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

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

In the OP I ask for common sense not degrees. I do not post that only if you attain to some level as a PHD are you able to exhibit common sense. Rather I simplify the comparison so that anyone can read it and "get the point" of the contrast.

I also do not say in the OP "Hey look at the science education that I have and then trust me that whatever I think -- must therefore be what everyone else should believe". That is never my argument.

My argument is not that I will only listen to someone that has a certain degree when it comes to this sort of common sense comparison. There are PhDs that are atheist and there are those that a Creationists -- the degree did not make the difference.

Rocks do not turn into rabbits over time no matter how much time you give them. A great many people will admit to this obvious fact including those with advanced science degrees... and others will claim they truly believe something else.

When it comes to atheists - I find this very interesting

Yesterday at 4:12 PM #1

But I do not find the practice of calling creationists names or falsely accusing them of not knowing something as a particularly "compelling" solution even for atheists.

But you're not talking common sense, you're just talking about your own personal incredulity. You cannot conceive of what you claim happening, therefore the claim must be wrong.

And your claim is bogus: NO-ONE claims that rocks by themselves turn into rabbits. If you had such problems about such a claim, you'd have problems with the Biblical creation story which has the exact same thing happening.

 

[BobRyan]

In the OP I ask for common sense not degrees. I do not post that only if you attain to some level as a PHD are you able to exhibit common sense. Rather I simplify the comparison so that anyone can read it and "get the point" of the contrast.

I also do not say in the OP "Hey look at the science education that I have and then trust me that whatever I think -- must therefore be what everyone else should believe". That is never my argument.

My argument is not that I will only listen to someone that has a certain degree when it comes to this sort of common sense comparison. There are PhDs that are atheist and there are those that a Creationists -- the degree did not make the difference.

Rocks do not turn into rabbits over time no matter how much time you give them. A great many people will admit to this obvious fact including those with advanced science degrees... and others will claim they truly believe something else.

When it comes to atheists - I find this very interesting

Yesterday at 4:12 PM #1

But I do not find the practice of calling creationists names or falsely accusing them of not knowing something as a particularly "compelling" solution even for atheists.

But you're not talking common sense,

When I point out in the OP that the atheist vs creationist view is that both agree that the earth starts out with no life on it... that is common sense.

When I point out in the OP that creationists start with a lifeless planet and then an infinite God that makes all life on earth in a literal 7 days - it is "common sense" that indeed that "is their claim". Infinite capability of an infinite God.

When I point out in the OP that the atheist has no other option but to take that lifeless starting condition of Earth rocks, water etc somehow having the talent/skill/property to come up with a horse over time (billions and billions of years freely accepted in that story line).. that is also common sense because they don't have in infinitely capable "god" to appeal to and also have no "evolution fertilizer". So then ... common sense again.


When I point out that atheists will claim that "there is no such talented God" - it is common sense that this is indeed what they claim.

When I point out that Creationists will claim "there is no such talented rock" -- it is common sense - that this is in fact what they claim.

In the OP the appeal is to common sense - so then page 1 I have characterized this as a "common sense" thread -- #10

”Common sense” is just another way to write ”this is what I believe”.

I would certainly hope so.

Were you expecting me to object to "common sense".

 

[BobRyan]

And your claim is bogus: NO-ONE claims that rocks by themselves turn into rabbits.

No atheist has pointed to any "help" that the lifeless Earth gets so it can come up with a rabbit over time (billions and billions of years of time freely accepted)

again - common sense -- is not bogus.

 

[VirOptimus]

When I point out in the OP that the atheist vs creationist view is that both agree that the earth starts out with no life on it... that is common sense.

When I point out in the OP that creationists start with a lifeless planet and then an infinite God that makes all life on earth in a literal 7 days - it is "common sense" that indeed that "is their claim". Infinite capability of an infinite God.

When I point out in the OP that the atheist has no other option but to take that lifeless starting condition of Earth rocks, water etc somehow having the talent/skill/property to come up with a horse over time (billions and billions of years freely accepted in that story line).. that is also common sense because they don't have in infinitely capable "god" to appeal to and also have no "evolution fertilizer". So then ... common sense again.


When I point out that atheists will claim that "there is no such talented God" - it is common sense that this is indeed what they claim.

When I point out that Creationists will claim "there is no such talented rock" -- it is common sense - that this is in fact what they claim.

In the OP the appeal is to common sense

Bob

”Common sense” is just another way to write ”this is what I believe”. It has zero weight.

 

[VirOptimus]

No atheist has pointed to any "help" that the lifeless Earth gets so it can come up with a rabbit over time (billions and billions of years of time freely accepted)

again - common sense -- is not bogus.

The ToE very much explains the diversity of life on earth. Religious belief has nothing to do with science.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

When I point out in the OP that the atheist vs creationist view is that both agree that the earth starts out with no life on it... that is common sense.

When I point out in the OP that creationists start with a lifeless planet and then an infinite God that makes all life on earth in a literal 7 days - it is "common sense" that indeed that "is their claim". Infinite capability of an infinite God.

When I point out in the OP that the atheist has no other option but to take that lifeless starting condition of Earth rocks, water etc somehow having the talent/skill/property to come up with a horse over time (billions and billions of years freely accepted in that story line).. that is also common sense because they don't have in infinitely capable "god" to appeal to and also have no "evolution fertilizer". So then ... common sense again.


When I point out that atheists will claim that "there is no such talented God" - it is common sense that this is indeed what they claim.

When I point out that Creationists will claim "there is no such talented rock" -- it is common sense - that this is in fact what they claim.

In the OP the appeal is to common sense

Bob

But you're not appealing to common sense. The fact you make the claim "that lifeless starting condition of Earth rocks, water etc somehow having the talent/skill/property to come up with a horse over time (billions and billions of years freely accepted in that story line)", an attempt to give an inanimate object the same qualities as God shows that you are not even arguing in good faith.
It is just you arguing from a point of incredulity.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

No atheist has pointed to any "help" that the lifeless Earth gets so it can come up with a rabbit over time (billions and billions of years of time freely accepted)

again - common sense -- is not bogus.

Panspermia model.

And just because you say it's 'common sense' does not make it so. Your entire line of arguing is "I don't believe it, so nothing atheists say has to be true." It's a very old song and dance routine, and it's not cute.

 

[BobRyan]

Panspermia model.

That is "begging the question". with an appeal to an imaginary case of "life falling out of the sky" so it can evolve on earth.

We have an environment more capable of supporting life than existed on the lifeless planet identified in the OP - and still there is no "life falling out of the sky and evolving on earth" even on an earth perfectly designed for life as we have today.

All atheists agree that the big bang had no panspermia to rely on. It all starts from no-life and no-panspermia even for atheists.

Panspermia was an imagination-suggestion by Francis Crick who was co-discovere of the DNA biomolecule and found it to be so massively complex in encoding, decoding, transmit, error-correction etc that he knew no rock-popped-it-out.

So "no matter the stories" inserted to push the problem back that cannot be solved, the problem of getting from a no-life-state to life is still there in the atheist scenario.

Your suggestion that this is "not common sense" is not immediately supported by the evidence. Rather it is a very reasonable proposition and has to be considered.

 

[BobRyan]

Your entire line of arguing is "I don't believe it, so nothing atheists say has to be true." I .

totally false. Read the OP - I don't say that.

I present the two alternatives and state that there are people on both sides.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That is "begging the question".

All atheists agree that the big bang had no panspermia to rely on. It all starts from no-life and no-panspermia even for atheists.

Panspermia was an imagination-suggestion by Francis Crick who was co-discovere of the DNA biomolecule and found it to be so massively complex in encoding, decoding, transmit, error-correction etc that he knew no rock-popped-it-out.

So "no matter the stories" inserted to push the problem back that cannot be solved, the problem of getting from a no-life-state to life is still there in the atheist scenario.

Your suggestion that this is "not common sense" is not immediately supported by the evidence. Rather it is a very reasonable proposition and has to be considered.

If you think a scientific hypothesis is 'begging the question', along with you calling it an 'imagination-suggestion', with absolutely zero evidence that you have any actual scientific credentials of your own to speak of, then I don't think you're very qualified to make any statements on the science behind abiogenesis or evolution.
In short: the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

totally false. Read the OP - I don't say that.

I present the two alternatives and state that there are people on both sides.

I didn't say that it's just from the OP alone. It's from seeing your interactions on this thread and the other ones you've created, that lead me to say that you are arguing from incredulity.

 

[pitabread]

So "no matter the stories" inserted to push the problem back that cannot be solved, the problem of getting from a no-life-state to life is still there in the atheist scenario.

Why do you suggest the origin of life question cannot be solved? There has been lots of progress (including understanding of the origins of various organic molecules including DNA nucleotides).

It's also not unreasonable to speculate over origins of organic compounds from off planet since such things have been observed in comets and meteors.

 

[BobRyan]

Why do you suggest the origin of life question cannot be solved?

I am responding to Francis Crick's forced "solution" when he too noticed that rocks were not about to pop-out something as complex as the very complicated DNA system with its encoding, decoding, error correction and transmission.

But I am not saying that others may or may not have some sort of story for how that could conceivably happen in a thought-experiment. Leaving this as an exercise for the reader. It is pretty easy.

The OP presumes someone does have such an imaginative idea. There are two groups there - not just one in the OP.

 

[pitabread]

I am responding to Francis Crick's forced "solution" when he too noticed that rocks were not about to pop-out something as complex as the very complicated DNA system with its encoding, decoding, error correction and transmition.

What did Crick actually say?

 

[BobRyan]

with absolutely zero evidence that you have any actual scientific credentials of your own to speak of, then I don't think you're very qualified to make any statements on the science...

you are free to participate or not.. I am not forcing you to do anything - and you apparently know absolutely nothing about biophysics or my university studies - which is fine, that is not the topic of this thread. Feel free to ignore all the details that you wish.

This is a common sense thread but never claims that there are not two sides here.

obviously.

 

[BobRyan]

”Common sense” is just another way to write ”this is what I believe”. It has zero weight.

I have not doubt that some would reject common sense and declare it as having zero weight - but I believe everyone has free will and can reject it as they please.

I don't mind that contrast in the least.

 

[pitabread]

This is a common sense thread

Appealing to "common sense" doesn't make much sense in the context of discussing science. In science, many things actually defy common sense.

 

[BobRyan]

If you think a scientific hypothesis is 'begging the question'

depends on what it is. blanket statements like that don't work.

 

[VirOptimus]

I have not doubt that some would reject common sense and declare it as having zero weight - but I believe everyone has free will and can reject it as they please.

I don't mind that contrast in the least.

Woosh.

 

[BobRyan]

Appealing to "common sense" doesn't make much sense

some will take their position on that idea. I don't mind the contrast.

A
in the context of discussing science.

On the contrary - there is a vast amount of common sense in actual science.