cannot arise naturally, then life cannot evolve naturally.

Sorry, charlie.

No charge for that lesson, and correction of a common mistake made by anti-evolutionists who for some reason think the two are related.

You are wrong in your correction, sir.

On your next employee review with the big guy, ask him why he's holding back on the rain and winter snow we need here in the southwest and Rockies to keep the Colorado river flowing into the reservoirs. That would be doing God's work (if you can get some results ... the Utah governor asking everyone to pray for rain doesn't seem to be doing the trick).

The one with the gold decides when it rains, and when it snows.

God is the one with the gold.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #368]

Um, the entire cosmic system is one of low entropy....and if that weren't the case, you wouldn't even have the cosmic chemistry to create the environment needed for life, nor the organic chemistry to create species, much less the evolution of species.

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

Calculated that the chances of our universe being life permitting by mere chance...

10^123 to 1

That is 1, followed by 123 zeros.

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

Now, what you are talking about, I don't know.

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.

God is the one with the gold.

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.

[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.