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

[driewerf]

I see evolutionists use that tactic a lot but not sure why they do it - unless maybe they just don't have answers to the points raised. It is great for emotional content but I find it "less than substantive"

All the points raised in the OP were answered, in the post that you quoted. You know the part of my post that you deleted. Complaining that your points were not answered after deleting that part is just one more box checked on the creationist bingo card.
And don't deny that you deleted that part. Every reader can go back to the post you quoted thanks to the little upward arrow by the side of my screen name, and see its content in the original.

 

[BobRyan]

All the points raised in the OP were answered

whattt ??? "snark" is not the same thing as "answering the point". I thought we all knew that part and I was just humoring those who chose "snark anyway"... so you say there is "substance in it"?

 

[driewerf]

whattt ??? "snark" is not the same thing as "answering the point". I thought we all knew that part and I was just humoring those who chose "snark anyway"... so you say there is "substance in it"?

Obviously more than you can handle.

 

[BobRyan]

Hmm, no.
If you mean that a man can put a rabbit in a meat grinder he will have minced meat, no dust. So your post starts already badly.

Sadly that falls far short of comprehensive response to the glaringly obvious fact that we do have today furnace temperatures known to man that can reduce a rabbit to dust in much less than 24 hours. How is this even "confusing"?/

1) Show me even the existence of such a being before we start to speculate

hmm you seem to be affirming the OP point about atheists as your way of arguing against it???

Atheists will argue that no such being "exists".
Creationists will argue that "no such rock exists"

This is why I say I have been humoring those who prefer "snark" -- I thought they simply were not being serious.

3) The carbon, phosphor etc of which rabbits are built are organised in very complicated molecules (DNA, RNA, proteins etc). Show me how these molecules can be synthesized in one day from the elements (not yet) formed in step 2. .

A man can deconstruct that tissue -- reducing it to dust in far less than a day.

A sufficiently wise and powerful infinite creator can do the reverse of it.

This is not even a question.

The point for the atheist is denying the existence of such a being (as already noted above).

Sadly - you are stuck arguing that infinitely powerful and wise can't do something - which if course is nonsense. Proof that you are not being serious.

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

So again the conclusion that the OP details are sooooo glaringly obvious - it is left as an "exercise for the reader" to notice that those who struggle with either the two premise statements or the conclusion - are simply not being serious.

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 grasping the points being made here and can choose to ignore all the details that they wish.

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

 

[Subduction Zone]

Because we see bacteria turn into horses all the time?

As Dawkins admitted - evolution is observable -- it just never happens while we are observing.

So we "observe" that it never happens while we are observing.

================================
As Dawkins pointed out "Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening."

‘Battle over evolution’ Bill Moyers interviews Richard Dawkins, Now, 3 December 2004, PBS network

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

How does that differ from:


Child: “It has been observed that the Tooth fairy gave me this dollar.”
Adult: Really can we hide and watch him bring you the next dollar?
Child: “no you can never see it happen it does not happen while you are observing – but I say it has been observed anyway. ”

So cute! You think that we need to observe something that would refute evolution to "prove" it.

By the way, you need to work on your concept of observation. There are more ways to observe events than with your naked eyes looking at what is occurring presently.

 

[essentialsaltes]

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

Given the above, I think you may be talking to yourself. Which is not necessarily a bad thing, unless you're just trying to convince yourself of your own odd ideas.

 

[childeye 2]

Faith is not needed to accept evolution. Only evidence.

'If' evolution is meant to imply that there's no God it's unfaith.

 

[Speedwell]

'If' evolution is meant to imply that there's no God it's unfaith.

Whether there is a God or not, and whether there is evolution or not are two separate questions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

'If' evolution is meant to imply that there's no God it's unfaith.

Why do so many creationists think that evolution disproves God? All that it does is to show that Genesis cannot be read literally. Reading the Bible too literally is a wrong that most Christians understand. If one can understand the verses of the Bible as written one would see that it only speaks of the Earth as being flat in both word and deed. Yet very very few Christians believe in a Flat Earth. Why can't the apply that same reasoning when it comes to evolution?

 

[childeye 2]

Whether there is a God or not, and whether there is evolution or not are two separate questions.

Sure, but the term faith is not the sentiment of superstition and shouldn't be presented as such.

 

[Speedwell]

Why do so many creationists think that evolution disproves God? All that it does is to show that Genesis cannot be read literally. Reading the Bible too literally is a wrong that most Christians understand. If one can understand the verses of the Bible as written one would see that it only speaks of the Earth as being flat in both word and deed. Yet very very few Christians believe in a Flat Earth. Why can't the apply that same reasoning when it comes to evolution?

Because they lack the theological background which allows Traditional Christians (and most Protestants) to understand how God can be creatively involved with a natural process like evolution.

 

[childeye 2]

Why do so many creationists think that evolution disproves God? All that it does is to show that Genesis cannot be read literally. Reading the Bible too literally is a wrong that most Christians understand. If one can understand the verses of the Bible as written one would see that it only speaks of the Earth as being flat in both word and deed. Yet very very few Christians believe in a Flat Earth. Why can't the apply that same reasoning when it comes to evolution?

Respectfully I'm just taking issue with your application of the term 'faith'. Faith is not 'superstition'.

 

[Speedwell]

Sure, but the term faith is not the sentiment of superstition and shouldn't be presented as such.

Who is doing that?

 

[BobRyan]

Everyone agrees that a man can turn a rabbit into dust into a single day. That is a given.

So then clearly - an infinite being with infinite power and wisdom can turn dust into a rabbit in a single day.

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"

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

Atheists will argue that no such being "exists".
Creationists will argue that "no such rock exists"

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

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 grasping the points being made here and can choose to ignore all the details that they wish.

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

Ends with "I am trying to address those who understand the concepts above"

Given the above, I think you may be talking to yourself. .

Interesting that there are people ready to admit that are not among those that understand the concepts in the obvious post above. I would not have thought that would happen so quickly.

So cute! You think that we need to observe something that would refute evolution to "prove" it. .

you quote "you" and then ask why I said that?? seriously?

This may help explain the difficulty some claim they have in understanding the concepts in the OP.

 

[BobRyan]

This is going to be one of those threads where quoting the OP will always appear to be "news" in a string of otherwise off-topic posts.

 

[Speedwell]

Ends with "I am trying to address those who understand the concepts above"





Interesting that there are people ready to admit that are not among those that understand the concepts in the obvious post above. I would not have thought that would happen so quickly.



you quote "you" and then ask why I said that?? seriously?

This may help explain the difficulty some claim they have in understanding the concepts in the OP.

The concepts are clear enough--it's the dichotomy which is false.

 

[Larniavc]

So then clearly - an infinite being with infinite power and wisdom can turn dust into a rabbit in a single day.

Hold on. It’s demonstrable that a man can ash a rabbit but it has not been demonstrated that God can de-ash a rabbit.

 

[childeye 2]

Who is doing that?

I don't believe anyone is doing it intentionally. I simply notice:
"Some will say that one group has faith in the ability of the infinite Being...And Creationist will say that there are others who have faith in the talented rock.

Either way - it is faith".

Now I notice a contradiction: "Faith is not needed to accept evolution. Only evidence".

The term faith changes meaning when referring to being placed in a Person as opposed to a thing, and also when referring to existence as opposed to trustworthiness of Character. You can't have biblical faith in a Person if you don't believe they exist. In the qualification that faith is not needed to accept evolution only evidence, then it implies faith is necessary to accept God without evidence, which qualifies faith as believing God exists without evidence, which is different than the faith that counts God as trustworthy in Character of Person, particularly when Christ is evidence of God's Trustworthiness.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't believe anyone is doing it intentionally. I simply notice:
"Some will say that one group has faith in the ability of the infinite Being...And Creationist will say that there are others who have faith in the talented rock.

Either way - it is faith".

Now I notice a contradiction: "Faith is not needed to accept evolution. Only evidence".

The term faith changes meaning when referring to being placed in a Person as opposed to a thing, and also when referring to existence as opposed to trustworthiness of Character. You can't have biblical faith in a Person if you don't believe they exist.

That first statement is Bob's, trying to compare faith in God with what he calls "faith" in a natural process.

The second is a clarification from another poster that acceptance of the existence of a natural process is based on empirical evidence and is not the same as faith in God.

 

[driewerf]

Why do so many creationists think that evolution disproves God? All that it does is to show that Genesis cannot be read literally. Reading the Bible too literally is a wrong that most Christians understand. If one can understand the verses of the Bible as written one would see that it only speaks of the Earth as being flat in both word and deed. Yet very very few Christians believe in a Flat Earth. Why can't the apply that same reasoning when it comes to evolution?

In order to shield the flock from learning about it. make the threat as big as possible -- and what danger is bigger than being damned to hell? -- to make sure that the grass root christian does not listen to those pesky "evilutionists", does not read what the ToE really says, does not open a textbook. It's just poisoning the well, in order of keeping the flock from learning.