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?

[William]

[Replying to DrNoGods in post #250]

On your next employee review with the big guy, ask him why he's holding back on the rain and winter snow we need here in the southwest to keep the Colorado river flowing into the reservoirs. That would be doing God's work (if you can get some results ... the Utah governer asking everyone to pray for rain doesn't seem to be doing the trick).

I won't make any promises but will put in a word.

If - after doing so - the rains come, will you join me in celebrating answered requests, or just put it down to mindless coincidence?

[JoeyKnothead]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #244]

Do you contend that atoms are living?

I myself contend that they may well be. Mother Nature provides us with the evidence that there is an intelligence involved.

How so?

Living, or intelligent, or both?

Just how deep does that intelligence go is unknown, but it is not necessarily impossible that it permeates even deeper than atoms...being a Higgs Boson would be entirely different to being a human...being the entire Quantum Field would be an interesting experience...

But is that stuff living?

We do not know much about consciousness - hardly our own - certainly no one else's and we can barely imagine what it would be like to be anything other than human...although since when has that ever prevented us from giving it a go?

Preach it, friend.

I just don't see the (scientific?) need to propose some of the stuff you have here.

[William]

[Replying to JoeyKnothead in post #252]

We do not know much about consciousness - hardly our own - certainly no one else's and we can barely imagine what it would be like to be anything other than human...although since when has that ever prevented us from giving it a go?

Preach it, friend.

I just don't see the (scientific?) need to propose some of the stuff you have here.

As we have agreed in the past, not all our scientific processes have proved to even be good for the environment and perhaps the lack of scientific interest in finding out about such things - or even recognizing 'intelligent life' - as important enough has it that scientists even give a toss?

It is enough to know how to split atoms and use the energy from the process that any investigation or even contemplation as to whether atoms are conscious, would be besides the point.

I cannot find it in me to put so much faith in the scientific that I exclude such contemplations.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to William in post #251]

If - after doing so - the rains come, will you join me in celebrating answered requests, or just put it down to mindless coincidence?

Most definitely the latter ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficacy_of_prayer

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16569567/

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm ... story.html

But not believing that gods of any kind exist now, or ever did in the past, I would not expect human requests for action on their part to be anything more than a coin toss because they would go unheard and therefore unacted upon.

[brunumb]

DNA does not presuppose life.

Hmm.

"DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is the hereditary material in humans and almost all other organisms. Nearly every cell in a person’s body has the same DNA."

https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/unders ... asics/dna/

Keyword: ORGANISM.

What is an organism?

"In biology, an organism 'instrument, implement, tool', and -ισμός (-ismós)) is any organic, living system that functions as an individual entity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism

So, you are WRONG.

And if you are wrong about something so fundamental to the understanding of the subject at hand...then I don't even want to hear whatever else you have to say on the matter.

I understand chemistry and biochemistry quite well thank you. They were major subjects in my university degree. DNA does not presuppose life. It's all in the grammar.

[brunumb]

I am doing God's work on here.

Oh, well, if that's what you think, go for it. But let's face it, he got some very ordinary (holy) ghost writers to produce his special book for him. What a mess that turned out. And then you have to wonder how come God isn't competent enough to do his own work.

[JoeyKnothead]

I am doing God's work on here.

...And then you have to wonder how come God isn't competent enough to do his own work.

Or chose Venom to do it.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Oh, well, if that's what you think, go for it.

But let's face it, he got some very ordinary (holy) ghost writers to produce his special book for him. What a mess that turned out.

Christianity is the #1 religion in the world (and has been) for centuries...in terms of numbers of followers.

And it all started with a dead Jewish zombie and catapulted by four ghostwriters.

Wow, what a "turn out".

And then you have to wonder how come God isn't competent enough to do his own work.

Gen 1.

[We_Are_VENOM]

I understand chemistry and biochemistry quite well thank you. They were major subjects in my university degree. DNA does not presuppose life. It's all in the grammar.

If there is no life, there is no DNA.

Its all in the strands.

[Difflugia]

Whether specified complexity or irreducible complexity...take your pick.

Either way, the point was made...as both are concepts coined by Dembski.

Irreducible complexity is from Michael Behe's book, Darwin's Black Box.

If there is an argument made against it, I haven't heard it yet.

Ken Miller's book Finding Darwin's God does an excellent job of that.

A single living cell is more complex than a space-shuttle. So if an intelligent designer(s) are needed to create a space shuttle, then an intelligent designer is needed to create life.

That's Paley's watchmaker again.

And to accept one and not the other is to commit the taxicab fallacy...

The "taxicab fallacy" is the apologetic claim that opponents are switching worldviews ("like switching taxicabs"), usually involving something like morality ("Your worldview has no source of absolute morality, but you're arguing for absolute morality!"). Even then, it's not really a fallacy, but I'm not guilty of it in any case. The "taxicab" that you're claiming that I switched from, that complexity alone is a hallmark of design, is your argument, not mine. I was never in that "taxicab" in the first place.