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?

[Purple Knight]

So is mine - which kind of truth - that's a very simple question.

Lets assume I defend the resurrection from the perspective of historic truth and then Joey decides to attack my defense on the basis of scientific truth?

This makes no sense. The truth lies in the claim, not how it is assessed. The resurrection either occurred or it didn't. Which one is the truth?

I think what he's saying is that some well-recorded historical event could be attacked on the basis that what is recorded is not scientifically possible.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Tcg in post #419]

As we see time after time, we end up with a need for an endless stream of creators. Each being more complex than the previous.

Yes ... the "god must exist because infinite regression is impossible" thread. I like Muhammad Iqbal's comment on this:

"To finish the series at a certain point, and to elevate one member of the series to the dignity of an uncaused first cause, is to set at naught the very law of causation on which the whole argument proceeds."

Sums it up pretty well.

[Jose Fly]

I've acknowledged all of your arguments that are worthy of such a lofty term

You most certainly did not. Not only did you not address the material I posted, you didn't even acknowledge it....you ignored it completely.

This is precisely the sort of behavior that this thread is about. It's utterly bizarre.

and they are stunningly deficient, that's why I remain unconvinced.

Right, simply because you say they are. No need to explain, no need to even read the material...just say "Nuh uh" and expect everyone else to shout "Amen!"

You can only see what you want to see in your evidence, for you the fossil record is the result of continuity so all you can see is continuity, its called wishful thinking, confirmation bias.

Now you're just making things up. I never said that at all.

Why do you feel the need to do this? Are you just trolling? Spoiling for an argument? Or is this really the best you can do?

That describes most of the people here who have ignored the huge problems the fossil record presents.

I'm really starting to think you're trolling this board. I first started posting here specifically to point out how your behavior in the "How crazy does evolution seem" thread was fairly typical among creationists. Back then your posts were nothing but empty assertions, and whenever someone would post actual data and/or papers that conflicted with those assertions, you'd completely ignore them.

And how here you are, still doing it! I'm tempted to ask again why you're here, since it's obviously not to engage in actual debate, but the last few times I tried to go down that road, you shut down.

So now I'm left with some choices. Perhaps you're just a troll, perhaps you're so unfamiliar with debate that you honestly don't know how to engage in one, perhaps this is just the best you can do, or perhaps you avoid debate because you're scared to be wrong. Maybe you really are just like that trash-talking kid on the playground who always has an excuse for why he never plays any games. Maybe this is actually much more simple than I thought....it's nothing more than fear that causes you to act like this.

[Inquirer]

I've acknowledged all of your arguments that are worthy of such a lofty term

You most certainly did not. Not only did you not address the material I posted, you didn't even acknowledge it....you ignored it completely.

This is precisely the sort of behavior that this thread is about. It's utterly bizarre.

and they are stunningly deficient, that's why I remain unconvinced.

Right, simply because you say they are. No need to explain, no need to even read the material...just say "Nuh uh" and expect everyone else to shout "Amen!"

You can only see what you want to see in your evidence, for you the fossil record is the result of continuity so all you can see is continuity, its called wishful thinking, confirmation bias.

Now you're just making things up. I never said that at all.

Why do you feel the need to do this? Are you just trolling? Spoiling for an argument? Or is this really the best you can do?

That describes most of the people here who have ignored the huge problems the fossil record presents.

I'm really starting to think you're trolling this board. I first started posting here specifically to point out how your behavior in the "How crazy does evolution seem" thread was fairly typical among creationists. Back then your posts were nothing but empty assertions, and whenever someone would post actual data and/or papers that conflicted with those assertions, you'd completely ignore them.

And how here you are, still doing it! I'm tempted to ask again why you're here, since it's obviously not to engage in actual debate, but the last few times I tried to go down that road, you shut down.

So now I'm left with some choices. Perhaps you're just a troll, perhaps you're so unfamiliar with debate that you honestly don't know how to engage in one, perhaps this is just the best you can do, or perhaps you avoid debate because you're scared to be wrong. Maybe you really are just like that trash-talking kid on the playground who always has an excuse for why he never plays any games. Maybe this is actually much more simple than I thought....it's nothing more than fear that causes you to act like this.

Just as you continually want to dwell on my "behavior" I think it appropriate to dwell on yours, is that not equitable? I interpret the fossil record as evidence of discontinuity Jose, terribly sorry if this upsets you but that's simply that.

That the fossil record somehow proves or supports evolution is a typical belief amongst evolutionists and that's likely because they've been taught that that is the only rational way to interpret it, but it isn't.

It really is none of your business "why I'm here" you attack me - the person - because that's what you think a debate is, which is why in a real one-on-one refereed debate you'd be laughed off stage.

All you do, over and over and over is complain about me, that's not what debating is Jose, you can complain about rule violations to the moderators if there's any substance to your complaint they will address it. in the meantime stick to the subject, the facts and the arguments.

Now, lets try again - do you agree that different people often interpret evidence differently? do you agree that one's premises influence how one interprets evidence?

You can answer my questions or you can continue to grumble about me asking them, your choice.

If you want an "explanation" as to why I interpret it as I do then please refer to my earlier thread. In that thread I attempt to show that when evidence is ambiguous then by definition is supports multiple interpretations, what is it about this obvious and rather simple fact, that is confusing you so much?

You seem to (I may have this wrong so please elaborate as needed) to genuinely think that the only rational way to interpret the fossil record is that it is a discontinuous record of a continuous process, if you truly believe that then there is where we differ.

The record is discontinuous, therefore that means - it really does - that the process generating those fossils could itself have been discontinuous, this is blindingly obvious to many but not to you. Tell me Jose if the process generating the fossils was discontinuous, would we expect to find a discontinuous record? PLEASE ANSWER THIS ONE.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #413]

The universe is evidence for God, what else could it possibly be evidence of?

Itself. What is Mt. Everest evidence of, or the Pacific ocean? The universe is no more evidence for god(s) than it is evidence for anything else you could dream up and declare a relationship to. The universe is evidence that all of the things we can observe in it exist, and observations suggest many more things that exist that we don't yet understand like dark matter and dark energy. But inferring that a god exists from observations of the universe is an opinion ... it does not follow from observations of the universe that gods must exist.

The presence of Everest is evidence of material cause and effect, the presence of the universe cannot be so without infinite regress. Tell me, to what do we attribute cause and effect? where did cause and effect come from? It exists, science is predicated upon it, but why? how? what can have led to it's presence?

There is a huge difference between explaining something material in terms of something else material, in terms of forces and laws and explaining the presence of those laws.

Nothing in science "follows" unless we make assumptions and there are choices as to which assumptions one can make.

You want to fit the world into your limited view of how nature works, but you cannot, one cannot explain nature in terms of nature, it is vacuous to do that.

God is necessary if you want to escape from the futility of this, your philosophy, scientism, is powerless in the face of these questions.

[JoeyKnothead]

...
Now, lets try again - do you agree that different people often interpret evidence differently? do you agree that one's premises influence how one interprets evidence?

You can answer my questions or you can continue to grumble about me asking them, your choice.

Sure, okay on that first bit.

Now, on that second bit...

Do you think the resurrection of Christ described in the New Testament is truth?

[Jose Fly]

I interpret the fossil record as evidence of discontinuity Jose, terribly sorry if this upsets you but that's simply that.

LOL...again, do you not realize this is a debate forum? In any other context, I wouldn't care at all what you thought about the fossil record. You're not a paleontologist, you have zero expertise or experience in the subject, and you have no influence at all in any aspect of the field. But in a debate forum (and I can't believe I have to explain this), the expectation is that if you express a position on something, you will defend and debate it.

Is that a revelation to you?

That the fossil record somehow proves or supports evolution is a typical belief amongst evolutionists and that's likely because they've been taught that that is the only rational way to interpret it, but it isn't.

The moon is made of cheese.

See? Anyone can go into a forum and make empty assertions.

It really is none of your business "why I'm here"

And once again you shut that line of inquiry down.

you attack me - the person - because that's what you think a debate is, which is why in a real one-on-one refereed debate you'd be laughed off stage.

I'm focusing on behavior because that's all there is to discuss. I've tried multiple times to debate your empty assertions and I've tried several times to show you data that contradicts your assertions (as have several others), but you refuse to debate. Surely you've noticed that I'm not the only one to make this observation, right?

All you do, over and over and over is complain about me, that's not what debating is Jose, you can complain about rule violations to the moderators if there's any substance to your complaint they will address it. in the meantime stick to the subject, the facts and the arguments.

Good. You can start by addressing the data that I and others have posted to you. Let's see your rebuttals to it.

Now, lets try again - do you agree that different people often interpret evidence differently? do you agree that one's premises influence how one interprets evidence?

Sheesh....we've been over this. The answer is (yet again)....yes, they do. What's your point?

If you want an "explanation" as to why I interpret it as I do then please refer to my earlier thread. In that thread I attempt to show that when evidence is ambiguous then by definition is supports multiple interpretations, what is it about this obvious and rather simple fact, that is confusing you so much?

Fine, then explain how the data you've been provided and the way in which paleontologists interpret it is wrong and how your interpretation is superior.

The record is discontinuous, therefore that means - it really does - that the process generating those fossils could itself have been discontinuous, this is blindingly obvious to many but not to you. Tell me Jose if the process generating the fossils was discontinuous, would we expect to find a discontinuous record? PLEASE ANSWER THIS ONE.

What specific record are you referring to? The entire thing? A specific lineage?

Also, the record is not exclusively discontinuous. It has instances of continuity and exhibits classic Darwinian evolution, as was shown in some of the material I posted to you. What is your response to that?

[Inquirer]

I interpret the fossil record as evidence of discontinuity Jose, terribly sorry if this upsets you but that's simply that.

LOL...again, do you not realize this is a debate forum? In any other context, I wouldn't care at all what you thought about the fossil record. You're not a paleontologist, you have zero expertise or experience in the subject, and you have no influence at all in any aspect of the field. But in a debate forum (and I can't believe I have to explain this), the expectation is that if you express a position on something, you will defend and debate it.

Is that a revelation to you?

That the fossil record somehow proves or supports evolution is a typical belief amongst evolutionists and that's likely because they've been taught that that is the only rational way to interpret it, but it isn't.

The moon is made of cheese.

See? Anyone can go into a forum and make empty assertions.

It really is none of your business "why I'm here"

And once again you shut that line of inquiry down.

you attack me - the person - because that's what you think a debate is, which is why in a real one-on-one refereed debate you'd be laughed off stage.

I'm focusing on behavior because that's all there is to discuss. I've tried multiple times to debate your empty assertions and I've tried several times to show you data that contradicts your assertions (as have several others), but you refuse to debate. Surely you've noticed that I'm not the only one to make this observation, right?

All you do, over and over and over is complain about me, that's not what debating is Jose, you can complain about rule violations to the moderators if there's any substance to your complaint they will address it. in the meantime stick to the subject, the facts and the arguments.

Good. You can start by addressing the data that I and others have posted to you. Let's see your rebuttals to it.

Now, lets try again - do you agree that different people often interpret evidence differently? do you agree that one's premises influence how one interprets evidence?

Sheesh....we've been over this. The answer is (yet again)....yes, they do. What's your point?

If you want an "explanation" as to why I interpret it as I do then please refer to my earlier thread. In that thread I attempt to show that when evidence is ambiguous then by definition is supports multiple interpretations, what is it about this obvious and rather simple fact, that is confusing you so much?

Fine, then explain how the data you've been provided and the way in which paleontologists interpret it is wrong and how your interpretation is superior.

The record is discontinuous, therefore that means - it really does - that the process generating those fossils could itself have been discontinuous, this is blindingly obvious to many but not to you. Tell me Jose if the process generating the fossils was discontinuous, would we expect to find a discontinuous record? PLEASE ANSWER THIS ONE.

What specific record are you referring to? The entire thing? A specific lineage?

Also, the record is not exclusively discontinuous. It has instances of continuity and exhibits classic Darwinian evolution, as was shown in some of the material I posted to you. What is your response to that?

Jose, are you claiming that you can use the fossil record to emphatically prove continuous evolution from plankton four billion years ago down to humans today? Because unless you are making that claim, then you have no basis to object to my interpretation. If you admit that there are gaps then you must also admit that there is an absence of fossil evidence for proving continuity and therefore there are differing ways to interpret those gaps as either true gaps or as apparent gaps.

[Jose Fly]

Jose, are you claiming that you can use the fossil record to emphatically prove continuous evolution from plankton down to humans?

No.

Because unless you are making that claim, then you have no basis to object to my interpretation.

Sure I do. You keep saying the fossil record is discontinuous. I've posted examples to you where it isn't. You've yet to address that data.

FYI, in a debate that is scored as you conceding the point.

[Inquirer]

Jose, are you claiming that you can use the fossil record to emphatically prove continuous evolution from plankton down to humans?

No.

Because unless you are making that claim, then you have no basis to object to my interpretation.

Sure I do. You keep saying the fossil record is discontinuous. I've posted examples to you where it isn't. You've yet to address that data.

FYI, in a debate that is scored as you conceding the point.

Then you are contradicting yourself. If you are admitting that you cannot prove continuity then that is to admit the possibility of discontinuity.

Also examples "where it isn't" are of no help here, look, is this sequence of integers continuous?

1 2 3 4 5 8 9 22 23 24 25 26 30 31 32 33 42 45

Is that continuous? No. Are there regions where it is continuous? Yes.

Therefore the presence of isolated regions of apparent continuity does not disprove my interpretation that overall the sequence is truly discontinuous.

Now in reality there is much more involved and there is interpretation at every point where uncertainty exists, I rest my case.