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?

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #425]

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?

Who cares? It is irrelevant as to whether the universe is evidence for the existence of god(s) as you have claimed. There's no more justification for postulating a god being as postulating a natural explanation. "We don't yet know the answer" problems are always open to hypotheses, and a god being is just one of those that has yet to be shown to be correct in any way.

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.

Utter nonsense. Every explanation for nature that we have now (science) is explained in terms of nature.

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

No, gods are a hypothesis and nothing more. Science has countless proven results and an excellent track record. There is no comparison when it comes to evidence and results.

[Jose Fly]

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

I guess we have to go back to basic science. FYI, science does not deal in "proof". Were you not aware of that?

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.

So you agree that the fossil record does include examples of classic Darwinian gradualism?

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

That's it? That's the full extent of your argument?

[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?

I fear my post got missed.

[Inquirer]

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

I guess we have to go back to basic science. FYI, science does not deal in "proof". Were you not aware of that?

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.

So you agree that the fossil record does include examples of classic Darwinian gradualism?

Clearly I do not because I said "apparent continuity" if you care to pay attention to what I wrote.

I've been shown "examples" of continuity by some here, if I recall it was associated with trilobites, well consider this sequence of real numbers:

10, 11, 14, 18, 23, 158, 158.0001, 158.0003, 158.0006, 158.0015, 234, 278

How does a tiny fluctuation around the value 158 support a claim of continuity across the entire range?

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

That's it? That's the full extent of your argument?

Not at all, I could and in fact I have spoken about this at great length and in much more detail in several threads but you have dismissed what I said because you disapprove of my interpretation.

[Clownboat]

For me the fossil record also was proof of continuity (I'd been told that a hundred times in books and TV and accepted it without question) until I manned up and was frank about what I needed to see to convince me beyond doubt, its the emperors new clothes, brain washed evolution devotees can only see what the so desperately want to see.

You will never fully understand the other side until you can come to terms that there is no 'need' to believe in evolution like the other side has with 'needing' there to be a god.

Prove evolution false and I lose nothing. No eternity, no bliss, no loss of seeing dead loved ones. This is key.
Creationists on the other hand have much to lose if evolution remains the best explination we have for not only the animals we see now on earth now, but also in the fossil record. You need evolution to be false and an atheist for example has no need for evolution to be true. It's true because that is where the evidence has led them, not so they can go to heaven. This distinction is clear and should not be ignored when trying to understand the other side.

Show a better mechanism for the life we see on earth, I'm all ears and literally lose nothing if your words are true. The same cannot be said for you and I understand this major difference. Understanding this difference helps me to understand the other side. I wonder if it would also help you?

[Jose Fly]

So you agree that the fossil record does include examples of classic Darwinian gradualism?

Clearly I do not because I said "apparent continuity" if you care to pay attention to what I wrote.

Is that the extent of your rebuttal, simply saying that you disagree?

I've been shown "examples" of continuity by some here, if I recall it was associated with trilobites, well consider this sequence of real numbers:

10, 11, 14, 18, 23, 158, 158.0001, 158.0003, 158.0006, 158.0015, 234, 278

How does a tiny fluctuation around the value 158 support a claim of continuity across the entire range?

We're not discussing numbers. Address the data you were provided.

Not at all, I could and in fact I have spoken about this at great length and in much more detail in several threads but you have dismissed what I said because you disapprove of my interpretation.

Well here's your opportunity. Describe your interpretation.

[Inquirer]

For me the fossil record also was proof of continuity (I'd been told that a hundred times in books and TV and accepted it without question) until I manned up and was frank about what I needed to see to convince me beyond doubt, its the emperors new clothes, brain washed evolution devotees can only see what the so desperately want to see.

You will never fully understand the other side until you can come to terms that there is no 'need' to believe in evolution like the other side has with 'needing' there to be a god.

There is no "other side" only a diversity of opinions, I also used to fully support and accept evolution but upon closer inspection and a refusal to be subject to peer pressure I revaluated my stance.

Prove evolution false and I lose nothing. No eternity, no bliss, no loss of seeing dead loved ones. This is key.

Such concepts played no part in my change of position on evolution.

Creationists on the other hand have much to lose if evolution remains the best explination we have for not only the animals we see now on earth now, but also in the fossil record. You need evolution to be false and an atheist for example has no need for evolution to be true. It's true because that is where the evidence has led them, not so they can go to heaven. This distinction is clear and should not be ignored when trying to understand the other side.

Evolution being true or false has no bearing on my theology, Consider Barbarian he accepts evolution, he does not need it to be false despite the fact he is a creationist. I am of the opinion it is false because the evidence does not support that claim, my objections are scientific.

Show a better mechanism for the life we see on earth, I'm all ears and literally lose nothing if your words are true. The same cannot be said for you and I understand this major difference. Understanding this difference helps me to understand the other side. I wonder if it would also help you?

Seek and you shall find.

[Clownboat]

Yes but "evidence" is also interpreted, I discussed this here recently. The evolution devotee seems to believe there is only one way to interpret evidence and that their interpretation is the true interpretation, that this mindset mirrors that of the Catholic authorities who persecuted Galileo, goes right over their heads.

To help to understand the other side...

One side must look at evolution and interpret the information in a specific way in order to maintain their religious beliefs.
The other side looks at evolution and finds it to be the best explination that we currently have until or if a better explination comes.

Which side is viewing this topic with the least bias Inquirer and can this extreme bias (imortality, seeing dead loved ones etc...) affect the way a person might view the topic of evolution?

Bottom line, prove evolution wrong and I care not. Show it to be correct and you have much to lose. This difference cannot be ignored if we are trying to understand each other.

[Diogenes]

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

Great answers! But I wonder whether there is any point in reading, let alone debating someone who bloviates:

Nothing in science "follows"....

... because he thinks one can make whatever assumptions one wants, as if one can discard laws of physics and ignore the fossil record, or pick and choose what parts to ignore and which to accept...
or...

... one cannot explain nature in terms of nature, it is vacuous to do that.

Talk about "vacuous," as if one can dismiss hundreds of years of scientific discovery with empty platitudes that amount to "I can believe whatever I want to because evidence means nothing."

__________________________________
“Never argue with an idiot. They will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.”
― Mark Twain

Albert Einstein, supposedly, said "Two things are infinite: The universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the universe."

[Inquirer]

So you agree that the fossil record does include examples of classic Darwinian gradualism?

Clearly I do not because I said "apparent continuity" if you care to pay attention to what I wrote.

Is that the extent of your rebuttal, simply saying that you disagree?

We each disagree Jose.

I've been shown "examples" of continuity by some here, if I recall it was associated with trilobites, well consider this sequence of real numbers:

10, 11, 14, 18, 23, 158, 158.0001, 158.0003, 158.0006, 158.0015, 234, 278

How does a tiny fluctuation around the value 158 support a claim of continuity across the entire range?

We're not discussing numbers. Address the data you were provided.

The concept of "continuity" and "discontinuity" exist independently of the things themselves, in science we know that we can reduce physical scenarios to mathematical scenarios, we can consider specific physical problems in terms of general mathematical problems.

Now answer my question: how does a tiny fluctuation around the value 158 support a claim of continuity across the entire range? address the data you were provided.

Not at all, I could and in fact I have spoken about this at great length and in much more detail in several threads but you have dismissed what I said because you disapprove of my interpretation.

Well here's your opportunity. Describe your interpretation.

I just have.