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

[BobRyan]

You're not following the topic - eukaryotes are the descendants of ancient endosymbiotic prokaryotes.

That's the story... no scientists has ever seen prokaryotes do that wonderful saltation act. And 'The topic' for this thread deals with the two agreed upon conditions
1 . Earth was at one time a barren lifeless planet
2. Today it has a great diversity of life on it.

The Talent for that is either in the rocks or in the infinite Creator as noted in the OP.

And the "topic" is not benefited by more stories about "what can't be observed in the lab - and has never been seen in real life". That would just be piling-on story upon never-seen-in-real-life story. How is that helping?

All membrane bound organelles missing from bacteria do not saltation-miracle pop into existance join and form a eukaryote cell. As a lot of people will admit.

 

[BobRyan]

That's fine, but it's a theological question, not a scientific one.

Turns out - a lot of scientist freely point out that at one time earth had no life at all on it ... and now it does. Creationists also like to point out that detail.

 

[pitabread]

And the "topic" is not benefited by more stories about "what can't be observed in the lab - and has never been seen in real life". That would just be piling-on story upon never-seen-in-real-life story. How is that helping?

The subject of how eukaryotes evolved was brought up in response to your misconceptions about the Lenski E. coli experiment.

If you stopped mischaracterizing that experiment, people would stop correcting you on it.

 

[pitabread]

I mean that science does not do an experiment where "step n" will be to have God do something as compared to another experiment where we stop God from doing it and compare results. There is no "and in this step we will have God do something" in the lab book.

I think this is so obvious that we all agree to it. No need to keep circling back. This is basic.

I have found in this forum sometimes this needs to be spelled out for people.

But the wild claim that rocks/dust/gas/sunlight on a lifeless planet Earth eventually come up with "a horse" is not a science experiment, not something proven in a lab experiment, not an observed fact.. it is merely the belief that an atheist has because they have no other option as a source/cause for the result they are hoping for.

That you characterize the entirety of scientific research and knowledge of both evolution and abiogenesis as a "belief" is just another gross mischaracterization on your part. Not to mention a violation of this subforums rules.

 

[Speedwell]

Turns out - a lot of scientist freely point out that at one time earth had no life at all on it ... and now it does. Creationists also like to point out that detail.

Yes, creationists and non-creationists agree on that point--I have no idea why you continue to belabor it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

That's the story... no scientists has ever seen prokaryotes do that wonderful saltation act.

No, but we see contemporary examples of endosymbiosis and we see organelles - mitochondria even have their own genetic code.

All membrane bound organelles missing from bacteria do not saltation-miracle pop into existance join and form a eukaryote cell.

Some eukaryote organelles, e.g. mitochondria, are the remnants of ancient prokaryotes; the structure and composition of the membrane of other organelles and the nucleus suggest they were derived from the early eukaryote cell membrane.

 

[BobRyan]

Some eukaryote organelles, e.g. mitochondria, are the remnants of ancient prokaryotes;

that is the story, but that is not observable, repeatable science. It is not like "we don't have prokaryotes or eukaryotes any more so now we must just imagine the whole thing."

The fact that my wood chipper has rubber wheels and so does my car - is not evidence that an ancient wood chipper turned into a car, no matter how often someone might want to "suggest" it.

the structure and composition of the membrane of other organelles and the nucleus suggest they were derived from the early eukaryote cell membrane.

The ancients suggested that the world was held up by a turtle. We are looking for science fact not merely suggestions yet to be proven/observed/repeated.

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, creationists and non-creationists agree on that point--I have no idea why you continue to belabor it.

Turns out ... it is key for this topic. Note the title of the thread.

 

[BobRyan]

But the wild claim that rocks/dust/gas/sunlight on a lifeless planet Earth eventually come up with "a horse" is not a science experiment, not something proven in a lab experiment, not an observed fact.. it is merely the belief that an atheist has because they have no other option as a source/cause for the result they are hoping for.

That you characterize the entirety of scientific research and knowledge of both evolution and abiogenesis as a "belief" is just another gross mischaracterization on your part.

Conflating "the entirety of scientific research and knowledge" with the belief that lifeless rocks will turn into a horse over time - is not logical.

Belief is the evidence of things not seen. In this case no atheist has seen a rock transform into a horse, a eukaryote or even a prokaryote. And even for atheists it is not considered "a given" that earth was never barren of all life but was always covered by a layer of very very talented prokaryotes.

Not to mention a violation of this subforums rules.

Is there anyplace in this subforum rules list where the statement is made "the transition from barren rock to horse is assumed to be science fact and cannot be doubted on this forum" -- because if so I have some excellent places I would like to reference it.

 

[Speedwell]

Is there anyplace in this subforum rules list where the statement is made "the transition from barren rock to horse is assumed to be science fact and cannot be doubted on this forum" -- because if so I have some excellent places I would like to reference it.

What difference does it make, when creationists and non-creationists agree on it?

 

[BobRyan]

What difference does it make, when creationists and non-creationists agree on it?

If I ever made the mistake on this thread of saying "I want to find common ground between creationists and non-creationists" -- it will be corrected at once. I don't think I ever say that on this thread.

This is specifically about common ground between atheists and creationists who accept the fact that at one time the earth existed with no life on it.

 

[Speedwell]

Turns out ... it is key for this topic. Note the title of the thread.

"Stating the obvious that all can agree with - without too much effort."

OK, we agree. Now what?

 

[pitabread]

Belief is the evidence of things not seen. In this case no atheist has seen a rock transform into a horse

What I find odd about your posts are statements like the above. Characterizing the entirety of abiogenesis through evolution of living things up to and including the modern horse as "a rock transform[ing] into a horse" is just another caricature of science on your part.

Nobody thinks a rock "transformed" into a horse in the way you appear to be describing; certainly not in a single step as the above sentence would imply.

What exactly do you think you accomplishing by creating and continually referencing these types of caricatures? You're just reinforcing the most banal creationist stereotypes regarding creationists' ignorance of science.

 

[Speedwell]

It is interesting that Bob seems anxious to exclude from the conversation the viewpoint of those of us who believe in a creator God and at the same time would have no trouble accepting a naturalistic abiogenesis.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

that is the story, but that is not observable, repeatable science. It is not like "we don't have prokaryotes or eukaryotes any more so now we must just imagine the whole thing."

The idea that you have to directly observe and repeat everything for it to be valid science is absurd. Even creationists accept that fossils are evidence of extinct creatures.

 

[pitabread]

It is interesting that Bob seems anxious to exclude from the conversation the viewpoint of those of us who believe in a creator God and at the same time would have no trouble accepting a naturalistic abiogenesis.

Folks like yourself represent a threat to his beliefs. Better to pretend you don't exist.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Belief is the evidence of things not seen. In this case no atheist has seen a rock transform into a horse

What I find odd about your posts are statements like the above.

I would have thought that was an easy point that both sides could agree with.

Nobody thinks a rock "transformed" into a horse

kinda like that. (Oddly enough).

Characterizing the entirety of abiogenesis through evolution of living things up to and including the modern horse as "a rock transform[ing] into a horse"

is just referencing the two end points.

In between the two endpoints you can have "miracle goes here" or "billions of years of evolution goes here" .. I am not dictating what you may wish to insert there.

 

[pitabread]

BobRyan said: ↑
Belief is the evidence of things not seen. In this case no atheist has seen a rock transform into a horse

I would have thought that was an easy point that both sides could agree with.

Nobody has seen a rock transform into a horse because nobody thinks that actually happened. That is just a strawman caricature of your own making.

is just referencing the two end points.

In between the two endpoints you can have "miracle goes here" or "billions of years of evolution goes here" .. I am not dictating what you may wish to insert there.

That's not referenced in your statements though.

When you say things like "rock transformed into a horse" you're conjuring the image of a rock literally turning into a horse. It's a deliberate use of language designed to set up a caricature.

If that's not your intent, perhaps you need to rephrase your statements into something that better conveys your intended meaning. Right now it looks like you're just peddling a creationist strawman cliche.

 

[Speedwell]

In between the two endpoints you can have "miracle goes here" or "billions of years of evolution goes here" ..

And?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Why should they "hope" for it? Science undergraduates, atheist or otherwise, all take a Philosophy of Science class in which they learn that nothing that science has discovered, or could possibly discover in future, can disprove the existence of God. Evolution can't do it, and a naturalistic abiogenesis couldn't do it either.

Maybe they should take philosophy of science, but they certainly don't. I didn't, and I don't think such a course is required of any science major at any of the universities I've been associated with.