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]

But you're the evolutionist, why can't you accept that creationists evolved then? what is so hard to understand here?

Perhaps this is what causes the lack of understanding from the other side.
Creationists cannot seem to understand that when discussing evolution, those that are not creationists don't have a dog in the fight. Ain't my pig, ain't my farm as the saying goes. To prove evolution wrong, we lose nothing. No heaven, eternal bliss or seeing of loved ones for eternity. This is your burden to bare and renders comments like, "you're the evolutionist" fairly meaningless.

Creationism has emotional ties. Evolution doesn't and it would be good for those on the other side to understand this as I understand their 'need' to believe in a created world.

Show the world was created, I lose nothing.
Show evolution to be true, and you have much to risk.

Except I began to question claims about the fossil record over forty years ago, only years later did I even begin to contemplate God as a potential factor in physical reality.

If you think I was "religious" person who rejected evolution because it conflicted with my theology you'd be emphatically wrong.

I was a scientifically competent educated person with no interest whatsoever in "God" or Bibles or religion or any of that, no interest, I regarded it as claptrap, it was irrelevant to me.

The shocking absence of fossil evidence for continuity came first, only much later did I begin to reconsider my position on creation, only then did I begin to realize that I'd been lying to myself as many here are doing unwittingly.

Creationism is entirely logical, a logical means of accounting for systems that cannot account for themselves.

It seems the point went over your head.

"Creationists cannot seem to understand that when discussing evolution, those that are not creationists don't have a dog in the fight. Ain't my pig, ain't my farm as the saying goes. To prove evolution wrong, we lose nothing. No heaven, eternal bliss or seeing of loved ones for eternity. This is your burden to bare and renders comments like, "you're the evolutionist" fairly meaningless."

How can you not see that this fact alone would make it very hard for a creationist to understand the other side? They think (exceptions of course) that someone that accepts evolution as the best explination is tied to evolution like the religious are to their religious beliefs. There is no heaven, bliss or seeing of loved ones to lose if we are shown a better explination for how we got the life we see now and also in the fossil record. The same is not true for the religious, which makes understanding the non religious difficult.

Religions provide motivation to reject evolution.
The non religious are not motivated to accept evolution and lose nothing if a better mechanism is shown.

I get it, this is hard to understand: "It super important to me, so it must be to you, but it really isn't." Thus making understanding the other side difficult.

This is psycho-babble, dreaming up motivations and assuming everyone who disputes evolution shares the same motivation. Claiming to know what someone thinks and using that unsupported belief to attempt to portray a sound argument.

I doubt evolutionary claims for the exact same reason I'd doubt claims of fairies and leprechauns, nothing to do with "religion" being a motivator.

No, what you say above is just your way or rationalizing doubters, trying to explain them by denying their arguments have merit and attributing their claims to religion.

[Inquirer]

The outcome of any process (including natural selection) must be random if the inputs to it are random. This is elementary logic, yet as is often the case the evolution devotee disregards logic, they have their own brand of pseudo logic where they can make any claim they like and expect others to accept it as fact.

Oh good grief. This, coming from a guy who also didn't know bacteria are a Domain and tries to (childishly) ridicule others for not understanding evolution.

I have a black bag with colored discs in it. I reach into the bag and pull out discs one at a time. The color of disc I pull out is random. Each time I pull one out, if it is red I keep it and if it's any other color I put it back in the bag. After 15 minutes I have all red discs.

How can that be if the color of discs I pulled out is random?

Sheesh....creationists...

You misunderstand your own example. The probability of you pulling a red disc is not random, do you need me to elaborate here?

[Clownboat]

The outcome of any process (including natural selection) must be random if the inputs to it are random. This is elementary logic, yet as is often the case the evolution devotee disregards logic, they have their own brand of pseudo logic where they can make any claim they like and expect others to accept it as fact.

Oh good grief. This, coming from a guy who also didn't know bacteria are a Domain and tries to (childishly) ridicule others for not understanding evolution.

I have a black bag with colored discs in it. I reach into the bag and pull out discs one at a time. The color of disc I pull out is random. Each time I pull one out, if it is red I keep it and if it's any other color I put it back in the bag. After 15 minutes I have all red discs.

How can that be if the color of discs I pulled out is random?

Sheesh....creationists...

The other side is easier to understand once you understand their need to reject.

You just provided an example that showed his claim to be false. There is a need for your example to be ignored (which I assume is going to happen). Seems understandable.

[Clownboat]

The outcome of any process (including natural selection) must be random if the inputs to it are random. This is elementary logic, yet as is often the case the evolution devotee disregards logic, they have their own brand of pseudo logic where they can make any claim they like and expect others to accept it as fact.

Oh good grief. This, coming from a guy who also didn't know bacteria are a Domain and tries to (childishly) ridicule others for not understanding evolution.

I have a black bag with colored discs in it. I reach into the bag and pull out discs one at a time. The color of disc I pull out is random. Each time I pull one out, if it is red I keep it and if it's any other color I put it back in the bag. After 15 minutes I have all red discs.

How can that be if the color of discs I pulled out is random?

Sheesh....creationists...

You misunderstand your own example. The probability of you pulling a red disc is not random, do you need me to elaborate here?

Well call me a prophet!

[Inquirer]

Once he has all of the red discs, what is the probability of him pulling another red disc? Can I get an honest answer please? I suspect I won't get that answer...Clownboat? Jose? anyone here? is the question difficult?

The question is easy of course, its the honesty that's difficult.

[Jose Fly]

You misunderstand your own example. The probability of you pulling a red disc is not random, do you need me to elaborate here?

Um...no one said "the probability is random". I said the color of the disc I pull is random. It's no different than picking a card at random from a deck. The probability of getting any one card is 1/52, but which card I actually get is random.

https://www.math-only-math.com/playing- ... ility.html

Pay close attention to items 2 and 3, where the exercise is to calculate the probability of picking certain cards at random.

[Inquirer]

You misunderstand your own example. The probability of you pulling a red disc is not random, do you need me to elaborate here?

Um...no one said "the probability is random". I said the color of the disc I pull is random. It's no different than picking a card at random from a deck. The probability of getting any one card is 1/52, but which card I actually get is random.

https://www.math-only-math.com/playing- ... ility.html

Pay close attention to items 2 and 3, where the exercise is to calculate the probability of picking certain cards at random.

Once you have all of the red discs, what is the probability of you pulling another red disc Jose?

[Inquirer]

You misunderstand your own example. The probability of you pulling a red disc is not random, do you need me to elaborate here?

Um...no one said "the probability is random". I said the color of the disc I pull is random. It's no different than picking a card at random from a deck. The probability of getting any one card is 1/52, but which card I actually get is random.

It is 1/52 only if you return the card after picking each time.

[Jose Fly]

The other side is easier to understand once you understand their need to reject.

Yep, the psychological benefits of maintaining their faith far outweigh any benefits that come from being objective and accurate.

But it's amazing how often creationists try and deny the role their religion plays in shaping their views on subjects like evolution. So many try and pretend as if they reached their position via careful and thorough study of the science (while simultaneously demonstrating that they don't know the first thing about it).

It's like how yesterday Inquirer tried to deny that he was a creationist, as if he were ashamed of it. Weird.

You just provided an example that showed his claim to be false. There is a need for your example to be ignored (which I assume is going to happen). Seems understandable.

I don't know if you noticed, but after crowing that he'd debate me any time, he's since ignored every bit of science that I posted that contradicts his assertions.

Like I said when I first got here....it's just like the kid on the playground who talks all kinds of trash about how great he is at basketball and how he could easily kick everyone's butt, but when next game comes up and it's time for him to play, suddenly he's wearing the wrong shoes, his mom is calling, everyone would cheat anyways....IOW, all talk and no game.

[Jose Fly]

Once you have all of the red discs, what is the probability of you pulling another red disc Jose?

It is 1/52 only if you return the card after picking each time.

LOL....either you've completely lost the point, or you never got it in the first place. Do you need it explained to you again?