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]

So you do understand after all.

Ok.

You are the first person I've ever encountered who claims they don't understand something they claim to understand,

I'm starting to think you're trying to goad me into calling you a name, so you can leave. I didn't understand the question as you initially phrased it, but did after you rephrased it.

Please do not blame me for your emotional impulses.

so please - do you or don't you understand that creationism and creationists are the product of nature?

Yes.

Here is the post where I presented you with examples of gradualism in the fossil record. What is your rebuttal?

viewtopic.php?p=1072364#p1072364

I can't see the actual paper.

So why did you write that you don't understand when you now admit you do understand? How on earth can you regard such reasoning as representative of a "debate"?

You complain endlessly about "creationists" (in a Christian forum no less!) yet openly admit that they exist because of evolutionary forces, you want so so much to understand them yet at the same time actually claim that you do understand the process that gave rise to them.

Fascinating, truly fascinating.

[Jose Fly]

I can't see the actual paper.

The trilobite paper is behind a paywall. I have access via my work, so I sometimes forget others don't. However, the foram article is free to read.

Here is another one. You can get the PDF for free by registering an account (for free).

https://www.academia.edu/25795991/Diffe ... raminifera

[Jose Fly]

So why did you write that you don't understand when you now admit you do understand? How on earth can you regard such reasoning as representative of a "debate"?

I just explained. The first time you posted the question it was phrased incoherently. When you rephrased it, it became clear and I answered.

It's not that difficult dude.

You complain endlessly about "creationists" (in a Christian forum no less!) yet openly admit that they exist because of evolutionary forces, you want so so much to understand them yet at the same time actually claim that you do understand the process that gave rise to them.

Um....okay? So you truly cannot grasp how we can understand the evolutionary processes that gave rise to H. sapiens, while being baffled by some of the behaviors of that species?

Wow.

[Inquirer]

So why did you write that you don't understand when you now admit you do understand? How on earth can you regard such reasoning as representative of a "debate"?

I just explained. The first time you posted the question it was phrased incoherently. When you rephrased it, it became clear and I answered.

It's not that difficult dude.

You complain endlessly about "creationists" (in a Christian forum no less!) yet openly admit that they exist because of evolutionary forces, you want so so much to understand them yet at the same time actually claim that you do understand the process that gave rise to them.

Um....okay? So you truly cannot grasp how we can understand the evolutionary processes that gave rise to H. sapiens, while being baffled by some of the behaviors of that species?

Wow.

I would never claim that I understand any process that gives rise to products I don't understand, clearly you do not understand evolution, that much is crystal clear.

This is the kind of clumsy, over confident reasoning that John Lennox has exposed in opponents like Dawkins and Atkins.

Admit it, you lost this one Jose, once again you bit off more than you can chew when you engaged me, will you ever learn?

[Jose Fly]

I would never claim that I understand any process that gives rise to things I don't understand

Well I guess it's a good thing you're not a scientist then. I can just see primatologists saying "Well, until we fully understand every aspect of primate behavior, we can't say how primates came to be". Or psychiatrists saying "Until we full understand every aspect of human behavior, no one can say how humans came to be."

Hilarious.

clearly you do not understand evolution, that much is crystal clear.

Nice try kiddo.

[Inquirer]

I would never claim that I understand any process that gives rise to things I don't understand

Well I guess it's a good thing you're not a scientist then. I can just see primatologists saying "Well, until we fully understand every aspect of primate behavior, we can't say how primates came to be". Or psychiatrists saying "Until we full understand every aspect of human behavior, no one can say how humans came to be."

Hilarious.

clearly you do not understand evolution, that much is crystal clear.

Nice try kiddo.

Since creationists arose through natural evolutionary forces, then by definition there must be utility, so why complain about this? If a fellow biologist were to complain endlessly about fish having fins or about sparrows chattering would that be rational? If a fellow biologist complained about things existing that exist because of evolution then wouldn't that suggest said biologist was a little unhinged perhaps?

[Jose Fly]

Since creationists arose through natural evolutionary forces, then by definition there must be utility

Not necessarily. Creationism could be a vestigial or even atavistic trait. Or it could be a result of random drift.

But, IMO being a subset of religion, it does have utility. Religion provides some people with social bonding, a sense of certainty, and other emotional benefits.

so why complain about this? If a fellow biologist were to complain endlessly about fish having fins or about sparrows chattering would that be rational?

Only if the fish were using their fins in a way that negatively affected their work, or if the sparrows' chattering did the same.

If a fellow biologist complained about things existing that exist because of evolution then wouldn't that suggest said biologist was a little unhinged perhaps?

Nope.

So do you have a rebuttal to the information you were provided? Or has this just been a diversion?

[brunumb]

I have repeatedly stated that the fossil record is in fact superb evidence of a discontinuous process, the antithesis of the magic gradualism that you believe in.

Stated. But you haven't provided anything in the way of evidence or data that supports your claim or explains how you reached that conclusion. What is it specifically about the fossil record that is in fact superb evidence of a discontinuous process?

[We_Are_VENOM]

DNA does not presuppose life.

Hmm.

"DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is the hereditary material in humans and almost all other organisms. Nearly every cell in a person’s body has the same DNA."

https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/unders ... asics/dna/

Keyword: ORGANISM.

What is an organism?

"In biology, an organism 'instrument, implement, tool', and -ισμός (-ismós)) is any organic, living system that functions as an individual entity."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism

So, you are WRONG.

And if you are wrong about something so fundamental to the understanding of the subject at hand...then I don't even want to hear whatever else you have to say on the matter.

[We_Are_VENOM]

Which concept? Specified complexity? The watchmaker analogy?

All of that stuff.

That someone smart agrees with you, so there?

That shouldn't be a surprise.

I was proving that you don't know what "specified complexity" is despite your challenge to brunumb to refute it. I know what Dembski argues, which is how I knew you had it wrong. You were repeating a version of Paley's argument, which Dembski thinks is wrong.

Irreducible complexity.

Whether specified complexity or irreducible complexity...take your pick.

Either way, the point was made...as both are concepts coined by Dembski.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irreducible_complexity

Irreducible complexity (IC) is the argument that certain biological systems cannot have evolved by successive small modifications to pre-existing functional systems through natural selection, because no less complex system would function.

If there is an argument made against it, I haven't heard it yet.

A single living cell is more complex than a space-shuttle. So if an intelligent designer(s) are needed to create a space shuttle, then an intelligent designer is needed to create life.

And to accept one and not the other is to commit the taxicab fallacy...as there is no common sensical reason to not accept intelligent design, unless you just simply don't like the idea of a cosmic creator/engineer.

That, is the real issue here.

Now that you've read Dembski's book, maybe you could explain "specified complexity" to us again. Do you still think the watchmaker analogy is valid?

Me and Dembski are both advocates of Intelligent Design...that is a position we both hold as valid.

That's why I said that I paraphrased it and put brackets around "Paley." I changed what you said slightly by replacing "Hovind" with "Paley" to make the point that this is a second time that you're agreeing with a person without actually understanding their argument.

Here is what I understand; nature does NOT produce specified functions or purpose...which is what the entire human anatomy consists of; function and purpose.

That is what I do understand.

Now, you can call it specified complexity, irreducible complexity, or complexity/complexity.

It ain't about the name of it, it is about whether the concept is valid, which it is.

No, I expected readers to understand exactly what I was writing. In your case, I apparently miscalculated.

Which is more of a strike on you, than I.

The connection is that you didn't understand that argument, either.

I don't speak on what I don't understand.

But here is what I DO understand...dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, fish produce fish.

I'm debating with you. If your only argument is that someone else agrees with you, so there, then there's not much to debate.

Well, I don't understand, remember? So, since I don't understand it...I am referring you to someone who does.

You want a debate, right? Well, debate someone who understands...like Kent Hovind.

Whether that's true or not, it's not part of either argument, even implicitly.

Whether thats true or not? Wow. Sounds like you don't understand.