Hans Blaster
On August Recess
- Mar 11, 2017
- 21,762
- 16,408
- 55
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Private
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Belief is the evidence of things not seen. In this case no atheist has seen a rock transform into a horse
Maybe I just went to college too long ago.Maybe they should take philosophy of science, but they certainly don't. I didn't, and I don't think such a course is required of any science major at any of the universities I've been associated with.
Are you saying that all sculptors believe in gods?
pitabread said: ↑
Nobody thinks a rock "transformed" into a horse
Why do you think that is important? Atheists have not seen any number of things which we can be reasonably sure actually happened.BobRyan said: ↑
Belief is the evidence of things not seen. In this case no atheist has seen a rock transform into a horse
Not quite... I am saying no atheist has seen a rock turn into a horse.
When you say things like "rock transformed into a horse" you're conjuring the image of a rock literally turning into a horse.
Atheists have not seen any number of things which we can be reasonably sure actually happened.
The idea that you have to directly observe and repeat everything for it to be valid science is absurd. Even creationists accept that fossils are evidence of extinct creatures.
Who knows? Maybe it never happened in nature the way scientists hypothesize.. But you will never convince anybody with that stupid argument, because scientists also hypothesize that it couldn't happen under the conditions maintained in the Lenski experiment.The fact that a creature can go extinct is demonstrable today in real life observation as well as seeing a fossil of one that used to exist but does not exist today.
But we can see "today" that we have both prokaryotes and eukaryotes and we can see 'today' that direct observations of more then 75000 generations of prokaryotes do not show them turning into horses, or even eukaryotes over that number of generations.
Are you being hyperbolic again? Or do you really suppose that anyone believes that prokaryotes spontaneously self-assembled from inorganic matter?But more than that - as the OP points out - there is no record of rocks on lifeless barren earth popping out eukaryotes nor even prokaryotes popping out eukaryotes.
It may be "only a story" but it's plausible, given what is known of biochemistry. There is certainly no harm in considering it as an hypothesis.wondrous miraculous saltations where prokaryotes find a bunch of organelles and organize them internally to become a eukaryote is a 'story' that some like and others do not. Let's not equivocate between that - and observing that an animal just went extinct.
No I am not. your use of "conjuring" is faulty. You are using extreme inference to support your own accusation based solely on your own use of extreme inference.
As I already explained, that argument is a foolish straw man. If you can't understand that, there seems little point continuing.But we can see "today" that we have both prokaryotes and eukaryotes and we can see 'today' that direct observations of more then 75000 generations of prokaryotes do not show them turning into horses, or even eukaryotes over that number of generations.
As I already explained, that argument is a foolish straw man. If you can't understand that, there seems little point continuing.
I am explaining how your own use of language is coming across.
Now if you don't care how you are coming across then so be it.
I suspect you don't and given this train wreck of a thread, I still don't know what you think you're accomplishing here. .
Who knows? Maybe it never happened in nature the way scientists hypothesize..
C. Everyone agrees - there is "such a thing" as stories easy enough to tell. Creationists do not agree with atheists on which stories those are - but they do agree that such stories exist.
The point is, that what happened during the Lenski experiment has no bearing on it. You disagree with the hypothesis of how eukaryotes formed. No big deal, it's only an hypothesis. The point is, that the Lenski experiment is not a test of the hypothesis.certainly that is possible.. read the OP
Not quite... I am saying no atheist has seen a rock turn into a horse. (no matter the time frame)
Bob knows better--it's just hyperbole used to express distain.The only "rock" that ever became a "horse" was a block of stone carved into a statute of a horse. (w/ or w/o rider)
The "rocks to horses" view of evolution is just plain wrong. That is not what is claimed. Period.
Atheists coming to a Christian Forum should (in theory) be trying to make the most objective compelling case possible. resorting to name-calling and denegrating terms as "the solution" is hardly ... compelling.
May we take this as a commitment on your part to stop the false claims about 75,000 generations of prokayote? The error in your claim has been explained to you multiple times, yet you keep recycling it. Why? Facts are allways to be favoured over fiction, and you are promoting fiction.Stick with facts.
Well, it's a fact that the Lenski experiment is not intended or set up to produce eukaryotes from prokaryotes, and (as already explained) cannot do so. So it is misrepresenting it to suggest it as counter-evidence to the evolution of eukaryotes from prokaryotes; IOW, a straw man.I understand that claiming that form of condemnation of someone else's post is pretty easy to do - we can all do it.
I prefer statements of fact.
I criticised your argument - I've not called you names, and if you think calling your argument foolish denigrates you, you only have yourself to blame; it's foolish the way criticising a Ferarri for not being a tractor is foolish.Atheists coming to a Christian Forum should (in theory) be trying to make the most objective compelling case possible. resorting to name-calling and denegrating terms as "the solution" is hardly ... compelling.
You got them, try to use them.Stick with facts.
BobRyan said: ↑
Belief is the evidence of things not seen. In this case no atheist has seen a rock transform into a horse.
Not quite... I am saying no atheist has seen a rock turn into a horse. (no matter the time frame)
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?