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

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

you are free to participate or not.. I am not forcing you to do anything - and you apparently know absolutely nothing about biophysics or my university studies - which is fine, that is not the topic of this thread. Feel free to ignore all the details that you wish.

This is a common sense thread but never claims that there are not two sides here.

obviously.

But you're not talking about common sense. You are spouting lies and creating strawmen and then when you are told that you are wrong and that you are given information that proves you wrong, you ignore it and pretend that they don't exist. Such as the fact you decided to ignore a full half of the post you replied to above that shows that you are wrong.

If you think a scientific hypothesis is 'begging the question', along with you calling it an 'imagination-suggestion', with absolutely zero evidence that you have any actual scientific credentials of your own to speak of, then I don't think you're very qualified to make any statements on the science behind abiogenesis or evolution.
In short: the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

 

[pitabread]

some will take their position on that idea. I don't mind the contrast.

On the contrary - there is a vast amount of common sense in actual science.

Let's test that then.

Common sense would dictate that the Earth is flat. Do you think the Earth is flat?

 

[BobRyan]

But you're not talking about common sense. You are spouting lies

totally false.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

totally false.

Your claim that atheists believe that life began simply from lifeless rocks has been shown repeatedly to be in error since you have not once presented anyone who makes or supports that claim.
Ipso facto, that's a lie.

And if you're going to reply to my posts, please do so in full. It's basic forum etiquette and it also shows some degree of honesty on your part. I respond to your posts in full.

 

[BobRyan]

Let's test that then.

Common sense would dictate that the Earth is flat. Do you think the Earth is flat?

your view of it might.

But Common Sense tells us that it is not - as noted by objects in the distance appearing from the top when looking out over the ocean and the fact that other bodies in our solar system including our mood - are all round we would expect that our own planet is also a sphere.

Common sense has proven to be quite useful in science.

 

[BobRyan]

Your claim that atheists believe that life began simply from lifeless rocks

Is true - since atheists have "no other source" and claiming "no they claim it came here from another lifeless rock that managed to come up with life" does not solve the problem for you - though you have imagined it would.

logic is funny that way.

hint: "terms and phrases" added to OP for the sake clarity and to help get the discussion beyond the simple, easy, obvious

 

[pitabread]

your view of it might.

But Common Sense tells us that it is not - as noted by objects in the distance appearing from the top when looking out over the ocean and the fact that other bodies in our solar system including our mood - are all round we would expect that our own planet is also a sphere.

Common sense has proven to be quite useful in science.

What you're describing isn't common sense though. You're talking about taking specific observations and then constructing a model to explain them (in lieu of a model that doesn't).

Let's try another:

Common sense dictates that heavier objects fall faster than lighter objects? Do you believe this to be true?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Is true - since atheists have "no other source" and claiming "no they claim it came here from another lifeless rock that managed to come up with life" does not solve the problem for you - though you have imagined it would.

Science is funny that way.

Except that it's not true because, as I said in the post that you decided to disingenuously not quote in full said:
Your claim that atheists believe that life began simply from lifeless rocks has been shown repeatedly to be in error since you have not once presented anyone who makes or supports that claim.
Ipso facto, that's a lie.

Show that the claim is in fact true by showing an atheist who has uncategorically said that life simply began from lifeless rocks.

And your insipid claim about panspermia really shows that you do not even understand the science that you are railing against because the very basic principal of the panspermia hypothesis posits that ORGANIC MATTER, AKA LIFE, was carried from outer space to Earth via asteroids. So again, you are lying.

 

[pitabread]

Is true - since atheists have "no other source" and claiming "no they claim it came here from another lifeless rock that managed to come up with life" does not solve the problem for you - though you have imagined it would.

What is your citation for this claim?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What is your citation for this claim?

Let make a stab in the dark: It's common sense!

 

[BobRyan]

Your claim that atheists believe that life began simply from lifeless rocks

Is true - since atheists have "no other source" and claiming "no they claim it came here from another lifeless rock that managed to come up with life" does not solve the problem for you - though you have imagined it would.

logic is funny that way.

hint: "terms and phrases" added to OP for the sake clarity and to help get the discussion beyond the simple, easy, obvious

We notice terms in that interview with Miller - such as:
"Lifeless rock"
"all sorts of theories and speculation"
"another part of the story"
"prebiotic" experiment as in the case with the Urey-Miller experiment
.. terms that might also get used again in this thread.

What is your citation for this claim?

citation and reference added to help "explain the obvious" -- which is in reference to something that both sides apparently have references that admit to certain details in the obvious starting conditions. admitting.

Let make a stab in the dark: It's common sense!

agreed.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Is true - since atheists have "no other source" and claiming "no they claim it came here from another lifeless rock that managed to come up with life" does not solve the problem for you - though you have imagined it would.

logic is funny that way.

hint: "terms and phrases" added to OP for the sake clarity and to help get the discussion beyond the simple, easy, obvious

You keep saying that is the case, but you have not once shown an example of an atheist saying that.

agreed.

I was absolutely and wholeheartedly mocking you when I typed that. Because you have done absolutely nothing to back up any of your claims while the people who argue against you have done all the work.

So I will say, wholly and categorically, that you are lying.

Also, you REALLY need to learn how the quote function works.

 

[pitabread]

Also, you REALLY need to learn how the quote function works.

Seriously. It's difficult enough to try to figure out what Bob is trying to say most of the time...

 

[BobRyan]

You keep saying that is the case, but you have not once shown an example of an atheist saying that.

read the OP or the part of it I just quoted to you.

 

[BobRyan]

Seriously. It's difficult enough to try to figure out what Bob is trying to say most of the time...

Only when false accusations don't pan out. As in the case of the "lifeless rock" term used in the Miller Interview -- confirming that both sides actually do agree to the starting conditions (as we all already knew)

Stating the obvious should not have to be done "so often". Let's move past the easy part.

 

[pitabread]

read the OP or the part of it I just quoted to you.

Has Stanley Miller ever talked about his personal beliefs? I tried looking up to see if there is anything on this, but can't find it.

 

[pitabread]

As in the case of the "lifeless rock" term used in the Miller Interview -- confirming that both sides actually do agree to the starting conditions (as we all already knew)

No.

The term "lifeless rock" was simply a reference to an earlier Earth by the interviewer. It was used in a strictly metaphorical/colloquial fashion. It was *not* meant to be an accurate or exhaustive description of the starting conditions.

Miller himself didn't use that term. Instead he referenced a reducing atmosphere and organic compounds, which is *not* the same thing as "lifeless rock".

Stating the obvious should not have to be done "so often". Let's move past the easy part.

We can move past it once you start representing the science of abiogenesis and evolution correctly. Otherwise, we'll be forever correcting your continued misrepresentations.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

read the OP or the part of it I just quoted to you.

You mean the OP where you deliberately misconstrue a question asked to Stanley Miller, a person who you have no idea about their person beliefs?
You mean the OP where you clearly don't know what honest conjecture is, and where you seek to place some idiotic blame on Stanley Miller for being honest about him not knowing the actual truth of the matter?

Yes, I have read the OP, and that still does not answer my question at all. Show me an atheist who said that life began with lifeless rock, or admit that you made that claim up.

And be an honest Christian and actually reply to the whole of this post instead of picking and choosing you want to reply to.

 

[SelfSim]

You mean the OP where you deliberately misconstrue a question asked to Stephen Miller, a person who you have no idea about their person beliefs?

Trump's political advisor? Yikes!

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Trump's political advisor? Yikes!

Honestly, I didn't even know I got the name wrong until I looked at another thread (about the same bloody topic too), and I saw that his name was Stanley.
No idea why I wrote Stephen.
But I did.