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]

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.

No, it's an accurate description of what goes on here. The fact is, when it comes to evolution v. creationism neither you nor any of the other creationists here have engaged in anything that can be called "debate". And it's not just me who's noted that. Would you like me to pull up some of the comments to that effect from other posters?

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!

Okay, good. So I'll start by repeating....you have been shown examples of preCambrian-Cambrian transitionals by Barbarian, and you've been shown examples of gradualism in the fossil record (forams).

What is your rebuttal (beyond simply saying that you disagree, "that's their interpretation", etc.)?

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

That's correct. I don't understand how folks like you tell yourselves things that are obviously not true.

[Inquirer]

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.

No, it's an accurate description of what goes on here.

No it isn't accurate, it is disparaging and prejudicial and insulting and nothing more.

The fact is, when it comes to evolution v. creationism neither you nor any of the other creationists here have engaged in anything that can be called "debate". And it's not just me who's noted that. Would you like me to pull up some of the comments to that effect from other posters?

Oh, that's a fun game, may I play too? let me see...oh yes:

The fact is, when it comes to evolution v. creationism neither you nor any of the other evolutionist here have engaged in anything that can be called "debate".

Your move.

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!

Okay, good. So I'll start by repeating....you have been shown examples of preCambrian-Cambrian transitionals by Barbarian, and you've been shown examples of gradualism in the fossil record (forams).

No I have not. I have been shown (and have seen many many times in books) what is claimed to be proof of transitional fossils but it is in fact wishful thinking, an interpretation of data.

What is your rebuttal (beyond simply saying that you disagree, "that's their interpretation", etc.)?

That is my considered response, that you disapprove is not my concern. Why is your interpretation better than mine? because its your interpretation, that's why, that's the totality of your "argument".

If you choose to interpret data differently to me then why am I wrong to point out that you are interpreting data differently to me?

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

That's correct. I don't understand how folks like you tell yourselves things that are obviously not true.

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

[Jose Fly]

No it isn't accurate, it is disparaging and prejudicial and insulting and nothing more.

Oh I have no doubt you see it that way. Few people like being called out for their behaviors.

No I have not. I have been shown (and have seen many many times in books) what is claimed to be proof of transitional fossils but it is in fact wishful thinking, an interpretation of data.

Regardless of how you think the examples were characterized when they were posted to you (and I never referred to any fossils as "proof" of anything, and I doubt Barbarian did either), that's irrelevant to the point at hand.

You were presented with data that you claimed didn't exist. Do you have any rebuttal beyond the above?

What is your rebuttal (beyond simply saying that you disagree, "that's their interpretation", etc.)?

That is my considered response, that you disapprove is not my concern.

You just said that you'd debate any time. I'm attempting to engage you in debate about preCambrian-Cambrian fossils and the foram fossil record. Is the above the full extent of your rebuttal?

Why is your interpretation better than mine?

I can't say because you've not offered an alternative interpretation! Duh.

because its your interpretation, that's why, that's the totality of your "argument".

Really? Again, I have to question why you're here and whether you even understand what "debate" means.

It started with you claiming that preCambrian-Cambrian transitionals and examples of continuity in the fossil record don't exist. So Barbarian responded by disagreeing and posting examples of such transitionals, and I responded by disagreeing and posting examples of continuity in the fossil record.

Since then, you've not addressed any of that data and have merely stated that you interpret it differently (while not saying what that interpretation is).

Is that what you think "debate" is?

[Inquirer]

No it isn't accurate, it is disparaging and prejudicial and insulting and nothing more.

Oh I have no doubt you see it that way. Few people like being called out for their behaviors.

No I have not. I have been shown (and have seen many many times in books) what is claimed to be proof of transitional fossils but it is in fact wishful thinking, an interpretation of data.

Regardless of how you think the examples were characterized when they were posted to you (and I never referred to any fossils as "proof" of anything, and I doubt Barbarian did either), that's irrelevant to the point at hand.

You were presented with data that you claimed didn't exist. Do you have any rebuttal beyond the above?

To which post(s) are you referring? I'm happy to explain any post I may have made in the past, but please no paraphrasing, I've lost track of how many times I've had to pull you up for doing that.

What is your rebuttal (beyond simply saying that you disagree, "that's their interpretation", etc.)?

That is my considered response, that you disapprove is not my concern.

You just said that you'd debate any time. I'm attempting to engage you in debate about preCambrian-Cambrian fossils and the foram fossil record. Is the above the full extent of your rebuttal?

You claimed just now that I "have been shown examples of preCambrian-Cambrian transitionals" and my response was and is that I have not been shown that at all, I have been shown what some interpret as examples of transitionals.

Why is your interpretation better than mine?

I can't say because you've not offered an alternative interpretation! Duh.

Then pay attention Jose. 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.

because its your interpretation, that's why, that's the totality of your "argument".

Really? Again, I have to question why you're here and whether you even understand what "debate" means.

You don't have to say any of that, you just want to insult me because personal attack is your modus operandi.

It started with you claiming that preCambrian-Cambrian transitionals and examples of continuity in the fossil record don't exist. So Barbarian responded by disagreeing and posting examples of such transitionals, and I responded by disagreeing and posting examples of continuity in the fossil record.

Since then, you've not addressed any of that data and have merely stated that you interpret it differently (while not saying what that interpretation is).

Is that what you think "debate" is?

I'm not here to explain what a debate is Jose, if you really don't know then ask the moderators for guidance not me.

I can say though that evading a question isn't much of a debating strategy, so let me ask you a second time: you're the evolutionist, why can't you accept that creationists evolved then? what is so hard to understand here?

[Jose Fly]

To which post(s) are you referring? I'm happy to explain any post I may have made in the past, but please no paraphrasing, I've lost track of how many times I've had to pull you up for doing that.

I will find the posts.

You claimed just now that I "have been shown examples of preCambrian-Cambrian transitionals" and my response was and is that I have not been shown that at all, I have been shown what some interpret as examples of transitionals.

And is that the extent of your rebuttal to that data?

I have repeatedly stated that the fossil record is in fact superb evidence of a discontinuous process.

Yes, we all know you've said that. Is that the extent of your position?

why can't you accept that creationists evolved then? what is so hard to understand here?

I can't say, because the question is incoherent.

[Inquirer]

To which post(s) are you referring? I'm happy to explain any post I may have made in the past, but please no paraphrasing, I've lost track of how many times I've had to pull you up for doing that.

I will find the posts.

You claimed just now that I "have been shown examples of preCambrian-Cambrian transitionals" and my response was and is that I have not been shown that at all, I have been shown what some interpret as examples of transitionals.

And is that the extent of your rebuttal to that data?

I have repeatedly stated that the fossil record is in fact superb evidence of a discontinuous process.

Yes, we all know you've said that. Is that the extent of your position?

why can't you accept that creationists evolved then? what is so hard to understand here?

I can't say, because the question is incoherent.

Ha! you complain that my responses about things being open to interpretation does not constitute debating and then (blissfully unaware of the irony) go on to say "the question is incoherent" when asked a straightforward question, is that the extent of your position? is it an example of your debating prowess?

Is creationism the result of evolution or not? Is creationism a naturally arising phenomenon? Of course you have to agree it is but don't want to, why is that Jose?

[Jose Fly]

Is creationism the result of evolution or not? Is creationism a naturally arising phenomenon? Of course you have to agree it is but don't want to, why is that Jose?

Yes, creationism is ultimately a result of evolution.

[Inquirer]

Is creationism the result of evolution or not? Is creationism a naturally arising phenomenon? Of course you have to agree it is but don't want to, why is that Jose?

Yes, creationism is ultimately a result of evolution.

So you do understand after all yet in your OP you said all these things and more:

I just could not understand the people

I could not understand what they were thinking

but what I don't understand is how the people engaging in them

You are the first person I've ever encountered who claims they don't understand something they claim to understand, so please - do you or don't you understand that creationism and creationists are the product of nature?

[Jose Fly]

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.

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

[Inquirer]

So you do understand after all.

Ok.

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.