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?

[Clownboat]

Evolution being true or false has no bearing on my theology, Consider Barbarian he accepts evolution, he does not need it to be false despite the fact he is a creationist. I am of the opinion it is false because the evidence does not support that claim, my objections are scientific.

Actually, your objections seem to be, 'we interpret the data different'. Thus why I am focusing on motive.

Barbarian acknowledges that evolution is the best explination for the diversity of life we see both now and in the fossil record.
What alternative do you offer that better explains the diversity of life we see now and in the fossil record?

Seek and you shall find.

I'm trying to seek a better explination when compared to the Theory of Evolution, can you help me to find one? What explains it all better then what we have now (ToE)? Remember, I'm not tied to evolution in any way and lose nothing nor is my soul possibly on the line if I find your explination/mechanism as better. Please understand this about 'my side'.

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #454]

So that's two people so far who try to speak knowledgably about evolution and the fossil record but do not know the answers, anyone else care to try?

If you actually want to learn about the subject and the current state of scientific knowledge concerning evolution, and why the consensus is what it is, there are literally thousands of peer-reviewed papers and many hundreds of books, web articles, etc. that would help you in your quest (if it was a quest for knowledge rather than an entrenched position of "I won't believe it no matter what"). No need to rely on participants in a web-based forum to learn about a subject as extensively studied and documented as evolution. Mountains of information is out there for free ... all you have to expend is a little time and effort.

[Inquirer]

So that's two people so far who try to speak knowledgably about evolution and the fossil record but do not know the answers, anyone else care to try?

So I can only conclude that you are never going to address any of the data you've been provided.

I posted, to you, examples of the observed evolution of new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species. You ignored them.

I started a thread on the above to gauge what we could agree on. You ignored it.

Barbarian posted, to you, examples of preCambrian-Cambrian transitionals. You ignored them.

I posted, to you, examples of continuous fossil records of different taxa. You ignored them

I posted, to you, examples of Darwinian gradualism in the fossil record. You ignored them.

I repeatedly asked you to explain your position on the above, you refused to.

Since this is a debate forum, the result of the above is that you have conceded the points. Specifically, you have conceded that evolution generates new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species. You have conceded that there are preCambrian-Cambrian transitionals. You have conceded that the fossil record of some taxa show continuity. You have conceded that there are cases of Darwinian gradualism in the fossil record.

That's how debate work.

Prove that I ignored those things Jose.

[Inquirer]

Oh certainly, that's always been the million dollar question about all this.....what's the point?

That question is especially poignant today, given that creationism is effectively dead. Back in the day there was good reason to counter creationists and their arguments, since they were actively trying to get their material into classrooms. Now? It's mostly just something to do. I like to write, I like to debate, and I like science, so it's kind of a natural fit for me. Also, given my upbringing I'm fascinated by certain religious beliefs and the people who hold them.

So yeah, I can see how this whole thing seems silly and a waste of time (and I wouldn't try to argue that it's not). I'm not sure what else to say, except that debating creationists is something that I find interesting. It's weird, but well.....I guess I'm a weird person.

I have a similar background. That may be why I share a fascination with unsupported religious beliefs and other strange things like 'Trumpism.' How do they sustain such thinking in light of overwhelming evidence of refutation? As Joey might say, 'We hoomans is strange animals."

I enjoy debating with competent defenders of the faith like Otseng and others who actually try to support their positions with citations, but utter rubbish and the persistent foolishness of easily refuted 'points' is insufficient challenge to even read, let along bother to refute. After a few chances... why feed the trolls?

Anyway,
Bringing up Kitzmiller v. Dover makes a good point since at least in the most important tribunal that part, the most dangerous part of the debate is officially over.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmille ... l_District

"Intelligent Design" advocates would be wise to read the entire decision, written by a Republican (and a Lutheran), if only to try to "understand those on the other side."

The fact that these questions are unanswerable by the evolution devotees here is all the backup I need for my doubts about the fossil record.

[Inquirer]

No evolution devotee can answer these questions, this is all that matters, this underpins my case, my lack of confidence in their claims:

Are there any "gaps" in the fossil record between cyanobacteria and human beings? how many gaps would you say there are? how "big" are these gaps? how do you measure the "size" of these gaps? is the fossil record mostly gaps or mostly fossils? what percentage of the actual evolutionary history is represented by the fossil record? 90%? 75%? 1%?

I sit here and watch the never ending diversionary replies, the abuse, the insults and yet remain steadfast in my self confidence because they really have no idea how to answer these questions and that is all that matters here.

Are the questions impolite? are they unfair? do they violate terms and conditions of the forum?

[Jose Fly]

Prove that I ignored those things Jose.

Can't prove a negative. If your position is that you gave rebuttals to those things, then show where you did.

[Inquirer]

[Replying to Inquirer in post #454]

So that's two people so far who try to speak knowledgably about evolution and the fossil record but do not know the answers, anyone else care to try?

If you actually want to learn about the subject and the current state of scientific knowledge concerning evolution, and why the consensus is what it is, there are literally thousands of peer-reviewed papers and many hundreds of books, web articles, etc. that would help you in your quest (if it was a quest for knowledge rather than an entrenched position of "I won't believe it no matter what"). No need to rely on participants in a web-based forum to learn about a subject as extensively studied and documented as evolution. Mountains of information is out there for free ... all you have to expend is a little time and effort.

You seem ever confident, very well, perhaps you'll fare better:

Are there any "gaps" in the fossil record between cyanobacteria and human beings? how many gaps would you say there are? how "big" are these gaps? how do you measure the "size" of these gaps? is the fossil record mostly gaps or mostly fossils? what percentage of the actual evolutionary history is represented by the fossil record? 90%? 75%? 1%?

[Inquirer]

So far Jose, Diogenes, Clownboat and Dr. No Gods have all shied away from answering these key questions:

Are there any "gaps" in the fossil record between cyanobacteria and human beings? how many gaps would you say there are? how "big" are these gaps? how do you measure the "size" of these gaps? is the fossil record mostly gaps or mostly fossils? what percentage of the actual evolutionary history is represented by the fossil record? 90%? 75%? 1%?

Surely there's a champion out there? a true expert worthy of the title? someone who can provide the answers that I've sought for decades?

[Inquirer]

Prove that I ignored those things Jose.

Can't prove a negative. If your position is that you gave rebuttals to those things, then show where you did.

I simply can't recall, but it matters not, falsely accuse me as much as you want, it matters not to me.

[Jose Fly]

So far Jose, Diogenes, Clownboat and Dr. No Gods have all shied away from answering these key questions:

As I explained, you asked your question as I was already trying (unsuccessfully) to get you to answer my questions.

IOW, you were playing the stereotypical creationist game where you won't answer anyone else's questions, while demanding that we answer yours.

You have conceded that: 1) evolution generates new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species; 2) the fossil record does include cases of continuity, 3) preCambrian-Cambrian transitionals exist, and 4) the fossil record does include cases of Darwinian gradualism.

If we are done with those topics, I will gladly answer your questions.

I simply can't recall, but it matters not, falsely accuse me as much as you want, it matters not to me.

If you can't recall, you can't say the accusations are false.