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

[BNR32FAN]

Purpose: Finding a common ground detail or two between creationists and atheists then finding where they start to diverge. Starting with “barren Earth” having no life on it.

First Premise -- on a combined complexity, power, wisdom and creative capability scale of 0 to infinity.

A rock: is at zero.
God: is at infinity

rocks ---------------------------------------atheist---------------------------God

Where "God" is the term defined in Websters as: "1 God : the supreme or ultimate reality: such as. a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped". The concept of a being infinite in wisdom, power, capability etc.
=============================== now we begin

A. Everyone agrees (both Creationist and atheist at least) that there was a time on Earth where it is a barren planet - no LIFE of any kind on it.

B. Everyone agrees (both Creationist and atheist at least) that we exist on earth today with lots of diverse life forms.

There exists Creationists (as we all know) that claim that the Bible Creation account shows that an infinite Being (infinite in wisdom and power) created all life on earth - with all land animals appearing in a single evening-morning "day" like the days in the Legal Code found here Ex 20:9, 11 - at Sinai.

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.

Example: A story easy enough to tell - where creationists and atheists can agree

D. Everyone agrees (both Creationist and atheist at least) that a man can turn a rabbit into dust in a single day. That is a given. (at something far below blast-furnace temp 3400 degree F)

So then clearly - an infinite being with infinite capability ( power and wisdom ) such as the Bible Creation account speaks of - can turn dust into a rabbit in a single day. As noted here #2

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" (Notice the details here #11 )

So much for
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.

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

The contrast noted in more detail here -- #12 where we contrast what we DO see every day with what even atheists will admit we do NOT see
=====================

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)


Next we see some of the many times where that point gets illustrated on this thread -
here we see the point that rocks don't have the property to do that --#211
here we see the claim talented rocks should be able to do all of that 203
(or at the very least - prokaryotes can do it -- #190 )
=====================

Hint: those who get stuck arguing that an infinitely wise and powerful being would most certainly not be capable of assembling biomolecules from dust - are not paying attention to these details or grasping the points being made here -- but of course we agree they can choose to ignore all the details that they wish.

I am trying to address those who understand the concepts above.

to simplify even more

the point is to take a starting point that evolutionists and creationists will both agree on... and then point to an end point that both evolutionists and creationists agree on (which I do here in this post).

And to keep in mind that significant level of the term "evolution" that Dawkins references as quoted in post #2 as we contrast the essential argument in the two contrasting solutions for getting from point A - to - B.

Another web site that makes some interesting points similar to this thread - just pointed out to me - today--

Seventy-five Theses

We can try to explain creation from a scientific perspective but there are miracles He performed that science cannot explain and if we accept the scriptural description of creation science would conclude that the creation process as it is described in the scriptures is impossible. I just don’t see any way around accepting that God has supernatural powers and can operate outside of the laws of science. If He couldn’t then He wouldn’t really be God, He would just be a very intelligent life form. This would imply that such a life form would’ve had to have been created by some means at some time which God was never created but instead has always existed. I think people get too hung up on trying to reconcile creation to science and completely miss the point that God is not bound to work within the parameters of science. There’s still the explanation of Spirits and consciousness outside of a physical body that has to be addressed. If people are going to insist upon explaining all of God’s miracles thru science they’re fighting an impossible battle and will never truly understand who and what God really is. He’s not simply an intelligent being who created this planet He is an all powerful, all knowing, perfect being incapable of error or failure who exists outside of time. No one will ever come close to explaining or understanding God thru science.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Read page 1 and see it for yourself - when you can spare the time between the dance steps in our icon

You obviously didn't understand the part where I said "I can't see it". If it's there, quote it. If not, stop pretending it is. Honesty would be your best course of action. The perfect opportunity to prove me wrong. Why would you pass up such a chance?

 

[BobRyan]

We can try to explain creation from a scientific perspective but there are miracles He performed that science cannot explain

True - and creation of a horse in a single evening-and-morning on day six is a miracle as well.

But there are only two choices for atheists and creationists when you start from "Earth is barren and has no life on it".
A. Either the rocks have the "property" to come up with a horse given enough billions and billions of years.
B. Or Infinite God with Infinite capability did it as He said.

and if we accept the scriptural description of creation science would conclude that the creation process as it is described in the scriptures is impossible.

Science never claims that it is impossible for a being with infinite knowledge and capability to do something very quickly that does not happen already "on its own" in that same amount of short time.

Even a lesser being can stack fallen trees in the shape of a make-shift-wall or box to hold mulch -- faster and more efficiently than nature can do it by itself. That does not violate the laws of nature and how they are described in science.

The idea that a being with sufficient capability can do something that would not normally happen as fast in nature alone - is not a claim in science.

As for creation from nothing on a barren Earth as described in the OP - the atheist will doubt the existence of such a being.. the creationist will doubt the existence of such a talented rock.

 

[BobRyan]

You obviously didn't understand the part where I said "I can't see it".

You should be able to see page one.

where I said "I can't see it". If it's there, quote it. If not, stop pretending it is.

page one is there.

 

[pitabread]

Post a fact..let's test that.

The Lenski E. coli experiment is neither intended to be a re-creation of eukaryote evolution nor act as a simulation of human evolution.

Do you agree with this?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You should be able to see page one.



page one is there.

So, games rather than honesty? Pathetic.

 

[BobRyan]

The Lenski experiment is not intended to be a ...

1. it is intended to be an observation of evolution taking place and reports made of it do that very thing reporting the mutations that occur over time.

2. There is no evolution text saying that evolution only happens if the one observing nature "intends it to happen"

do you agree?

forecasting restrictions on how useful an as yet unobserved result must not exceed is not reasonable

 

[pitabread]

1. it is intended to be an observation of evolution taking place and reports made of it do that very thing reporting the mutations that occur over time.

2. There is no evolution text saying that evolution only happens if the one observing nature "intends it to happen"

You didn't answer my question.

I asked if you agreed that the intent of the Lenski E.coli experiment is neither the recreation of eukaryote evolution nor act as a simulation of human evolution.

If you don't agree with this, then it suggests you think the Lenski *is* intended for those respective things.

 

[Speedwell]

1. it is intended to be an observation of evolution taking place and reports made of it do that very thing reporting the mutations that occur over time.

2. There is no evolution text saying that evolution only happens if the one observing nature "intends it to happen"

do you agree?

No. Specific kinds of evolution require specific conditions. The conditions thought to be required for the prokaryote/eukaryote transition did not occur during the Lenski experiment. That's all.

 

[VirOptimus]

Post a fact..let's test that.

Its a fact that the theory of evolution explains the diversity of life on earth.

 

[BobRyan]

from page 1 --
================================

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 of page 1 quote

You didn't answer my question.
.

You asked a question apparently based on the premise that "evolution stops based on the intent of the observer" - correct? Seem like an odd premise.

 

[BobRyan]

Its a fact that the theory of evolution explains the diversity of life on earth.

See "all agree" part-C in the OP

 

[pitabread]

You asked a question apparently based on the premise that "evolution stops based on the intent of the observer" - correct? Seem like an odd premise.

That wasn't the premise of my question at all. That you don't even seem to understand the question is troubling.

I was simply asking about what you thought the intent was re: the Lenski E.coli experiment in relation to both the recreation of eukaryote evolution and to human evolution.

That you're evading answering the question straight-on and instead are doubling down on your misconceptions about the experiment as it relates to the above...

My point has been proven. Thanks for playing.

 

[BobRyan]

That wasn't the premise of my question at all.

I was simply asking about whether you thought the intent of the Lenski E.coli experiment related to the recreation of eukaryote evolution and in regards to human evolution

The "intent" was to observe evolution where cultures of prokaryotes were observed over decades - samples removed and stored in frozen state to compare the evolutionary changes over time.

"IF" the result had been that every 10 years half the culture transitioned to eukaryotes - there was no "control" that they could point to in the experiment that was designed to "prevent it" and of course... they had no evolution-fertilizer.

 

[pitabread]

"IF" the result had been that every 10 years half the culture transitioned to eukaryotes - there was no "control" that they could point to in the experiment that was designed to "prevent it" and of course... they had no evolution-fertilizer.

The intent of the experiment was never to specifically recreate the evolution of eukaryotes. That is a basic fact. So the fact that no eukaryote evolution was observed in the experiment is neither here nor there.

The fundamental misconception on your part seems to be with evolution itself. You appear to be viewing evolution as a predetermined ladder where different types of organisms go through a sequence of evolutionary steps.

In that mindset, I can understand why you might think that if you left a bunch of prokaryotes long enough, they should otherwise turn into eukaryotes.

However, that's simply not how the process of evolution works. There are no predetermined steps. There is no "evolutionary ladder" through which organisms are destined to climb.

In order to correctly conceptualize the process of evolution, you need to first remove these types of misconceptions. Are you willing to do that?

 

[VirOptimus]

See "all agree" part-C in the OP

Haha, no, I’m correct. The ToE is not a ”story”.

 

[dlamberth]

That's just unpossible! Why is that so hard to understand!!!!

I don't know what I'm missing here. But there are a lot of us around who are Lovers of God yet who are not creationist.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't know what I'm missing here. But there are a lot of us around who are Lovers of God yet who are not creationist.

I think it all comes down to turning the defense of a literal and inerrant Genesis into a cosmic struggle between theism and atheism.

 

[Gene2memE]

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).

Wait, do you think that divergent populations and ancestor populations cant exist at the same time?

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

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

It wasn't like humans didn't invent the first complex tools, permanent housing, horticulture, fire farming, basic crop agriculture, net and line fishing, musical instruments, jewellery, painting, sewing, tents, clothes, pottery, sculpture and boats in this period.

Some reading on human sedentism would seem appropriate at this point.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

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.

Is this the passage you think says modern humans took 200,000 years to evolve? It doesn't. As I keep pointing out, it says modern humans appeared 200,000 years ago. If you seriously think those two things are the same you really need to do two things:
1. Improve your English skills
2. Get at least a basic understanding of human evolution.