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

[Bungle_Bear]

My entire career was in Research and Development so I know how Scientists do their work. Very very normally as anyone else does their work. Chock full of bias and ego and the constant search for profits. I even interviewed with a Head Researcher in a Lazer Lab and asked him about doing "Basic Research" as the job description suggested. He was looking at how lazers changed the properties of plastics and metals to restrict or filter differing frequencies in optical fibers.
He explained that all research was for profit.

You interviewed to work with lasers but can't even spell "laser"?

Let me guess - you didn't get the job.

 

[SkyWriting]

My points stand.

You dont understand science or the scientific method.

I know how Scientists do their work. The Real World.
It's far more applicable than theory.

 

[VirOptimus]

I know how Scientists do their work. The Real World.
It's far more applicable than theory.

No, you dont.

 

[SkyWriting]

No, you dont.

Yes, I do.

 

[VirOptimus]

Yes, I do.

I can read your posts, and you clearly dont understand science or how scientists work.

You just have a religious belief and agenda.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

My entire career was in Research and Development so I know how Scientists do their work.
Very very normally as anyone else does their work. Chock full of bias and ego and the constant search for profits. I even interviewed with a Head Researcher in a Lazer Lab and asked him about doing "Basic Research" as the job description suggested. He was looking at how lazers changed the properties of plastics and metals to restrict or filter differing frequencies in optical fibers.
He explained that all research was for profit.

Science is, of course, a human endeavour, and as such it's subject to human flaws, but it is organised so as to minimise, as far as possible, the potential problems caused by individual scientists and their flaws.

The opinions of individual scientists only have relevance according to their position and reputation within their field of expertise. But even there, the results of scientific methodology have the final say.

 

[BobRyan]

VirOptimus said: ↑
No, you dont.

Yes, I do.

I notice that this section of the forum often reduces to "did too.... did not" posts. I get pulled into those now and then as well.

 

[BobRyan]

No.

The term "lifeless rock" was simply a reference to an earlier Earth by the interviewer.

An earlier point of time on this same Earth - as noted in the OP -- the agreed upon start point where there is no life on Earth.

This again - is the easy part and both Creationists and atheists (at least those in that interiew) freely agree to it.

It was used in a strictly metaphorical/colloquial fashion - obviously. And we continue to use it that way to this very day.

It was *not* meant to be an accurate or exhaustive description of the starting conditions other than the fact that earth had no life on it at one time in the past... again... obviously.

The problem is that it's not "obvious"

Yes it is and you just as much as admitted it in your statement above. That is "you" pointing out the incredibly obvious meaning for "lifeless rock" in that quote above.

the point remains. We can all see ... and apparently that includes you.

.

Hint: this is "you" admitting "The term "lifeless rock" was simply a reference to an earlier Earth"

Now you want to claim it is not obvious to both sides when you already admitted that you "can see" this very basic detail clearly?

seriously?

It's obvious to me.

Well then we do agree on something after all.

 

[Shemjaza]

Hint: this is "you" admitting "The term "lifeless rock" was simply a reference to an earlier Earth"

Now you want to claim it is not obvious to both sides when you already admitted that you "can see" this very basic detail clearly?

seriously?



Well then we do agree on something after all.

It is only now obvious that you explicitly stated it.

In a conversation about literal descriptions slipping in a vague metaphor is a bad idea for conversation and politeness.

 

[pitabread]

Hint: this is "you" admitting "The term "lifeless rock" was simply a reference to an earlier Earth"

Now you want to claim it is not obvious to both sides when you already admitted that you "can see" this very basic detail clearly?

seriously?

I'm not talking about anyone else's posts here. I'm specifically referring to your posts and the language you use in describing things.

I'm not giving you the benefit of the doubt because from what I've seen from your posts, you do not seem able to fairly represent either abiogenesis or evolutionary biology in these discussions.

And the fact is, you're *still* misrepresenting these things as is evidence by posts like this (from your other thread):

The claim that an electron "has a property in it" that determines that a rock will turn into a rabbit over time (given an earth sized rock and a lot of time) is a "story". And if you want to call it "a story named emergence" I am fine with that.

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

 

[SkyWriting]

I notice that this section of the forum often reduces to "did too.... did not" posts. I get pulled into those now and then as well.

I know I look really stu-pid but it's supposed to be the sincerest form of flattery, so....

 

[BobRyan]

No.

The term "lifeless rock" was simply a reference to an earlier Earth by the interviewer.

An earlier point of time on this same Earth - as noted in the OP -- the agreed upon start point where there is no life on Earth.

This again - is the easy part and both Creationists and atheists (at least those in that interiew) freely agree to it.

It was used in a strictly metaphorical/colloquial fashion - obviously. And we continue to use it that way to this very day.

It was *not* meant to be an accurate or exhaustive description of the starting conditions other than the fact that earth had no life on it at one time in the past... again... obviously.

The problem is that it's not "obvious"

Yes it is and you just as much as admitted it in your statement above. That is "you" pointing out the incredibly obvious meaning for "lifeless rock" in that quote above.

the point remains. We can all see ... and apparently that includes you.

.

Hint: this is "you" admitting "The term "lifeless rock" was simply a reference to an earlier Earth"

Now you want to claim it is not obvious to both sides when you already admitted that you "can see" this very basic detail clearly?

seriously?

It's obvious to me.

Well then we do agree on something after all.

It is only now obvious that you explicitly stated it. .

hint: that was Pitabread admitting to it as well.

"The term "lifeless rock" was simply a reference to an earlier Earth" -- not only in the OP but also in that interview with Miller.

It just "does not GET " any easier than that!

I'm not talking about anyone else's posts here. I'm specifically referring to your posts and the language you use in describing things.

I am talking about the fact that you already admitted to seeing the easy and obvious point that - "The term "lifeless rock" was simply a reference to an earlier Earth" - so continually circling back to claim you could not see that obvious detail in the OP is a bit of nonsense.

And given this statement in the OP (which you might want to take the time to read) --

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. So gas, rocks, water, dust etc... no life.

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

It is hard to even imagine the "difficulty" in reading it that you now appear to be proposing.

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

When the atheist defense of belief in evolution requires denying the most basic elements in discussion - then we have the 'sign' that a key part of their argument has failed in some way during the course of the discussion.

 

[pitabread]

I am talking about the fact that you already admitted to seeing the easy and obvious point that - "The term "lifeless rock" was simply a reference to an earlier Earth" - so continually circling back to claim you could not see that obvious detail in the OP is a bit of nonsense.

Again, I'm going by your own posts when you write things like:

"Atheist claims of the form "rocks can do whatever they want when coming up with a horse over time"."

and,

"The claim that an electron "has a property in it" that determines that a rock will turn into a rabbit over time (given an earth sized rock and a lot of time) is a "story"."​

You're clearly filtering things you read in a non-standard manner and then it results in bizarre statements like the above.

If you stopped making these bizarre statements and start representing science correctly, then I'll start giving you the benefit of the doubt. As it stands, I have no reason to do that.

If you want to keep going back-and-forth over this, by all means. But I'm under no obligation to treat your posts as though you know what you're talking about based on what you keep writing.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Hint: this is "you" admitting "The term "lifeless rock" was simply a reference to an earlier Earth"

Now you want to claim it is not obvious to both sides when you already admitted that you "can see" this very basic detail clearly?

seriously?



Well then we do agree on something after all.



hint: that was Pitabread admitting to it as well.

"The term "lifeless rock" was simply a reference to an earlier Earth" -- not only in the OP but also in that interview with Miller.

It just "does not GET " any easier than that!



I am talking about the fact that you already admitted to seeing the easy and obvious point that - "The term "lifeless rock" was simply a reference to an earlier Earth" - so continually circling back to claim you could not see that obvious detail in the OP is a bit of nonsense.

You have accepted that "lifeless rock" refers to an earlier Earth, which you defined as having "....gas, rocks, water, dust etc". So why do you keep claiming it is just rock - no gas, no water, no dust?

 

[Shemjaza]

hint: that was Pitabread admitting to it as well.

"The term "lifeless rock" was simply a reference to an earlier Earth" -- not only in the OP but also in that interview with Miller.

It just "does not GET " any easier than that!

That's completely disingenuous.

It is blatantly obvious that your repeated use of "lifeless rock" is not a generalised references to to planet of diverse environments and complicated organic chemical compounds, but references to literal rocks.

In addition, it is totally unreasonable for a Biblical literalist to expect to be taken as being metphorical when discussing creation/evolution.

People have repeatedly explained to you why your turns of phrase are both rude and unproductive to the conversation... I can only conclude that it is your intention to be rude and unproductive.

Disgusting.

 

[Ken-1122]

An earlier point of time on this same Earth - as noted in the OP -- the agreed upon start point where there is no life on Earth.

This again - is the easy part and both Creationists and atheists (at least those in that interiew) freely agree to it.

It was used in a strictly metaphorical/colloquial fashion - obviously. And we continue to use it that way to this very day.

It was *not* meant to be an accurate or exhaustive description of the starting conditions other than the fact that earth had no life on it at one time in the past... again... obviously.

Are you suggesting a time in history when absolutely no life existed on Earth? How do you know this?