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

[BobRyan]

No.

The term "lifeless rock" was simply a reference to an earlier Earth by the interviewer.

An earlier point of time on this same Earth - as noted in the OP -- the agreed upon start point where there is no life on Earth.

This again - is the easy part and both Creationists and atheists (at least those in that interiew) freely agree to it.

It was used in a strictly metaphorical/colloquial fashion - obviously. And we continue to use it that way to this very day.

It was *not* meant to be an accurate or exhaustive description of the starting conditions other than the fact that earth had no life on it at one time in the past... again... obviously.

 

[BobRyan]

duplicate

 

[BobRyan]

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, .

I am happy to quote the OP for you - so you can see it "again".

Atheists in this interview both pointing to this same Earth in the past having no life on it. The starting point.

Q: Some 4.6 billion years ago the planet was a lifeless rock, a billion years later it was teeming with early forms of life. Where is the dividing line between pre-biotic and biotic Earth and how is this determined?

Answer: (Stanley Miller) :" ... A new discovery reported in the journal Nature indicates evidence for life some 300 million years before that. We presume there was life earlier, but there is no evidence beyond that point.

Obviously they both point to that same no-life condition. Very difficult to miss this detail.

===================
next we note that they do not argue for evolution fertilizer from outer space

“As long as you have those basic chemicals and a reducing atmosphere, you have everything you need. 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.

===================
Next we note the nature of the "story" that has "all sorts of speculations"

We really don't know what the Earth was like three or four billion years ago. So there are all sorts of theories and speculations. The major uncertainty concerns what the atmosphere was like. This is major area of dispute...

..
There is another part of the story. In 1969 a carbonaceous meteorite fell in Murchison Australia. It turned out the meteorite had high concentrations of amino acids, about 100 ppm, and they were the same kind of amino acids you get in prebiotic experiments like mine. This discovery made it plausible that similar processes could have happened on primitive Earth, on an asteroid, or for that matter, anywhere else the proper conditions exist.

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.

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

So what is your answer? where we simply "not supposed to notice"??

 

[Speedwell]

I am happy to quote the OP for you - so you can see it "again".

Atheists in this interview both pointing to this same Earth in the past having no life on it. The starting point.



Obviously they both point to that same no-life condition. Very difficult to miss this detail.

===================
next we note that they do not argue for evolution fertilizer from outer space


===================
Next we note the nature of the "story" that has "all sorts of speculations"



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.

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

So what is your answer? where we simply "not supposed to notice"??

Why do you keep cherry-picking quotes from a chemist who's been dead for 14 years and hadn't done any scientific work since the last century? Why do you see him as an authority on contemporary research on abiogenesis?

 

[Shemjaza]

An earlier point of time on this same Earth - as noted in the OP -- the agreed upon start point where there is no life on Earth.

This again - is the easy part and both Creationists and atheists (at least those in that interiew) freely agree to it.

It was used in a strictly metaphorical/colloquial fashion - obviously. And we continue to use it that way to this very day.

It was *not* meant to be an accurate or exhaustive description of the starting conditions other than the fact that earth had no life on it at one time in the past... again... obviously.

Thank you for acknowledging that life from lifeless rock is not in any way a reasonable literal interpretation of abiogenesis for any one who accepts its plausibility.

Given that the creation/evolution discussion very much hinges on literal descriptions of events can you please cease using it as it is both false as a literal statement and a total distraction from any civil discussion.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I am happy to quote the OP for you - so you can see it "again".

Atheists in this interview both pointing to this same Earth in the past having no life on it. The starting point.

You keep saying that Stanley Miller and the person interviewing him are atheists but you have not once given a single shred of evidence to support your claim that they are atheists.

And to me, that smacks of you lying.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Why do you keep cherry-picking quotes from a chemist who's been dead for 14 years and hadn't done any scientific work since the last century? Why do you see him as an authority on contemporary research on abiogenesis?

This is what I mean by creationists treating science like Gospel and scientists like some sort of apostle. It makes no sense.

 

[BobRyan]

Why do you keep cherry-picking quotes from a chemist who's been dead for 14 years

1. I never make up rules about not quoting scientists who died earlier than 2008
2. I never make up rules about not calling life-less Earth a life-less rock
3. I never make up rules about not calling someone with no religious affiliation an atheist.

All these "tiny nits" being inserted into a thread where the obvious details on page one are irrefutable -- are to be expected - because there is nothing else left given that my "page one" statements are affirmed even by atheists.

 

[pitabread]

An earlier point of time on this same Earth - as noted in the OP -- the agreed upon start point where there is no life on Earth.

Then why not just say that? Just say "there was a point in time when there was no life on Earth".

There is no reason to color the discussion beyond that.

This again - is the easy part and both Creationists and atheists (at least those in that interiew) freely agree to it.

There is no indication of whether the individuals are atheists. That seems to be a gross assumption on your part (not to mention completely irrelevant).

It was used in a strictly metaphorical/colloquial fashion - obviously. And we continue to use it that way to this very day.

It was *not* meant to be an accurate or exhaustive description of the starting conditions other than the fact that earth had no life on it at one time in the past... again... obviously.

The problem is that it's not "obvious" because you keep posting things that are a distortion of abiogenesis and/or evolution. Such as in your other thread, where you stated, 'Atheist claims of the form "rocks can do whatever they want when coming up with a horse over time"'.

So I can't give you the benefit of the doubt in these discussions, because you keep posting things that suggest you aren't understanding the context of what is being discussed.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
An earlier point of time on this same Earth - as noted in the OP -- the agreed upon start point where there is no life on Earth.

Then why not just say that?

I did ... "lifeless rock" -- see page 1, post 1,

Even the interview with Miller uses that same term and Miller affirms it with his comment about a point in time where there is no life on Earth.

The point remains... simple,,,,easy ... obvious.

Why get stuck on the easy part?

 

[BobRyan]

There is no indication of whether the individuals are atheists. .

until you look into the details.

Rather than hoping that pans out why not say something about "atheists can never use the term lifeless rock" or something of that sort? Show that you are making some point that would matter to the topic.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

until you look into the details.

Then maybe you can present us with these details then, since you seem to claim that you have them at hand.

 

[Speedwell]

BobRyan said: ↑
An earlier point of time on this same Earth - as noted in the OP -- the agreed upon start point where there is no life on Earth.



I did ... "lifeless rock" -- see page 1, post 1,

Even the interview with Miller uses that same term and Miller affirms it with his comment about a point in time where there is no life on Earth.

The point remains... simple,,,,easy ... obvious.

Why get stuck on the easy part?

Because you don't seem interested in moving your argument along. Nothing to do put pick nits.

 

[BobRyan]

No.

The term "lifeless rock" was simply a reference to an earlier Earth by the interviewer.

An earlier point of time on this same Earth - as noted in the OP -- the agreed upon start point where there is no life on Earth.

This again - is the easy part and both Creationists and atheists (at least those in that interiew) freely agree to it.

It was used in a strictly metaphorical/colloquial fashion - obviously. And we continue to use it that way to this very day.

It was *not* meant to be an accurate or exhaustive description of the starting conditions other than the fact that earth had no life on it at one time in the past... again... obviously.

The problem is that it's not "obvious"

Yes it is and you just as much as admitted it in your statement above. That is "you" pointing out the incredibly obvious meaning for "lifeless rock" in that quote above.

the point remains. We can all see ... and apparently that includes you.

 

[pitabread]

until you look into the details.

What details?

Do you have evidence these individuals are atheists? If not, then you have no basis for claiming that.

 

[pitabread]

Yes it is and you just as much as admitted it in your statement above. That is "you" pointing out the incredibly obvious meaning for "lifeless rock" in that quote above.

It's obvious to me. I'm just not sure it's obvious to you, given your statements like, 'Atheist claims of the form "rocks can do whatever they want when coming up with a horse over time"'.

If you want the benefit of the doubt, you'll have to earn it.

 

[SkyWriting]

Faith is not needed to accept evolution. Only evidence.

Evidence taken on faith that it is evidence or even relevant.
Handly any scientific explanation does not include any belief.

 

[VirOptimus]

Evidence taken on faith that it is evidence or even relevant.
Handly any scientific explanation does not include any belief.

No, thats not how science works.

 

[SkyWriting]

No, thats not how science works.

My entire career was in Research and Development so I know how Scientists do their work. Very very normally as anyone else does their work. Chock full of bias and ego and the constant search for profits. I even interviewed with a Head Researcher in a Lazer Lab and asked him about doing "Basic Research" as the job description suggested. He was looking at how lazers changed the properties of plastics and metals to restrict or filter differing frequencies in optical fibers.
He explained that all research was for profit.

 

[VirOptimus]

My entire career was in Research and Development so I know how Scientists do their work. Very very normally as anyone else does their work. Chock full of bias and ego and the constant search for profits. I even interviewed with a Head Researcher in a Lazer Lab and asked him about doing "Basic Research" as the job description suggested. He was looking at how lazers changed the properties of plastics and metals to restrict or filter differing frequencies in optical fibers.
He explained that all research was for profit.

My points stand.

You dont understand science or the scientific method.