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

Warden_of_the_Storm · Jan 22, 2021

BobRyan said:
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.

Please actually answer the question: 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."

Bungle_Bear · Jan 22, 2021

BobRyan said:
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.

Can you find anyone at all who would make that claim? Do you think there was "never a time when Earth did not have life on it"?

Ophiolite · Jan 22, 2021

BobRyan said:
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?

There are three possibilities that occur to me:

I have done a sub-standard job of explaining my position.
You are being deliberately obtuse.
You have reading comprehension difficulties.

I'm going with explanation number 1.

The reason that I am disagreeing with you is that life did not arise from rocks. You keep insisting that this is the claim of evolutionists. It isn't. Now if you persist on making this claim I shall have to conclude that explanation 1 is incorrect and that I must look to 2. or 3.

I don't go into a steak house, order a prime rib and claim I am eating grass. The meat may have been derived from grass, but it is not grass. The chemicals that kick started life may have been derived, in part, from rocks, but they are not rocks. If you continue to insist that they are I shall presume you are trolling. I have no interest in trolls, except as objects of psychological study.

In like manner, the chemicals, such as amino acids, delivered by meteorites are not rocks. They were present in rocks, but they are not themselves rocks. This is not a difficult concept to grasp if you drop the belligerent attitude and listen to what people are telling you.

I look forward to more productive exchanges once you have taken these points on board.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jan 22, 2021

BobRyan said:
what else are ~~atheists~~ [scientists] adding to the "mix" that they are so reluctant to state so far?

Fixed that for you. It's unfortunate you seem to have such difficulty distinguishing them.

Anyone prepared to give it a moment's thought can see that organic chemistry takes more than rocks. I hope you find a spare moment.

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.

If there ever was a time when Earth was only rock, it would have been long before life could have arisen.

The idea that anyone seriously thinks scientists claim that animals 'popped out' of rocks is absurd. Don't mistake stunned silence at such ignorance for satisfaction. OTOH, they may simply have assumed you were trolling.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Jan 22, 2021

Ophiolite said:
There are three possibilities that occur to me:

I have done a sub-standard job of explaining my position.

You are being deliberately obtuse.

You have reading comprehension difficulties.

I'm going with explanation number 1.

I'll go with 2 & 3...

BobRyan · Jan 22, 2021

Warden_of_the_Storm said:
Please actually answer the question: Please provide one example of an atheist, or anyone for that matter, saying that life only came from rocks alone.

all of them unless they believe in evolution-fertilizer or God.

pitabread · Jan 22, 2021

BobRyan said:
all of them unless they believe in evolution-fertilizer or God.

What is your definition of a "rock"? You appear to be operating under a different definition than everyone else.

(Or there's a massive gap in your understanding of basic chemistry.)

BobRyan · Jan 22, 2021

BobRyan said:
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.

Click to expand...

Ophiolite said:

I don't agree.

Click to expand...

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" ??

Ophiolite said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Ophiolite said:

Life likely emerged from a "primeval soup"

Click to expand...

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

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

Click to expand...

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?

Ophiolite said:
There are three possibilities that occur to me:

I have done a sub-standard job of explaining my position.

...

Ophiolite said:
I'm going with explanation number 1.

What question are you addressing since there is more than one in the block quote of my post that you included?

Ophiolite said:
The reason that I am disagreeing with you is that life did not arise from rocks.

sounds like we agree on that point.

What "else" does the atheist "add"... if not "evolution fertilizer" which we all agree... does not exist.

(For two threads this has been hanging out there for atheists to clarify -- no one steps up so far)

The chemicals that kick started life may have been derived, in part, from rocks, but they are not rocks.

A distinction without a difference. Is this some sort of "game?"

Sounds like semantics to me - my initial statements in both threads do not say "from rocks but not at all from off a rock" - I don't distinguish between the scraping from a rock vs the rock as a source. Either one fits.

In like manner, the chemicals, such as amino acids, delivered by meteorites are not rocks.

Pushing back the source question to some other planet that started out as barren rock -- is shell-gaming. The point is that for the atheist everything must start from the barren rock state and the argument that earth was never a barren rock does not fly - not even with atheists - the argument that other barren rocks out in space showered earth with "more" rocks covered in amino acids that all magically had the right chiral orientation is a "story" that only begs the question... it is shell gaming.

I look forward to more productive exchanges once you have taken these points on board.

BobRyan · Jan 22, 2021

pitabread said:
What is your definition of a "rock"? You appear to be operating under a different definition than everyone else.

The "rock" concept is not as difficult as you appear to suppose. How can this be even a little confusing?

Is it your claim that some rocks have no chemical element or that they cannot be scraped or cannot contribute to a dust mixture from other rocks?

Why is this such a difficult concept for the atheist posts all of a sudden?

Earth starts out as a barren lifeless planet and had rocks, dust, gas, water, sunlight etc but no life - at one point in time. How is this even a little confusing for atheists - it should be a very easy point of agreement between Creationists and atheists.

This is not a game for redefining the word "is". Just simple, easy, obvious facts.

pitabread · Jan 22, 2021

BobRyan said:
The "rock" concept is not as difficult as you appear to suppose. How can this be even a little confusing?

It's confusing because you're using terms in a manner that is either:

a) to construct a deliberate strawman/hyperbolic caricature of the actual process of abiogenesis; or,

b) you just don't know what the terms actually mean.

Either way, it's not conducive to a discussion of the process of abiogenesis.

Is it your claim that some rocks have no chemical element or that they cannot be scraped or cannot contribute to a dust mixture from other rocks?

Why is this such a difficult concept for the atheist posts so far?

1) I'm not an atheist.

2) A discussion of chemistry has nothing to do with atheism. Your continued references to atheists is just a red herring on your part.

So I ask again: what exactly do you think a "rock" is? Evading the questions suggests you don't even know.

BobRyan · Jan 22, 2021

pitabread said:
It's confusing because you're using terms in a manner that is either:

a) to construct a deliberate strawman/

Rock,... lifeless barren rock... is not a strawman or even the least bit confusing.

If this is the point where atheists are having even a tiny bit of difficulty -- it is news to me. I never would have guessed that.

pitabread · Jan 22, 2021

BobRyan said:
Rock,... lifeless barren rock... is not a strawman or even the least bit confusing.

"Lifeless barren rock" doesn't tell me what you think a "rock" is.

What do you think a "rock" is in this context? Be specific.

If you can't define what a rock is, then I'm assuming you just don't know.

If this is the point where atheists are having a difficulty -- it is news to me. I never would have guessed that.

Again, not an atheist. And a discussion of your use of basic English has nothing do to with atheism.

Speedwell · Jan 22, 2021

BobRyan said:
Rock,... lifeless barren rock... is not a strawman or even the least bit confusing.

If this is the point where atheists are having even a tiny bit of difficulty -- it is news to me. I never would have guessed that.

Does your concept of "rock" include liquids and gases? Does it include all of the naturally occurring elements?

dlamberth · Jan 22, 2021

BobRyan said:
all of them unless they believe in evolution-fertilizer or God.

I'm enjoying the term "evolution-fertilizer". I think "consciousness" would fill that need. Even for a rock.

BobRyan · Jan 22, 2021

BobRyan said:
The "rock" concept is not as difficult as you appear to suppose. How can this be even a little confusing?

Is it your claim that some rocks have no chemical element or that they cannot be scraped or cannot contribute to a dust mixture from other rocks?

Why is this such a difficult concept for the atheist posts all of a sudden?

Earth starts out as a barren lifeless planet and had rocks, dust, gas, water, sunlight etc but no life - at one point in time. How is this even a little confusing for atheists - it should be a very easy point of agreement between Creationists and atheists.

This is not a game for redefining the word "is". Just simple, easy, obvious facts.

Speedwell said:
Does your concept of "rock" include liquids and gases? Does it include all of the naturally occurring elements?

Indeed - a lifeless barren planet with what I describe as "rocks, dust, gas, water, sunlight etc but no life" - in my posts including the quote above.

A lifeless starting condition where Creationists and atheists agree (for those not stuck on what is a rock)

pitabread said:
"Lifeless barren rock" doesn't tell me what you think a "rock" is.

I find that entire line of discussion very curious.

pitabread said:
Again, not an atheist. And a discussion of your use of basic English has nothing do to with atheism.

Atheist rule #11 "never miss an opportunity to insult the person you are in discussion with - if they are a Creationist".

Speedwell · Jan 22, 2021

BobRyan said:
Indeed - a lifeless barren planet with what I describe as "rocks, dust, gas, water, sunlight etc but no life" - in my posts including the quote above.

A lifeless starting condition where Creationists and atheists agree (for those not stuck on what is a rock)

OK, at what level of biochemical complexity would you deem "life" to have begun?

BobRyan · Jan 22, 2021

dlamberth said:
I'm enjoying the term "evolution-fertilizer". I think "consciousness" would fill that need. Even for a rock.

Atheists promoting "rock consciousness" would be new I think ... but who knows? I suppose we could find one.

pitabread · Jan 22, 2021

BobRyan said:
I find that entire line of discussion very curious.

As do I.

At the end of the day, you choose to use the words you use. If you want to be understood, perhaps you should try avoiding deliberately hyperbolic language.

BobRyan · Jan 22, 2021

Speedwell said:
OK, at what level of biochemical complexity would you deem "life" to have begun?

I think you are confused at this point.

I am the Creationist - not the atheist -- when I start with a barren lifeless planet I then talk about "evening and morning" number 6 - where God creates all life on land in a single evening-and-morning.

Maybe you should be asking an atheist that question.

But if you are asking whether I consider a prokaryote to be alive -- the answer is 'yes'

Speedwell · Jan 22, 2021

BobRyan said:
I think you are confused at this point.

I am the Creationist - not the atheist -- when I start with a barren lifeless planet I then talk about "evening and morning" number 6 - where God creates all life on land in a single evening-and-morning.

Maybe you should be asking an atheist that question.

Why an atheist, particularly?

But if you are asking whether I consider a prokaryote to be alive -- the answer is 'yes'

Rather late in the game, then.

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

Well-Known Member

Whoot!

Recalcitrant Procrastinating Ape

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Senior Contributor

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Junior Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads