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]

Which post was that? I don't see any that I didn't respond to.

You didn't need to ask "which post is that" when you wanted to find which post I gave the 10^123 figure, did you?

No.

So don't ask now.

Do some digging, it is on this thread.

But I'm focusing on the 10^10^123 number because you are presenting that as a probability for a universe permitting life to arise by mere chance, and referencing Penrose's interview in the Youtube video as the source for it. That video does indeed have him state that number, but NOT for what you are claiming. He's referring to the total number of possible initial conditions for the Big Bang, and the "fine tuning" of those that would be needed to produce exactly the universe we have in its entirety (without regard to any probabilities for life developing). So until that is cleared up there's no point in debating other points.

Um, no.

Any talk about the initial conditions of the universe are conversations on events preceding your 4.3 billion year criterion as to whether or not such convo is worthy of your time.

So lets not talk about it then.

Or you can go back and adequately respond to the rest of my post as it pertained to the initial conditions needed for any system which requires pre-tuned parameters to do work (specified tasks).

Can't get any further without that.

That was the entire topic of the Penrose video!

Hmm. I do not recall. Did I originally post that video in a response to you?

If not, then you jumped into a conversation which involved a video, a video of which subject matter did not meet your qualifications of relevancy.

Remember, anything prior to 4.3 billion years is not worth a convo hassle.

So, stick to your guns.

And you are misrepresenting Penrose's number and using it to describe something completely different than in his video.

See, that is where we disagree. Nuff said.

Plus, I've said several times that the more relevant probability as far as life appearing is concerned is one that starts 4.6 billion years ago when Earth formed and considers what the chances are that life would develop given the conditions on Earth from that point forward. This is mainly because we only know about life on Earth at the moment, and can only wildly guess on the probability of it existing elsewhere in the universe. But you keep going back to the 10^10^123 number and the Big Bang (which is the only thing Penrose is talking about when he states this number). I'd be very happy to drop that whole number and argument, and start 4.6 billion years ago where we do know something about how Earth formed and how things developed.

No more in depth convos about this until you reply to the totality of my post.

Sure ... tell me which post you are referring to because I have no idea. What number is it?

It is somewhere in the thread.

You're going to continue to use that number (10^10^123) incorrectly aren't you?

[Inquirer]

I know of no process discontinuous or continuous. The basis of my claim is clearly called out for you below in bold:

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?

That very much looks like a rephrasing of what you said was not the basis for your claim.

I asked you if your reasoning is that since the fossil record is discontinuous, then the process that generated it must also be discontinuous. You said no, it isn't.

But here you cite the discontinuous nature of the fossil record as the basis for your claim (i.e., fossils not found didn't actually exist).

Can you clarify?

Very well so we cannot claim something did exist in the past when we have no fossil evidence that it existed, it seems we're in agreement at last.

That's not what I said at all. Again, you asked if I could "prove from the fossil record that unfound things would exist", and I answered no. As we covered before (and you apparently forgot, and is rather shocking that you didn't know it in the first place), science does not deal in "proof". Also, the notion of universal common descent is not based solely on the fossil record (again, shocking that you don't know that).

I agree it was not a rebuttal, it was a dismissal.

Then you have conceded the point.

I dismiss it because it is fallacious, the implication - by you - that even if you were right, this somehow has bearing on the efficacy of the fossil record.

It has bearing on the generation of the fossil record. Again, it's rather shocking that you didn't grasp that.

As I said it is a matter of interpretation, the fossil record could well be a record of something else entirely.

Which, as you agreed, is not a rebuttal but merely a wave of the hand dismissal.

Again your habit of paraphrasing and the attendant misunderstandings that generates for you, is evident here. If you think I "said" some thing or other, then why do you not simply quote me? Instead you attribute your interpretation of what I actually said, this is a recipe for a poor debate Jose.

As I have explained to you at length several times, I'm always prepared to defend what I have written, I am not always prepared to defend what you claim I have written.

Have you never watched a referred professional debate Jose? the participants often take notes so that they can accurately quote what their opponents said with no risk of misunderstanding or wishful misinterpretation. There's no excuse here because this forum takes the notes for you, I suggest you start leveraging this feature, it costs nothing.

[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.

I've writ it before, but maybe you need this written more clearly...

Step 1:
Choose the definition you think applies.

Step 2:
Answer the question.


Unfortunately, I can't think of any way to simplify this any more than that.

You do grasp what your position amounts to here? It amounts to an admission that you have no idea what you mean when you ask me about "true" you need me to do the work for you?

[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.

You want me to put in effort for determining the principles I use for accepting the truth of the moon landing and 9/11?

I do not share this level of self worth that you seem to have placed upon yourself. I'll put in my effort where I see fit, not where you suggest. Currently, I'm trying to better understand those on the religious side, not the moon landing.

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.

I assume you quote mine'd this out because you realize I can defend the historical event that was the attack on the Twin Towers, unlike what can be done for most claims in religious texts.

Readers:
Inquirer = Copy/past: 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.

It was unanswered because it was silly to ask. Now that I answered it, just to appease Inquirer, it's no longer worthy to discuss. Odd huh?

You claim that "911" is truth and that the "moon landing" is truth yet you have no idea how you came to that conclusion? doesn't that make the claim nothing more than a belief?

Well if asserting some claim is true with no regard to how we establish that truth, I too can say that the resurrection story in the NT is true and leave it at that!

[We_Are_VENOM]

You're going to continue to use that number (10^10^123) incorrectly aren't you?

Basically...

"My forum comrades claim that you are using that number (10^10^123) incorrectly.

"Therefore, you are using the number 10^10^123 incorrectly".

That's what I got out of it.

Anyways...

It is kind of like Republican Herman Cain (RIP) used his 9-9-9 plan during his presidential campaign..

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9%E2%80%9 ... 0%939_Plan

It became popular and gained steam for a little while until he fizzled out of the race.

Well, I am have a plan of my own..

The 10^10^123 plan.

But it won't fizzle out.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #559]

Or you can go back and adequately respond to the rest of my post as it pertained to the initial conditions needed for any system which requires pre-tuned parameters to do work (specified tasks).

Can't get any further without that.

I have no idea which post you are talking about, and you don't want to seem to point it out for some strange reason. The only thing I can guess is this comment you made in post 371 on p. 38:

"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."

The whole "fine tuning" argument is nonsense, but as Penrose points out in the video you linked there are two definitions of that phrase. One is the more common "fine tuning" of the physical constants, and the other is as Penrose used it in the video which is a synonym for "precision" in the initial conditions of the Big Bang. These are completely different things as he points out. I don't know which definition you are referring to above as you don't specify. Life, and everything else in the universe, developed because the physical constants were as they are, not the other way around. And life (at least on this planet) didn't appear for some 9 billion years after the Big Bang, so if the physical constants were "fine tuned" for life, it sure is strange that some 9 billion years passed before it finally appeared. Again, far better to start the clock at 4.6 billion years ago when Earth formed and start investigating there.

Hmm. I do not recall. Did I originally post that video in a response to you?

No, you posted the video link in a response to brunumb (post 379, p. 38) as your source for the 10^10^123 number. Then in post 520 (p. 52) to me, you said this:

"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.

Remember, anything prior to 4.3 billion years is not worth a convo hassle.

So, stick to your guns.

I'd like to stick to 4.6 billions years ago as t=0 for life developing, but you keep reverting back to the 10^10^123 number which has no relevance except to the initial conditions of the Big Bang, which is long before Earth formed. So drop the 10^10^123 number for having anything to with the probability that life developed naturally (without any god inputs), and I'll not mention it again. Maybe you can find another Penrose-like video or other link where someone addresses actual probabilities of life developing on Earth once it formed (like the Talkorigins article I linked to, but more recent ... that is an old one but still relevant). If you want to talk probabilities for life developing from nonliving molecules and early Earth conditions, you need to drop the Penrose 10^10^123 number which has no relevance to that topic.

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

So you are defending this number, and I'm pointing out that it doesn't mean what you think it does (per Penrose).

See, that is where we disagree. Nuff said.

You can disagree, but anyone can watch the video, or read the chapter excerpt I linked in post 557, and see that your usage of the number is not what Penrose is talking about. It isn't ambiguous.

No more in depth convos about this until you reply to the totality of my post.
It is somewhere in the thread.

Sounds like you don't even know which post you are referring to! I can't read your mind and guess ... you repeat the same things in multiple posts.

[Jose Fly]

Again your habit of paraphrasing and the attendant misunderstandings that generates for you, is evident here. If you think I "said" some thing or other, then why do you not simply quote me?

I think you need to explain your position regarding the fossil record and the basis for that position. You seem to be having trouble maintaining consistency.

Post #478: "A discontinuous process for generating life would leave a discontinuous fossil record"

Post #497: (after being asked if your position is: since the record is discontinuous, the process that created it must also be discontinuous) "No".

Post #541: "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"

So to reiterate, explain the basis for your conclusion that the fossil record is the result of a discontinuous process (since it is not, according to you, based on the discontinuous nature of the fossil record).

[Inquirer]

Again your habit of paraphrasing and the attendant misunderstandings that generates for you, is evident here. If you think I "said" some thing or other, then why do you not simply quote me?

I think you need to explain your position regarding the fossil record and the basis for that position. You seem to be having trouble maintaining consistency.

Post #478: "A discontinuous process for generating life would leave a discontinuous fossil record"

I regard that as a true statement, that a discontinuous process would leave a continuous record (the alternative) seems safe to discount.

Post #497: (after being asked if your position is: since the record is discontinuous, the process that created it must also be discontinuous) "No".

I regard that as a true statement also. A continuous process could leave a discontinuous record, but we cannot infer whether the process was truly continuous or discontinuous from that record alone, we can't favor one over the other. We can't claim it is evidence only for one and not the other.

Post #541: "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"

I regard that as a true statement also, self evident in fact.

So to reiterate, explain the basis for your conclusion that the fossil record is the result of a discontinuous process (since it is not, according to you, based on the discontinuous nature of the fossil record).

First I hope you can now see that all three statements above are true and in fact not controversial.

Second, my position is that the fossil record is not compelling evidence for evolution, since it could be just as easily the result of a discontinuous process, so those who cite the fossil record as evidence for evolution are unjustified in doing so.

The fossil record is a much evidence for supernatural acts of creation as it is for natural gradualistic evolution.

Claiming that data which has multiple interpretations actually favors only one interpretation is false, misleading, trickery and evolution is littered with such trickery that only a keen mind can notice sometimes.

[Jose Fly]

First I hope you can now see that all three statements above are true and in fact not controversial.

Second, my position is that the fossil record is not compelling evidence for evolution, since it could be just as easily the result of a discontinuous process, so those who cite the fossil record as evidence for evolution are unjustified in doing so.

Those weren't the question at hand.

To reiterate....you've concluded that the fossil record is the result of a discontinuous process, but you've said that conclusion is not based on the discontinuous nature of the fossil record.

The question at hand is, what then is the basis for your conclusion (that the fossil record is the result of a discontinuous process)?

The fossil record is a much evidence for supernatural acts of creation as it is for natural gradualistic evolution.

First, that's nothing more than an empty assertion, no different than "the moon is made of cheese".

Second, you were provided examples of gradual evolution in the fossil record and you had no rebuttal, thereby conceding the point. So as it stands in our debate, the fossil record does indeed include examples of gradual evolution.

Claiming that data which has multiple interpretations actually favors only one interpretation is false, misleading, trickery

Your solipsism is noted.

and evolution is littered with such trickery that only a keen mind can notice sometimes.

The moon is made of cheese.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I have no idea which post you are talking about, and you don't want to seem to point it out for some strange reason. The only thing I can guess is this comment you made in post 371 on p. 38:

Sounds like you don't even know which post you are referring to! I can't read your mind and guess

I dont know the post #, no.

But I know what occured, yes.

You dismissed a large portion of my post.

And I am taking it personal.

... you repeat the same things in multiple posts.

Yeah, because I am debating the same thing, with multiple people.