Register | Sign In

Understanding through Discussion

EvC Forum active members: 56 (9170 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,367 Year: 4,624/9,624 Month: 399/1,096 Week: 104/119 Day: 0/4 Hour: 0/0

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Author Topic:   Evolutionists improbable becoming probable argument
Posts: 5959
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 6.5

Message 10 of 98 (907226)
02-21-2023 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by nwr
02-21-2023 12:18 AM

Re: Quotes
He's also confused on another point, the same one that Kleinman, Legend in His Own Mind, also can never understand:
He thinks that evolution works on individuals, not on populations, in that his "model" is of one single individual winning the lottery multiple times in a row. That includes the very first lottery win -- that is that we would be picking out some individual in advance to run through this probability "model". I'll have to go back and try to parse his word salad, but the usual creationist false model is to disallow any intermediate failures at winning (eg, getting heads on a fair coin flip five times in a row without getting tails at any time).
Instead, a much better model would be for any individual in the population winning the lottery, after which a population of its descendants who had inherited that lottery prize would win subsequent lotteries.

Again working with California's SuperLotto game (refer to my message, Message 868), the probability of some arbitrary individual, such as me, winning the lottery in one in some arbitrary drawing would be one in 41.4 million (2.414515×10-8). I've read somewhere that there's a much better chance of getting hit by lightning.
But that has nothing at all to do with how evolution works. Instead, we need to work out the probability of some individual, any individual in the population, winning the lottery. Choosing the population size of California to be our population size (39,000,000 is close enough -- people tend to buy more than a single ticket per drawing), that probability that someone will win the lottery in that drawing becomes about 60% (0.61), six chances out of ten, better odds than calling a single coin flip. It's about 2.5 million times more probable that what The Wiz (as in urinating) would have it.
What mike has posted has nothing to do with how evolution works, nor how life works, nor how just about anything works.
So what good is it?
At the very least he could bail sensei out by providing us with the definition of evolutionist. But he's too experienced a creationist to reveal any of their deep dark secrets, like what their terms mean or what they think evolution is or how it works, etc. Which is why they can never answer our simple questions of what the hell they're talking about. Though for some creationists, they can't answer that question because they're too stupid to even know what the answer is, not just that they're not stupid enough to expose their deception.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by nwr, posted 02-21-2023 12:18 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Posts: 5959
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 6.5

Message 84 of 98 (917284)
03-30-2024 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by Tangle
03-30-2024 2:09 PM

Re: The Miserable End of Darwinism
Why do you fundamentalists have to present your nonsense in this gobbledegook way?
They have to as a means of self-preservation. If they were ever to present their position clearly and their arguments against evolution clearly (which would also require them to present evolution clearly and accurately), then even they would immediately realize how utter false and stupid their position actually is.
Not only must they employ confusion in order to deceive us, but far more importantly they must keep themselves deceived. As per my oft-repeated quote from Quora (latest iteration in Message 301, but, what the heck, now here again):
Why do people get angry when I try to share the word of God with them? I only do it because I care about them deeply and don't want them to end up in hell. I feel like some people avoid me because of this. Is there any way to get through to them?
by Doug Robertson, studied at University of Maine
Updated Dec 11 2018
The entire process is not what you think it is.
It is specifically designed to be uncomfortable for the other person because it isn't about converting them to your religion. It is about manipulating you so you can't leave yours.
If this tactic was about converting people it would be considered a horrible failure. It recruits almost no one who isn't already willing to join. Bake sales are more effective recruiting tools.
On the other hand, it is extremely effective at creating a deep tribal feeling among its own members.
The rejection they receive is actually more important than the few people they convert. It causes them to feel a level of discomfort around the people they attempt to talk to. These become the "others". These uncomfortable feelings go away when they come back to their congregation, the "Tribe".
If you take a good look at the process it becomes fairly clear. In most cases, the religious person starts out from their own group, who is encouraging and supportive. They are then sent out into the harsh world where people repeatedly reject them. Mainly because they are trained to be so annoying.
These brave witnesses then return from the cruel world to their congregation where they are treated like returning heroes. They are now safe. They bond as they share their experiences of reaching out to the godless people to bring them the truth. They share the otherness they experience.
Once again they will learn that the only place they are accepted is with the people who think as they do. It isn't safe to leave the group. The world is your enemy, but we love you.
This is a pain reward cycle that is a common brainwashing technique. The participants become more and more reliant on the "Tribe" because they know that "others" reject them.
Mix in some ritualized chanting, possibly a bit of monotonous repetition of instructions, add a dash of fear of judgment by an unseen, but all-powerful entity who loves you if you do as you are told and you get a pretty powerful mix.
Sorry, I have absolutely no wish to participate in someone's brainwashing ritual.
They couldn't care less about convincing any of us. All they really care about is keeping themselves convinced of their false nonsense, of their own stupid lies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Tangle, posted 03-30-2024 2:09 PM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Taq, posted 04-01-2024 11:11 AM dwise1 has replied

Posts: 5959
Joined: 05-02-2006
Member Rating: 6.5

Message 93 of 98 (917317)
04-01-2024 9:11 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by Taq
04-01-2024 11:11 AM

Re: The Miserable End of Darwinism
dwise1 writes:
They couldn't care less about convincing any of us. All they really care about is keeping themselves convinced of their false nonsense, of their own stupid lies.
That's what I have found as well. Christian apologetics was never about convincing the nonbelievers. It's about making the believers feel better about their own beliefs.
From the beginning (mid-1980's) of discussing creationism, I have used the approach of taking their claims at face value and discussing their own claims with them. That never worked since their response immediately turned to angry invective (which escalated as I persisted with my direct questions about their claim). You see, I made the mistake that they took their own claims seriously and that they understood them; over time I came to realize that they were trying to cover up for the fact that they didn't understand their own claims -- had no clue -- and used anger to cover that up and to drive me away (I survived 28 years of an abusive marriage, so it takes a helluva a lot of stupid crap to scare me away).
Two decades ago on another forum, a creationist accidentally revealed their secret. After demolishing his stupid sea-salt claim, I asked him why creationists use such unconvincing claims, to which he said: "You only find them unconvincing because you are not yet convinced." With that light coming on in my head, I immediately used it to compare how that difference in motivation makes such an enormous difference between scientists (seeking to discover new facts, so honesty and testing is of utmost importance) and creationists (just want something that sounds convincing regardless of how false it is, so no place for honesty or testing), which I started to convert to a web page, Fundamental Differences Between Scientists and Creationists (still under construction, so my mentions of it here are the only links to it ... though it has found its way into Google's database if you search on that title).
This is also why all creationist and fundie arguments are so stupid and, of course, unconvincing. If you ever doubt that, not only need you do little more than look at what so many of them have posted here and in other forums, but watch some atheist call-in videos or critique videos of creationist videos. Or watch some creationist or fundie videos -- we ain't making up none of their stupid shit.
And the really tragic part is that they think that their arguments are so phenomenally good and "convincing", but only because they are themselves already convinced and they won't even consider examining and evaluating their own arguments. They are too convinced to realize how utterly stupid they sound. And then they have the unmitigated gall to get mad at us for not becoming convinced, blaming it on our own "hatred of God" (et alia nonsensical accusations) instead of realizing that we cannot be convinced by unconvincing nonsense that is also flagrantly false.
This is what we see with ChemEngineer as well.
We've already speculated that "he" is nothing more than an AI, but an AI that is too stupid to do anything more than lift quotes and dump them in our laps like steaming plops of fresh manure. I mean, it cannot even preserve any degree of formatting, that's how stupid it is.
But such incompetent AIs are just plain sad when they are hosted in meatsacks. ChemEngineer just might have been a person previously, before his brains were scooped out and replaced with that buggy AI.
There's an expression in German for asking someone if they're stupid: "Hast du einen Vogel?" (Do you have a bird?). The common interpretation is the idea that there must be a bird living inside your head and its constant squawking keeps you from being able to think. Another interpretation is that your cranium is hollow, providing a cage for a bird, often accompanied by a poetic description of how happy that bird is flying around in that vast emptiness inside your head.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Taq, posted 04-01-2024 11:11 AM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Rahvin, posted 04-02-2024 1:37 AM dwise1 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:

Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024