Creationists and atheists agree there is no such thing as evolution primer-fertilizer

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
Creationists and atheists all agree that at one time the earth was a barren planet with absolutely no life on it - - and of course today it does have life on it.

Creationists will say that an infinitely capable Creator created all life on land in a single evening-and-morning on day six of creation week.

Atheists will claim rocks alone did all that over billions of years rocks-to-horse etc as the two end points (for example)

So then "some differences" exist at that point but not on the starting condition.

================================ agreement #2.

But we also agree that there is no such thing as "evolution primer-fertilizer" that one could add tot rocks to make them pop-out life or that one could add to prokaryote cultures to make them pop-out eukaryotes.

Stanley Miller: " People often say maybe some of the special compounds came in from space, but they never say which ones. If you can make these chemicals in the conditions of cosmic dust or a meteorite, I presume you could also make them on the Earth. I think the idea that you need some special unnamed compound from space is hard to support."

But "if there were" such a thing and it was reliable then any time you "add evolution primer" to the culture dish and the prokaryotes did not pop-out eukaryotes you could call that a "fail" of the primer.

And what is more - any time you did not intentionally add the "evolution fertilizer" but the prokaryotes did pop-out eukaryotes over time you might suppose that the experiment was "contaminated" by some stray bits of evolution-fertilizer getting into the experiment.

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

Fortunately there is no such thing as evolutiton-fertilizer or primer so that sort of fail scenario is nothing to worry about.

Hopefully all can agree.

============= and no such thing as evolution limited by "intent"

Not only is there no such thing as evolution-fertilizer but there is also no such thing as " evolution-limited-by-intent-of-observer passively watching" since the observer never had evolution-fertilizer to start with.
 
Last edited:

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,711
3,761
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟242,764.00
Faith
Atheist
Gee, you are really set on that "what we agree on" stuff, aren't you?`

But we also agree that there is no such thing as "evolution primer-fertilizer" that one could add tot rocks to make them pop-out life or that one could add to prokaryote cultures to make them pop-out eukaryotes.

But "if there were" such a thing and it was reliable then any time you "add evolution primer" to the culture dish and the prokaryotes did not pop-out eukaryotes you could call that a "fail" of the primer.
So... if there was an infinitly capable Creator... we would see humans popping-out from dust all the time?
And if we don't see that... that would mean a "fail" of the ICC?
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
So... if there was an infinitly capable Creator... we would see humans popping-out from dust all the time?

Sure if the infinitely capable Creator chose to do that "all the time" instead of just in the evening-and-morning of day 6.

Though we DO have some hints every day as per the infinitely capable creator - because in a single evening-and-morning a plant created by the infinitely capable creator (and not at all present in the barren earth starting condition) daily transforms dirt to plant, and every day a human (and a horse) will eat part of a plant and transform it directly into more human or more-horse as the case may be.

by contrast we do not see rocks doing that today and we do not know of any talent/property in rocks that would have done that in the past.

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

direct observations in nature favor more the Creator's work than the rock's capability to do it.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Bob, if you ever had a desire to actually learn how biological evolution (and basic biology) works, I've got a thread with free educational materials you could take advantage of: Educational resources for learning about biology and evolution

If you are serious about all this "common ground" stuff, the first step is learning what the theory of evolution really says.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,625
81
St Charles, IL
✟347,270.00
Country
United States
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Creationists and atheists all agree that at one time the earth was a barren planet with absolutely no life on it - - and of course today it does have life on it.

Creationists will say that an infinitely capable Creator created all life on land in a single evening-and-morning on day six of creation week.

Atheists will claim rocks alone did all that over billions of years rocks-to-horse etc as the two end points (for example)

So then "some differences" exist at that point but not on the starting condition.

================================ agreement #2.

But we also agree that there is no such thing as "evolution primer-fertilizer" that one could add tot rocks to make them pop-out life or that one could add to prokaryote cultures to make them pop-out eukaryotes.

But "if there were" such a thing and it was reliable then any time you "add evolution primer" to the culture dish and the prokaryotes did not pop-out eukaryotes you could call that a "fail" of the primer.

And what is more - any time you did not intentionally add the "evolution fertilizer" but the prokaryotes did pop-out eukaryotes over time you might suppose that the experiment was "contaminated" by some stray bits of evolution-fertilizer getting into the experiment.

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

Fortunately there is no such thing as evolutiton-fertilizer or primer so that sort of fail scenario is nothing to worry about.

Hopefully all can agree.

============= and no such thing as evolution limited by "intent"

Not only is there no such thing as evolution-fertilizer but there is also no such thing as " evolution-limited-by-intent-of-observer passively watching" since the observer never had evolution-fertilizer to start with.
And a person who is neither a creationist nor an atheist would say that was all tendentious nonsense. You are, at some point, going to have to decide whether you are arguing against the theory of evolution or against atheism.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
And a person who is neither a creationist nor an atheist would say that was all tendentious nonsense. You are, at some point, going to have to decide whether you are arguing against the theory of evolution or against atheism.

Given his conceptional understanding of evolution isn't what the theory of evolution is, he's not really arguing against it.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Freodin

Devout believer in a theologically different God
Mar 9, 2002
15,711
3,761
Germany, Bavaria, Middle Franconia
Visit site
✟242,764.00
Faith
Atheist
Sure if the infinitely capable Creator chose to do that "all the time" instead of just in the evening-and-morning of day 6.

Though we DO have some hints every day as per the infinitely capable creator - because in a single evening-and-morning a plant created by the infinitely capable creator (and not at all present in the barren earth starting condition) daily transforms dirt to plant, and every day a human (and a horse) will eat part of a plant and transform it directly into more human or more-horse as the case may be.

by contrast we do not see rocks doing that today and we do not know of any talent/property in rocks that would have done that in the past.

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

direct observations in nature favor more the Creator's work than the rock's capability to do it.
Wouldn't you think that you are a bit disingenious here?

You discard the problem that we don't have any direct observable evidence of your claim, replace it with something else - something that also fits perfectly in the non-theistic explanation - and then lament that we don't have direct observable evidence of the idea that you reject.

At least be honest and admit that plants and organic chemistry are as much a "hint" towards abiogenesis as to your creator deity.
 
Upvote 0

Hans Blaster

Rocket surgeon
Mar 11, 2017
14,645
11,691
54
USA
✟293,955.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Creationists and atheists all agree that at one time the earth was a barren planet with absolutely no life on it - - and of course today it does have life on it.

"Atheism" doesn't have a position on the nature of the early Earth.

Please stop conflating "scientific consensus" with "non-belief". They are not the same thing.

The "gurus" that posit the position (evolution) opposite to the ones you posit (creation) aren't the atheists they are the scientists. That CF displays all of our faith tags may confuse you or at least reinforces this false notion when you discuss these things with us. I would change mine to "scientist" but for two facts 1) "scientist" isn't an available label, and more importantly 2) "scientist" isn't a faith label or philosophy -- it is a profession.

Yours truely,

"Hans Blaster"
Scientist
 
Upvote 0

Ophiolite

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape
Nov 12, 2008
8,510
9,486
✟236,255.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
But we also agree that there is no such thing as "evolution primer-fertilizer" that one could add tot rocks to make them pop-out life or that one could add to prokaryote cultures to make them pop-out eukaryotes.
I don't agree.
  • Life likely did not emerge from rocks (unless Cairns-Smith was correct)
  • Life likely emerged from a "primeval soup"
  • The primeval soup was likely primed with pre-biotic molecules from incoming bolides
  • For prkaryotes to "pop-out" eukaryotes all you need are:
    • A billion years or so
    • Challenging and changing environments
    • Chance
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Creationists and atheists all agree that at one time the earth was a barren planet with absolutely no life on it - - and of course today it does have life on it.

Creationists will say that an infinitely capable Creator created all life on land in a single evening-and-morning on day six of creation week.

Atheists will claim rocks alone did all that over billions of years rocks-to-horse etc as the two end points (for example)
No, it takes more than just rocks; e.g. water, light, heat, gases, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Given his conceptional understanding of evolution isn't what the theory of evolution is, he's not really arguing against it.
Quite; persistently arguing against an egregious straw man version of evolution is just wasting his (and our) time.

I submit that, given the number of times he's been corrected yet still persists, it's trolling.
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,819
45
✟917,196.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
Quite; persistently arguing against an egregious straw man version of evolution is just wasting his (and our) time.

I submit that, given the number of times he's been corrected yet still persists, it's trolling.
Repeatedly stating falsehoods about someone else's beliefs could reasonably be labelled lying or bearing false witness.
 
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Repeatedly stating falsehoods about someone else's beliefs could reasonably be labelled lying or bearing false witness.

A lot of creationists seem to think they aren't lying though. And they are more than willing to double down on their misconceptions.

But on the other hand, if they didn't rely on misconceptions about science and evolution, they wouldn't have anything to argue about.
 
Upvote 0

Shemjaza

Regular Member
Supporter
Apr 17, 2006
6,200
3,819
45
✟917,196.00
Country
Australia
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
AU-Greens
A lot of creationists seem to think they aren't lying though. And they are more than willing to double down on their misconceptions.

But on the other hand, if they didn't rely on misconceptions about science and evolution, they wouldn't have anything to argue about.
The phrase "Evolution is a lie from Satan and almost all scientists are foolish dupes" could be a honest statement... but repeating specific lies about a belief, experiment or consequence is a different thing.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

pitabread

Well-Known Member
Jan 29, 2017
12,920
13,372
Frozen North
✟329,323.00
Country
Canada
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
The phrase "Evolution is a lie from Satan and almost all scientists are foolish dupes" could be a honest statement... but repeating specific lies about a belief, experiment or consequence is a different thing.

In the context of a regular forum creationist I'm willing to chalk it up to ignorance coupled with Dunning-Kruger.

For professional creationist organizations, however, there is no excuse. I do hold them guilty of deliberately misleading people.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Warden_of_the_Storm

Well-Known Member
Oct 16, 2015
12,130
6,382
29
Wales
✟346,757.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Deist
Marital Status
Single
Atheists will claim rocks alone did all that over billions of years rocks-to-horse etc as the two end points (for example)

I saw you say this on the other thread you started up and I am surprised no-one has said this but:
Please provide one example of an atheist, or anyone for that matter, saying that life only came from rocks alone.

There are hypothetical models for how life started on an early Earth, and not one of them just go "... Rocks turned to single celled organisms."
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
I saw you say this on the other thread you started up and I am surprised no-one has said this but:
Please provide one example of an atheist, or anyone for that matter, saying that life only came from rocks alone.

I can't find even one atheist who will wildly claim to imagine that there was never a time when Earth did not have life on it.

Are you one??

Your profile says you are not atheist.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
No, it takes more than just rocks; e.g. water, light, heat, gases, etc.

well now we are getting some place.

what else are atheists adding to the "mix" that they are so reluctant to state so far?

Because we have gone through a lot of pages of this on different threads where they seem to be satisfied with the fact that at one time that is all there was on planet earth.
 
Upvote 0

BobRyan

Junior Member
Angels Team
Supporter
Nov 21, 2008
51,118
10,507
Georgia
✟899,902.00
Country
United States
Faith
SDA
Marital Status
Married
BobRyan said:
But we also agree that there is no such thing as "evolution primer-fertilizer" that one could add tot rocks to make them pop-out life or that one could add to prokaryote cultures to make them pop-out eukaryotes.

I don't agree.

Are suggesting that you believe that evolutionist have in fact had evolution-fertilizer that they could add to a pile of rocks and at any moment they wished - to then see single celled organisms popping into existence from the barren rocks - but just "did not want to do it" ??

  • Life likely did not emerge from rocks (unless Cairns-Smith was correct)

So then mythical evolution-fertilizer or not "it was not going to happen"??


  • Life likely emerged from a "primeval soup"

Ok so dust, gas, rocks and water mix?? + ?? evolution-fertilizer?

The primeval soup was likely primed with pre-biotic molecules from incoming bolides

ok so rocks fell from the sky that also had no life on them.

So rocks...now have ... more rocks. Are you saying they are special rocks because they fall from the sky?
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Bungle_Bear

Whoot!
Mar 6, 2011
9,084
3,513
✟254,540.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Are suggesting that you believe that evolutionist have in fact had evolution-fertilizer that they could add to a pile of rocks and at any moment they wished - to then see single celled organisms popping into existence from the barren rocks - but just "did not want to do it" ??



So then mythical evolution-fertilizer or not "it was not going to happen"??




Ok so dust, gas, rocks and water mix?? + ?? evolution-fertilizer?



ok so rocks fell from the sky that also had no life on them.

So rocks...now have ... more rocks. Are you saying they are special rocks because they fall from the sky?
In Norse mythology, trolls often live in rocks.
 
Upvote 0