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

[Bungle_Bear]

What if one is neither a creationist nor an atheist?

In the Creationist view you're an atheist. They're binary like that.

 

[Strathos]

In the Creationist view you're an atheist.

Never have been, never will be.

 

[Shemjaza]

start with the basics:

Do you agree with the "all agree" points in the OP? If not can you explain?
( I encourage you to read page 1)


Do you agree with the "obvious details" in this post? #424
if not... can you explain?

I've responded multiple times to your false and misleading statements. You haven't responded in good faith.

You are discussing the development and changes in single celled organisms... if you don't actually accept evidence about their existence and history then getting into details is pointless.

 

[BobRyan]

I've responded multiple times to your false

I have responded multiple times to your posts as well.

But I prefer substantive details.

You are discussing the development and changes in single celled organisms

as already noted on "page 1".

One of the points listed in the OP where both the creationists and atheists agree is that at one time earth had no life on it.


if you don't actually accept evidence about the existence of earth with no life on it -- we are not going to get very far.

If you don't accept the evidence that we have a lot of diversity of life on Earth today - we are not going to get very far.

If you don't note the details on page one contrasting the "skill/capability/property" needed in the rocks by the atheist solution to get to a single celled organism... we are not going to get very far.

Accepting the existence and the history is key to being able to understand the points made.

 

[BobRyan]

In the Creationist view you're an atheist. They're binary like that.

said the agnostic.

Let's have a Creationist make the statement instead. To see if it is remotely true.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
4. Everyone agrees that evolutionists like to think that modern humans evolved in less than 200,000 years which only accounts for about 6000 generations.

Evolution of Modern Humans: Early Modern Homo sapiens.

"All people today are classified as Homo sapiens. Our species of humans first began to evolve nearly 200,000 years ago in association with technologies not unlike those of the early Neandertals."

Modern humans appeared 200,000; civilization 10,000; and advanced technology 500 years ago.
Modern Humans Emerged 200,000 Years Ago. Why Was Technology Stagnant Until The Last 10,000?

Where Was the Birthplace of Modern Humans?
It was from somewhere in the African continent, most scientists believe, that modern humans evolved around 200,000 years ago before spreading across the world and becoming the dominant species we are today.

No, no they don't.

Well feel free to differ. you have free will.

None of your sources support your claim.

until you read them.

They say that modern humans appeared 200,000 years ago.

You just debunked your own claim.

That is not the same as "it took 200,000 years to evolve."

punctuated equilibrium is funny that way. It means they think it happened much faster than that.

How Long Have Humans Been On Earth?.

Homo sapiens, who are the modern form of humans evolved 300,000 years ago from Homo erectus. Human civilizations started forming around 6,000 years ago.

they can't evolve if they don't appear.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Well feel free to differ. you have free will.


until you read them.



You just debunked your own claim.



punctuated equilibrium is funny that way. It means they think it happened much faster than that.

Lol. English is not your strong suit, is it?

 

[Gene2memE]

Well feel free to differ. you have free will.

You're reading your sources, but I'm not sure you're understanding them. Just because homo sapiens emerged about 200,000 years ago**, it doesn't mean their speciation took 200,000 years.

That's like arguing that because the cake was finished baking 5 minutes ago, it took 5 minutes to make.

**Actually, homo sapiens dates back at least 365,000 years given finds in Morocco and South Africa in the last few years.

Human speciation is still a murky topic and there's still work going on. The picture isn't totally clear, and there's more to be discovered. What is clear is that human evolutionary history is an extremely complex topic.

Here's a recent overview: Deciphering African late middle Pleistocene hominin diversity and the origin of our species

 

[BobRyan]

You're reading your sources, but I'm not sure you're understanding them. Just because homo sapiens emerged about 200,000 years ago**, it doesn't mean their speciation took 200,000 years.

With punctuated equillibrium stories in place - it means it took much less time than that.

The "punctuating" part - is between 300,000 and 200,000 years ago.

How Long Have Humans Been On Earth?.

Homo sapiens, who are the modern form of humans evolved 300,000 years ago from Homo erectus. Human civilizations started forming around 6,000 years ago.

But I feel bad about only giving atheists a 100,000 year window - so I make it 200,000

 

[pitabread]

nope it is not the case

It's really weird to see someone so in denial, they'd even deny the existence of posts visible to everyone who reads this thread. I wonder what that must be like, to be so unaccepting of reality...

 

[pitabread]

What if one is neither a creationist nor an atheist?

They apparently don't exist in the OP's world.

 

[Gene2memE]

With punctuated equillibrium stories in place - it means it took much less time than that.

The "punctuating" part - is between 300,000 and 200,000 years ago.

But I feel bad about only giving atheists a 100,000 year window - so I make it 200,000

You're relying on pop sci and general sources for a technical scientific argument? Well done there....

From the paper I linked:

Following from these results, it is possible to tentatively draw a framework for the origin of H. sapiens. The speciation process appears to have been complex, going through different phases that may not have contributed to the genetic and phenotypic structure of current modern human populations. A first stage of phenotypic diversification, from 350 to 200 ka, may have happened locally with different contemporary populations forming local morphs of pre-H. sapiens groups as they are represented in the LMP fossil record. This phase may have been followed by a period of fragmentation and differential expansion of populations leading to hybridisation and coalescence of groups, which could have resulted in the emergence of morphologically derived populations of anatomically modern humans between 200 to 100 ka, as exemplified by the fossils from Herto, Skhūl and Qafzeh. Nevertheless, our results suggest that it is unlikely that all LMP local populations would have contributed equally, or at all, to the lineage that gave rise to the population ancestral to H. sapiens; local extinctions and founder effects would have shaped considerably the emergence of anatomically modern humans​

Your gross oversimplification of the topic is undercutting your argument.

Here's a question: If a species is identified as having started existing 200,000 to 300,000 years ago, how can you tell how long it took to evolve into a morphologically distict species from its ancestors?

 

[Hans Blaster]

What if one is neither a creationist nor an atheist?

That's just unpossible! Why is that so hard to understand!!!!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

With punctuated equillibrium stories in place - it means it took much less time than that.

The "punctuating" part - is between 300,000 and 200,000 years ago.



But I feel bad about only giving atheists a 100,000 year window - so I make it 200,000

Could you please quote the exact passage where your source says how long it took homo sapiens to evolve? I can't see it.

 

[Speedwell]

your attention to detail and substantive reply to the facts given above is ... as expected which is another illustration of the point I made -- that nothing has been refuted or disproven by that level of "substance" in the replies so far.

Except to point out the logical fallacy in your argument.

 

[Speedwell]

said the agnostic.

Let's have a Creationist make the statement instead. To see if it is remotely true.

They can't. Although it is frequently attempted, it is violation of the ToS and us quickly reported.

But all of your arguments are directed against atheists. What is your plan? To proceed against non-creationist theists separately?

 

[BobRyan]

What if one is neither a creationist nor an atheist?

Then that person might not find this thread as interesting as the other two groups.

ok so there we have "logic"... "reason" in response

or we could resort instead to --

They apparently don't exist in the OP's world.

or to --

That's just unpossible! Why is that so hard to understand!!!!

so then.. "logic"... "reason" ... that would be a good set of tools to use when an atheist comes to a Christian website to discuss topics like this because it results in a more compelling argument for them.

I highly recommend it.

 

[BobRyan]

It's really weird to see someone so in denial,

Post a fact..let's test that.

 

[BobRyan]

Could you please quote the exact passage where your source says how long it took homo sapiens to evolve? I can't see it.

Read page 1 and see it for yourself - when you can spare the time between the dance steps in our icon

 

[Speedwell]

Then that person might not find this thread as interesting as the other two groups.

LOL! It is certainly amusing to see you attempt to discredit atheism by attacking science--when the science is exactly the same for non-creationist theists.

so then.. "logic"... "reason" ... that would be a good set of tools to use when an atheist comes to a Christian website to discuss topics like this because it results in a more compelling argument for them.

I highly recommend it.

You might even try it yourself.