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?

[Inquirer]

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."

Jose wrote "in which paleontologists interpret it" yet different paleontologists also interpret it differently, so why does Jose seem to think "real" biologists are those who agree with him and "real" paleontologists are those who agree with him and "real" microbiologists are those who agree with him?

Such a belief is implicit in everything he says here.

[Jose Fly]

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."

Oh certainly, that's always been the million dollar question about all this.....what's the point?

That question is especially poignant today, given that creationism is effectively dead. Back in the day there was good reason to counter creationists and their arguments, since they were actively trying to get their material into classrooms. Now? It's mostly just something to do. I like to write, I like to debate, and I like science, so it's kind of a natural fit for me. Also, given my upbringing I'm fascinated by certain religious beliefs and the people who hold them.

So yeah, I can see how this whole thing seems silly and a waste of time (and I wouldn't try to argue that it's not). I'm not sure what else to say, except that debating creationists is something that I find interesting. It's weird, but well.....I guess I'm a weird person.

[Jose Fly]

We each disagree Jose.

You were provided examples of classic Darwinian evolution in the fossil record. You have not addressed them at all, except to say that you disagree. That's a meaningless response and in a debate is a concession.

I accept your concession of the point.

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.

Again, we're not debating numbers, we're debating the fossil record. Can you address the data you were provided?

I just have.

So again I must conclude that your idea of "debate" is you making an empty assertion, others providing data that contradicts that assertion, and you responding with nothing more than "I disagree".

Also, although I'm hesitant to introduce more science into this, I wonder if you're aware that scientists have actually done statistical analyses of the patterns in the fossil record? Have you ever read any of their work?

Finally, just so we're clear....is the extent of your interpretation of the foram fossil record simply that you disagree with the interpretations of the scientists who studied it? For example, what is the basis of your disagreement? Do you think they erred in their analyses? If so, where and in what way?

[Inquirer]

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...

You've chosen to engage me on this point of "assumptions" very well, let us discuss that.

One can make any assumption one wants, the only principle that seems important is that whatever we assume leads to self consistency.

Euclid assumed that parallel lines never meet, and that assumption leads to a self consistent scheme called Euclidean Geometry. Then later Gauss and later Reimann chose different assumptions and one of those was that parallel lines always meet, this too leads to a self consistent scheme called Riemannian Geometry.

Do you understand what I am saying to you?

[JoeyKnothead]

Finally, just so we're clear....is the extent of your interpretation of the foram fossil record simply that you disagree with the interpretations of the scientists who studied it?

Yes.

For example, what is the basis of your disagreement?

How're you defining "is"?

Do you think they erred in their analyses?

Yes.

If so, where and in what way?

All of it, cause not enough God.

I think it's pretty clear now that we can dismiss the scientific consensus.

[Jose Fly]

Finally, just so we're clear....is the extent of your interpretation of the foram fossil record simply that you disagree with the interpretations of the scientists who studied it?

Yes.

For example, what is the basis of your disagreement?

How're you defining "is"?

Do you think they erred in their analyses?

Yes.

If so, where and in what way?

All of it, cause not enough God.

I think it's pretty clear now that we can dismiss the scientific consensus.

Well I guess that settles it! Thanks for putting the whole thing to rest.

[Inquirer]

We each disagree Jose.

You were provided examples of classic Darwinian evolution in the fossil record. You have not addressed them at all, except to say that you disagree. That's a meaningless response and in a debate is a concession.

I accept your concession of the point.

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.

Again, we're not debating numbers, we're debating the fossil record. Can you address the data you were provided?

We are debating science, science relies on numbers on mathematics, many scientific problems among theorists can be expressed as mathematical problems. Continuity can be regarded as a measure of morphological proximity among neighboring specimens, just as in the sequence of numbers I showed to you.

I am discussing what you claim to be discussing but in terms that are unfamiliar to you, in terms that take you out of your comfort zone, that's your real problem, you like to dictate the terms and boundaries of the discussion to suit your agenda, no worries, I'm used to this when debating evolutionists.

I just have.

So again I must conclude that your idea of "debate" is you making an empty assertion, others providing data that contradicts that assertion, and you responding with nothing more than "I disagree".

Conclude whatever you want.

Also, although I'm hesitant to introduce more science into this, I wonder if you're aware that scientists have actually done statistical analyses of the patterns in the fossil record? Have you ever read any of their work?

I'm sorry, are you now saying we can discuss numbers? but you just said "we're not debating numbers, we're debating the fossil record", how can you expect to fare well in any debate with contradictions like this littering your posts? Or is it the same old Jose trying to dictate the terms of debate again, I'm not permitted to mention mathematics but you are? that's not very fair is it Jose?

Finally, just so we're clear....is the extent of your interpretation of the foram fossil record simply that you disagree with the interpretations of the scientists who studied it? For example, what is the basis of your disagreement? Do you think they erred in their analyses? If so, where and in what way?

Let me convey my position like this. Are there "gaps" in the fossil record between cyanobacteria and human beings? how many gaps would you say there are? how "big" are these gaps? how do you measure the "size" of these gaps? is the fossil record mostly gaps or mostly fossils? what percentage of the actual evolutionary history is represented by the fossil record? 90%? 75%? 1%? do you even know?

For someone purporting to know so much about this these should be pretty easy, routine questions I imagine.

[Jose Fly]

We are debating science

We're debating the fossil record. Do you agree that there are examples of Darwinian gradualism in the fossil record? Do you agree with the interpretations of the foram fossil record that have been posted here? If not, what specifically in their work do you disagree with, and why?

I'm sorry, are you now saying we can discuss numbers? but you just said "we're not debating numbers, we're debating the fossil record", how can you expect to fare well in any debate with contradictions like this littering your posts? Or is it the same old Jose trying to dictate the terms of debate again, I'm not permitted to mention mathematics but you are? that's not very fair is is Jose?

The "numbers" I'm referring to are specific to the fossil record (i.e., statistical analyses of it). You are trying to use numbers as an analogy for the fossil record, but we don't need to rely on analogies since we can just discuss the record itself, directly.

Let me convey my position like this. Are there "gaps" in the fossil record between cyanobacteria and human beings? how many gaps would you say there are? how "big" are these gaps? how do you measure the "size" of these gaps? is the fossil record mostly gaps or mostly fossils? what percentage of the actual evolutionary history is represented by the fossil record? 90%? 75%? 1%? do you even know?

For someone purporting to know so much about this these should be pretty easy, routine questions I imagine.

That wasn't my question. Again, do you disagree with the interpretations of the foram fossil record in the material you were provided? If so, what specific aspect of their work do you disagree with, and why?

[Inquirer]

Very well, Jose obviously has absolutely no idea how to answer these questions yet is 100% confident the fossil record represents a record of a continuous process!

Here are the questions again, as I said above these questions go to the heart of my position on this subject, perhaps someone else here has sufficient knowledge of biology and evolution to answer these questions:

Are there any "gaps" in the fossil record between cyanobacteria and human beings? how many gaps would you say there are? how "big" are these gaps? how do you measure the "size" of these gaps? is the fossil record mostly gaps or mostly fossils? what percentage of the actual evolutionary history is represented by the fossil record? 90%? 75%? 1%?

Well any takers?

If you have no idea how to answer these questions then I conclude you have no idea whether the fossil record supports evolution or not.

[Jose Fly]

Very well, Jose has absolutely no idea how to answer these questions

I've been trying to get you to address one simple thing. You were provided examples of Darwinian gradualism in the fossil record. Do you agree with that interpretation? If not, what specifically do you disagree with?

Let's focus on that, since that's what I've consistently been trying to discuss.

yet is 100% confident the fossil record represents a record of a continuous process!

I never said that.

Here are the questions again, as I said above these questions go to the heart of my position on this subject, perhaps someone else here has sufficient knowledge of biology and evolution to answer these questions:

Are there "gaps" in the fossil record between cyanobacteria and human beings? how many gaps would you say there are? how "big" are these gaps? how do you measure the "size" of these gaps? is the fossil record mostly gaps or mostly fossils? what percentage of the actual evolutionary history is represented by the fossil record? 90%? 75%? 1%?

Well any takers?

If you have no idea how to answer these questions then I conclude you have no idea whether the fossil record supports evolution or not.

You asked that question after I'd asked you about the foram record. In fact, the above question was your reply to my questions about the foram record.

Notice anything? My question had nothing to do with the record between cyanobacteria and humans, so how was that a reply to it?

Again, you were provided with examples of Darwinian gradualism in the fossil record. Do you agree with that interpretation? If not, what specifically about it do you disagree with?