A story easy enough to tell - where creationists and atheists can agree

[BobRyan]

Looking for an example of a "story easy enough to tell" that everyone will agree "is just a story".

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

Imagine if you will that "once upon a time" there were "arm humans" composed only of arms, and "Leg humans" composed only of legs and "Torso humans" composed only of human head and torso.

And suppose those individuals got together and started forming fully formed humans as we know them today, the result being the humans that we see today.

And we note that similarities are there - that the same sort of human skin can be found arm/lets/torso. We also note that the DNA in the cells of legs/arms and torso is sufficient to reproduce an entire human.
==================

regardless of the level of detail in story telling that I add to the story above -- it is pretty obvious that both atheists and creationists will view it as a "story easy enough to tell" and would doubt that it is to be taken seriously beyond "just a story".

I could even add "symbiosis" to the end of the story and it would not make it any more believable.

 

[BobRyan]

So then the existence of "stories easy enough to tell" is hard to deny.

 

[Nithavela]

?

 

[BobRyan]

?

I needed to find incredibly easy "basics" so we can start off with agreement between Creationists and Atheists.

So this one is super easy.

If you prefer an example at the next higher level of difficulty - I suggest page 1 on this thread -- 2020 #1

 

[driewerf]

Just like the vanishing point of railtracks, there must be a point to this thread. But it keeps vanishing.

 

[pitabread]

regardless of the level of detail in story telling that I add to the story above -- it is pretty obvious that both atheists and creationists will view it as a "story easy enough to tell" and would doubt that it is to be taken seriously beyond "just a story".

The thread topic is obviously an allusion to eukaryote evolution.

If the intent is to discuss the origins of eukaryotes, why not make that the subject? Why invent a goofy analogy? The analogy serves no purpose.

Further, hypotheses in science aren't "just a story". They are usually based on specific observations and would make testable predictions. So characterizing scientific hypotheses as "just a story" is yet another misrepresentation of science.

Finally, this again has absolutely nothing to do with atheists vs creationists. I'm not sure of the continued reason for presenting this dichotomy, but it's not relevant here.

 

[Speedwell]

Looking for an example of a "story easy enough to tell" that everyone will agree "is just a story".

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

Imagine if you will that "once upon a time" there were "arm humans" composed only of arms, and "Leg humans" composed only of legs and "Torso humans" composed only of human head and torso.

And suppose those individuals got together and started forming fully formed humans as we know them today, the result being the humans that we see today.

And we note that similarities are there - that the same sort of human skin can be found arm/lets/torso. We also note that the DNA in the cells of legs/arms and torso is sufficient to reproduce an entire human.
==================

regardless of the level of detail in story telling that I add to the story above -- it is pretty obvious that both atheists and creationists will view it as a "story easy enough to tell" and would doubt that it is to be taken seriously beyond "just a story".

I could even add "symbiosis" to the end of the story and it would not make it any more believable.

Of course it would be more believable if there was some evidence which confirmed it and a proven mechanism capable of carrying it out--like the theory of evolution does. Otherwise it is, as you say, just a story--rather like creationism, in fact.

 

[VirOptimus]

Science= description of physical reality.

Every time religion has tried to deny science it has lost.

 

[Speedwell]

Somehow the possibility of embracing science as a description of God's creation seems to escape them.

 

[BobRyan]

Every time religion has tried to deny science it has lost.

Christians created almost every major branch of science known to mankind

 

[BobRyan]

Of course it would be more believable if there was some evidence which confirmed it and a proven mechanism capable of carrying it out--like the theory of evolution does. Otherwise it is, as you say, just a story--rather like creationism, in fact.

one could 'work on ways' to try to sell the OP story -- given as an example. No doubt on that point.

 

[BobRyan]

The thread topic is obviously an allusion to eukaryote evolution.

ahh yes - someone graciously states the obvious. I do appreciate that more than I thought I would at first. Well played. I had almost given up hope of seeing it posted today.

If the intent is to discuss the origins of eukaryotes, why not make that the subject? Why invent a goofy analogy?

Is it possible that the story being told about mythical non-existent prokaryote-ish cells hopping inside a prokaryote to engage in a massive saltation-transform into eukaryote is itself a goofy story if one is not an atheist?

It is not observable , it is not repeatable. And there is no biology observation today where 11 or 12 organelles each existing as their own single-cell prokaryote-ish organism (never seen in real life as such), all suddenly pop out of the rocks and jump into a more massive prokaryote to form a eukaryote in pure saltation-miracle-goes here fashion.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

ahh yes - someone graciously states the obvious. I do appreciate that more than I thought I would at first. Well played. I had almost given up hope of seeing it posted today.



Is it possible that the story being told about mythical non-existent prokaryote-ish cells hopping inside a prokaryote to engage in a massive saltation-transform into eukaryote is itself a goofy story if one is not an atheist?

It is not observable , it is not repeatable. And there is no biology observation today where 11 or 12 organelles each existing as their own single-cell prokaryote-ish organism (never seen in real life as such), all suddenly pop out of the rocks and jump into a more massive prokaryote to form a eukaryote in pure saltation-miracle-goes here fashion.

By your logic any historical event cannot be believed. We did not observe the Battle of Waterloo, we cannot repeat it therefore the Battle of Waterloo did not happen.

Just waiting for the "but we have evidence" claim, with a denial that there is evidence for the eukaryote hypothesis....

 

[Shemjaza]

If our arms had separate DNA to the rest of our bodies and there were creatures very much like disembodied arms living today who it turns out had DNA similar to our arm DNA... I'd be open to the hypothesis that arms started off as a separate symbiotic creature.

 

[pitabread]

Is it possible that the story being told about mythical non-existent prokaryote-ish cells hopping inside a prokaryote to engage in a massive saltation-transform into eukaryote is itself a goofy story if one is not an atheist?

How were the evolution of eurkayotes hypotheses formed? Do you know?

 

[VirOptimus]

Christians created almost every major branch of science known to mankind

Thats very debateable.

But it has nothing to do with my post or point.

 

[Gene2memE]

Christians created almost every major branch of science known to mankind

Well, apart from Physics, Biology, Geography and Geometry (the Greeks), Medicine (either the Greeks, Persians, Egyptians or Chinese - take your pick), Optics, Chemistry, Economics, Sociology, Pharmacology, Meterology and Geology (the Arabs), Surgery and Metallurgy (the Indians), Astronomy and Horology (the Sumerians), Linguistics (the Persians), and various branches of mathematics (too many cultures to name).

Plus, all the other branches I couldn't be bothered to research.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Well, apart from Physics, Biology, Geography and Geometry (the Greeks), Medicine (either the Greeks, Persians, Egyptians or Chinese - take your pick), Optics, Chemistry, Economics, Sociology, Pharmacology, Meterology and Geology (the Arabs), Surgery and Metallurgy (the Indians), Astronomy and Horology (the Sumerians), Linguistics (the Persians), and various branches of mathematics (too many cultures to name).

Plus, all the other branches I couldn't be bothered to research.

Gee, what's left? Maybe evolution? (Darwin started out a Christian. Perhaps he remained so long enough to have started his evolutionary theory. What about Huxley? What about the pre-Darwin proto-evolutionists?)

 

[Hans Blaster]

Looking for an example of a "story easy enough to tell" that everyone will agree "is just a story".

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

Imagine if you will that "once upon a time" there were "arm humans" composed only of arms, and "Leg humans" composed only of legs and "Torso humans" composed only of human head and torso.

And suppose those individuals got together and started forming fully formed humans as we know them today, the result being the humans that we see today.

And we note that similarities are there - that the same sort of human skin can be found arm/lets/torso. We also note that the DNA in the cells of legs/arms and torso is sufficient to reproduce an entire human.
==================

regardless of the level of detail in story telling that I add to the story above -- it is pretty obvious that both atheists and creationists will view it as a "story easy enough to tell" and would doubt that it is to be taken seriously beyond "just a story".

I could even add "symbiosis" to the end of the story and it would not make it any more believable.

Clearly you're not very good at analogies. Perhaps you should try discussing the actual science and scientific view and see how that fits or if it is plausible.

My ancestors have had four limbs since we crawled out of the ocean 350 million years ago and differentiated ourselves from the lungfish. So have yours. There are no "leg humans" in our past proposed by science.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Christians created almost every major branch of science known to mankind

That makes subsequent Christian attempts to deny science self-contradictory - or hypocritical.