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

[BobRyan]

What "details"? I could not see any.

I would answer that but cannot tell what you would then claim not to see - in my next post. So that makes the discussion less interesting over time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

And here we get to the nub of your posts. This is a claim that needs to be supported with scientific evidence, not rhetoric. So far you have failed at that reasonable demand.

 

[BobRyan]

I make this claim about rocks/matter not having the inherent "property" / skill to produce a horse over time - given enough time and chance.

They don't "have that as a property of matter" and they don't have the ability to "acquire the skill over time"

If this is an attempt at a logical argument, it falls well short. It's just a non-sequitur.

On the contrary - go back to premise A that you already agreed to. Using the elements you are restricted to - there was no way to go from A to B without some property/talent in the rock that did it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I would answer that but cannot tell what you would then claim not to see - in my next post. So that makes the discussion less interesting over time.

It now appears that even you realize that you have no details. You could have simply posted a supposed "detail". You kept ranting about the details and when asked for specific examples you could not provide any.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I make this claim about rocks/matter

They don't "have that as a property of matter" and they don't have the ability to "acquire the skill over time"

But they do "have that as a property of matter". Your body is made up of the same material as in rocks and minerals. By the way, it is not a "skill". It is a property of matter that it makes molecules and compounds. Cells are composed of molecules and compounds. Life itself refutes your claim.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
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.

And here we get to the nub of your posts. This is a claim that needs to be supported with scientific evidence,

you are not using reason here - because as soon as you argue that rocks all by themselves with not "infinite ability at all" can turn into a horse over time... then "obviously" an infinite Being can turn dust into a horse in a day... according to you rocks already do that but need more time to complete the job.

That means BOTH sides are agreeing (in your model ) that it is very reasonable to state that infinite God can do that.

It means the only issue left in doubt then - is the rock doing it all on its own (which you appear to want to assume) and of course the creationist (and a lot of others as well ) would not be so quick to make that assumption. Nor is there a lab where that happens in fact Dawkins admits it has never been observed -- while we look. (as noted in post 2)

 

[BobRyan]

But they do "have that as a property of matter". .

No they don't. The barren Earth starting point "A" had no rabbit-making-property

 

[Subduction Zone]

BobRyan said: ↑
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.



you are not using reason here - because as soon as you argue that rocks all by themselves with not "infinite ability at all" can turn into a horse over time... then "obviously" an infinite Being can turn dust into a horse in a day... according to you rocks already do that but need more time to complete the job.

That means BOTH sides are agreeing (in your model ) that it is very reasonable to state that infinite God can do that.

It means the only issue left in doubt then - is the rock doing it all on its own (which you appear to want to assume) and of course the creationist (and a lot of others as well ) would not be so quick to make that assumption. Nor is there a lab where that happens in fact Dawkins admits it has never been observed -- while we look. (as noted in post 2)

Ignored. Try again without the rhetoric. Proper sources and evidence please.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No they don't. The barren Earth starting point "A" had no rabbit-making-property

Of course it did. Water existed. Elements existed. Energy regularly entered and left the system. We really do not need any more than that.

 

[BobRyan]

But they do "have that as a property of matter". Your body is made up of the same material as in rocks and minerals.

My computer has carbon and petroleum derivatives in it .. that does not mean that rocks "have the property" all on their own to create animations in 3 D -- and if left to themselves the rocks would just do it.

we could all "pretend" that creationists are the only people that would "notice" that glaringly obvious detail... that is one solution.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
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.

And here we get to the nub of your posts. This is a claim that needs to be supported with scientific evidence,

you are not using reason here - because as soon as you argue that rocks all by themselves with not "infinite ability at all" can turn into a horse over time... then "obviously" an infinite Being can turn dust into a horse in a day... according to you rocks already do that but need more time to complete the job.

That means BOTH sides are agreeing (in your model ) that it is very reasonable to state that infinite God can do that.

It means the only issue left in doubt then - is the rock doing it all on its own (which you appear to want to assume) and of course the creationist (and a lot of others as well ) would not be so quick to make that assumption. Nor is there a lab where that happens in fact Dawkins admits it has never been observed -- while we look. (as noted in post 2)

Ignored .

I will try fewer details next time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My computer has carbon and petroleum derivatives in it .. that does not mean that rocks "have the property" all on their own to create animations in 3 D -- and if left to themselves the rocks would just do it.

Try again without a strawman. All that it takes to refute rhetoric is a wave of ones hand

 

[Subduction Zone]

BobRyan said: ↑
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.



you are not using reason here - because as soon as you argue that rocks all by themselves with not "infinite ability at all" can turn into a horse over time... then "obviously" an infinite Being can turn dust into a horse in a day... according to you rocks already do that but need more time to complete the job.

That means BOTH sides are agreeing (in your model ) that it is very reasonable to state that infinite God can do that.

It means the only issue left in doubt then - is the rock doing it all on its own (which you appear to want to assume) and of course the creationist (and a lot of others as well ) would not be so quick to make that assumption. Nor is there a lab where that happens in fact Dawkins admits it has never been observed -- while we look. (as noted in post 2)



I will try fewer details next time.

<sigh> More rhetoric. No evidence

 

[pitabread]

<snip>

May I offer you some general forum posting etiquette advice?

1) There is no need to split a single post response into three separate replies. It just makes for extra clutter when replying.

2) If you're going to repeat things you have previously posted, please encase in them in proper quotes with a reference to the originating posts. The forum's QUOTE feature does this. Not including things in proper quotes makes it more difficult to parse what is new versus what you are just repeating from prior posts.

3) This is especially the case when you are quoting other people's posts. When you omit proper quote tags, it makes it look like you are just repeating what someone else said. And then it becomes confusing whether you are intending to do that.

 

[Speedwell]

"seemed to be"?

Ex 16
19 Moses said to them, “No one is to leave any of it until morning.” 20 But they did not listen to Moses, and some left part of it until morning, and it bred worms and stank; and Moses was angry with them. 21 They gathered it morning by morning, everyone as much as he would eat; but when the sun became hot, it would melt. 22 Now on the sixth day they gathered twice as much bread, two omers for each one. When all the leaders of the congregation came and told Moses, 23 And he said unto them, This is that which the Lord hath said, Tomorrow is The Holy Sabbath unto the Lord: bake that which ye will bake to day, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remains over lay up for you to be kept until the morning.

What is your point?

Why are you in Exodus 16 for this topic?

My mistake. I meant to type Exodus 20:11--can't much do two things at once any more.

 

[Hans Blaster]

.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Mutations that take the prokaryote to the level of uekaryote is evolution ... every other change is within the bounds of mutation that is not at all evolution.

It wasn't mutations that turned prokaryote to eukaryote. The current hypothesis is that the ancestors of the early eukaryotes ingested or merged with other single-celled organisms in a process the resulted in a merger. Both mitochondria (found in all eukaryotes) and chloroplasts (found in plants) have their own DNA, remnant of their prior independence.

 

[Larniavc]

People live that way because Love exists in all and upholds us all in the faith thereof, wherefore Love is God.

I’ll be honest I can’t parse what you are trying to say so I’ll respectfully back out at this time.

 

[driewerf]

My mistake. I meant to type Exodus 20:11--can't much do two things at once any more.

I can still do two things at the same time -- to in the end messing up three things.

 

[Larniavc]

No it isn't.

Yes it is. That is the mechanism that a population changes it’s genotype and phenotype: the alleles in the population change over time.

This is basic biology. Just what is your level of education in biology?