Subscribe
This video is a great primer on how easy it is to misattribute probability to events in hindsight. Specifically, it demonstrates why ascribing supernatural causes to rare events is fallacious. This is the mistake made by evolution deniers who believe that the appearance of a conscious being is too unlikely to happen naturally.
Thanks to Mentally Jumbled and skepnet (via astroengine) for making this video known to me.
Oh yea!
I saw this a few months back. Have a look at TheraminTrees too all brilliant.
Btw. I’ve been to both Humanist and Unitarian events now and I find the Unitarian one’s are more lively and even, dare I say it Rational. I’m somewhat horrified at how much woo is in fact promoted by my local humanist society.
With only one data point to base my data on this is very much anecdotal but I do wonder if this pattern holds generally. Weirdly this is seemingly unrelated to actual spiritual belief (since, at least in my church many if not most people are pretty close to philosophical naturalist). In fact I would argue that your views would be about the norm there. There might be a god but it’s non-interventionist and possibly mindless and mechanistic. I think a fare number are dualist though.
If the phenomenon is in fact a general rule do you think it might be related to a kind of out group hostility. Because humanists are very much against something they tend to come across bitter and ignore critical thinking in other areas. It might also just be institutional momentum (established community that is…rather than religion). I don’t know but I’m finding myself warming to this group better than I did to the humanist organization.
I fear that I may be reading too much into this. With only one data point I have not even established that a phenomenon exists forget about what causes it.
Ohh this was all sparked by a charity cocktail party held round someone’s house last night. It was awesome.
^_^
Thor’Ungal
P.S. I think I should lay off Scott. My last post was a bit mean. He wound me up just a little by adding the resurrection to his list of importance. Something I’m sure he must have known I would not agree with him on (either as a Bright or a Unitarian). Still re-reading it my response was a touch spiteful, even if true.
I also suspect we’re both slowly escalating this behind smiles, possibly unintentionally.
Should I apologize do you think, or just leave it?
Thanks for the video hit – It is always good to remind everyone that coincidence is not as rare as it seems.
B4B: You’re welcome.
Thor’Ungal: The Charlotte UU church was a fine match philosophically, very similar to how you describe your church. The issue was fitting in socially. The social structure was built around families with children and had too little to offer child-free couples.
I haven’t spent any time in humanist groups, so I have no basis of comparison. The closest thing I’ve found is a local atheist and agnostics group, which is more about socializing over a few drinks than anything else.
Scott is quite thick-skinned and is no stranger to harsh tones. He’s also very open-minded and seeks out conversations with those that believe differently than himself. If I know him, he probably would appreciate an apology, but doesn’t feel one is necessary. And if it gets him a new listener to Archangel, then he’ll definitely feel that it’s worth it! Of course, he’ll likely just speak for himself.
If you do listen, know that the audio quality of the first few episodes is rough, but quickly improves after that. It’s worth pushing through those. In the 2nd book that continues the story, I voice one of the characters.
Yea I apologized on his blog. His series isn’t too bad, very christian but hey, that’s the plot.
As to UU, cool I think I understand. I’ll message you when the first few articles, podcasts and Video’s come out. Just if you could treat content critically. If you like it feel free to say so. If you disagree with any of it also feel free to comment on this. If you have any questions, if I can’t answer it as Thor’Ungal I’m happy to pester those involved and answer as UnitarianSA.
^_^
Thor’Ungal
Just got a chance to watch this today. Out of curiosity, is this the sum of your response to my comment to you on BtB?
Personally, I found this video interesting, but couldn’t help but think that there was a fair amount of sleight of hand taking place with the fast-moving statements, morphing images, etc.
It would be fun to dissect this video and examine the points that it makes. But I’m honestly not sure I get the connection between this and evolution. To me, there’s a long, deep chasm between the idea that I might have something in common with someone I meet than to say that an entire species developed from an extremely different and primitive species.
Am I missing the point?
By the way, I’ve re-read my comment on BtB, and it sounds like it might be a bit more harsh than I intended it to be. I honestly was just trying to figure out where you were coming from. It’s unlike you not to respond, however, and in light of no response there, and this apparent subtle response to one point I was trying to ask about, I want to make sure that I haven’t crossed a line in the discussion with you and frustrated/angered/insulted you in the process.
Hello Steve,
Actually, I didn’t even know that you had responded on BtB. I apologize for missing it. I’ve been distracted by other things on and off line. So, no, I didn’t post this video with anything on BtB in mind. Common content must have been a coincidence.
I’ll check out your response there later today.
The main point of the video is that humans are notoriously bad at predicting probability of an event, especially after the event. The main reason is that humans make the “common mistake of confusing the remote probability of specified prediction with the high probability of unspecified results.” In other words, when looking at an event in isolation, it seems to us too rare to be coincidence but that is because we fail to take into account the number of times the event had the opportunity to occur.
The makers probably had ‘psychics’, palm readers, etc. and not necessarily evolution in mind when they made it. While the content of the video is important to skepticism in general, I chose to apply the concepts in the video to how some people try to deny biological evolution as well. It’s a rebuttal to the “it’s too improbable’ argument.
In this case, evolution of a self-aware animal is the rare event that seems to improbable. We fail to consider (or, for young-earth creationists refuse to accept) the number of opportunities. Life has been on this planet for at least 3.5 billion years. Mutations can happen at any second of any day in any of the quadrillion (quintillion, hexillion, ???) organisms that have existed. That’s an unfathomable amount of opportunity that doesn’t even consider the number of other places in this 13.6-billion-light-year-across universe that evolution could also take place.
The staggering number of possibilities of make the extremely rare event quite likely. Evolution, as an unspecified outcome is very likely, even if one instance of evolution in hindsight seems unlikely. And, just like when
a ‘psychic’ predicts something that happens to come true, many humans attribute supernatural causation instead of natural coincidence to the event.
There is no sleight of hand in the video that I’ve noticed, and probability estimation is my profession. Furthermore, my job involves prediction of rare events given many observations. So if there was an error, I hope I’d notice. Just in case, I would be interested in a detailed examination of the points made.
That was an excellent video about so called coincidences and i like the way you tied it to evolution.However there is a complementary side to evolution and that is natural selection or the ability to sort the various mutations and what better way than by survival.Charles Darwin came up with a synthesis of these two ideas 150 years or so ago.It is probably impossible to appreciate just how brilliant that idea was for it’s time.One has to wonder what other seemingly simple and obvious ideas when combined will produce more revolutionary theories
Hello sawaz,
I only touched on the random mutation part because it is the only part that ties into the video. It’s important to note evolution has a huge non-random side (natural selection) so I’m glad you brought that up.
Sid Can I change gears for a moment. In post 3 above you referered to childless couples as child-free couples.The later implies children are a form of infestation or at least something undesirable. It does in my understanding.Is that what you meant?
‘Childless’ implies lacking and that couples should be having children. It’s stereotype that seems to be related to religion; “be fruitful and multiply” and all that rubbish (though it was good advice when the world population was in the tens of millions). It can also be a term of derision when applied to couples who are unable to have kids. All and all, it’s a very negative term.
‘Child-free’ is a positive descriptor that affirms the choice of couples who chose – for any reason – not to have children. I prefer it simply because it’s a positive way of expressing the same concept: committed couples who do not reproduce.
It’s also a much better way of describing people who choose not to have children for very moral reasons. With 6.7 billion people on the planet we already have too many. To suggest that they are lacking something is insulting when they are being self-sacrificing to some extent.
‘Child-free’ still describes a couple with relationship to children, though. It would seem to me that if you want to get away from that, you should just refer to a couple who has no children as “a family of two”.
Since I don’t have time at the moment to take each point in the video, allow me to deal with one — the example of rolling 20 dice and getting all 6′s. The video accurately points out that the odds of getting all 6′s are the exact same as getting ANY sequence of numbers. This is true.
However, the video goes on to point out (again accurately) that dice have no memory. Therefore, I think it falls short in proving the point of the video that given enough time and factors, virtually anything is possible and not extraordinary.
The reality is, every time those 20 dice are rolled, the odds are still incredibly against rolling all 6′s. The odds do not become more favorable over time.
That seems to me to run counter to the point that is trying to be made. If one wishes to roll all 6′s and then rolls all 6′s, it would be extraordinary, even if they had rolled the dice billions of times without getting all 6′s. The billions of times rolled prior have absolutely no bearing on the odds of getting all 6′s.
Did I miss the point??
One further comment about the dice example — the video states that the more dice we roll, the greater the probability, and then gives the example that if we assigned alphabetical equivalent to certain combinations of dice and then rolled an infinite number of dice, the probability that at some point the entire works of Shakespeare could be spelled out by those dice is very high.
This makes absolutely no sense (although the use of the term “infinite” does muddy the waters a bit). Rolling MORE dice would make the probability of a certain outcome even LESS likely, not more likely.
Let me correct myself. They said that the more dice we roll, the probability of getting TWENTY 6′s is increased. That is, as a matter of fact, completely true.
However, it makes the point (in my opinion) border on ridiculous. If I rolled 3,000 dice, why would I possibly be surprised or amazed if 20 of them were 6′s? But that doesn’t negate the fact that rolling 20 dice and having all of them turn up 6 would be extraordinary.
This is what I meant when I said “sleight of hand”. It makes it sound like they’re making a profound point, yet all they’ve done is change the question.
Yes i suppose child-free can be construed as a positive in the same way as nicotine-free, cholesterol-free,rat-free etc is a positive in the sense that the X part of the X-free is a negative.
However though there is a gaping hole in Humanist philosophy which seems to resent human existence even their own humanist thinking people’s existence.Any ideology which seeks to self implode wiil eventually and leave the world to the angel believing crowd.So what is the religionists most powerful tool for taking over the world and which works is rejected by humanists.So in this way humanists have ceded control of the world long term to the superstitous and if they haven’t even figured that out what else are they missing?.That is pretty basic.
I hope you will ponder that question because I think it is important rather than reflexivly rejecting it.In terms of evolution and natural selection there is something fundamentally flawed with an ideology which preaches that reproduction is bad.I suppose it is somewhat analagous to the shakers.
I have to think the world is a better place because you exist don’t you?
Hello Steve,
I think you are missing the point with the dice example. The odds of a rare event occurring depends on the number of opportunities that rare event has of being possible. Consider a simpler example. Suppose I have just three dice and I bet you $50 that I’ll roll three sixes in my next roll. You’d likely take that bet since the probability of getting all sixes in any one roll is less than 1%. But suppose, instead, that I bet you that I’ll roll three sixes in my next 500 rolls. Would you take the bet then? I’d hope not as the probability of all sixes coming up at least once in 500 rolls of three die is over 90%. When I do roll all sixes, the event will be significant to me (I just won $50 after all), but not surprising considering the number of chances I was given.
The odds of all sixes do not become favorable over time, but with more rolls. Instead of rolling the dice 500 times sequentially, I could have gathered 500 people with three die each and rolled simultaneously or 100 people rolling the dice 5 times each. As long as there are 500 rolls, the probability of all sixes in at least one of those rolls remains the same.
The point of the example is that the number of rolls matter. It emphasizes the difference between specified prediction (“I will roll all sixes on this roll”) and unspecified outcome (“All sixes will likely be rolled with 500 rolls”). The same reasoning can be extended to more dice and more rolls.
I hope this more intuitive example helps.
Hello Sawaz,
Humanism: “any system or mode of thought or action in which human interests, values, and dignity predominate.” There is nothing in humanism that resents human existence. You are mistaking my personal Malthusian fears with humanism.
The birthrate of religious families has always been greater than that of non-religious. Why is it, then, that there are more non-religious people now than there ever were? The answers pretty obvious – religiosity is not a heritable trait, it is a learned one. The secularization rate have more than compensated for the differential birth rates historically. I suspect this will only accelerate as the rest of the world industrializes.
I think I might understood the point. I took some time to catch myself back up on the calculations being considered, and I think I had forgotten some things about calculating the probability under the conditions you described.
So, let me see if I understand — if one were to be able to calculate the odds of a species randomly developing a sense of consciousness in any one evolutionary change, one could then factor in the number of species actually evolving and the number of times that an evolutionary change took place, and then calculate the more favorable odds of one of those changes including development of a consciousness?
Is that the point you’re trying to make?
Sid ….Good rebuttal with the fact that religion isn’t inherited but learned and I am sure your statement about there being more non religious people now than ever is true also.However what really counts is not absolute numbers but the ratio of believers to non believers although i am sure that is what you meant.
I am not sure that is exactly accurate though.It may be true in north america and europe or it was although with large middle eastern immigration into europe the ratio of religous to non religous I think is tending back to favour the religious.
Can it be a coincidence that Europe has one of the lowest birthrates among it’s own people in the world so much so that if the present trend continues in a few generations some Europen populations will be virtually non existent.
We here in the west have been living on sort of an oasis which I think is about to be swarmed by those who have many children and there will be nobody to stop them.
You mentioned that you thought that the secularization rate will accelerate, well the same prediction was made many years ago and it certainly has’nt happened as a matter fact it is my understanding that large swaths of the world are actually regressing to a medieval mindset.
How many intellectuals can you think of who predicted that?
“P.S. I think I should lay off Scott.”
Nah, don’t lay off me! I need/relish the challenge.
“My last post was a bit mean.”
I didn’t think so.
“He wound me up just a little by adding the resurrection to his list of importance.”
Just a note, that is what is important about his whole existence to me. Of course it’s not important to you (since you don’t believe in it). Having re-read my post I can see how it looks like I had you agreeing with me on the resurrection. Not my intention. I was trying to say (and failed I guess) that you and I would agree that his life was more significant than his death and that if he resurrected (as I believe he did) then that would be even more important. No offense intended.
“Something I’m sure he must have known I would not agree with him on (either as a Bright or a Unitarian). Still re-reading it my response was a touch spiteful, even if true.”
Spiteful? I didn’t get that vibe, but I try not always successfully to read into posts since it’s hard to know what to read.
True? Well your beliefs about Christ and Christianity are certainly nothing new. Whether they are the truth or not is up for debate.
“I also suspect we’re both slowly escalating this behind smiles, possibly unintentionally.”
It’s easy to let things escalate. I have no desire to alienate anyone.
To your points about Jesus, since you don’t accept what the Bible says is true about Jesus then why do you accept anything about his message. The concept of denying Jesus as the Christ and on the other hand saying he carried a good (if not new/unique) message interests me because well, how could you know what his message was?
Hello everybody. I’m back from my unintentional hiatus. I’m sorry for not responding to all of your comments sooner. A combination of life stuff and a bad illness kept me away from just about everything online other than Twitter. It’s not that I need Twitter. Yeah. Yeah! I can quite any time I want to. I just don’t want to…
Steve: That wasn’t quite the point I was trying to make. Consciousness isn’t due to any one mutation and mutation is the only one part of evolutionary theory – the random part. I was applying the reasoning of the video to debunk a common sentiment I hear from creationists; The claim that some biological traits of humans are too unlikely to come about by chance.
Sawaz: The strong, positive correlation between industrialization and secularization may or may not be coincidental. It could possibly be a temporary accident of history or a quirk of western culture. I doubt it. Being the optimist that I am, I think it causal. It also makes sense to my mind. Industrialization leads to the basic needs of the populous being met in the here-and-now, which leads to a lowered need to seek fulfillment in the here-after.
Industrialization leads to the basic needs of the populous being met in the here-and-now, which leads to a lowered need to seek fulfillment in the here-after.
If you only knew how I cringe to realize that Christianity has badly evolved into a “here-after” concept. My personal opinion is that the biblical writers, the apostles, Jesus himself all taught as much, if not more, about the here-and-now. In fact, I actually believe that the scale is tipped way more to the here-and-now than to the here-after.
Unfortunately, the emphasis has been put on the here-after in western Christianity, leading to a teaching that amounts to little more than “fire insurance” (if you catch my drift).
It would be interesting to see if, in future conversations between us, we might find some common ground in that aspect of thinking.
Sid… What you said about secularization and religion makes sense to me as well, however google “religious beliefs stay constant” and according to that article at least it just isn’t so.It seems religion has a staying power which is actually quite awesome and no doubt a lot can be learned from it’s structure and that has to be harnessed by any competing ideology in order for it to succeed.
During WW2 the soviets after realizing that their initial strategy was flawed adopted the blitzkreig strategy because it worked and to stupendous effect when the Soviets tactics!
I talked a little about the structure of successful religions and it’s importance in the justoneangel blogsite.
Also you mentioned that your religion isn’t genetic. That is true but speaking Japanese isn’t either however if you have Japanese parents who speak Japanese chances are their child will speak Japanese too. Likewise with one’s religious upbringing.
Of course there are exceptions in religions but if you wanted to bet what a person would believe when he dies you need only look at what he was taught when he was being raised and you would’nt go too far wrong.
If I could pick stocks with that certainty I would be a very rich person.
Anyway the point I am making is that the theory of not having children because religious people will get it together does’nt seem in accordance with reality at least as it is happening In Europe.
I was reading that for the most part religious people aren’t as intelligent as the non religious which also makes sense to me but which is also backed up by reality which of course means over the long term that the intelligence of humanity will slowly degrade as the religious become more numerous ,that is if you believe intelligence is inherited and you probably do.
So it seems as if the not so bright will overwhelm the more intelligent so in the long run who really is the brightest?
I suppose I have gone little off topic in terms of supernatural causation and coincidence but i think what I am saying makes sense at least the facts are correct but maybe you will disagree with the conclusions
I was reading that for the most part religious people aren’t as intelligent as the non religious which also makes sense to me but which is also backed up by reality….
Wow. Nice to see bigotry is alive and well. How ironic that we Christians are usually the ones accused of bigotry.
But what do I know? I’m just not as intelligent as y’all, apparently. So I’m sure there’s some explanation as to why your statement is valid truth and not bigotry as we unintelligent people understand bigotry.
“makes sense”? “backed up by reality”? Let’s see the scientific evidence for those amazing claims.
Steve:
I catch it and it’s funny! Modern Christianity seems to be much about death from the point of view of an outsider.
Sawaz:
Yeah, I’d have to agree with Steve. That statement is pretty damned close-minded, and demonstrably false in the case of Ashkenazim Jews. Anecdotal, I would have to disagree because of the number of thoughtful and intelligent religious people I have met. Historically, there have been several intelligent religious people: Leibniz, Newton, and Descartes to name a few of my favorites. But if you have proof, you have proof. I will remain skeptical until you provide it.
Sid First of all Ashkenic jews are a race not a religion and that is an enormous difference.
Einstein, Oppenheimer, Feynman, Wiener, Landau and on and on were Ashkenic Jews by genetics not belief.
For some back-up to what i said about religiosity and intelligence look up “intelligent people tend to be more religious”
Steve.. Read the aforementioned website and the studies cited and you will see what i said is backed up by some studies and please no more name calling.
please no more name calling
I didn’t call anyone any names. I labeled your statements as bigotry, which they are. I did not call you a bigot.
However, you made some pretty strong assertions about my intelligence, since I would be, by any definition, a religious person. I find that offensive, and find it ironic that you would then get defensive when I call your view bigotry.
Read the aforementioned website
I’m not seeing any website mentioned in your comments. I see where you said to Google something, but I’m not finding the information in that search that you hint at. How about a direct link?
“Ashkenic jews are a race not a religion…”
Fair enough.
I looked at the summary you suggested I look up. I’d like to note several things.
1. Many of the referenced studies found no correlation.
2. The ones that found a correlation tended to be weak.
3. Many of the studies use relative terms like “less religious”. These individuals are still religious, just less so than others.
4. Correlation doesn’t speak to causation.
5. Most of the studies involved college students or scientists, which isn’t a random sample. Considering the historic rift between religion and liberal education (like college) and especially science, many intelligent, religious people may have chosen not to attend mainstream post-secondary education institutions and self-selected out of these studies. There’s also the possibility that there are a number of less-religious morons excluded from these studies that would cancel out some of the results.
6. And most importantly, statistical correlations and averages say nothing about individual ability. A religious person or a non-religious person can both be anything from a blithering idiot to a super genius despite the averages. Generalizing weak correlations to stereotype groups blinds you to individual merit. It can also breed unnecessary hostility and contempt between people.
Steve I did’nt say anything about your intelligence whatsoever what I said was that for the most part religious people aren’t as intelligent as non religious and i backed it up with the wesite I alluded to which Sid kindly linked.Of course there are many brilliant religious people I did’nt say there weren’t.There are many more websites along the same lines.Try religiosity and intelligence on wikipedia.Don’t shoot the messanger.
Sid your response was correct in every way however the part about weak correlations and your asumption as I see it that weak correlations are not really worth much I think needs a little tweaking.Yes one weak correlation does’nt prove much or anything but a lot of weak correlations summed over many years and places equals a strong argument or tendency at least as i see it.
Here is what I mean and I hope I am using a valid example. In India if you went to many villages you would see a small shortfall in the number of girls compared to what probability says there should be.Now if you looked at a village or two you might say that is a weak correlation however if the whole country is looked at or specific areas then you would have to say that something is going on because the odds against these ratios of boys to girls happening by chance is astronomical when taken over millions of people.
That is a whole other topic though.
Here is a question which you can ask religious people which will assess their beliefs and which they should’nt get too upset over since it seems fairly innocuous to me but you may find they get get quite defensive about it.
Just ask “how old do you think the earth is?”That is a pretty simple question and if you ask me I will tell you what I think.
Maybe Steve would like to answer that question.
Sure, I’ll answer. I don’t know
But seriously, since you ask how old I think the earth is, I will say first of all that I do not buy into the “young earth” theories. I think that there is sufficient evidence that there probably is much more age to the earth than the 6,000-10,000 years that young earth advocates hold to.
How much more age? I don’t know. I think probably closer to a million or more years, but that’s strictly a guess. I’m a bit skeptical of modern science’s ability to measure age so accurately in the past when dealing with numbers that large because I think there could possibly (and maybe even likely) be other factors that affect the evidence being evaluated.
For example, when measuring, science is often limited to how they think things decay or are affected by the passage of time based on what we have observed in a relatively minuscule amount of time that those types of measurements have even been possible. Of necessity, they (the scientists doing the testing/measuring) have to make assumptions and go with those.
What do you think? And how does my answer “assess [my] beliefs”?
Steve I did’nt [sic] say anything about your intelligence whatsoever[. W]hat I said was that for the most part religious people aren’t as intelligent as non religious
Actually, you did say things indirectly about my intelligence because you claimed that there would be a high probability of my intelligence being low because of the group with which I self-identify (i.e., religious people). Even in your defense here, you reassert that “for the most part…” blah blah blah. You’re so blind to your own bigotry that you can’t even realize how you reaffirm it in your defensiveness.
Your naive approach to this topic is either amusing or infuriating, and I can’t figure out which. If you can’t respect people enough to approach individuals without preconceived “probabilities”, you need to rethink your approach.
Your excuse here is that you were only talking about probabilities and not about me specifically. But what you have expressed here is no different than racism, homophobia, sexism, or any other form of bigotry. You have demonstrated the belief that it is likely, based on the studies you chose to reference, that if you find a person is religious, they are less intelligent. This comes through loud and clear in your comments, despite your attempt to backpeddle and say that you weren’t saying anything about me specifically. Am I intelligent? Do you even know? Do you even care? Or are you more interested in just lumping me in with “them” – those awful religious people that you fear are taking over the world?
By making these broad sweeping judgments about religious people as a whole entity, you have cast doubt on my intelligence (in a public forum, no less), because I have been very open about my religious beliefs. Your argument to the contrary does not hold any water.
I think that mankind is much better served when individuals are treated as individuals, and not pre-judged (the basis of our word “prejudice”) based on ethnic, sexual, gender, religious, or any other “group” identification. With attitudes like yours running around, I fear we here in America will never move beyond bigotry as an identifying aspect of our culture.
One more thing, and then I will shut up. I was hesitant to make this point earlier, but it almost seems necessary now. Anyone who wants to claim that their group (in your case, non-religious people) is “more intelligent” on average than some other group might want to make sure they know how to actually construct sentences intelligently, use punctuation and spacing properly, and follow basic rules of grammar.
The difference between you and me is that I didn’t prejudge you as a non-believer. But I could look at actual evidence and make judgments about your command of the English language. Does that mean you are unintelligent? I can’t tell. There may be other factors that prevent you from writing properly. But if I were to determine that you are less intelligent than I, it would be a conclusion I would have arrived at based on actually evaluating you as a person and not because you are in some arbitrary group of people.
The reality is actually to the contrary, though. In an attempt to demonstrate goodwill, I have chosen to overlook your spelling, grammar, and sentence structure errors and attempt to understand what you as a human being are saying. I have chosen not to judge you on that basis, and have only brought it up here to make a painfully obvious point about the double-standard you are using.
You should show the same respect to other humans and stop pre-judging people based on what group they’re in.
Steve Interesting answer in terms of the earth’s age I’ve never heard that one before.A general rule is if you have a grown person who thinks that the earth is 6-10k years old then something has gone drastically wrong somewhere.
That implies people and dinosaurs co-existed and at that point they have lost me.
As for me I will go with the consensus among scientists that the earth is 4.5 billion years old or so based on the fact that this is a figure that has been arrived at by many years of observation.That figure could be wrong but based on all the evidence it is probably not bad.However if someone comes along with a piece of evidence to prove otherwise then i suppose I would change my number.
One million is about 1/4500 the age that is the consensus among scientists so unless you have some insights that the rest of us don’t your estimate seems a little off and really isn’t that much differnt from the young earth advocates whatever they are
Actually you should know that number to the year because on your webcast you talk about God and his plan and if you know the infinite the earth’s age should be a small subset of your knowledge.
When I stated that studies indicated that religious people on average are less intelligent than the non religious it was based on scientific studies which although not perfect reveal a differential of tendency.
I am just stating the facts and facts aren’t bigotry just facts.
Do you really think there are angels floating around and do you believe the adam and eve story?
Actually you should know that number to the year because on your webcast you talk about God and his plan and if you know the infinite the earth’s age should be a small subset of your knowledge.
Is there no end to your brazenness? I have never, EVER claimed to know everything that God knows. Your attitude is not one of productive dialog, but of arrogance.
I am done attempting to discuss things with you. Draw whatever conclusions you want about me, since you seem bent on doing that anyway. Just because I am willing to say “I don’t know” when I really don’t know, or to say that science could be right, but that I think there could possibly be flaws in the logic of the method (reference my comments about unknown factors making it difficult to extrapolate data back billions of years) seems to indicate to you that I’m just like all the rest.
Fine, have it your way. I hope that someday, you’ll learn that a good dose of humility can go a long way in interacting with your fellow humans. But as for me, I’m done beating my head against the wall in attempting to have civil dialog with you.
If you call thinking the world is probably 4.5 billion years old arrogance then I am guilty as charged. I have actually run into people like you before and when I ask them some intelligent questions or make some assertions backed up by facts the names and insults come out basically becuase they have nothing to counter with. I.E bigot and questioning my command of the language. That is really quite childish.
Having a dialogue with someone who believes all the nonsense in the bible is quite excruciating and the sad part is you will never get it but that is alright I wish you the best. I really do… Cheers
He didn’t call you arrogant because of what you believe regarding the age of the earth. He called you arrogant because you believe that you are superior to religious people.