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]

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.

Exactly. You will continue to repeat your belief, regardless of what data is out there.

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.

Um.....I'm not sure what alternate reality you're operating from here, but you did not show any indications of having "carefully considered" or "evaluated" any of the info you were provided.

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.

Right....you believe there are no examples of gradualism because that's your belief. Any examples of such can be waved away as mere "interpretation"...no need to actually look at the data or explain why presented examples aren't really examples....just say "that's your interpretation" and you're done.

That's so incredibly intellectually lazy, again.....I don't know how y'all live with yourselves. All I can figure is that it's what you have to do to maintain your religious beliefs and the psychological benefits they provide.

[Inquirer]

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.

Exactly. You will continue to repeat your belief, regardless of what data is out there.

Well there is no evidence of people living on the moon, we know that, therefore any claims of "evidence" to the contrary can - in this example - be regraded as a faulty interpretation.

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.

Um.....I'm not sure what alternate reality you're operating from here, but you did not show any indications of having "carefully considered" or "evaluated" any of the info you were provided.

The you have misinterpreted me.

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.

Right....you believe there are no examples of gradualism because that's your belief. Any examples of such can be waved away as mere "interpretation"...no need to actually look at the data or explain why presented examples aren't really examples....just say "that's your interpretation" and you're done.

OK, then you believe there are examples of gradualism because that's your belief!

What's wrong with me having a different interpretation to you anyway? why is this such a huge problem for you?

[Jose Fly]

Well there is no evidence of people living on the moon, we know that, therefore any claims of "evidence" to the contrary can - in this example - be regraded as a faulty interpretation.

Whether or not it is "faulty" is an interpretation in itself. One could claim that their "interpretation" of various items from NASA and the ESA shows that there really are people living on the moon, but those agencies are trying to keep it secret.

Once you open the door to solipsism, nothing can ever be said to be true and everything is just a matter of "interpretation".

The you have misinterpreted me.

Then by all means, show this "carefully considered evaluation" of the foram fossil record and the preCambrian-Cambrian specimens Barbarian posted to you.

OK, then you believe there are examples of gradualism because that's your belief!

Your solipsism is noted.

What's wrong with me having a different interpretation to you anyway? why is this such a huge problem for you?

It's not. I personally don't care what you think about anything. But this is a debate forum and as such, the expectation is that claims will be challenged and debated.

I can't believe how often I have to remind creationists of that. So many apparently think debate forums should be run like church, where they just declare things to be so and the rest of us nod and say "Amen".

[Inquirer]

Well there is no evidence of people living on the moon, we know that, therefore any claims of "evidence" to the contrary can - in this example - be regraded as a faulty interpretation.

Whether or not it is "faulty" is an interpretation in itself. One could claim that their "interpretation" of various items from NASA and the ESA shows that there really are people living on the moon, but those agencies are trying to keep it secret.

Once you open the door to solipsism, nothing can ever be said to be true and everything is just a matter of "interpretation".

The you have misinterpreted me.

Then by all means, show this "carefully considered evaluation" of the foram fossil record and the preCambrian-Cambrian specimens Barbarian posted to you.

OK, then you believe there are examples of gradualism because that's your belief!

Your solipsism is noted.

What's wrong with me having a different interpretation to you anyway? why is this such a huge problem for you?

It's not. I personally don't care what you think about anything. But this is a debate forum and as such, the expectation is that claims will be challenged and debated.

I can't believe how often I have to remind creationists of that. So many apparently think debate forums should be run like church, where they just declare things to be so and the rest of us nod and say "Amen".

I'm not a solipsist Jose, I've told you this before but much like the phantom "creationists" you repeatedly complain about here, you want to repeat the accusation over and over.

I think its inarguable that data portrayed as "evidence" always involves someone's interpretation, so I don't know what you're actually complaining about.

You interpret fossil artifacts as being evidence of continuity. Now that's fine, it is a reasonable interpretation, the evidence is consistent with continuity, I believed it myself for many years.

But at the same time it is also reasonable to interpret it as evidence of discontinuity, the data is consistent with discontinuity too. Why would I question claims of continuity at all? why would a person disinterested in religion or theology begin to doubt the claims about the fossil record? If there was not strong grounds for doubting the fossil record then I would never have questioned it.

You're just struggling to discredit that interpretation not by discussing the pros/cons of the data itself, but by attacking and complaining about some of the people who proffer that interpretation.

Its like you are arguing "they must be wrong because they're creationists" or "they must be wrong because I'm right".

That's a poorly structured argument, deceptive and fallacious, so please, stop attacking arguments on the basis of those who advocate the arguments and instead stick to the data, unemotionally, objectively and scientifically.

This is a science thread not a place to repeatedly attack and disparage people who do not share your worldview.

[Jose Fly]

I'm not a solipsist Jose, I've told you this before but much like the phantom "creationists" you repeatedly complain about here, you want to repeat the accusation over and over.

You say you're not a solipsist, but you certainly do employ solipsism quite a bit.

I think its inarguable that data portrayed as "evidence" always involves someone's interpretation, so I don't know what you're actually complaining about.

Please pay closer attention to the discussions. Multiple people, myself included, have repeatedly agreed with you that data is interpreted. But then after we do that, we ask things like if you think all interpretations are equally valid, we attempt to get you to acknowledge the importance of expertise, etc....all of which goes nowhere. Then a few days or weeks pass and we get what we have here...starting all over because you apparently forgot everything that we'd already discussed.

That's why I told you earlier that we've already been around this bush before.

You interpret fossil artifacts as being evidence of continuity. Now that's fine, it is a reasonable interpretation, the evidence is consistent with continuity, I believed it myself for many years.

But at the same time it is also reasonable to interpret it as evidence of discontinuity, the data is consistent with discontinuity too.

Are you not aware that those are mutually exclusive interpretations? Taking for example the foram record that I pointed you to earlier, the people who found them, examined them, and interpreted them all agreed that it is a continuous record and that it showed very good examples of gradualism.

Do you understand how that is mutually exclusive with an interpretation of discontinuity and no gradualism?

Plus, simply declaring without any explanation at all "I interpret it differently" is nothing more than automatic gainsaying. It's effectively you saying "Nuh uh" and walking away.

Why would I question claims of continuity at all? why would a person disinterested in religion or theology begin to doubt the claims about the fossil record? If there was not strong grounds for doubting the fossil record then I would never have questioned it.

I've never understood why so many creationists deny that they're creationists. Are you ashamed to be one?

The fact is, you cite creationist sources (e.g., AiG), you repeat their arguments, you "like" when other creationists make creationist arguments, you advocate for Christianity and the Bible....so from all the evidence at hand here, you are most certainly a Christian creationist.

You're just struggling to discredit that interpretation not by discussing the pros/cons of the data itself, but by attacking and complaining about some of the people who proffer that interpretation.

Seriously? Are you not even aware that you've not offered any sort of interpretation? All you've done is say "I interpret it differently" and leave it at that. As I said, that's little more than "Nuh uh".

Its like you are arguing "they must be wrong because they're creationists" or "they must be wrong because I'm right".

That's a poorly structured argument, deceptive and fallacious, so please, stop attacking arguments on the basis of those who advocate the arguments and instead stick to the data, unemotionally, objectively and scientifically.

I've never said anything like that at all.

This is a science thread not a place to repeatedly attack and disparage people who do not share your worldview.

This is a thread specifically about understanding the other side. And this latest post of yours just adds to that for me. I truly do not understand at all how you 1) don't remember previous discussions, 2) think pointing out that data is interpreted is some sort of revelation, 3) think merely saying "I interpret it differently" constitutes an alternative interpretation on par with that of actual scientists and is something that needs to be rebutted, and 4) deny that you're a creationist.

From my POV, it truly is bizarre to watch.

[Clownboat]

Well there is no evidence of people living on the moon, we know that, therefore any claims of "evidence" to the contrary can - in this example - be regraded as a faulty interpretation.

Whether or not it is "faulty" is an interpretation in itself. One could claim that their "interpretation" of various items from NASA and the ESA shows that there really are people living on the moon, but those agencies are trying to keep it secret.

Once you open the door to solipsism, nothing can ever be said to be true and everything is just a matter of "interpretation".

The you have misinterpreted me.

Then by all means, show this "carefully considered evaluation" of the foram fossil record and the preCambrian-Cambrian specimens Barbarian posted to you.

OK, then you believe there are examples of gradualism because that's your belief!

Your solipsism is noted.

What's wrong with me having a different interpretation to you anyway? why is this such a huge problem for you?

It's not. I personally don't care what you think about anything. But this is a debate forum and as such, the expectation is that claims will be challenged and debated.

I can't believe how often I have to remind creationists of that. So many apparently think debate forums should be run like church, where they just declare things to be so and the rest of us nod and say "Amen".

I'm not a solipsist Jose, I've told you this before but much like the phantom "creationists" you repeatedly complain about here, you want to repeat the accusation over and over.

I think its inarguable that data portrayed as "evidence" always involves someone's interpretation, so I don't know what you're actually complaining about.

You interpret fossil artifacts as being evidence of continuity. Now that's fine, it is a reasonable interpretation, the evidence is consistent with continuity, I believed it myself for many years.

But at the same time it is also reasonable to interpret it as evidence of discontinuity, the data is consistent with discontinuity too. Why would I question claims of continuity at all? why would a person disinterested in religion or theology begin to doubt the claims about the fossil record? If there was not strong grounds for doubting the fossil record then I would never have questioned it.

You're just struggling to discredit that interpretation not by discussing the pros/cons of the data itself, but by attacking and complaining about some of the people who proffer that interpretation.

Its like you are arguing "they must be wrong because they're creationists" or "they must be wrong because I'm right".

That's a poorly structured argument, deceptive and fallacious, so please, stop attacking arguments on the basis of those who advocate the arguments and instead stick to the data, unemotionally, objectively and scientifically.

This is a science thread not a place to repeatedly attack and disparage people who do not share your worldview.

This is all just your interpretation.
My work here is done. Debate just got real easy!

[Inquirer]

I'm not a solipsist Jose, I've told you this before but much like the phantom "creationists" you repeatedly complain about here, you want to repeat the accusation over and over.

You say you're not a solipsist, but you certainly do employ solipsism quite a bit.

I think its inarguable that data portrayed as "evidence" always involves someone's interpretation, so I don't know what you're actually complaining about.

Please pay closer attention to the discussions. Multiple people, myself included, have repeatedly agreed with you that data is interpreted. But then after we do that, we ask things like if you think all interpretations are equally valid, we attempt to get you to acknowledge the importance of expertise, etc....all of which goes nowhere. Then a few days or weeks pass and we get what we have here...starting all over because you apparently forgot everything that we'd already discussed.

That's why I told you earlier that we've already been around this bush before.

You interpret fossil artifacts as being evidence of continuity. Now that's fine, it is a reasonable interpretation, the evidence is consistent with continuity, I believed it myself for many years.

But at the same time it is also reasonable to interpret it as evidence of discontinuity, the data is consistent with discontinuity too.

Are you not aware that those are mutually exclusive interpretations? Taking for example the foram record that I pointed you to earlier, the people who found them, examined them, and interpreted them all agreed that it is a continuous record and that it showed very good examples of gradualism.

Do you understand how that is mutually exclusive with an interpretation of discontinuity and no gradualism?

Plus, simply declaring without any explanation at all "I interpret it differently" is nothing more than automatic gainsaying. It's effectively you saying "Nuh uh" and walking away.

Why would I question claims of continuity at all? why would a person disinterested in religion or theology begin to doubt the claims about the fossil record? If there was not strong grounds for doubting the fossil record then I would never have questioned it.

I've never understood why so many creationists deny that they're creationists. Are you ashamed to be one?

The fact is, you cite creationist sources (e.g., AiG), you repeat their arguments, you "like" when other creationists make creationist arguments, you advocate for Christianity and the Bible....so from all the evidence at hand here, you are most certainly a Christian creationist.

You're just struggling to discredit that interpretation not by discussing the pros/cons of the data itself, but by attacking and complaining about some of the people who proffer that interpretation.

Seriously? Are you not even aware that you've not offered any sort of interpretation? All you've done is say "I interpret it differently" and leave it at that. As I said, that's little more than "Nuh uh".

Its like you are arguing "they must be wrong because they're creationists" or "they must be wrong because I'm right".

That's a poorly structured argument, deceptive and fallacious, so please, stop attacking arguments on the basis of those who advocate the arguments and instead stick to the data, unemotionally, objectively and scientifically.

I've never said anything like that at all.

This is a science thread not a place to repeatedly attack and disparage people who do not share your worldview.

This is a thread specifically about understanding the other side. And this latest post of yours just adds to that for me. I truly do not understand at all how you 1) don't remember previous discussions, 2) think pointing out that data is interpreted is some sort of revelation, 3) think merely saying "I interpret it differently" constitutes an alternative interpretation on par with that of actual scientists and is something that needs to be rebutted, and 4) deny that you're a creationist.

From my POV, it truly is bizarre to watch.

It is a science thread, you want to argue that the fossil record supports your beliefs and all you can do is disparage those who think it supports their different beliefs.

There is no "other side" either, you want to imply there is an intelligent, competent, educated, qualified, legitimate "side" (and that you are obviously in that erudite group) and then all those who disagree with your interpretation are wrong, incompetent, fools.

You are the one struggling (by your own admission) to "understand" this Jose, I understand it perfectly, people see what they want to see, just as James Burke explains here:



Understand now? "You see what your knowledge tells you you're seeing", now what's so hard to understand here?

[Inquirer]

Well there is no evidence of people living on the moon, we know that, therefore any claims of "evidence" to the contrary can - in this example - be regraded as a faulty interpretation.

Whether or not it is "faulty" is an interpretation in itself. One could claim that their "interpretation" of various items from NASA and the ESA shows that there really are people living on the moon, but those agencies are trying to keep it secret.

Once you open the door to solipsism, nothing can ever be said to be true and everything is just a matter of "interpretation".

The you have misinterpreted me.

Then by all means, show this "carefully considered evaluation" of the foram fossil record and the preCambrian-Cambrian specimens Barbarian posted to you.

OK, then you believe there are examples of gradualism because that's your belief!

Your solipsism is noted.

What's wrong with me having a different interpretation to you anyway? why is this such a huge problem for you?

It's not. I personally don't care what you think about anything. But this is a debate forum and as such, the expectation is that claims will be challenged and debated.

I can't believe how often I have to remind creationists of that. So many apparently think debate forums should be run like church, where they just declare things to be so and the rest of us nod and say "Amen".

I'm not a solipsist Jose, I've told you this before but much like the phantom "creationists" you repeatedly complain about here, you want to repeat the accusation over and over.

I think its inarguable that data portrayed as "evidence" always involves someone's interpretation, so I don't know what you're actually complaining about.

You interpret fossil artifacts as being evidence of continuity. Now that's fine, it is a reasonable interpretation, the evidence is consistent with continuity, I believed it myself for many years.

But at the same time it is also reasonable to interpret it as evidence of discontinuity, the data is consistent with discontinuity too. Why would I question claims of continuity at all? why would a person disinterested in religion or theology begin to doubt the claims about the fossil record? If there was not strong grounds for doubting the fossil record then I would never have questioned it.

You're just struggling to discredit that interpretation not by discussing the pros/cons of the data itself, but by attacking and complaining about some of the people who proffer that interpretation.

Its like you are arguing "they must be wrong because they're creationists" or "they must be wrong because I'm right".

That's a poorly structured argument, deceptive and fallacious, so please, stop attacking arguments on the basis of those who advocate the arguments and instead stick to the data, unemotionally, objectively and scientifically.

This is a science thread not a place to repeatedly attack and disparage people who do not share your worldview.

This is all just your interpretation.
My work here is done. Debate just got real easy!

I agree, there's nothing hard to understand here, not for me anyway.

[Jose Fly]

It is a science thread

Um....are you not aware that I'm the one who started this thread? Are you not aware that it's titled "Do you understand those on the other side"?

Yet you're disagreeing with me when I say this thread is about understanding those on the other side? That's staggeringly bizarre.

you want to argue that the fossil record supports your beliefs and all you can do is disparage those who think it supports their different beliefs.

Well, when all folks like you do is say "I interpret it differently", what's left? You offer no actual counter-argument, you offer no actual alternative interpretation, and you don't even address the data itself.

As you and I have been over before, I'm not sure what your intent or desired outcome is here. Are you wanting the "debate" to go something like...

"The fossil record has no examples of gradualism."

Here is an example of gradualism in the fossil record.

"That's their interpretation. I interpret it differently."

Okay.

There is no "other side" either, you want to imply there is an intelligent, competent, educated, qualified, legitimate "side" (and that you are obviously in that erudite group) and then all those who disagree with your interpretation are wrong, incompetent, fools.

I'm here to engage in debate, consistent with the fact that this sub-forum is within the "debate" category. Unfortunately, none of the creationists here (you included) are willing to do the same. You seem to want to just exchange simple opinions and nothing more. FYI, that is not debate.

You are the one struggling (by your own admission) to "understand" this Jose, I understand it perfectly, people see what they want to see

So what is it that you "want to see" in the fossil record?

Understand now? "You see what your knowledge tells you you're seeing", now what's so hard to understand here?

And what is your knowledge that informs your interpretation of the fossil record?

[Inquirer]

It is a science thread

Um....are you not aware that I'm the one who started this thread? Are you not aware that it's titled "Do you understand those on the other side"?

Yet you're disagreeing with me when I say this thread is about understanding those on the other side? That's staggeringly bizarre.

you want to argue that the fossil record supports your beliefs and all you can do is disparage those who think it supports their different beliefs.

Well, when all folks like you do is say "I interpret it differently", what's left? You offer no actual counter-argument, you offer no actual alternative interpretation, and you don't even address the data itself.

As you and I have been over before, I'm not sure what your intent or desired outcome is here. Are you wanting the "debate" to go something like...

"The fossil record has no examples of gradualism."

Here is an example of gradualism in the fossil record.

"That's their interpretation. I interpret it differently."

Okay.

There is no "other side" either, you want to imply there is an intelligent, competent, educated, qualified, legitimate "side" (and that you are obviously in that erudite group) and then all those who disagree with your interpretation are wrong, incompetent, fools.

I'm here to engage in debate, consistent with the fact that this sub-forum is within the "debate" category. Unfortunately, none of the creationists here (you included) are willing to do the same. You seem to want to just exchange simple opinions and nothing more. FYI, that is not debate.

You are the one struggling (by your own admission) to "understand" this Jose, I understand it perfectly, people see what they want to see

So what is it that you "want to see" in the fossil record?

Understand now? "You see what your knowledge tells you you're seeing", now what's so hard to understand here?

And what is your knowledge that informs your interpretation of the fossil record?

This is typical of your stereotyping:

"Unfortunately, none of the creationists here (you included) are willing to do the same."

Your posts are disparaging, poorly veiled attacks on people who do not share your faith in scientism.

I'll debate you anytime, Jose - I have in fact been disagreeing with you, challenging you, exposing your fallacious "arguments" and all you can do is claim that I am not actually debating you! How very convenient!

You are the one who keeps telling us you don't "understand", well at least you admit that, that's a start!