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]

First I hope you can now see that all three statements above are true and in fact not controversial.

Second, my position is that the fossil record is not compelling evidence for evolution, since it could be just as easily the result of a discontinuous process, so those who cite the fossil record as evidence for evolution are unjustified in doing so.

Those weren't the question at hand.

To reiterate....you've concluded that the fossil record is the result of a discontinuous process, but you've said that conclusion is not based on the discontinuous nature of the fossil record.

The question at hand is, what then is the basis for your conclusion (that the fossil record is the result of a discontinuous process)?

The fossil record is a much evidence for supernatural acts of creation as it is for natural gradualistic evolution.

First, that's nothing more than an empty assertion, no different than "the moon is made of cheese".

Second, you were provided examples of gradual evolution in the fossil record and you had no rebuttal, thereby conceding the point. So as it stands in our debate, the fossil record does indeed include examples of gradual evolution.

Claiming that data which has multiple interpretations actually favors only one interpretation is false, misleading, trickery

Your solipsism is noted.

and evolution is littered with such trickery that only a keen mind can notice sometimes.

The moon is made of cheese.

Well I think you and I are done with respect to this issue, when you respond to:

Claiming that data which has multiple interpretations actually favors only one interpretation is false, misleading, trickery

with the claim that that constitutes "solipsism" is reason enough for me to discontinue, have a nice day.

[Jose Fly]

First I hope you can now see that all three statements above are true and in fact not controversial.

Second, my position is that the fossil record is not compelling evidence for evolution, since it could be just as easily the result of a discontinuous process, so those who cite the fossil record as evidence for evolution are unjustified in doing so.

Those weren't the question at hand.

To reiterate....you've concluded that the fossil record is the result of a discontinuous process, but you've said that conclusion is not based on the discontinuous nature of the fossil record.

The question at hand is, what then is the basis for your conclusion (that the fossil record is the result of a discontinuous process)?

The fossil record is a much evidence for supernatural acts of creation as it is for natural gradualistic evolution.

First, that's nothing more than an empty assertion, no different than "the moon is made of cheese".

Second, you were provided examples of gradual evolution in the fossil record and you had no rebuttal, thereby conceding the point. So as it stands in our debate, the fossil record does indeed include examples of gradual evolution.

Claiming that data which has multiple interpretations actually favors only one interpretation is false, misleading, trickery

Your solipsism is noted.

and evolution is littered with such trickery that only a keen mind can notice sometimes.

The moon is made of cheese.

Well I think you and I are done with respect to this issue, when you respond to:

Claiming that data which has multiple interpretations actually favors only one interpretation is false, misleading, trickery

with the claim that that constitutes "solipsism" is reason enough for me to discontinue, have a nice day.

Thus you have conceded that: 1) you have no explanation for why you concluded that the fossil record is the result of a discontinuous process, 2) you know of no discontinuous process that could have produced the fossil record, 3) the fossil record includes examples of gradual evolution, and 4) evolution has been observed and documented to generate new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species.

You also agreed with me that the processes of fossilization and subsequent discovery of fossils are discontinuous.

I'm not sure what you were hoping to accomplish in this debate, but you've conceded and agreed to quite a lot of things that favor my position.

Thanks for the debate and I look forward to our next one.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to We_Are_VENOM in post #570]

I dont know the post #, no.

But I know what occured, yes.

You dismissed a large portion of my post.

And I am taking it personal.

Well, since I have no idea which post you are referring to (and apparently the guess in my prior post wasn't it) I have no way of finding it. But you should be able to find it pretty quickly by clicking on your handle on any post, and on the resulting page, on the right, is a "Search user's posts" link.

There your posts are listed as newest first, with both the forum and topic shown. So just run through the posts that have "Science and Religion" + "Do you understand those on the other side" posts, and this mysterious post you are referring to is there somewhere. That is easier than plowing through 20 pages where this mystery post somewhere resides.

[Difflugia]

Second, my position is that the fossil record is not compelling evidence for evolution, since it could be just as easily the result of a discontinuous process, so those who cite the fossil record as evidence for evolution are unjustified in doing so.

And this statement encapsulates the nature of the ongoing problem. The fossil record could not "just as easily be the result of a discontinuous process." It's possible, but not even close to 50/50. When we have reason to expect better fossil preservation of a lineage through time (better ability to be preserved, better preservation conditions, higher population density), we see greater continuity, or at least a much finer grade of discontinuity. That makes more sense if the record overall is of a continuous process. We also have other forms of evidence like a molecular phylogeny with much more continuity than we find in the fossil record alone.

First, each of those observations means that a significant amount of the discontinuity in the fossil record is only apparent and doesn't reflect reality. That means that the discontinuity itself of the fossil record is not evidence of a discontinuous process. It is evidence (though not proof) that the process is continuous because it matches exactly what we would expect from a continuous process. If the process were discontinuous, then we would expect that the fossil record would show discontinuity even in situations with greater absolute numbers of fossils, like the Foraminifera that have been mentioned repeatedly. We don't, so despite the mere fact of discontinuity, the pattern of discontinuity is inconsitent with a truly discontinuous process. It's possible, but the more data we examine, the more special pleading is required to obtain a fit. I also notice that you've steadfastly refused to examine lines of evidence parallel to the simple fact of fossil discontinuity. Perhaps that's a coincidence and perhaps it's not.

[JoeyKnothead]

You do grasp what your position amounts to here? It amounts to an admission that you have no idea what you mean when you ask me about "true" you need me to do the work for you?

I've said it before, I'll say it again...

Choose the definition you deem most apt, and answer the question...

Do you think the resurrection of Christ described in the New Testament is truth?

[Inquirer]

Second, my position is that the fossil record is not compelling evidence for evolution, since it could be just as easily the result of a discontinuous process, so those who cite the fossil record as evidence for evolution are unjustified in doing so.

And this statement encapsulates the nature of the ongoing problem. The fossil record could not "just as easily be the result of a discontinuous process." It's possible, but not even close to 50/50. When we have reason to expect better fossil preservation of a lineage through time (better ability to be preserved, better preservation conditions, higher population density), we see greater continuity, or at least a much finer grade of discontinuity. That makes more sense if the record overall is of a continuous process. We also have other forms of evidence like a molecular phylogeny with much more continuity than we find in the fossil record alone.

First, each of those observations means that a significant amount of the discontinuity in the fossil record is only apparent and doesn't reflect reality. That means that the discontinuity itself of the fossil record is not evidence of a discontinuous process. It is evidence (though not proof) that the process is continuous because it matches exactly what we would expect from a continuous process. If the process were discontinuous, then we would expect that the fossil record would show discontinuity even in situations with greater absolute numbers of fossils, like the Foraminifera that have been mentioned repeatedly. We don't, so despite the mere fact of discontinuity, the pattern of discontinuity is inconsitent with a truly discontinuous process. It's possible, but the more data we examine, the more special pleading is required to obtain a fit. I also notice that you've steadfastly refused to examine lines of evidence parallel to the simple fact of fossil discontinuity. Perhaps that's a coincidence and perhaps it's not.

Consider then (additions in brackets are all mine):

The fossil record includes well documented examples of both phyletic gradualism and punctuational evolution.[17] As such, much debate persists over the prominence of stasis in the fossil record.[18][19] Before punctuated equilibrium, most evolutionists [wrongly it now seems] considered stasis to be rare or unimportant.[8][20][21] The paleontologist George Gaylord Simpson, for example, believed [wrongly it now seems] that phyletic gradual evolution (called horotely in his terminology) comprised 90% of evolution.[22] More modern studies,[23][24][25] including a meta-analysis examining 58 published studies on speciation patterns in the fossil record showed that 71% of species exhibited stasis,[26] and 63% were associated with punctuated patterns of evolutionary change.

Indeed, as you said, this is not even close to 50/50

You should consider being less selective your reading on this subject, for example stasis not the same thing as gradual change.

[Inquirer]

You do grasp what your position amounts to here? It amounts to an admission that you have no idea what you mean when you ask me about "true" you need me to do the work for you?

I've said it before, I'll say it again...

Choose the definition you deem most apt, and answer the question...

Do you think the resurrection of Christ described in the New Testament is truth?

Not to you, no; I doubt it's truth in your eyes.

[Jose Fly]

Second, my position is that the fossil record is not compelling evidence for evolution, since it could be just as easily the result of a discontinuous process, so those who cite the fossil record as evidence for evolution are unjustified in doing so.

And this statement encapsulates the nature of the ongoing problem. The fossil record could not "just as easily be the result of a discontinuous process." It's possible, but not even close to 50/50. When we have reason to expect better fossil preservation of a lineage through time (better ability to be preserved, better preservation conditions, higher population density), we see greater continuity, or at least a much finer grade of discontinuity. That makes more sense if the record overall is of a continuous process. We also have other forms of evidence like a molecular phylogeny with much more continuity than we find in the fossil record alone.

First, each of those observations means that a significant amount of the discontinuity in the fossil record is only apparent and doesn't reflect reality. That means that the discontinuity itself of the fossil record is not evidence of a discontinuous process. It is evidence (though not proof) that the process is continuous because it matches exactly what we would expect from a continuous process. If the process were discontinuous, then we would expect that the fossil record would show discontinuity even in situations with greater absolute numbers of fossils, like the Foraminifera that have been mentioned repeatedly. We don't, so despite the mere fact of discontinuity, the pattern of discontinuity is inconsitent with a truly discontinuous process. It's possible, but the more data we examine, the more special pleading is required to obtain a fit. I also notice that you've steadfastly refused to examine lines of evidence parallel to the simple fact of fossil discontinuity. Perhaps that's a coincidence and perhaps it's not.

All of that is accurate and well put.

I think two things are important to note though. First, my debate with Inquirer wasn't about whether the fossil record is best explained via evolution; it was about his conclusion that the fossil record is the result of a discontinuous process. Second, Inquirer is that rare creationist who actually denies that evolution happens at all. So IMO, before engaging such a person on whether the fossil record is best explained by evolution, I'd think it'd be prudent to address that first.

It's like trying to debate whether Hells Canyon is best explained via erosion with someone who denies that erosion even occurs. As long as the person maintains that erosion never happens, debating with them about whether the canyon is best explained via erosion is rather pointless IMO. All they will do is repeat "I don't believe in erosion".

[JoeyKnothead]

You do grasp what your position amounts to here? It amounts to an admission that you have no idea what you mean when you ask me about "true" you need me to do the work for you?

I've said it before, I'll say it again...

Choose the definition you deem most apt, and answer the question...

Do you think the resurrection of Christ described in the New Testament is truth?

Not to you, no; I doubt it's truth in your eyes.

I think this sort of dodging, or skirting around an issue is all too prevalent in the Christian community.

If one has the Truth[tm] on their side, how can a simple question cause such hemming and hawwing, and wringing of hands? I contend it's cause the god concept is designed to comfort folks on difficult, unanswerable questions.

But let's see if, now aware of all that, our Christian can muster up something approaching a direct, unambiguous answer...

Do you think the resurrection of Christ described in the New Testament is truth?

[Jose Fly]

I think this sort of dodging, or skirting around an issue is all too prevalent in the Christian community.

It's the brand of solipsism Inquirer regularly invokes. Everything is a matter of interpretation, personal opinion, perspective, etc. Under that framework, nothing is "true".

If one has the Truth[tm] on their side, how can a simple question cause such hemming and hawwing, and wringing of hands? I contend it's cause the god concept is designed to comfort folks on difficult, unanswerable questions.

One of the main reasons I didn't believe in Christianity as a kid was because I saw how seemingly obvious and simple questions produced that sort of behavior from pastors, Sunday School teachers, etc.

Once I started debating creationists I noticed the same behaviors....they behave more like guilty defendants on the stand rather than good-faith participants in a discussion. As you note, that's not exactly what one would expect from people who confidently claim to have "the truth".