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?

[We_Are_VENOM]

The self-replication of DNA in cells occurring constantly in living things should meet your somewhat vague criteria concerning specified or space-shuttle-level complexity.

DNA presupposes life...so now you have to explain the origins of life, which you cant.

And to add to the problem, even if you are able to produce life in a lab, that would still just prove that it takes intelligence to create the life.

So, it isn't lookin good for ya either way.

But such descriptions are very subjective anyway. In the universal scheme of things they are not necessarily complex at all. Simple minds just don't have the capacity to comprehend that.

Well, you can substitute the word "complex" and replace it with "purpose" or "function".

Thus; specified function.

or..

Specified purpose.

So either way, the problem persists.

[JoeyKnothead]

It just amazes me how some folks can't get their heads around evolutionary theory - built on so many scientific disciplines, while having no struggles with, "There's a magic man up in the sky who wants that you worship him".

Human psychology is fascinating.

[brunumb]

The self-replication of DNA in cells occurring constantly in living things should meet your somewhat vague criteria concerning specified or space-shuttle-level complexity.

DNA presupposes life...so now you have to explain the origins of life, which you cant.

DNA does not presuppose life. It meets your criterion of being complex. it is a chemical and undergoes chemical changes according to the environment it is in and is able to self-replicate without external assistance.

And to add to the problem, even if you are able to produce life in a lab, that would still just prove that it takes intelligence to create the life.

Irrelevant. But what it would mean more significantly is that no gods are necessary.

But such descriptions are very subjective anyway. In the universal scheme of things they are not necessarily complex at all. Simple minds just don't have the capacity to comprehend that.

Well, you can substitute the word "complex" and replace it with "purpose" or "function".

Thus; specified function.

or..

Specified purpose.

So either way, the problem persists.

No it doesn't. Evolution does not have a purpose or direction. You might say that the eye was created with the purpose of giving sight. If you actually look up the evolution of the eye, however, you will see that it did not happen with that specific purpose as a goal. The detection of light in any environment might give survival advantage to organisms. Over time better and better structures would begin to predominate in populations. Long story short, eyes evolved, many different types as you would expect from the process involved. Implying purpose and function is just a post hoc attribution that is not actually warranted until after you accept the god concept. Cart before the horse problem.

You propose the equivalent of magic from an invisible being that has never been demonstrated to actually exist. It is no better than an invented answer to the problem with absolutely nothing to prop it up.

[Jose Fly]

It just amazes me how some folks can't get their heads around evolutionary theory - built on so many scientific disciplines, while having no struggles with, "There's a magic man up in the sky who wants that you worship him".

IMO, it's pretty straightforward. For some, evolution conflicts with their religious beliefs. Those religious beliefs are vital to their emotional well-being, so they automatically reject/deny evolution. One way to maintain that denial is to deliberately remain ignorant of the subject.

After all, understanding might lead to acceptance and acceptance might lead to a crisis of faith, so it's best to never understand it in the first place.

Human psychology is fascinating.

It certainly is.

[Inquirer]

As I explained to you recently, all evidence is interpreted and different people will often interpret the same data in different ways.

Yes, we've been around that particular bush before and I don't recall this observation having any real point behind it. All data requires interpretation....so what? Unless you're advocating for a framework where all interpretations are equally valid, I fail to see your point.

Right so you agree, each of us interprets information and different people with different premises will often reach different interpretations. You said "I just don't understand" and I'm helping you to understand.

This is likely in cases where there is no agreed formal process to identify "gradualism" one person sees evidence for gradualism yet another see evidence of discontinuity, and all because they do not share the same interpretation or premises.
So why would you expect this person not to repeat themselves when you simply continue to repeat yourself by refusing to accept their interpretation?

But that's the problem....the person isn't giving an alternative explanation. All he's doing is repeating "there is no gradualism in the fossil record" over and over.

yet I didn't say "explanation" did I? I said "interpretation" these are different terms with different meanings.

I can understand this perfectly well, its rather simple. Having differing ways of interpretating data is a valuable thing, insisting that we all look at things in the same way is the antithesis of open mindedness.

And in science, one must offer their alternative explanation in order for any discussion and debate to take place. Simply repeating "Nuh uh" whenever someone else gives theirs is just mindless gainsaying.

No it isn't.

[Jose Fly]

Right so you agree, each of us interprets information and different people with different premises will often reach different interpretations. You said "I just don't understand" and I'm helping you to understand.

Sheesh....I understand that different people have different interpretations of things. What "I don't understand" is different than that, as I've already explained.

yet I didn't say "explanation" did I? I said "interpretation" these are different terms with different meanings.

Sigh.....he didn't give an alternate interpretation either. As I've said, he just keeps repeating "there is no gradualism in the fossil record" as if repeating it makes it so (and makes the examples go away).

[Inquirer]

Right so you agree, each of us interprets information and different people with different premises will often reach different interpretations. You said "I just don't understand" and I'm helping you to understand.

Sheesh....I understand that different people have different interpretations of things. What "I don't understand" is different than that, as I've already explained.

yet I didn't say "explanation" did I? I said "interpretation" these are different terms with different meanings.

Sigh.....he didn't give an alternate interpretation either. As I've said, he just keeps repeating "there is no gradualism in the fossil record" as if repeating it makes it so (and makes the examples go away).

Well without a trustworthy transcript of your conversation we can't say much more, perhaps you misinterpreted what he was saying to you.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #206]

Also he is right, there is no gradualism in the fossil record.

[Jose Fly]

Right so you agree, each of us interprets information and different people with different premises will often reach different interpretations. You said "I just don't understand" and I'm helping you to understand.

Sheesh....I understand that different people have different interpretations of things. What "I don't understand" is different than that, as I've already explained.

yet I didn't say "explanation" did I? I said "interpretation" these are different terms with different meanings.

Sigh.....he didn't give an alternate interpretation either. As I've said, he just keeps repeating "there is no gradualism in the fossil record" as if repeating it makes it so (and makes the examples go away).

Well without a trustworthy transcript of your conversation we can't say much more, perhaps you misinterpreted what he was saying to you.

Except, as we've been over before, I've seen you do the same sort of thing with gradualism in the fossil record (forams) and preCambrian-Cambrian transitionals. You say they don't exist, you're presented with examples, you ignore them, and then you repeat that they don't exist.

I see you just illustrated my point by repeating your mantra...."there is no gradualism in the fossil record".

That's part of "what I don't understand". I see it so often from creationists, I think of it as almost like a defining trait, and I honestly have no idea how y'all live with yourselves. But I guess that's part of the bigger picture, where I also never understood how people could believe Christianity nor did I understand many of the things they did in church.

It really does seem to me like two completely different worlds.

[Inquirer]

Right so you agree, each of us interprets information and different people with different premises will often reach different interpretations. You said "I just don't understand" and I'm helping you to understand.

Sheesh....I understand that different people have different interpretations of things. What "I don't understand" is different than that, as I've already explained.

yet I didn't say "explanation" did I? I said "interpretation" these are different terms with different meanings.

Sigh.....he didn't give an alternate interpretation either. As I've said, he just keeps repeating "there is no gradualism in the fossil record" as if repeating it makes it so (and makes the examples go away).

Well without a trustworthy transcript of your conversation we can't say much more, perhaps you misinterpreted what he was saying to you.

Except, as we've been over before, I've seen you do the same sort of thing with gradualism in the fossil record (forams) and preCambrian-Cambrian transitionals. You say they don't exist, you're presented with examples, you ignore them, and then you repeat that they don't exist.

I see you just illustrated my point by repeating your mantra...."there is no gradualism in the fossil record".

That's part of "what I don't understand". I see it so often from creationists, I think of it as almost like a defining trait, and I honestly have no idea how y'all live with yourselves. But I guess that's part of the bigger picture, where I also never understood how people could believe Christianity nor did I understand many of the things they did in church.

It really does seem to me like two completely different worlds.

It is - IMHO - a statement of fact, there is no gradualism in the fossil record. That's my interpretation of everything I've personally ever seen on the subject.

There are no people living on the moon either, that's a statement of fact. You could try to show me "evidence" (or rather what you regard as evidence) and I will still maintain there are no people living on the moon.

Refusing to accept your interpretation of some data is not the same as ignoring your data or your interpretation. You can't pretend that a carefully considered evaluation and rejection of your interpretation is the same as ignoring your data or argument.

What you call "examples" of gradualism are not that at all, not in my opinion anyway, there are no examples there are only observations that you are interpreting as examples.

Please no "Christianity" and other diversions, lets stick to the science shall we? If you can't make your scientific case without dragging theology into this, then that kind of weakens your case.