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]

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?

As always you want to talk about a problem strictly on your terms, you want to dictate the terms, you want to police what questions one can and can't ask, you want things you own way.

I told you those questions represent, capture, my position, you don't like the questions? are they too hard for you? why are they too hard?

[JoeyKnothead]

I'll bite, assuring folks know I'm an amateur of such things...

Are there "gaps" in the fossil record between cyanobacteria and human beings?

None sufficient enough to dismiss evolution as fact.

How many gaps would you say there are?

The question's kinda pointless, when the doubter only needs one.

How "big" are these gaps?

Enough to fit a god.

How do you measure the "size" of these gaps?

By how many doubters glom onto em.

Is the fossil record mostly gaps or mostly fossils?

The fossil record is, by definition, composed entirely of fossils.

What percentage of the actual evolutionary history is represented by the fossil record? 90%? 75%? 1%?

A good bunch.

We gotta remember here, fossils ain't the only data that supports the fact of evolution, or the theories thereof.

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.

Unless ya done found you a Cambrian rabbit, we can conclude you have no idea how real or perceived gaps in the fossil record don't fret the fact of evolution one bit.

[Jose Fly]

As always you want to talk about a problem strictly on your terms, you want to dictate the terms, you want to police what questions one can and can't ask, you want things you own way.

I want to stay on topic. I've been asking you repeatedly to directly address the data you were provided....not analogies to number sequences, not cyanobacteria-human evolution.

I told you those questions represent, capture, my position, you don't like the question? are they too hard for you? why are they too hard?

Nope, they're red herrings. Stay on topic.

Do you disagree with scientists' interpretations of the foram fossil record? If so, what specific aspects of their work do you disagree with?

I've been asking that since long before your questions, yet you've not answered. Do you not like the questions? Are they too hard for you? Why are they too hard?

[Inquirer]

So that's two people so far who try to speak knowledgably about evolution and the fossil record but do not know the answers, anyone else care to try?

[Inquirer]

As always you want to talk about a problem strictly on your terms, you want to dictate the terms, you want to police what questions one can and can't ask, you want things you own way.

I want to stay on topic. I've been asking you repeatedly to directly address the data you were provided....not analogies to number sequences, not cyanobacteria-human evolution.

I told you those questions represent, capture, my position, you don't like the question? are they too hard for you? why are they too hard?

Nope, they're red herrings. Stay on topic.

Do you disagree with scientists' interpretations of the foram fossil record? If so, what specific aspects of their work do you disagree with?

I've been asking that since long before your questions, yet you've not answered. Do you not like the questions? Are they too hard for you? Why are they too hard?

You don't understand, it is the absence of answers to these kinds of questions that lead me to view the fossil record as I do. You would never ask such questions, the brain washing carried out by scientism serves to actively discourage such questions, you can't even appreciate how hugely this undermines your position.

[Diogenes]

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.

I have a similar background. That may be why I share a fascination with unsupported religious beliefs and other strange things like 'Trumpism.' How do they sustain such thinking in light of overwhelming evidence of refutation? As Joey might say, 'We hoomans is strange animals."

I enjoy debating with competent defenders of the faith like Otseng and others who actually try to support their positions with citations, but utter rubbish and the persistent foolishness of easily refuted 'points' is insufficient challenge to even read, let along bother to refute. After a few chances... why feed the trolls?

Anyway,
Bringing up Kitzmiller v. Dover makes a good point since at least in the most important tribunal that part, the most dangerous part of the debate is officially over.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmille ... l_District

"Intelligent Design" advocates would be wise to read the entire decision, written by a Republican (and a Lutheran), if only to try to "understand those on the other side."

[Jose Fly]

So that's two people so far who try to speak knowledgably about evolution and the fossil record but do not know the answers, anyone else care to try?

So I can only conclude that you are never going to address any of the data you've been provided.

I posted, to you, examples of the observed evolution of new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species. You ignored them.

I started a thread on the above to gauge what we could agree on. You ignored it.

Barbarian posted, to you, examples of preCambrian-Cambrian transitionals. You ignored them.

I posted, to you, examples of continuous fossil records of different taxa. You ignored them

I posted, to you, examples of Darwinian gradualism in the fossil record. You ignored them.

I repeatedly asked you to explain your position on the above, you refused to.

Since this is a debate forum, the result of the above is that you have conceded the points. Specifically, you have conceded that evolution generates new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species. You have conceded that there are preCambrian-Cambrian transitionals. You have conceded that the fossil record of some taxa show continuity. You have conceded that there are cases of Darwinian gradualism in the fossil record.

That's how debate work.

[Jose Fly]

You don't understand, it is the absence of answers to these kinds of questions that lead me to view the fossil record as I do. You would never ask such questions, the brain washing carried out by scientism serves to actively discourage such questions, you can't even appreciate how hugely this undermines your position.

Irrelevant. By allowing the information that's been posted to you to stand unchallenged, you have conceded the points.

[JoeyKnothead]

So that's two people so far who try to speak knowledgably about evolution and the fossil record but do not know the answers, anyone else care to try?

Lol

"Oh my God y'all, folks on the internet can't answer questions to my satisfaction, therefore the fossil record can't be used to support evolutionary theory!"

Oh, and I was certain to let it be known I'm an amateur in such things.

Inquirer, do you have specific training in a / any field of study related to fossils? Evolution?
Gaps?
On that last one, being a regional manager don't count.

Ya know, so we might come to think it’s you the one who speaks "knowledgably" on this matter?

[Jose Fly]

I have a similar background. That may be why I share a fascination with unsupported religious beliefs and other strange things like 'Trumpism.' How do they sustain such thinking in light of overwhelming evidence of refutation? As Joey might say, 'We hoomans is strange animals."

An old online friend of mine used to say "Humans have an almost infinite capacity for self-delusion". Like you, I find the behaviors of those sorts of folks fascinating.

I enjoy debating with competent defenders of the faith like Otseng and others who actually try to support their positions with citations, but utter rubbish and the persistent foolishness of easily refuted 'points' is insufficient challenge to even read, let along bother to refute. After a few chances... why feed the trolls?

You know, that's really interesting. Over the last few days I've been browsing through some of my old debates, and the thing that stood out to me the most was how different today's creationists are. Basically, today's creationists don't even really try anymore. Back in the day it was much more like what you describe, where they actually put effort into their posts. But now, they mostly just post a bunch of empty claims, dodge every follow-up and rebuttal, and walk away.

Anyway,
Bringing up Kitzmiller v. Dover makes a good point since at least in the most important tribunal that part, the most dangerous part of the debate is officially over.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmille ... l_District

"Intelligent Design" advocates would be wise to read the entire decision, written by a Republican (and a Lutheran), if only to try to "understand those on the other side."

I agree, but unfortunately our current resident creationists don't seem to be more like preachers than readers.