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?

[JoeyKnothead]

OK we get it, you don't believe in God, now please change the record.

You ain't no mod, so have no power to tell me how or what I may or may not post.

I'll post as I see fit, regardless of your discomfort.

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

[Jose Fly]

My position is that if the process were discontinuous then the record we have is consistent with that.

Do you believe fossilization and discovery of fossils are continuous processes (i.e., that all organisms that have existed are present in the fossil record and we have found all of them)?

The process could conceivably have been continuous but the record is what I'd expect to see if the process had been discontinuous.

What discontinuous process do you believe explains the fossil record?

Nothing in the fossil record proves or even supports the belief in a continuous process that's ben running for billions of years.

Do you believe evolution is a continuous process? If so, please describe how it meets the criteria to be so.

[Inquirer]

My position is that if the process were discontinuous then the record we have is consistent with that.

Do you believe fossilization and discovery of fossils are continuous processes (i.e., that all organisms that have existed are present in the fossil record and we have found all of them)?

Is that two questions or one?

The process could conceivably have been continuous but the record is what I'd expect to see if the process had been discontinuous.

What discontinuous process do you believe explains the fossil record?

I don't know.

Nothing in the fossil record proves or even supports the belief in a continuous process that's ben running for billions of years.

Do you believe evolution is a continuous process? If so, please describe how it meets the criteria to be so.

Evolution seems to be a mish mash of claims, both fine grained gradualism and abrupt punctuated equilibrium, the process is claimed to be whatever is necessary to fit the data while preserving the belief in it.

If the data runs contrary to what we'd reasonably expect from the process, then change the process, attribute some new capabilities to the process, this is how a belief in evolution is preserved, make it capable of whatever is needed to fit the observed data, speculation, hypothesis - not theory.

The sudden appearance of most species in the geologic record and the lack of evidence of substantial gradual change in most species from their initial appearance until their extinction has long been noted, including by Charles Darwin who appealed to the imperfection of the record as the favored explanation.

The concept of punctuated equilibrium was developed to explain a pervasive and intriguing evolutionary pattern: most species change little if at all after they first appear in the fossil record. In many cases, individual species lineages persist for millions of years without showing any significant morphological change.

[Inquirer]

OK we get it, you don't believe in God, now please change the record.

You ain't no mod, so have no power to tell me how or what I may or may not post.

I'll post as I see fit, regardless of your discomfort.

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

Why do you want to know what I think?

[Clownboat]

OK we get it, you don't believe in God, now please change the record.

You ain't no mod, so have no power to tell me how or what I may or may not post.

I'll post as I see fit, regardless of your discomfort.

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

Why do you want to know what I think?

It helps to understand those on the other side.

[Jose Fly]

Is that two questions or one?

It's two. Do you believe that the process of fossilization is continuous (all organisms that have existed have been fossilized) and do you believe that our finding fossils is continuous (we have discovered all fossils)?

What discontinuous process do you believe explains the fossil record?

I don't know.

That's important.

Evolution seems to be a mish mash of claims, both fine grained gradualism and abrupt punctuated equilibrium, the process is claimed to be whatever is necessary to fit the data while preserving the belief in it.

I asked about your views. Do you believe evolution is a continuous process? And if so, how does it meet the criteria to be so? But if not, how does it not meet those criteria?

[Inquirer]

Is that two questions or one?

It's two. Do you believe that the process of fossilization is continuous (all organisms that have existed have been fossilized) and do you believe that our finding fossils is continuous (we have discovered all fossils)?

What discontinuous process do you believe explains the fossil record?

I don't know.

That's important.

Its irrelevant, you always get this wrong too, and you a man of science and all. When Newtonian gravitation was found to be at odds with observation, the fact that a better explanation had not yet been established didn't alter the fact that theory had been falsified. Falsification has nothing to do with whether or not a new explanation has yet been found.

Evolution seems to be a mish mash of claims, both fine grained gradualism and abrupt punctuated equilibrium, the process is claimed to be whatever is necessary to fit the data while preserving the belief in it.

I asked about your views. Do you believe evolution is a continuous process? And if so, how does it meet the criteria to be so? But if not, how does it not meet those criteria?

I don't believe in evolution Jose, I thought you at least understood that. Your question is this to me "Do you believe a fictitious process is a continuous process?".

[Inquirer]

OK we get it, you don't believe in God, now please change the record.

You ain't no mod, so have no power to tell me how or what I may or may not post.

I'll post as I see fit, regardless of your discomfort.

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

Why do you want to know what I think?

It helps to understand those on the other side.

Well only if one knows what they mean by "truth" do you mean scientific truth? historic truth? what? Do you believe anything about ancient history for example? are there stories, claims from thousands of years ago that you regard as truth?

Its not me you guys need to understand its yourselves, how your own minds work, that's what's really important in all this.

[Jose Fly]

Its irrelevant, you always get this wrong too, and you a man of science and all. When Newtonian gravitation was found to be at odds with observation, the fact that a better explanation had not yet been established didn't alter the fact that theory had been falsified. Falsification has nothing to do with whether or not a new explanation has yet been found.

You're assuming quite a bit there. All I did was note that you don't know of any discontinuous processes that could have produced the fossil record.

Also, you skipped the other questions. Again...

Do you believe that the process of fossilization is continuous (all organisms that have existed have been fossilized) and do you believe that our finding fossils is continuous (we have discovered all fossils)?

I don't believe in evolution Jose, I thought you at least understood that. Your question is this to me "Do you believe a fictitious process is a continuous process?".

Oh, I didn't realize that you deny that any population has ever evolved at all. Of course it's of note that you have been provided observed and documented examples of populations evolving new traits, abilities, genetic sequences, and species, and you had absolutely no rebuttal to them. Since this is a debate, that constitutes you conceding the point.

Before we continue, is there anything you'd care to say about those examples of observed and documented evolution?

[JoeyKnothead]

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

Why do you want to know what I think?

Yet again you refuse to answer questions put to ya, but have no problem asking you some of em for yourself

I think this points to how theists're reticent to examine their own beliefs, but all too happy to fuss on someone else for theirs.