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?

[Jose Fly]

Here's another example of the avoidance behaviors/coping mechanisms I've been talking about.....

After I finished grad school, my wife and I moved back to our home state and rented a house. One day we were just lazing around the house when some Jehovah's Witnesses knocked at the door. I answered and I guess because I was feeling a bit cheeky that day, I invited them in. I listened to their opening spiel and then got straight to the point...."Do you have any info about evolution" I asked. "Oh yes" they excitedly answered, as they handed me a couple of pamphlets. So we started going through their material, item by item, cross-checking the claims and arguments in their pamphlets against the textbooks I still had on a nearby bookshelf. Needless to say, they were not prepared for that! You could see the surprise and worry in their faces when I told them that I'd just wrapped up my graduate degree.

I think around the time I got to the third of fourth item, they rather abruptly stood up and said something like "Is it okay if we just leave you some reading material and go? We have lots of other houses to visit." Of course I said that was fine and walked them to the door. But just as they got outside, I stopped them and asked "So now that you've seen how at least some of the material in these anti-evolution pamphlets is wrong, how does it make you feel that your church is sending you out to spread false information?" They looked at each other, then looked at me and said "We don't agree. Thanks for your time" and hurriedly left.

So again....classic avoidance behavior upon being confronted with inconvenient information. Like I keep saying, I get that part. But to this day I still sometimes think back to that encounter and I can't help but wonder what they thought and talked about after they left my house.

[Jose Fly]

I believe that only a moderator can "shutdown" a thread Jose. My refusal to discuss your opinions of me (when we could be discussing the claims made in your OP) cannot by any stretch of the imagination amount to an attempt by me to "shut the whole thing down".

If you don't want to participate, then don't. If you want to discuss the subject of the thread, then do so. But understand, you are indeed one example of what the thread is about. You probably don't like that, but that's your problem, not mine.

[Inquirer]

I believe that only a moderator can "shutdown" a thread Jose. My refusal to discuss your opinions of me (when we could be discussing the claims made in your OP) cannot by any stretch of the imagination amount to an attempt by me to "shut the whole thing down".

If you don't want to participate, then don't. If you want to discuss the subject of the thread, then do so. But understand, you are indeed one example of what the thread is about. You probably don't like that, but that's your problem, not mine.

That fails to address the point of logic I raised. How does my refusal to discuss your opinions of me amount to an attempt to "shut the whole thing down"?

[Jose Fly]

That fails to address the point of logic I raised. How does my refusal to discuss your opinions of me amount to an attempt to "shut the whole thing down"?

When I say "shut the whole thing down", I'm referring to the conversation we were having. You started to discuss the topic of avoidance behaviors, but as soon as I mentioned examples of you engaging in them, you immediately replied that you didn't want to talk about that, thereby shutting down the conversation.

Ironically, you exhibited the very behavior the thread is about.

[William]

[Replying to Jose Fly in post #28]

Perhaps it is a question of intelligence - the differing levels.

That's a conclusion I've tried to avoid reaching for years.

I can recall times in church when I'd think to myself "these people don't seem to be all that intelligent" and there have been lots of times when a specific creationist would behave in a way that made me conclude they just weren't very smart. But eventually I'd walk back from that because I'm worried that it might be merely a lazy way of dismissing people without at least trying to hear them out.

So avoidance happens all around, for any number of reasons.

Perhaps in some case too, wisdom is missing while intelligence is -even perhaps - above average...

The world is full of smart and not so smart people. It is a factor of life and shouldn't be discarded or avoided as a possible reason for - at least going some way - in answering the OPQ.

I think that fear too, may be another factor.

The overall factor may be that the Christian believes that what the bible says is 'the word of God' so even with evidence which goes against that word, need be dismissed and even thought of as going against what God said, therefore 'must be of the devil'.

The answers may be many and varied, and psychology will also factor in...

[Inquirer]

Anyway back to one of the numerous claims in the OP:

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.

I agree that ignoring evidence does weaken one's case but that applies to anyone who ignores evidence in a debate surely? Furthermore claiming that someone "ignored" purported evidence is very hard to establish. The recipient might not interpret it as evidence at all, in many cases what someone insists is evidence might be legitimately interpreted as not evidence, the data might be consistent with several alternative scenarios for example.

To say "they ignored the evidence" presumes that what was presented to them is unambiguously evidence in support of one's argument. But claiming that something is supporting evidence is itself a claim.

I see the universe and people who have an ability to ask questions about that universe and find answers to those questions as evidence for God, if others disagree I can't accuse them of ignoring the evidence only interpreting it differently to me.

The question of transitional fossils is a case in point. If evolution were in fact true and scarcity of suitable preservation conditions prevented sufficient fossils then we'd expect to see the fossil record that we see, but equally if evolution were not true and the punctuated fossilized remains reflected the true history then again we'd expect to see the fossil record that we see. There is insufficient fossil evidence to prove absolutely a continuous process took place, it is subjective and refusal to interpret the data in the way the evolutionist chooses to interpret it does not justify the accusation that they are ignoring anything.

The claim that fossil record is evidence is to claim that all gaps are only apparent gaps, that we know 100% that a vast multitude of intermediates did exist but were not preserved. But claiming something existed when there's no evidence it did is an interpretation of the gap, the interpretation that the gap is only apparent, if the gap were real how could you tell?

To speak of "ignoring" evidence while at the same time making claims things existed without evidence they did exist, strikes me as equally problematic.

[Inquirer]

That fails to address the point of logic I raised. How does my refusal to discuss your opinions of me amount to an attempt to "shut the whole thing down"?

When I say "shut the whole thing down", I'm referring to the conversation we were having. You started to discuss the topic of avoidance behaviors, but as soon as I mentioned examples of you engaging in them, you immediately replied that you didn't want to talk about that, thereby shutting down the conversation.

Ironically, you exhibited the very behavior the thread is about.

I like to think that as mature adults we can discuss rape without accusing one another of rape, we can discuss cruelty without accusing one another of cruelty, we can discuss lying without accusing one another of lying and we can discuss "avoidance behavior" without accusing one another of "avoidance behavior".

Further accusations directed at me will result in me discontinuing to speak to you in this thread, I simply do no care for such exchanges.

[Jose Fly]

So avoidance happens all around, for any number of reasons.

Touché! Yes, I could very well be avoiding an obvious factor in all this....some folks just aren't as bright as others. After all, there are some studies that show an inverse relationship between religiosity and intelligence.

Perhaps in some case too, wisdom is missing while intelligence is -even perhaps - above average...

Oh for sure. I've seen that in my profession.

The world is full of smart and not so smart people. It is a factor of life and shouldn't be discarded or avoided as a possible reason for - at least going some way - in answering the OPQ.

If that's the overriding factor it makes me question my own behavior. Am I the kind of person who argues with less intelligent people for fun? Seems kinda mean and it could be a sign of a deeper insecurity.

I think that fear too, may be another factor.

The overall factor may be that the Christian believes that what the bible says is 'the word of God' so even with evidence which goes against that word, need be dismissed and even thought of as going against what God said, therefore 'must be of the devil'.

The answers may be many and varied, and psychology will also factor in...

I fully agree. Well said.

[Jose Fly]

I agree that ignoring evidence does weaken one's case but that applies to anyone who ignores evidence in a debate surely? Furthermore claiming that someone "ignored" purported evidence is very hard to establish. The recipient might not interpret it as evidence at all, in many cases what someone insists is evidence might be legitimately interpreted as not evidence, the data might be consistent with several alternative scenarios for example.

To say "they ignored the evidence" presumes that what was presented to them is unambiguously evidence in support of one's argument. But claiming that something is supporting evidence is itself a claim.

It's not difficult to conclude that the person has "ignored" something when they don't reply to the information or even acknowledge its existence.

I see the universe and people who have an ability to ask questions about that universe and find answers to those questions as evidence for God, if others disagree I can't accuse them of ignoring the evidence only interpreting it differently to me.

You can if, in a debate, they don't even reply.

The question of transitional fossils is a case in point. If evolution were in fact true and scarcity of suitable preservation conditions prevented sufficient fossils then we'd expect to see the fossil record that we see, but equally if evolution were not true and the punctuated fossilized remains reflected the true history then again we'd expect to see the fossil record that we see. There is insufficient fossil evidence to prove absolutely a continuous process took place, it is subjective and refusal to interpret the data in the way the evolutionist chooses to interpret it does not justify the accusation that they are ignoring anything.

The claim that fossil record is evidence is to claim that all gaps are only apparent gaps, that we know 100% that a vast multitude of intermediates did exist but were not preserved. But claiming something existed when there's no evidence it did is an interpretation of the gap, the interpretation that the gap is only apparent, if the gap were real how could you tell?

To speak of "ignoring" evidence while at the same time making claims things existed without evidence they did exist, strikes me as equally problematic.

If a creationist posts all of that in response to data that was posted and ties it directly to the specific specimens that were shown, then they cannot be said to have ignored the data.

What I'm talking about is quite different. It's someone saying "X doesn't exist", people replying by showing multiple examples of X, the person ignoring those posts, and later repeating "X doesn't exist" as if no one had ever posted anything.

[Jose Fly]

I like to think that as mature adults we can discuss rape without accusing one another of rape, we can discuss cruelty without accusing one another of cruelty, we can discuss lying without accusing one another of lying and we can discuss "avoidance behavior" without accusing one another of "avoidance behavior".

Further accusations directed at me will result in me discontinuing to speak to you in this thread, I simply do no care for such exchanges.

Of course....you're just fine discussing other people's behavior, but as soon as it turns to your behaviors you shut the discussion down. That's exactly the sort of thing this thread is about. From my perspective, that's such an obvious defensive mechanism I'm baffled by how you don't see it.