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]

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.

If you followed the thread (from the time I first joined the fun) you wouldn't have to guess what the astronomical number is about..you would KNOW that it had nothing to do with macroevolution, but rather cosmic, chemical, and organic evolution.

So basically, strawman.

[Difflugia]

If you followed the thread (from the time I first joined the fun) you wouldn't have to guess what the astronomical number is about..

A link would have been polite, but leopards and spots, I guess.

you would KNOW that it had nothing to do with macroevolution, but rather cosmic, chemical, and organic evolution.

OK. Here it is.

Now of course, the laws which govern our universe are much more complex (10^10^123) than the ones which govern the machine...so it makes no sense to think that the universe wasn't designed, while having no problem with the machine being designed (the fact that you know the machine was designed isn't the point).

That doesn't really specify what the "laws" are, what they have to do with "cosmic, chemical, and organic evolution," or how you turned their complexity into a number.

So basically, strawman.

You have to actually make an argument for someone to misrepresent it, but whatever.

[William]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #511]

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.

That just isn't true.

It is like saying that a seed has no bearing on the plant it becomes...trying to separate the events is simply attempting to argue that they are not of the same universe...

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] but to state that the two events are disconnected is irrational.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #520]

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

Sort of. You posted a link to this article:

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

which gave no derivation, assumptions, etc. but said this:

"Looking just at the initial entropy conditions, what is the likelihood of a universe supportive of life coming into existence by coincidence? One in billions of billions? Or trillions of trillions of trillions? Or more? Roger Penrose, a famous British mathematician and a close friend of Stephen Hawking, wondered about this question and tried to calculate the probability of the initial entropy conditions of the Big Bang. According to Penrose, the odds against such an occurrence were on the order of 10 to the power of 10^123 to 1."

What, exactly, were "the initial entropy conditions"? Since we don't know what those were (no mechanism for origin of the universe has been proven), it is not possible to know what the initial entropy conditions were, making it impossible to derive a probability for "the likelihood of a universe supportive of life coming into existence by coincidence." That's problem #1. Problem #2 is that coincidence implies random events, and we know that chemistry is not random, subatomic particles do not form atoms randomly, photons interacting with matter isn't random, etc. So whatever number is estimated from this kind of analysis is pretty much meaningless. Apparently this 10^10^123 number came from Penrose's book "The Emperor's New Mind", but I'm not interested enough to buy it to find out the details of how he arrived at it.

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.

I understand how exponents work, but without reading Penrose's book section on how he arrived at the number it is not possible to ascertain whether it has any relevance to this debate, or evolution, or abiogenesis. Sounds to me like it is more of the tornado in a junkyard making a 747, or monkey's typing Shakespeare kind of nonsense which both assume total randomness and chance without any consideration of the nonrandomness of chemistry, natural selection, etc. (which increase the probabilities tremendously).

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

Then show us how Penrose came up with it. Got any links, or have you read his book to summarize it?

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.

OK ... I'll do that and see if he quantifies how he arrived at that number, and what assumptions were involved.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to William in post #523]

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] but to state that the two events are disconnected is irrational.

I think you're missing the point, which is that the MECHANISM for origin of the universe (natural, god, etc.) is not relevent or connected to how the development of Earth's geology, atmosphere, life, etc. proceeded after it formed billions of years later. These things would have proceeded exactly the same whether the universe origin mechanism was natural, or god, or something else. By the time Earth formed the universe was billions of years old, and the basic structure of matter, physical laws, etc. were already in place.

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? It is no different from saying that evolution has no dependence on the mechanism for HOW life originated, only that it did by some means. It the universe were created by a god, or arose naturally, Earth coming along billions of years later wouldn't know or care whether it was one or the other. That isn't irrational.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #520]

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.

OK ... I watched the entire Penrose video linked in post 379 and:

1) He trashes the Anthropic argument has having any legitimacy.

2) The 10^10^23 number (no explanation of how he got it ... he just blurts it out) is what he claims is the precision (or "fine tuning") needed for the initial conditions of the Big Bang (which he assumes as the origin mechanism) according to the second law of thermodynamics for the universe that we have now to have turned out exactly as it is, relative to some other random scenario. This isn't a probability for "the likelihood of a universe supportive of life coming into existence by coincidence" as the allaboutphilosopy.org article worded it, but includes virtually everything in the entire universe existing as it is (including our tiny planet with life which is a negigible component of the entire universe) compared to all other scenarios, for a given Big Bang initial condition.

3) Penrose then comments that if you only consider our own galaxy, or just our own solar system, then this precision number (for the initial condition at the Big Bang) is "ridiculously smaller" (he provides no numbers for how much). That might be a more realistic number if you wanted to hang your hat on some argument like this, but alas we have no way to put a value on "ridiculously smaller."

Not buying it.

[We_Are_VENOM]

A link would have been polite, but leopards and spots, I guess.

Links were provided, including one with the video of the man behind the number himself...Roger Penrose.

That doesn't really specify what the "laws" are, what they have to do with "cosmic, chemical, and organic evolution," or how you turned their complexity into a number.

First off, its funny how you guys keep coming at me as if Im the one who came up with the number.

"....how YOU turned their complexity into a number".

I didnt do anything.

That is Penrose's number, based on his calculations and it is well established in science and no one has (that I am aware of) offered any objections to it..but instead they've either tried to explain it away (the multiverse offered as an explanation) or they downplay it (which is what you appear to be doing).

Here..

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

Not only does this link describe how astronomical the number is, but it has a quote from Penrose with REFERENCE included.

The quote..

"This now tells how precise the Creator's aim must have been, namely to an accuracy of one part in 10 to the 10123rd power. This is an extraordinary figure. One could not possibly even write the number down in full in the ordinary denary notation: it would be 1 followed by 10123 successive 0's." Even if we were to write a 0 on each separate proton and on each separate neutron in the entire universe- and we could throw in all the other particles for good measure- we would fall far short of writing down the figure needed.1

Now, this quote and the VIDEO of Penrose discussing it is on this thread and if you want to know more, do your own research.

I got you to the 10 yard line and im not going to baby-walk you pass the goal line.

You have the links and you have the internet...so use both.

You have to actually make an argument for someone to misrepresent it, but whatever.

Smh.

[We_Are_VENOM]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #524]

You do your own research.

If you yearn for more knowledge, then do your own digging.

Just like you did your own digging/research to go back and find precisely the number I originally gave (10^123, which is still a very large probability odds itself, btw).

Just like you had no qualms about digging up that, place that same energy into digging up info about how Penrose got those calculations.

That is, if you want to know.

[We_Are_VENOM]

OK ... I watched the entire Penrose video linked in post 379 and:

1) He trashes the Anthropic argument has having any legitimacy.

2) The 10^10^23 number (no explanation of how he got it ... he just blurts it out)

You mention Penrose trashing the Anthropic Principle, which you are obviously mentioning for the purpose of providing your post a "shock value filler"...something to give your post an extra little boost.

Why do I say that?

Well, think about it; because obviously, the anthropic principle has no bearing on his conclusions/calculations of the 10^10^123 number, because in the next breath they discuss those astronomical odds and he doubles down the highly improbable likelihood that it could happen.

So obviously, a negated anthropic principle is independent of 10^10^123...making your mentioning of his opinions of it...IRRELEVANT.

Trust me, if Penrose said anything in the video that wasn't in my favor, I wouldn't have posted the video.

Please trust me on that one.

is what he claims is the precision (or "fine tuning") needed for the initial conditions of the Big Bang (which he assumes as the origin mechanism) according to the second law of thermodynamics for the universe that we have now to have turned out exactly as it is, relative to some other random scenario.

Yeah, because if you (generally speaking) understood how entropy works, you would understand how important initial conditions are for anything to go down.

This isn't a probability for "the likelihood of a universe supportive of life coming into existence by coincidence" as the allaboutphilosopy.org article worded it, but includes virtually everything in the entire universe existing as it is (including our tiny planet with life which is a negigible component of the entire universe) compared to all other scenarios, for a given Big Bang initial condition.

?

3) Penrose then comments that if you only consider our own galaxy, or just our own solar system, then this precision number (for the initial condition at the Big Bang) is "ridiculously smaller" (he provides no numbers for how much). That might be a more realistic number if you wanted to hang your hat on some argument like this, but alas we have no way to put a value on "ridiculously smaller."

Not buying it.

Well, if our own galaxy or just own own solar system was all that existed, then yeah, sure...

But that "if" is irrelevant because there are over a billion observable galaxies, so we need not offer hypotheticals against information that we already have/know.

And you not buying it, eh?

Yeah, regardless of whether you are buying it, it is getting sold to you anyway.

10^10^123.

You were rocking with the science all the way up until this point, now all of a sudden, science is abandoned.

Disgusting.

[Inquirer]

...
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.