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

[pitabread]

Can you find even one single person here that honestly imagines that I think evolution teaches that rocks will pop-out a horse on command and that is "evolution"?

Given your continual misrepresentation of science, I'm giving you zero benefit of the doubt. Just look at how you've constantly misrepresented the Lenski experiment (and continue to do so even after repeatedly being corrected).

And even if you don't believe it, you're still writing it. So the most credit I could give you is that you're being deliberately disingenuous.

Notice all the "details" your own response deleted from my post that explicitly refute your claim that someone here honestly thinks I believe such a thing given that the OP flatly refutes it.

I quote and respond to the most pertinent parts of people's posts. Quoting everything just creates excess visual clutter. I like to keep things neat.

If anyone wants to read the full originating posts, those are already in the thread and linked from the sections I quote (that's what those little "up" arrows are for).

 

[BobRyan]

Given your continual misrepresentation of science

which never happens

, I'm giving you zero benefit

clearly

But the fact that we "differ" about "stories easy enough to tell" as the point "C" states in the OP - that is no reason cast all logic and reason away. Surely we can agree on that.

Just look at how you've constantly misrepresented the Lenski experiment

which is zero times so far. Ok I see that zero. what next?

(and continue to do so even after repeatedly being corrected).

Correct via imaginary organisms not in existence is not the "compelling correction" you may have at first been hoping for.

Correction via the wild assumption that when "observes don't expect evolution it never happens" is not logical

I have addressed both of those details repeatedly.

IT is fine with me if you reject logic of that sort - you have free will and can choose whatever you wish to reject.

And even if you don't believe it, you're still writing it.

On the contrary the OP starts off pointing out the two end-points you now claim you no longer know about as something I am referring to. How in the world is that objective or logical ???

So the most credit I could give you is that you're being deliberately disingenuous.

I quote and respond to the most pertinent parts of people's posts.

Quoting everything just creates excess visual clutter. I like to keep things neat instead of quoting the entire thread each post.

Still I think it is only fair to actually "read" - page 1 of the thread.

 

[pitabread]

which is zero times so far. Ok I see that zero. what next?

If you're that in denial over your own lack of understanding of the things you've been posting in this thread, then there really isn't anything else to talk about.

This thread just becomes another exhibit of the Dunning-Kruger effect and you're basically just trolling at this point.

I have addressed both of those details repeatedly.

... by completely missing the point, which (again) is that the Lenski experiment is not intended to be a recreation of eukaryotic evolution. Which means that all your references to the Lenski experiment in that context are irrelevant.

Same with all your references to the Lenski experiment in the context of being a "simulation" of human evolution.

The take away from this thread seems to be that you have no idea what the Lenski experiment is. Given your inability to understand that and your stubborn refusal to see your own misconceptions, I don't see any reason to give the benefit of the doubt on anything else.

 

[BobRyan]

If you're that in denial over your own lack of understanding

I see facts as compelling. Wishful thinking not so much.

... by completely missing the point, which (again) is that the Lenski experiment is not intended to be a recreation of eukaryotic evolution.

facts please.

1. No evolution text says that organisms pay attention to what someone "wants" before deciding whether to participate in whatever evolution exists for them.
obviously.
2. Darwin admitted that small tiny changes are all that he needed - not massive saltation and in the Lenski experiment they DID see mutations.
obviously.
3. Everyone agrees that prokaryotes are far more genetically adaptive to their environment than are other organisms... including humans... obviously
4. Everyone agrees that evolutionists like to think that modern humans evolved in less than 200,000 years which only accounts for about 6000 generations.
5. The prokaryotes in question did not evolve to eukaryote in over 10 times that number of generations --still stuck at the prokaryote stage. Also an obvious point that all agree with.
6. "stories easy enough to tell" do exist as both atheists and creationists agree.
7. IF your "story" had to start with some form of single celled organism to try and grope its way to eukaryote - you still would not be addressing the OP scenario of getting there from a lifeless plant start that all agree is the starting point. obviously.

*. insulting someone else no matter who they are - does not change these facts.

When atheists come to a christian forum to discuss a topic such as this -- they should try to make the most compelling and logical case... limiting their case to simple name-calling and insulting, would not be very compelling at all.

 

[Shemjaza]

I see facts as compelling. Wishful thinking not so much.

I am extremely dubious, given your behavior and displayed knowledge.

Do you accept the evidence for deep time?

Do you accept that single celled organisms existed for billions of years before more complicated life?

Do you believe that the Cambrian explosion was a real event?

 

[BobRyan]

I am extremely dubious,

You have free will you are welcome to be dubious or doubtful or anything you wish.

 

[BobRyan]

Do you accept that single celled organisms existed for billions of years before more complicated life?

start with the basics:

Do you agree with the "all agree" points in the OP? If not can you explain?
( I encourage you to read page 1)


Do you agree with the "obvious details" in this post? #424
if not... can you explain?

 

[pitabread]

When atheists come to a christian forum to discuss a topic such as this -- they should try to make the most compelling and logical case... limiting their case to simple name-calling and insulting, would not be very compelling at all.

Pointing out your misconceptions about science is not name-calling or being insulting.

We're just trying to keep things factual.

 

[BobRyan]

Pointing out your misconceptions about science is not name-calling

Fine - why don't you go ahead and do it then. I think that would be reasonable.

 

[pitabread]

Fine - why don't you go ahead and do it then. I think that would be reasonable.

That's already been done by people in this thread. Go back and re-read the thread.

 

[BobRyan]

That's already been done by people in this thread. .

if only that were indeed the case.

 

[pitabread]

if only that were indeed the case.

It is the case. The posts are already in this thread for anyone to read.

Denying it serves no purpose.

 

[Speedwell]

When atheists come to a christian forum to discuss a topic such as this --

To tell you that you have misinterpreted the significance of the Lenski experiment regard to Eukaryote evolution, it's not just atheists.

 

[Gene2memE]

4. Everyone agrees that evolutionists like to think that modern humans evolved in less than 200,000 years which only accounts for about 6000 generations.

No, no they don't.

Anatomically modern humans (Homo sapiens) took more like 600,000 to 1.2 million years to diverge from Homo genus ancestors. And that process involved significant gene flow (admixture) with other homo genus species. Definitely Homo neanderthalensis and Denisova hominins, and likely at least four other archaic homo species/sub-species.

Behaviorally modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens) took about 400,000 to 300,000 years to evolve.

Oh and your estimate of the length for a generation for humans is overly generous - generational rates for early humans are estimated at around 20 years, not 33 years. So that 6000 generations needs to be more like 10,000.

So, low estimate is more like 15,000 generations for Homo sapiens sapiens evolution.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
4. Everyone agrees that evolutionists like to think that modern humans evolved in less than 200,000 years which only accounts for about 6000 generations.

Evolution of Modern Humans: Early Modern Homo sapiens.

"All people today are classified as Homo sapiens. Our species of humans first began to evolve nearly 200,000 years ago in association with technologies not unlike those of the early Neandertals."

Modern humans appeared 200,000; civilization 10,000; and advanced technology 500 years ago.
Modern Humans Emerged 200,000 Years Ago. Why Was Technology Stagnant Until The Last 10,000?

Where Was the Birthplace of Modern Humans?
It was from somewhere in the African continent, most scientists believe, that modern humans evolved around 200,000 years ago before spreading across the world and becoming the dominant species we are today.

No, no they don't.

Well feel free to differ. you have free will.

 

[BobRyan]

generational rates for early humans are estimated at around 20 years,..
So, low estimate is more like 15,000 generations for Homo sapiens sapiens evolution.

Which is wayyyy below 70,000 generations

(and 200,000 divided by 20 would be 10,000 not 15,000).

And this does not solve the problem for atheists in the OP

 

[BobRyan]

facts please.

1. No evolution text says that organisms pay attention to what someone "wants" before deciding whether to participate in whatever evolution exists for them.
obviously.
2. Darwin admitted that small tiny changes are all that he needed - not massive saltation and in the Lenski experiment they DID see mutations.
obviously.
3. Everyone agrees that prokaryotes are far more genetically adaptive to their environment than are other organisms... including humans... obviously
4. Everyone agrees that evolutionists like to think that modern humans evolved in less than 200,000 years which only accounts for about 6000 generations.
5. The prokaryotes in question did not evolve to eukaryote in over 10 times that number of generations --still stuck at the prokaryote stage. Also an obvious point that all agree with.
6. "stories easy enough to tell" do exist as both atheists and creationists agree.
7. IF your "story" had to start with some form of single celled organism to try and grope its way to eukaryote - you still would not be addressing the OP scenario of getting there from a lifeless plant start that all agree is the starting point. obviously.

*. insulting someone else no matter who they are - does not change these facts.

When atheists come to a christian forum to discuss a topic such as this -- they should try to make the most compelling and logical case... limiting their case to simple name-calling and insulting, would not be very compelling at all.

To tell you that you have misinterpreted the significance of the Lenski experiment regard to Eukaryote evolution, it's not just atheists.

your attention to detail and substantive reply to the facts given above is ... as expected which is another illustration of the point I made -- that nothing has been refuted or disproven by that level of "substance" in the replies so far.

 

[BobRyan]

It is the case. .

nope it is not the case

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Well feel free to differ. you have free will.

None of your sources support your claim. They say that modern humans appeared 200,000 years ago. That is not the same as "it took 200,000 years to evolve."

 

[Strathos]

What if one is neither a creationist nor an atheist?