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?

[Jose Fly]

In another forum I have a "debate" (I use the term hesitantly) going with a creationist. He started off by insisting that there were no examples of gradualism in the fossil record, so I showed him some. His response has been to ignore that data and simply repeat "there is no gradualism in the fossil record".

It's that sort of thing that I just don't understand. What do these people tell themselves in these situations?

[Difflugia]

What do these people tell themselves in these situations?

My guess is that it's simply the conviction that the creationist talking heads are knowledgable and honest when they say such things themselves. If Ken Ham says that there isn't any, there isn't any, even if you show it to them. It must be a trick of the light or some sort of clever wordplay because the alternative is that Ken (or whoever) is ignorant, dishonest, or both.

In addition, when told that Ken (or whoever) is ignorant or dishonest when he's so obviously not, it becomes a signal that such claims are just "part of the game." That's why scientists appear so flatfooted in debate. They're the kind of people for whom data are king. Creationists, on the other hand, are already used to everything they know being wrong. They don't realize that's what they're used to, but that's what it amounts to. Creationists are rarely just creationists, but also inerrantists that believe that the Bible is historically accurate. Since there are plenty of data that conflict with that, too, creationists are in the odd position where every argument they have involves being told that their sources are garbage. There's no positive feedback at all to contrast with the negative feedback, so negative feedback loses all meaning.

That's the psychological background to claims involving things like "presuppositions," "assumptions," or "point of view." Data are just tricks because if they weren't, creationists would be wrong about virtually everything they believe about the framework of the universe. That appears to be impossible, especially when everyone at home and at church agrees with them. They can't all be wrong about everything, so even if they don't themselves understand how to evaluate the data, one of the many, many people that agree with them must.

[Tcg]

There's a possible third option, where a god forms primitive forms of stuff that later evolves into more complex forms.

There's a fourth. God destroys itself and its remnants become the matter that evolves into the universe and life. My tongue in cheek explanation of this is that God was given a chemistry set for Christmas and accidentally blew itself up. All we see and are now is the result of an accident. I don't suggest that this is the case, but it is a possibility. Well, maybe not the chemistry set, but you know.


Tcg

[We_Are_VENOM]

Thanks. That's an interesting way to frame it. The first thing that comes to my mind when I see it framed that way is to note that we actually see nature doing things all the time, but gods? Not at all.

If we had 12 dozen decks of 52 cards, and we unbox the cards and throw all the cards in the air...

We will "see" nature allowing the cards to float freely and gradually fall the the floor in random order.

What we don't "see" is the floating cards (as they fall), configure themselves into a card house.

But we do "see" intelligent designers making card houses all the time...in fact, it is a talent.

Now, how is that for a see/don't see comparison?

Does that include things like plasmodium (the parasite that causes malaria) and it's very complex life cycle?

First, you need to account for the origins of life...as the parasite is a living organism, correct?

I'm curious about that. Is it more because you just can't imagine how it could all happen on its own, or is it because you already believe in a god (or gods) and part of that belief is that it/they have a creator role?

It is because entropy is one of the most understood concepts of science....it is so understood that a 3 year old can drop buckets of paint off of a high rise below to a canvas, and not expect the dropped paint to resemble anything to look like the Power Rangers.

Basically what I am saying is, again; mindless, blind, random processes do not produce specified complexity.

But intelligent design does...and THAT partly why I believe in God.

[brunumb]

If we had 12 dozen decks of 52 cards, and we unbox the cards and throw all the cards in the air...

We will "see" nature allowing the cards to float freely and gradually fall the the floor in random order.

What we don't "see" is the floating cards (as they fall), configure themselves into a card house.

But we do "see" intelligent designers making card houses all the time...in fact, it is a talent.

Now, how is that for a see/don't see comparison?

Not very good, because cards are not able to move or assemble themselves without an external agent. Chemicals, on the other hand, are able to react with each other and form new substances without the need for any chemist or external agent guiding them. Complex chemical reactions occur all the time with no need for any intelligent designer stirring the pot or directing the chemicals to do as they are told. Your case is based on poor analogies and incredulity, neither of which are very compelling, unless perhaps one has been thoroughly indoctrinated in some particular religious belief.

[Tcg]

Thanks. That's an interesting way to frame it. The first thing that comes to my mind when I see it framed that way is to note that we actually see nature doing things all the time, but gods? Not at all.

If we had 12 dozen decks of 52 cards, and we unbox the cards and throw all the cards in the air...

We will "see" nature allowing the cards to float freely and gradually fall the the floor in random order.

What we don't "see" is the floating cards (as they fall), configure themselves into a card house.

But we do "see" intelligent designers making card houses all the time...in fact, it is a talent.

Now, how is that for a see/don't see comparison?

It's absurd if it is intended to be an argument against evolution. Evolution isn't based on a one time 14 second event. This is like that ridiculous argument about a tornado ripping through a junk yard and creating a 747. Of course, that doesn't happen, and the theory of evolution doesn't suggest that it should.


Tcg

[We_Are_VENOM]

Not very good, because cards are not able to move or assemble themselves without an external agent. Chemicals, on the other hand, are able to react with each other and form new substances without the need for any chemist or external agent guiding them.

When you can provide an adequate response as to chemical reactions as it pertains to specified complexity, then you will get two of these..

---->

Until then, straw man.

Complex chemical reactions occur all the time with no need for any intelligent designer stirring the pot or directing the chemicals to do as they are told.

Show me spaceshuttle-level complexity involving chemicals with no intelligent external agent.

Your case is based on poor analogies and incredulity, neither of which are very compelling

It is compelling to me.

unless perhaps one has been thoroughly indoctrinated in some particular religious belief.

Indoctrinated with truth.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Thanks. That's an interesting way to frame it. The first thing that comes to my mind when I see it framed that way is to note that we actually see nature doing things all the time, but gods? Not at all.

If we had 12 dozen decks of 52 cards, and we unbox the cards and throw all the cards in the air...

We will "see" nature allowing the cards to float freely and gradually fall the the floor in random order.

What we don't "see" is the floating cards (as they fall), configure themselves into a card house.

But we do "see" intelligent designers making card houses all the time...in fact, it is a talent.

Now, how is that for a see/don't see comparison?

It's absurd if it is intended to be an argument against evolution. Evolution isn't based on a one time 14 second event. This is like that ridiculous argument about a tornado ripping through a junk yard and creating a 747. Of course, that doesn't happen, and the theory of evolution doesn't suggest that it should.

Tcg

Sorry Tcg, but that riff raff blunder that you created a couple weeks back is still fresh in my mind.

Terrible, terrible blunder.

[Difflugia]

When you can provide an adequate response as to chemical reactions as it pertains to specified complexity, then you will get two of these.

What's the difference between "specified complexity" and regular old complexity? Crystalline structures, like snowflakes, are complex, but I assume you don't think the complexity is specified. What's the difference? Or are you using "specified complexity" as a vague and undefined synonym of "awesomeness?"

[We_Are_VENOM]

What's the difference between "specified complexity" and regular old complexity? Crystalline structures, like snowflakes, are complex, but I assume you don't think the complexity is specified. What's the difference? Or are you using "specified complexity" as a vague and undefined synonym of "awesomeness?"

Good question...and crystals/snowflakes are generally used as examples of complexity.

However, neither one has functionality.

Neither one has purpose.

Purpose is intent...eyes with the intended purpose for vision...ears for the intended purpose of audio.

Specifically, all of the built-in body systems that we have..

https://m.carolina.com/teacher-resource ... tr40003.tr

That is SPECIFIED complexity. That is also low entropy...and blind, mindless, random processes doesn't give you that...and it is a slap in the face of the creator for anyone to think otherwise.