Common ground Creationists and Atheists "can" agree with - without too much effort

[Hans Blaster]

on the contrary it is obvious if you follow read the second post that it linked to...

It is literally painful to read. Making heads or tails of it is not worth it. You seem to write about the characters of gods, but I care not for them. I don't really care what some learned professor of hebrew wrote about the first bits of the Jewish scripture.

 

[BobRyan]

1. The "claim" is that those prokaryotes did not turn into eukaryotes not even over 50,000 generations with "direct observation".
2. The "claim" was that in less than 50,000 generations the human race supposedly evolved.
3. The "claim" was that bacteria are by design farrrrr more genetically adaptive to their environment than are humans.

Did you actually refute any of those "claims"? IF so I have not seen that post of yours on this thread ... feel free to link to it

The issue here is you're trying to draw (or at least suggest) equivalencies between clearly non-equivalent scenarios.

I think we are reaching a kind of agreement here.

I will post the above ... and claim that the point is incredibly obvious as stated. You post that you don't see the point.

I think we have an agreement - because all I need is the obvious example as stated above for the sake of the unbiased objective reader, and I also need the "substantive" response to my post - to be of the form that you just posted .. I think the rest is easily "an exercise for the reader".

And we can both take that as a satisfactory state.

 

[Hans Blaster]

50,000 generations for humans is about 2 million years.

supposedly "Modern humans originated in Africa within the past 200,000 years"

I said "approximately" and I was clear I was talking about the separation from the other extant great apes, notably chimpanzees, which is about 5-6 Mya so about 2-300,000 generations.

 

[BobRyan]

It is literally painful to read.

Then I think we both are blessed by the fact that you have free will and are not forced to accept the obvious details I am posting. You can reject them as you wish.

 

[Subduction Zone]

50,000 generations for humans is about 2 million years.

supposedly "Modern humans originated in Africa within the past 200,000 years"

1. Bacteria have a far more adaptive genetic design than do humans when it comes to genetically adapting to environment.
2. Bacteria "stuck" for the human equivalent of (2 million years) - does not show the much touted evolution and adaptation claims to be "observable" or fact.



you don't have to respond "with substance" if you don't wish to. you have free will.

Yes, you admit that you are wrong. We all get that.

Do you actually have a point?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Then I think we both are blessed by the fact that you have free will and are not forced to accept the obvious details I am posting. You can reject them as you wish.

What "obvious details"? Besides you constantly admitting that you are wrong by repeating a refuted argument I have not seen anything of note.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Then I think we both are blessed by the fact that you have free will and are not forced to accept the obvious details I am posting. You can reject them as you wish.

Are you sure we have free will? I'm not certain physics permits it. (Not certain it forbids it either.)

 

[Speedwell]

Yes, you admit that you are wrong. We all get that.

Do you actually have a point?

I've asked him several times but he apparently doesn't want to tell us.

 

[dlamberth]

But the difference is that humans DO see dust turned into rabbit in a day - every day.

And we DON'T see even one talented rock do that - ever!

Where does the dust come from if not from rock?

Earth started as one big rock. And on that rock over time life grew. So it seems to me that rock really is pretty talented.

 

[Speedwell]

Where does the dust come from if not from rock?

Earth started as one big rock. And on that rock over time life grew. So it seems to me that rock really is pretty talented.

Well, the argument so far is that there was a time when the planet was lifeless minerals, but now it is teeming with life, a change which must have been brought about by an unspecified supreme intelligence. We know this because rocks don't spontaneously turn into horses--or was it rabbits? I forget, but anyhow QED.

 

[dlamberth]

Well, the argument so far is that there was a time when the planet was lifeless minerals, but now it is teeming with life, a change which must have been brought about by an unspecified supreme intelligence. We know this because rocks don't spontaneously turn into horses--or was it rabbits? I forget, but anyhow QED.

I think it was rabbits.

Is it intelligence? Or, the way I look at it, one of the natures of the universe is that it's creative. Maybe creativity is the supreme intelligence, perhaps? Creative enough to birth life forms?

 

[pitabread]

I will post the above ... and claim that the point is incredibly obvious as stated. You post that you don't see the point.

I didn't say that. What I said was that you seem to be trying to draw equivalencies between non-equivalent scenarios.

If you're trying to make an argument in this fashion, it would just be an example of the false equivalence fallacy.

 

[Larniavc]

Please state a fact... and we can discuss it.

You lack the academic knowledge to discuss this subject.

I suspect you are an autodidact in this field.

 

[pitabread]

nm.

 

[Speedwell]

I think it was rabbits.

Is it intelligence? Or, the way I look at it, one of the natures of the universe is that it's creative. Maybe creativity is the supreme intelligence, perhaps? Creative enough to birth life forms?

It has to be intelligence. Moreover, it has to be the intelligence of the Christian Bible God, creating everything from nothing in six literal days 6000 years ago. That is the conclusion Bob is trying (oh, so slowly and ponderously) to get us to.

 

[Ophiolite]

Given this post

I said




If you are going to argue that a rock has capacity/properties/skill to turn into a horse over time... then you would have had to already admit that God can do that from dust-to-horse in a single day, given that the concept for God and rock (see OP updated) are as agreed upon.


This is absolutely not non-sensical -- rather we are still dealing with the obvious when it comes to the claim that infinite capability is above "rock".




=======================================================

we got this response



1. WE all agreed in the OP to the "barren Earth" starting conditions.
2. "mix" in you example - is the rocks,dust,and gas in that starting condition being chemical. No doubt "Chemicals" existed in the starting condition.




more logic please.



1. you are arguing that rocks self-organize into a prion that needs no host system???
2. Fine ... I go you one better - a bacteria has no "Feature" that enables it to turn into a rabbit over time.




NOW we have an evolutionist finally arguing for the salient point/mechanism in real evolution instead of "any change is evolution".

Glad to have one "on board".

And THAT is the very thing that the OP points to in post #2 .. that Dawkins says "DOES NOT happen" while science is actually observing. ... so then "fiction".

As one evolutionist argued "if it happened once why should we expect that it would ever happen again" -- ie NOT reproducible.

And as we saw in post #2 Dawkins points out - it is not OBSERVED while we are actually watching.

.. so then not science.

I am currently reviewing whether it worth responding to this since:

• You deliberately ignore my demolition of your strawman argument and repeat it
• Then attempt to reinforce it
• Then, through incompetence, ignorance, or deliberate cynicism you misinterpret and misundertand.

Can you provide any sound reason why I should treat such drivel seriously? I'm willing to give it a go, but you need to do a lot better.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@pitabread earlier the topic of A Case For A Creator came up. I doubt if I will get paid to read it so that I can do a fair debunking. So I did the next best thing. I found someone that had already done this:

The Case for a Creator - Daylight Atheism

That article has a series of links to a series of articles by the author where he deals with different sections of the book.

 

[Tinker Grey]

@pitabread earlier the topic of A Case For A Creator came up. I doubt if I will get paid to read it so that I can do a fair debunking. So I did the next best thing. I found someone that had already done this:

The Case for a Creator - Daylight Atheism

That article has a series of links to a series of articles by the author where he deals with different sections of the book.

Also, here's a playlist of someone doing a chapter-by-chapter takedown over a series of videos. He stopped doing "An Atheist reads" series a few years back, so I un-subbed. But, he's pretty good. Here's the playlist.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8B722E1FA8681B70

 

[Subduction Zone]

Also, here's a playlist of someone doing a chapter-by-chapter takedown over a series of videos. He stopped doing "An Atheist reads" series a few years back, so I un-subbed. But, he's pretty good. Here's the playlist.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL8B722E1FA8681B70

I use to like Steven Shives, but then he got extremely political and if you did not agree with his rather far left position then you were garbage. He put himself into a bubble and that is not a good idea.

 

[Tinker Grey]

I use to like Steven Shives, but then he got extremely political and if you did not agree with his rather far left position then you were garbage. He put himself into a bubble and that is not a good idea.

That was part of the reason I unsubscribed, as well.