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?

[Clownboat]

...
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.

Was the resurrection of Christ a true event?
Uhhh, what do you mean by true?


Thanks, as we all could use more humor in our lives.

truth
/tro͞oTH/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the quality or state of being true.

I know, pretty hard to wrap our heads around.

[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.

Was the resurrection of Christ a true event?
Uhhh, what do you mean by true?


Thanks, as we all could use more humor in our lives.

truth
/tro͞oTH/
Learn to pronounce
noun
the quality or state of being true.

I know, pretty hard to wrap our heads around.

I've asked Joey, in fact several people, perhaps I asked you, for an example of an event from ancient history that you regard as "true" yet no answer has been forthcoming, I must have asked this over several months now.

You want to discuss the truth of just one single recorded event from antiquity, you do not want to discuss the general problem of how to establish the truth of recorded events from ancient history. I want to see what principles you apply for determining "truth" of such claims so we can - impartially - apply the very same principles to the resurrection, an entirely reasonable and sensible approach, but all I get is evasion, refusal, dismissive even impolite responses to my request.

You want to apply scrutiny and analysis and logic to one specific claim but never think to subject other claims to the same level of scrutiny.

Therefore the motive is not to seek some "truth" with an open mind but simply to attack the resurrection claim by any and all means available, how can such an endeavor be regarded as impartial?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #529]

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

Disgusting.

No ... you're comparing apples and oranges but maybe don't realize it. Let's start at the beginning.

You first made the statement (post 368, p. 37) that Roger Penrose ...

"Calculated that the chances of our universe being life permitting by mere chance" at 10^123 (corrected later to 10^10^123).

Then you referenced (same post) an allaboutphilosopy.org article which claimed this huge number (10^10^123) related to this:

"Looking just at the initial entropy conditions, what is the likelihood of a universe supportive of life coming into existence by coincidence?

Neither of these are what Penrose is referring to.

Penrose uses this huge number to describe the precision, or fine tuning, required for the initial conditions of the Big Bang, based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics, to produce a universe identical to the one we have, rather than some other universe. Every detail in our universe (including life as we know it) had to materialize from this single initial condition, out of all the other 10^10^123 minus 1 initial conditions that are possible (according to Penrose). All of these other initial conditions would produce a universe with some differences to our own, however miniscule. So 10^10^123 represents the total number of possible initial conditions for the Big Bang, only one of which would lead to our exact universe.

But importantly, there is no consideration as to whether life may come to exist in any of the possible 10^10^123 universes, but obviously to be identical to ours life would have to develop because we do have it in this universe. Other initial conditions may produce universes with no life, or with different life forms, etc. This is the mistake you're making, as well as the allaboutphilosophy article. Your are misrepresenting Penrose's huge number as the probability of a universe with life arising from mere chance, when it actually represents the total number of possible universes that could arise (with or without life of any kind) for all of the possible inititial Big Bang initial conditions.

Finally, he mentions that if you only consider our galaxy, or our solar system, this huge number becomes "ridiculously smaller", but he makes no guess at what that value might be. That would be a more relevant number, but it would still not represent "the chance of our universe being life-permitting be mere chance", because some unknown percentage of the 10^10^123 possible initial conditions may also produce universes with life of some kind. You'd need that percentage to make the argument you are trying to make, and Penrose did not make any comments on that, or quantify what "ridiculously small" means. If it were the fraction of the volume of our galaxy to the entire universe, or our solar system to the entire universe, then "ridiculously smaller" would be some giant power of 10 as well.

So I'm not disgustingly ignoring science ... I am getting quantitative on the video you linked and the probability number that I think you're misrepresenting (whether intentional, or not). the Talkorigins article I linked is much more relevant to the probability of life developing on Earth once it formed. Start your clock at 4.6 billion years ago and ask what is the probability that life would develop on Earth once it formed with no life as an initial condition. This is a much more relevant topic than using hypothetical Big Bang initial conditions.

[Clownboat]

I've asked Joey, in fact several people, perhaps I asked you, for an example of an event from ancient history that you regard as "true" yet no answer has been forthcoming, I must have asked this over several months now.

The attacks on the Twin Towers was a true event from history.
This dodge you have been employing for quite some time now is certainly true.

You want to discuss the truth of just one single recorded event from antiquity,

Trying to understand the other side.

you do not want to discuss the general problem of how to establish the truth of recorded events from ancient history.

We can discuss that if you like, but will it help to understand those on the other side or should a new topic be created?

I want to see what principles you apply for determining "truth" of such claims so we can - impartially - apply the very same principles to the resurrection, an entirely reasonable and sensible approach, but all I get is evasion, refusal, dismissive even impolite responses to my request.

I am not aware of what principles I'm applying for determining the truth of the moon landing or 911. I do note that they are not impossible events though. My not knowing is seperate from my belief that it is true.

You want to apply scrutiny and analysis and logic to one specific claim but never think to subject other claims to the same level of scrutiny.

I try to employ logic throughout my entire life. Not just when analyzing god claims.

Therefore the motive is not to seek some "truth" with an open mind but simply to attack the resurrection claim by any and all means available, how can such an endeavor be regarded as impartial?

Spoken like someone defending a flat earth belief. Ask me to defend the attacks on the Twin Towers and see if I attack your motives or see if I can defend my belief in the truth of the attacks.

[Inquirer]

I am not aware of what principles I'm applying for determining the truth of the moon landing or 911.

That's where we differ then, I respectfully suggest you put some effort into this area.

[Jose Fly]

Its irrelevant, you always get this wrong too, and you a man of science and all. When Newtonian gravitation was found to be at odds with observation, the fact that a better explanation had not yet been established didn't alter the fact that theory had been falsified. Falsification has nothing to do with whether or not a new explanation has yet been found.

You're assuming quite a bit there. All I did was note that you don't know of any discontinuous processes that could have produced the fossil record.

Also, you skipped the other questions. Again...

Do you believe that the process of fossilization is continuous (all organisms that have existed have been fossilized) and do you believe that our finding fossils is continuous (we have discovered all fossils)?

I don't believe in evolution Jose, I thought you at least understood that. Your question is this to me "Do you believe a fictitious process is a continuous process?".

Oh, I didn't realize that you deny that any population has ever evolved at all. Of course it's of note that you have been provided observed and documented examples of populations evolving new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species, and you had absolutely no rebuttal to them. Since this is a debate, that constitutes you conceding the point.

Before we continue, is there anything you'd care to say about those examples of observed and documented evolution?

Bump

[Inquirer]

Its irrelevant, you always get this wrong too, and you a man of science and all. When Newtonian gravitation was found to be at odds with observation, the fact that a better explanation had not yet been established didn't alter the fact that theory had been falsified. Falsification has nothing to do with whether or not a new explanation has yet been found.

You're assuming quite a bit there. All I did was note that you don't know of any discontinuous processes that could have produced the fossil record.

Also, you skipped the other questions. Again...

Do you believe that the process of fossilization is continuous (all organisms that have existed have been fossilized) and do you believe that our finding fossils is continuous (we have discovered all fossils)?

I don't believe in evolution Jose, I thought you at least understood that. Your question is this to me "Do you believe a fictitious process is a continuous process?".

Oh, I didn't realize that you deny that any population has ever evolved at all. Of course it's of note that you have been provided observed and documented examples of populations evolving new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species, and you had absolutely no rebuttal to them. Since this is a debate, that constitutes you conceding the point.

Before we continue, is there anything you'd care to say about those examples of observed and documented evolution?

Bump

I never once argued that every organism that has ever lived can be expected to become fossilized, it is a preposterous and unreasonable expectation.

Can you prove from the fossil record that conjectured fossils would exist if conditions had been conducive?

[Jose Fly]

I never once argued that every organism that has ever lived can be expected to become fossilized, it is a preposterous and unreasonable expectation.

So we agree that the process of fossilization is discontinuous. Do we also agree that the discovery of fossils is also discontinuous (we have not found every fossil that exists)?

Can you prove from the fossil record that unfound fossils would exist if conditions had been conducive?

No.

Finally, I take it that you have no rebuttal to the observed and documented examples of the evolution of new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species. So noted.

[Inquirer]

I never once argued that every organism that has ever lived can be expected to become fossilized, it is a preposterous and unreasonable expectation.

So we agree that the process of fossilization is discontinuous. Do we also agree that the discovery of fossils is also discontinuous (we have not found every fossil that exists)?

Yes, this is self evident though, why you feel the need to establish this is unclear.

Can you prove from the fossil record that unfound fossils would exist if conditions had been conducive?

No.

So you'll agree then that we cannot insist that things existed in the past without fossil evidence that they did exist, yes? We can then by extension agree that it is entirely feasible that unfound fossils are unfound not just because they were not formed, not just because they have not yet been found, but because they actually never existed at all, yes?

Finally, I take it that you have no rebuttal to the observed and documented examples of the evolution of new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species. So noted.

That is a matter of interpretation. It is also a diversion from what we were discussing, the claim that fossil record serves as compelling evidence for evolution.

[Jose Fly]

Yes, this is self evident though, why you feel the need to establish this is unclear.

Here's the point....

You claim that the process that generated the fossil record was discontinuous. You know of no such discontinuous process, and you didn't reach that conclusion based on the fossil record itself being discontinuous. You agree that generation of fossils is discontinuous as is their subsequent discovery.

Given all that, what exactly is the basis for your claim?

So you'll agree then that we cannot insist that things existed in the past without fossil evidence that they did exist, agreed? We can by extension agree that it is entirely feasible that unfound fossils are unfound not just because they were not formed, not just because they have not yet been found, but because they actually never existed at all, yes?

You asked if I could "prove from the fossil record that unfound things would exist". That's what I answered "no" to.

That is a matter of interpretation.

That's not a rebuttal, it's a wave of the hand dismissal.

It is also a diversion from what we were discussing, the claim that fossil record serves as compelling evidence for evolution.

LOL...what? The fact that we see evolution generating new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species is a diversion from whether evolution is the process that created the organisms in the fossil record?

Nice try (not really), but it is most certainly not a diversion.