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

[Citizen of the Kingdom]

Creationists and evolutionists can agree as to the fraction of a second in time anything of mankind is/has existed. Creationists to God’s selection of mankind, and evolutionists to the continuity of existence with or without humanity. The balance seems to lie in the in-between. Continiututy of the gap between Genesis 1:1-2 of course the factor that unites.

 

[BobRyan]

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

Indeed why would any Christian want to deny science.

In fact most major branches of sciences were started by Christians.

 

[BobRyan]

Clearly you're not very good at analogies. .

atheists have said worse - so that is almost a compliment and of course not factual

 

[BobRyan]

My ancestors have had four limbs since we crawled out of the ocean 350 million years ago .

Well I sincerely hope you all had fun doing it.

 

[BobRyan]

Further, hypotheses in science aren't "just a story". They are usually based on specific observations and would make testable predictions. .

Specifically based on NOT observing a bunch of odd mythical single-cell organelles (perhaps 12 different types of them) all floating around and then noticing a prokaryote that lacked all of those organelles and so "piling in" to make it a prokaryote-eating eukaryote. So "yeah" -- "not THAT observation".

Creationists and atheists likely agree on this observation not happening in real life - as well.

 

[Speedwell]

Specifically based on NOT observing a bunch of odd mythical single-cell organelles (perhaps 12 different types of them) all floating around and then noticing a prokaryote that lacked all of those organelles and so "piling in" to make it a prokaryote-eating eukaryote. So "yeah" -- "not THAT observation".

Creationists and atheists likely agree on this observation not happening in real life - as well.

Definitely not that observation.

 

[pitabread]

Specifically based on NOT observing a bunch of odd mythical single-cell organelles (perhaps 12 different types of them) all floating around and then noticing a prokaryote that lacked all of those organelles and so "piling in" to make it a prokaryote-eating eukaryote. So "yeah" -- "not THAT observation".

Creationists and atheists likely agree on this observation not happening in real life - as well.

Your sarcasm is noted.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Creationists and atheists likely agree on...

Doubtful, but what about the other half of people. In my country (and apparently yours) about 10-30% of the people are creationists (in the fashion you seem to use) and 5-10% are atheists (in the fashion that I would use) what about all of those who are neither.

 

[durangodawood]

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.

I completely agree. I could easily tell that story. Straight face not guaranteed tho.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Indeed why would any Christian want to deny science.

You'd have to ask them; more to the point, why would you straw man it - ignorance or malice?

In fact most major branches of sciences were started by Christians.

Such as?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

In fact most major branches of sciences were started by Christians.

Physics - had been around for centuries before Christ was born.
Chemistry - Jabir ibn Hayyan, a 9th century Muslim, is known as "the father of chemistry"
Biology - like physics, biology far pre-dates the arrival of Christ. Arguably this would be the oldest branch of science, since knowledge of plants and animals would have been necessary for any form of neolithic medicine and agriculture.

So, which major branches were started by Christians?

 

[BobRyan]

Physics - had been around for centuries before Christ was born.

Sounds like another "Creationists and atheists can all agree on this" statement.

I think you are getting the hang of this.

 

[BobRyan]

Chemistry - Jabir ibn Hayyan, a 9th century Muslim, is known as "the father of chemistry"

As I said "almost every major branch of science" --

And of course you did not select --

Hayyan writes no text called "Elements of Chemistry" .. and the Egyptians prove he was not the first person to know about chemical reactions or chemical compounds.

Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier, who wrote the book, "Elements of Chemistry," in 1787. He compiled the first complete—at that time—list of elements, discovered and named oxygen and hydrogen, helped develop the metric system, helped revise and standardize chemical nomenclature, and discovered that matter retains its mass even when it changes forms.


Other people sometimes known as the father of modern chemistry are Robert Boyle, Jöns Berzelius, and John Dalton.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

As I said "almost every major branch of science"

Yet you have agreed that physics and chemistry are not Christian conceptions and you haven't provided a single example of a major branch of science which actually was started by Christians.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Other people sometimes known as the father of modern chemistry are Robert Boyle, Jöns Berzelius, and John Dalton.

Success has many fathers, failure none.

 

[dlamberth]

Indeed why would any Christian want to deny science.

In fact most major branches of sciences were started by Christians.

What I don't understand than, is why so many Christians do deny science.

 

[BobRyan]

What I don't understand than, is why so many Christians do deny science.

I don't know of any that do. All of my science teachers were creationists until about half way through my university science and engineering program and that includes the biophysics classes.

 

[BobRyan]

Yet you have agreed that physics and chemistry are not Christian conceptions

all the creationists with PHD's in chemistry and physics that I took courses from at the university would agree that those sciences are 100% compatible with the Christian world view ... in fact the Creationist world view.

 

[pitabread]

all the creationists with PHD's in chemistry and physics that I took courses from at the university would agree that those sciences are 100% compatible with the Christian world view.

A Christian world view, yes. A creationist world view, not so much.

 

[BobRyan]

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

Indeed why would any Christian want to deny science.

In fact most major branches of sciences were started by Christians.

(obviously -- no straw man in that statement)

You'd have to ask them; more to the point, why would you straw man it - ignorance or malice?

More logic... more reason please.