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?

[brunumb]

Are you really telling me that you've not yet looked up "Law of biogenesis" in a search engine yet? I mean really? we'd be well past this stage if you had.

There is no Law of Biogenesis (as others have pointed out to you already). That's why I asked you to give your definition. You are not preaching from the pulpit to the converted here.

[brunumb]

If I drop my a cigarette in a pub and it lands vertically stable, filter on ground, solid (this actually happened) then conclude that the probability of that is 1, do you think I'd be right?

That's a good example for illustrating how we can read too much into probabilities. Unless the probability of an event occurring is zero, that event is able to occur regardless of how the small the probability. The cigarette landed vertically. The probability of that happening was extremely small. And yet it happened. Small probabilities are not preventative.

The other issue often overlooked is that in order to determine the probability of an event you need to know pretty well everything about what that event entails. We need to know precisely every factor that affects the outcome under investigation. Gut feelings and estimates don't count for much.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
For what it's worth, your argument is a bit incomplete, too. "We won the universe lottery," or the anthropic principle, is possible, but not very satisfying because it lacks explanatory power.
...

I was just commenting on the probabilities, leaving any origins out of it - even as the issue was centered on such.

[Inquirer]

If I drop my a cigarette in a pub and it lands vertically stable, filter on ground, solid (this actually happened) then conclude that the probability of that is 1, do you think I'd be right?

Of it happening again? No.

But if you're looking at it and claim that it can't have happened because the prior probability is so low, then you'd also be wrong.

If you're looking at it, the probability that it in fact happened is 1 (well, minus the probability that you're hallucinating).

"The probability of that" is ambiguous enough on its own that it could have (at least) three different meanings. It's clear from your context that you intend "the probability of that" to mean either the prior probability or the probability of it happening again. It's clear from Joey's context that he meant the probability that it, in fact, happened. That alone doesn't make Joey's overall point correct, but it does make your rebuttal incorrect, or at least incomplete.

There is no meaning to the claim "the probability of something that already happened". Probability is a quantification about what will happen in the future not the past, the term is inapplicable to past events.

The only sensible way to argue along the lines you are is to say "The probability of the cigarette landing vertically in that room, at that time, under the exact parameters of temperature and pressures and humidity and sound volume and that specific state of turbulence with a cigarette weighing X grams and wrapped in a paper cylinder that had a surface smoothness of 0.9866 and was dropped at an initial acceleration of Y and angular momentum of Z centered on a point X,Y,Z that is offset from the initial geometric center of the..." is 1.

But calculating probabilities from a single sampling is not going to win you any prizes, no wonder evolutionists believe what they do!

[Inquirer]

As I've said before, the odds of something occurring, that has occurred, is 1.

A six has been known to occur when a dice has been thrown, therefore (according to Joey's reasoning) the probability of a six being thrown is 1.

Yet as most of us are aware, it is in fact 1/6 Joey, will you be retracting your claim now?

Your arguments really seem to gravitate toward straw men built on equivocation.

By Joey's logic, if I threw a 6, then the odds that I threw a 6 are 1. The prior probability of having thrown a 6 is 1 in 6. The probability that I throw a 6 next time is 1 in 6. This is one of those cases where I would have expected you to know that and I'm not sure if it's more polite to assume that you did or didn't.

While Christian apologetics is rife with such equivocation, both intentional and not, please stop doing it when you're aware of it.

When someone answers a straightforward question with "Yyhh Tghli Tbui nttgjh Uhhu" then it becomes hard to expect the sort of standards you suggest.

If my answer made no sense its because the question made no sense.

[Inquirer]

If I drop my a cigarette in a pub and it lands vertically stable, filter on ground, solid (this actually happened) then conclude that the probability of that is 1, do you think I'd be right?

Of it happening again? No.

Also how did you calculate that the probability of it happening again is less than 1? we have one test and one result = 1/1 = 1 not less than 1, so by your own reasoning you cannot say what you are saying. Unless you can show me the data and how you calculated a value of less than 1, you are just speculating not doing science.

[Inquirer]

Are you really telling me that you've not yet looked up "Law of biogenesis" in a search engine yet? I mean really? we'd be well past this stage if you had.

There is no Law of Biogenesis (as others have pointed out to you already). That's why I asked you to give your definition. You are not preaching from the pulpit to the converted here.

How did you establish that (and I quote) "there is no law of biogenesis"? please explain the reasoning so I can better understand your argument.

Do you mean you searched the web and got no results? do you mean there's no observational data supporting the claim? or what?

[Inquirer]

If I drop my a cigarette in a pub and it lands vertically stable, filter on ground, solid (this actually happened) then conclude that the probability of that is 1, do you think I'd be right?

That's a good example for illustrating how we can read too much into probabilities. Unless the probability of an event occurring is zero, that event is able to occur regardless of how the small the probability. The cigarette landed vertically. The probability of that happening was extremely small. And yet it happened. Small probabilities are not preventative.

The other issue often overlooked is that in order to determine the probability of an event you need to know pretty well everything about what that event entails. We need to know precisely every factor that affects the outcome under investigation. Gut feelings and estimates don't count for much.

The essence of my objection to Mr. Knothead's claim is that statistics is abused often in discussions about God, creation and so on. Dawkins for example (and there are many others) abuses statistics when he says:

God stands out in the universe as the most glaring of all superfluous sore thumbs. We cannot, of course, disprove God, just as we can't disprove Thor, fairies, leprechauns and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But, like those other fantasies that we can't disprove, we can say that God is very very improbable.

WHY THERE ALMOST CERTAINLY IS NO GOD.

Never forget the adage, Lies, damn lies and statistics.

[JoeyKnothead]

As I've said before, the odds of something occurring, that has occurred, is 1.

A six has been known to occur when a dice has been thrown, therefore (according to Joey's reasoning) the probability of a six being thrown is 1.

Yet as most of us are aware, it is in fact 1/6 Joey, will you be retracting your claim now?

Your arguments really seem to gravitate toward straw men built on equivocation.

By Joey's logic, if I threw a 6, then the odds that I threw a 6 are 1. The prior probability of having thrown a 6 is 1 in 6. The probability that I throw a 6 next time is 1 in 6. This is one of those cases where I would have expected you to know that and I'm not sure if it's more polite to assume that you did or didn't.

While Christian apologetics is rife with such equivocation, both intentional and not, please stop doing it when you're aware of it.

When someone answers a straightforward question with "Yyhh Tghli Tbui nttgjh Uhhu" then it becomes hard to expect the sort of standards you suggest.

If my answer made no sense its because the question made no sense.

Of course, to some Christians, they can't understand what's truth.

[JoeyKnothead]

Never forget the adage, Lies, damn lies and statistics.

Especially when a theist starts spouting stats.