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

pitabread · Jan 20, 2021

Gene2memE said:
Yeah, there was "no advancement" through the paleolithic. None at all.

It's worth noting they took that claim from some random question on Quora. It seems an odd thing to take someone else's misconception and then try to present it as an argument.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jan 22, 2021

BobRyan said:
But rocks, dust, gas, and sunlight will never turn into a horse ... nor even be able to turn a bacteria into a horse ... in all of time. They don't "have that as a property of matter" and they don't have the ability to "acquire the skill over time"

Why?

BobRyan · Jan 28, 2021

BobRyan said: ↑
But rocks, dust, gas, and sunlight will never turn into a horse ... nor even be able to turn a bacteria into a horse ... in all of time. They don't "have that as a property of matter" and they don't have the ability to "acquire the skill over time

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Why?

Good response illustrating the choice in the OP...

as noted before

BobRyan said:
1. It is reasonable to suppose that -Atheists will argue that no such being "exists".

2. It is reasonable to supposed that Creationists will argue that "no such talented rock exists" (nor even an aggregation of rocks able to do it)

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

out of curiosity since you quote from the OP -- did you actually read the entire OP?

BobRyan · Jan 28, 2021

========================= from page 1... post #11 ===============

Speedwell said:
And there are two scenarios: One is based on a shallow and theologically inadequate interpretation of ...

true -- of "what rocks can do"...

Yes.. I know.

Ophiolite said: ↑
I will argue that once a self sustaining, reproducible (with error) biochemical complex has been established there is nothing - bar chance - to stop it becoming a horse. And if it does not become a horse it will become something else, alive and potentially evolviing.

now more "science fact" to compare with the bacteria-transform story about rocks becoming horses over time - or even bacteria becoming horses over time (no matter how many times one says "billions" like Sagan)

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

The "bacteria-transform to some new level of taxonomy on the way to horse" story has never been observed to happen not even with observations over 70,0000 generations in the case of a species many time more genetically adaptive than humans.

(And all agree there is no such thing as evolution-fertilizer or evolution-limited-by-intent-of-observer Creationists and atheists agree there is no such thing as evolution primer-fertilizer )

So now - an experiment without the mythical "evolution-fertilizer" that all agree -- does not exist.

E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia

The E. coli long-term evolution experiment (LTEE) is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since 24 February 1988.[2] The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations in February 2010.[3] Lenski performed the 10,000th transfer of the experiment on March 13, 2017.[4] The populations reached 73,500 generations in early 2020, shortly before being frozen because of the COVID-19 pandemic.[5][6]

And of course 73,500 generations for bacteria translates to around 2.94 Million years for humans.

Whereas "modern humans" supposedly arrive in about 200,000 years according to "the story". Some will argue that is giving wayy too much time for it since their story claims there are no homo erectus more recent than 143,000 years ago and no modern humans more than 200,000 years ago.

The 7 Homo Species Close to Present Humans That Existed on the Earth.

Which means it took no more than 57,000 years for the complete transition to modern humans to take place, by their own story telling. (I don't use that smaller number because it is already a big enough challenge for atheists to get from barren earth rock to horse in the billions of year they imagine for it).

(Actually modern human evolution is limited to more like 10,000 years given the 190,000 years of "no advancement" argument below )

Modern Humans Emerged 200,000 Years Ago. Why Was Technology Stagnant Until The Last 10,000?

Modern humans appeared 200,000; civilization 10,000; and advanced technology 500 years ago. Why no advancement for something like 190,000 years? originally appeared on Quora: the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world.

Answer by Richard Muller, Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley, author of Now, The Physics of Time, on Quora:

Modern humans appeared 200,000; civilization 10,000; and advanced technology 500 years ago. Why no advancement for something like 190,000 years?

====================================== end post #11

Bungle_Bear said:
Is this the passage you think says modern humans took 200,000 years to evolve? .

Are you following the details?

pitabread · Jan 28, 2021

BobRyan said:
The "bacteria-transform to some new level of taxonomy on the way to horse" story has never been observed to happen not even with observations over 70,0000 generations in the case of a species many time more genetically adaptive than humans.

As has been stated, your conceptual understanding of evolution appears to assume that evolution is strictly linear progression of pre-defined species over time.

That's not how evolution works.

As long as you keep clinging to this misconception of evolution, you're not actually arguing against evolution. You're just arguing against your own strawman.

(Not to mention you still don't appear to understand the difference in scope between an experiment involving bacteria in beakers in a lab, versus evolution of organisms in a global ecosystem.)

BobRyan · Jan 28, 2021

pitabread said:
As has been stated, your conceptual understanding of evolution appears to assume that evolution is strictly linear progression of pre-defined species over time.

this thread assumes that the starting condition is a lifeless planet -- (a rock and a glass of water) if you will.

The OP question is whether it is more reasonable to suppose that it went from rock to "horse" via an infinitely capable designer/Creator -- or if it is more reasonable to hope that an infinitely wise and capable rock somehow pulled that off over eons of time and luck.

As for how eukaryotes came into being - well you are stuck with non-eukaryotes "to get there", and it is harder to hide evolution stories at that point since we can actually see prokaryotes and watch them in real life over 10's of thousands of generations.

pitabread · Jan 28, 2021

BobRyan said:
The OP question is whether it is more reasonable to suppose that it more reasonable to get to "horse" with an infinitely capable designer/Creator than an infinitely wise and capable rock.

Your "question" is based on a strawman representation of abiogenesis/evolution and therefore is irrelevant.

You're not talking about biological evolution. You're just setting up your own strawman and then arguing against it.

As for how eukaryotes came into being - well you are stuck with non-eukaryotes "to get there", and it is harder to hide evolution stories at that point since we can actually see prokaryotes and watch them in real life over 10's of thousands of generations.

It's been repeatedly explained to you why the Lenski experiment isn't relevant here, but it's falling on deaf ears. You don't understand that experiment and you appear to not want to understand that experiment.

You're just arguing against a strawman.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jan 28, 2021

BobRyan said:
out of curiosity since you quote from the OP -- did you actually read the entire OP?

I read the whole OP. It was just nonsense, but out of all of it, large just an argument from incredulity, that stuck out the most to be and you never actually answer my question, you just doubled down on your claim. You never answered 'why' dust can't turn into a horse or even bacteria.

Bungle_Bear · Jan 28, 2021

BobRyan said:
Are you following the details?

Yep. Interesting that, rather than answer the question, you pretend the lack of understanding is mine.

For the record, your claim that it took modern humans 200,000 years to evolve is not supported by anything on page 1 or, indeed, any other page of this thread.

BobRyan · Jan 29, 2021

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
I read the whole OP. It was just nonsense,

I am happy to explain any part of it you might wish to discuss.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
large just an argument from incredulity, that stuck out the most

It is true that "incredible" vs credibility is the theme when addressing the logic/reason behind attributing a baren-earth-to-horse sequence to a sufficiently talented being .. vs a sufficiently talented rock.

You never answered 'why' dust can't turn into a horse or even bacteria.

In physics and chemistry one thing you learn is that matter has properties... and that is not one of them.

Do you think that properties of dust such as element with atomic weight or valence numbers or electron spin or atomic mass or inertia or potential vs kinetic energy ... will drive dust to turn into a rabbit over time?

If so then lets just put you down as "a yes".

I am happy with that outcome as the OP also freely states

I believe the contrast is "instructive" for the unbiased objective readers.

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

If you say "no I am not convinced that those properties for matter will dictate that a pile of dust will turn into a monkey over time given billions and billions of years to do it".

I am also fine with that outcome as well.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jan 29, 2021

BobRyan said:
I am happy to explain any part of it you might wish to discuss.

It is true that "incredulity" is the theme when addressing the logic/reason behind attributing a barran-earth-to-horse sequence to a sufficiently talented being .. vs a sufficiently talented rock.

In physics and chemistry one thing you learn is that matter has properties... and that is not one of them.

Do you think that properties of dust such as element with atomic weight or valence numbers or electron spin or atomic mass or inertia or potential vs kinetic energy ... will drive dust to turn into a rabbit over time?

If so then lets just put you down as "a yes".

I am happy with that outcome as the OP also freely states

I believe the contrast is "instructive" for the unbiased objective readers.

Let me ask this question: do you have any degrees in chemistry or biology, where you feel confident in making these statements to try and say that the theory of abiogenesis (not evolution, abiogenesis) is wrong?

BobRyan · Jan 29, 2021

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Let me ask this question: do you have any degrees in chemistry or biology, where you feel confident in making these statements to try and say that the theory of abiogenesis (not evolution, abiogenesis) is wrong?

yes

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jan 29, 2021

BobRyan said:
yes

And that degree is or those degrees are...?

BobRyan · Jan 29, 2021

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
And that degree is or those degrees are...?

biophysics

let me ask you - do you have any information telling you that rocks have a property that dictates that they will turn into a rabbit over time???

And what would that property be?

Recall there is such a thing as entropy.

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jan 29, 2021

BobRyan said:
biophysics

let me ask you - do you have any information telling you that that rocks have a property that dictates that they will turn into a rabbit over time???

And what would that property be?

Recall there is such a thing as entropy.

What level of a degree is this?

I'm only asking, because you are an anonymous user on a website which has no bearing on actual scientific discourse or discovery and you feel that you can simply say that abiogenesis cannot happen.
In fact, your continued description of an early Earth being a 'barren ball of rock' clearly shows to me that you don't really actually know the first thing that you are talking about.

And if you're going to respond to my question, please try and be polite and actually respond to my actual post not your own post.

BobRyan · Jan 29, 2021

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
What level of a degree is this?
I'm only asking, because you are an anonymous user on a website which has no bearing on actual scientific discourse or discovery and you feel that you can simply say that abiogenesis cannot happen.
.

In the OP I ask for common sense not degrees. I do not post that only if you attain to some level as a PHD are you able to exhibit common sense. Rather I simplify the comparison so that anyone can read it and "get the point" of the contrast.

I also do not say in the OP "Hey look at the science education that I have and then trust me that whatever I think -- must therefore be what everyone else should believe". That is never my argument.

My argument is not that I will only listen to someone that has a certain degree when it comes to this sort of common sense comparison. There are PhDs that are atheist and there are those that a Creationists -- the degree did not make the difference.

Rocks do not turn into rabbits over time no matter how much time you give them. A great many people will admit to this obvious fact including those with advanced science degrees... and others will claim they truly believe something else.

When it comes to atheists - I find this very interesting

Yesterday at 4:12 PM #1

But I do not find the practice of calling creationists names or falsely accusing them of not knowing something as a particularly "compelling" solution even for atheists.

Speedwell · Jan 29, 2021

BobRyan said:
In the OP I ask for common sense not degrees. I do not post that only if you attain to some level as a PHD are you able to exhibit common sense. Rather I simplify the comparison so that anyone can read it and "get the point" of the contrast.

I also do not say in the OP "Hey look at the science education that I have and then trust me that whatever I think -- must therefore be what everyone else should believe". That is never my argument.

My argument is not that I will only listen to someone that has a certain degree when it comes to this sort of common sense comparison. There are PhDs that are atheist and there are those that a Creationists -- the degree did not make the difference.

Rocks do not turn into rabbits over time no matter how much time you give them. A great many people will admit to this obvious fact including those with advanced science degrees... and others will claim they truly believe something else.

Warden clearly meant "degree" in terms of amount--not necessarily measured in terms of academic degrees

Speedwell · Jan 29, 2021

BobRyan said:
In the OP I ask for common sense not degrees. I do not post that only if you attain to some level as a PHD are you able to exhibit common sense. Rather I simplify the comparison so that anyone can read it and "get the point" of the contrast.

I also do not say in the OP "Hey look at the science education that I have and then trust me that whatever I think -- must therefore be what everyone else should believe". That is never my argument.

My argument is not that I will only listen to someone that has a certain degree when it comes to this sort of common sense comparison. There are PhDs that are atheist and there are those that a Creationists -- the degree did not make the difference.

Rocks do not turn into rabbits over time no matter how much time you give them. A great many people will admit to this obvious fact including those with advanced science degrees... and others will claim they truly believe something else.

When it comes to atheists - I find this very interesting

Yesterday at 4:12 PM #1

But I do not find the practice of calling creationists names or falsely accusing them of not knowing something as a particularly "compelling" solution even for atheists.

After all I've seen from you, I'm still not sure what your point is. You have an argument against evolution (the Lenski experiment) but it is not clear whether you are arguing against abiogenesis or evolution, or perhaps both at once. You appear to be trying to prove that life could not have begun and/or developed further without the proximate engagement of some kind of superior creative mind. But I'm not quite sure what you think that would get you. Even if you demolished the theory of evolution all it would get you, besides the Nobel Prize, is the chance to contest whatever new scientific theory emerged. But even if you proved that some kind of creative mind was behind it all, it's a long, hard trek beyond that to get to the God of Abraham and a longer, harder trek beyond that to get to creationism.

pitabread · Jan 29, 2021

BobRyan said:
Rocks do not turn into rabbits over time no matter how much time you give them.

No one expects "rocks to turn into rabbits". This is a strawman caricature. Again.

Why do you keep resorting to strawmen? Why can't you properly refer to the process of abiogenesis and/or evolution?

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jan 30, 2021

Speedwell said:
Warden clearly meant "degree" in terms of amount--not necessarily measured in terms of academic degrees

No, I meant full on academic degree. Though usually an academic degree does also say how much of a degree of a thing you'd know about. Like a PhD will know more than an A-Level student.

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

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Whoot!

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads