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

[BobRyan]

You've been repeatedly presented with sound, logical explanations

If so it should really easy to point to something like observed fact to refute what I stated.

Inventing a mythical kind prokaryote as a "thought experiment" with all sorts of fantastic saltation "capabilities" is hardly logical science .

This also doesn't change the fact that the Lenski experiment has nothing to do with recreating the evolution of eukaryotes

According to Darwin - its perfect.

 

[BobRyan]

At this point it might be wise for the atheist argument - if atheists went back to the first two posts on this thread ... read them carefully, followed their links and then formulated a response.

There is no "atheist" argument here. Atheism vs theism has nothing to do with this.

That is another detail you have "skimmed" over.

The entire thread is about the two agreed upon states between atheists and creationists.

1. Earth starting condition where there is no life on it.
2. The present day condition.

The goes-from-rocks-to-horse sequence is distinctively "atheist" even by T.E. standards.

 

[pitabread]

If so it should really easy to point to something like observed fact to refute what I stated.

The "observed fact" is simply that the Lenski experiment has nothing to do with recreating the evolution of eukaryotes. Nor is it intended as a simulation of human evolution (your other silly claim from earlier in the thread).

Now if you think otherwise, the onus is on you to pursue the published papers on the Lenski experiment to find claims on the intent of the experiment. If you can find any published papers on this experiment that suggests it was for the purpose of recreating eukaryote evolution, then you'll prove us all wrong.

According to Darwin - its perfect.

That would be really weird, since Darwin died over a century prior to the initiation of the Lenski experiment.

 

[pitabread]

The goes-from-rocks-to-horse sequence is distinctively "atheist" even by T.E. standards.

Leaving aside the strawman representation of the history of evolution on Earth, there is nothing atheist about evolution. Science is effectively agnostic with respect to the supernatural: it can neither affirm nor deny it.

Though I suspect like most creationists you are still going to cling to the typical false dichotomy where everything is divided into creationists versus atheists and ignore the majority of Christians (among other theists) that are fine with scientific explanations for the life's history on this planet.

 

[Speedwell]

That is another detail you have "skimmed" over.

The entire thread is about the two agreed upon states between atheists and creationists.

1. Earth starting condition where there is no life on it.
2. The present day condition.

The goes-from-rocks-to-horse sequence is distinctively "atheist" even by T.E. standards.

What? The "rocks to horse" sequence is part of theistic evolution. But I see. You know better, but you just want to go out of your way to be nasty to anyone who doesn't buy into your literal interpretation of Genesis, whether they're atheists or not.

 

[Speedwell]

If so it should really easy to point to something like observed fact to refute what I stated.

Inventing a mythical kind prokaryote as a "thought experiment" with all sorts of fantastic saltation "capabilities" is hardly logical science .



According to Darwin - its perfect.

You understand, I hope, that "according to Darwin" isn't really relevant to a discussion of modern evolutionary theory--even if you had gotten "according to Darwin" right.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

And the fact that the mythical "kind" of prokaryote in that quote does not actually exist and that such a saltation cannot be observed ... is apparently another agreed upon detail between atheists and creationists.

There was a lot of scepticism when the idea of endosymbiosis was first suggested at the beginning of the 20th century, but in the century since, it has been found to be ubiquitous in eukaryotes, and in all stages of integration - from the mitochondria in most eukaryotic cells to the nitrogen-fixing bacteria in plant roots and photosynthetic algae in corals. Check out the Wikipedia article for a good overview.

Your scepticism suggests that you're over 100 years out of date.

 

[BobRyan]

Eukaryotic cells originated from an endosymbiotic relationship between two (or more) unrelated early prokaryotic cells

Congratulations - I am adding that to the "front page" it is truly special.

And the fact that the mythical "kind" of prokaryote in that quote above (the kind that turns into a eukaryote in an endosymbiotic relationship between two (or more) unrelated prokaryotes" does not actually exist and that such a saltation cannot be observed ... is apparently another agreed upon detail between atheists and creationists.

There was a lot of scepticism when the idea of endosymbiosis was first suggested

Suggestions are funny that way. And I of course believe everyone has free will when it comes to what they do with suggestions.

at the beginning of the 20th century, but in the century since, it has been found to be ubiquitous in eukaryotes, and in all stages of integration - from the mitochondria in most eukaryotic cells to the nitrogen-fixing bacteria in plant roots and photosynthetic algae in corals.

Define "IT" are you claiming that it is seen today that prokaryotes join to form eukaryotes??

Are you saying that instead of the OP "starting condition" where Earth starts out with no life at all on it -- it was covered by prokaryotes capable of joining with imagine mitochondria-cells and other non-existent cells to form eukaryotes? -- Looks like a different topic.

If you think there is a nitrogen-fixing bacteria that can turn into a eukaryote now would be good time to link to such a study/observation/experiment.

Check out the Wikipedia article for a good overview.

your link suggests you might not be following the point of the topic.

your initial suggestion that there exists endosymbiosis among prokaryotes enabling them to turn into eukaryotes is still hanging out there waiting to have some sort of observed reality behind it.

 

[BobRyan]

You understand, I hope, that "according to Darwin" isn't really relevant to a discussion of modern evolutionary theory

shell game?

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
The goes-from-rocks-to-horse sequence is distinctively "atheist" even by T.E. standards.

Leaving aside the strawman representation of the history of evolution on Earth, there is nothing atheist about evolution.

there is when it comes to The goes-from-rocks-to-horse sequence.

I think more people can see that obvious detail than you may have at first imagined.

(Hint: it is hart to find well-informed T.E.'s rushing in to sign up for that)

 

[pitabread]

there is when it comes to The goes-from-rocks-to-horse sequence.

As I said, science is agnostic when it comes to the subject of the supernatural. I suspect you're equating agnostism with atheism. At lot of creationists I've encountered seem to struggle separating these ideas.

 

[BobRyan]

As I said, science is agnostic when it comes to the subject of the supernatural.

science is supposed to be agnostic. That is a general statement.

But the more specific case of barren-earth to horse stories in evolution are using a distinctively atheist starting point for that form of evolution story.

I suspect you're equating agnostism with atheism.

Not true. In the case of agnostics and T.E.s they have other options that they might consider for the start. But atheists have absolutely no other choice. For them there had to be time when earth had no life and the only source of whatever life "arose" had to be rocks/dust/gas/sunlight. they have nothing else.

An agnostic can simply choose to limit himself/herself to the atheist options for that barren-earth-starting point but they don't have to. Atheists have to.

And this greatly simplifies the task in the OP as noted there.

Agnostics and T.E.'s will argue that something "else" is possible that some other god-option might account for it.

 

[pitabread]

An agnostic can simply choose to limit himself/herself to the atheist options for that barren-earth-starting point but they don't have to. Atheists have to.

I'm not referring to people's individual philosophies. I'm referring to the nature of the scientific method and the fact that science cannot make any claims about the supernatural one way or another. Science cannot make an explicitly atheistic claim about the nature of the universe.

It's true that science does operate within the constraints of such (e.g. it cannot be used to test supernatural claims). But that's simply do to the nature of the scientific methods and limitations thereof.

Until someone comes with a way to scientifically test the supernatural, science will never be able to be used for that purpose.

 

[Speedwell]

science is supposed to be agnostic. That is a general statement.

But the more specific case of barren-earth to horse stories in evolution are using a distinctively atheist starting point for that form of evolution story.



Not true. In the case of agnostics and T.E.s they have other options that they might consider for the start. But atheists have absolutely no other choice. For them there had to be time when earth had no life and the only source of whatever life "arose" had to be rocks/dust/gas/sunlight. they have nothing else.

An agnostic can simply choose to limit himself/herself to the atheist options for that barren-earth-starting point but they don't have to. Atheists have to.

And this greatly simplifies the task in the OP as noted there.

Agnostics and T.E.'s will argue that something "else" is possible that some other god-option might account for it.

Hogwash. You said yourself that the "barren Earth" starting point was common to both creationists and non-creationists. It certainly is biblical.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...your initial suggestion that there exists endosymbiosis among prokaryotes enabling them to turn into eukaryotes is still hanging out there waiting to have some sort of observed reality behind it.

You're not following the topic - eukaryotes are the descendants of ancient endosymbiotic prokaryotes.

 

[BobRyan]

You're not following the topic - eukaryotes are the descendants of ancient endosymbiotic prokaryotes.

that's the claim about prokaryotes turning into eukaryotes... now what happens when we "observe" to see if such a thing happens.

"observable","repeatable",

Of course you might be hinting/hoping that "ancient prokaryote" = "one you cannot find in real life today" - and that was addressed in the OP.

Eukaryotic cells originated from an endosymbiotic relationship between two (or more) unrelated early prokaryotic cells

err.. umm.. prokaryotes that popped out a eukaryote in true wondrous-saltation-miracle fashion???

Is that a claim that instead of starting with a barren lifeless Earth (as proposed in this OP) what we really had was a planet covered by prokaryotes anxious to become endosymbiotic-capable, and then advance from that to acquiring the talent of being able to produce eukaryotes??

In any case that would be an appeal to a mythical "kind" of eukaryote-capable prokaryote never seen.. that does not actually exist, having unknown properties to do what repeatable science knows is not even observable in the lab. So then what both sides can "agree to" in that respect is that there is no such thing as that sort of prokaryote else someone would be observing it right now.

No wonder the "story" was hard to swallow even for atheists

Margulis' theory was slow to gain acceptance, initially facing ridicule inside mainstream biology.

How Did Eukaryotic Cells Evolve?.

The argument from the bucket of "does not exist" and "never seen in real life" was apparently that "The organelles that seemed to have been their own cells include the mitochondria and, in photosynthetic cells, the chloroplast. Both of these organelles have their own DNA and their own ribosomes that do not match the rest of the cell. This indicates that they could survive and reproduce on their own. "

So then imagine a "mitochondria cell" and a "ribosome cell" that then get together and jump inside a much larger prokaryote cell. With sufficient imagination and motivation it could become believable for certain atheists... just not observable and just not based on anything that actually exists. Which is a small limitation given its potential benefit for the story telling.

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

When I say "science is supposed to be agnostic. That is a general statement."

I mean that science does not do an experiment where "step n" will be to have God do something as compared to another experiment where we stop God from doing it and compare results. There is no "and in this step we will have God do something" in the lab book.

Another option for non-science would be to have "step n - non-existant never-observed single celled organism jump into a larger prokaryote and turn into a eukaryote in true wondrous-saltation-miracle fashion".

 

[BobRyan]

You said yourself that the "barren Earth" starting point was common to both creationists and non-creationists. It certainly is biblical.

I said it was common to both creationists and atheists to claim that Earth went from having a barren surface with no life -- to having all the life we have today and that in the case of atheists the only "cause" the only "talent" that would account for it - is the talented rocks/gas/dust/sunlight.

In the case of creationists it is God.

See the OP. note the details.

 

[BobRyan]

I'm not referring to people's individual philosophies. I'm referring to the nature of the scientific method

When I say "science is supposed to be agnostic. That is a general statement."

I mean that science does not do an experiment where "step n" will be to have God do something as compared to another experiment where we stop God from doing it and compare results. There is no "and in this step we will have God do something" in the lab book.

I think this is so obvious that we all agree to it. No need to keep circling back. This is basic.

But the wild claim that rocks/dust/gas/sunlight on a lifeless planet Earth eventually come up with "a horse" is not a science experiment, not something proven in a lab experiment, not an observed fact.. it is merely the belief that an atheist has because they have no other option as a source/cause for the result they are hoping for.

I point this out in the OP.

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

Examples of "stories from the bucket of "does not exist" and "never seen in real life" :

The phrase "seem to have been" and "are imagined to have been" appear to be interchangeable in this example: "The organelles that seemed to have been their own cells include the mitochondria and, in photosynthetic cells, the chloroplast. Both of these organelles have their own DNA and their own ribosomes that do not match the rest of the cell. This indicates that they could survive and reproduce on their own. "

So then imagine a "mitochondria cell" and a "ribosome cell" that then get together and jump inside a much larger prokaryote cell. With sufficient imagination and motivation it could become believable for certain atheists that 13 or 14 organelles all "pile in" to a big whopping prokaryote - miracle-transforming it into a eukaryote... just not observable and just not based on anything that actually exists. Which is a small limitation given its potential benefit for the story telling.

 

[Speedwell]

I said it was common to both creationists and atheists to claim that Earth went from having a barren surface with no life -- to having all the life we have today and that in the case of atheists the only "cause" the only "talent" that would account for it - is the talented rocks/gas/dust/sunlight.

In the case of creationists it is God.

See the OP. note the details.

That's fine, but it's a theological question, not a scientific one. It has nothing to do with whether science can confirm a naturalist abiogenesis.

 

[Speedwell]

When I say "science is supposed to be agnostic. That is a general statement."

I mean that science does not do an experiment where "step n" will be to have God do something as compared to another experiment where we stop God from doing it and compare results. There is no "and in this step we will have God do something" in the lab book.

I think this is so obvious that we all agree to it. No need to keep circling back. This is basic.

But the wild claim that rocks/dust/gas/sunlight on a lifeless planet Earth eventually come up with "a horse" is not a science experiment, not something proven in a lab experiment, not an observed fact.. it is merely the belief that an atheist has because they have no other option as a source/cause for the result they are hoping for.

I point this out in the OP.

Why should they "hope" for it? Science undergraduates, atheist or otherwise, all take a Philosophy of Science class in which they learn that nothing that science has discovered, or could possibly discover in future, can disprove the existence of God. Evolution can't do it, and a naturalistic abiogenesis couldn't do it either.