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

[childeye 2]

Ah, so what you really mean is ‘believing in God’?

Moreover I am defining God so that we can agree and believe.

 

[Jonathan Walkerin]

Not even remotely evolution... the gross equivocation between mutation within a single kind (in this case the virus did not become a bacteria or any other such thing... still a virus) -- is mutation not evolution.

That is like saying the first meter of 100 meter sprint is not running.

Evolution is a process not end goal.

Does actually understanding what evolution means somehow break a faith ?

I mean you don’t have to believe it but wouldn’t it be nice to even understand what you are proposing of not believing in ?

 

[Larniavc]

There is One Truth for all of mankind to learn and trust in, even as we share one planet.

So you claim. But you have yet to give a reason for the accuracy of your claims.

 

[Larniavc]

Moreover I am defining God so that we can agree and believe.

Defining something does not make it real. You can assign any qualities to God you wish but that does not providence evidence for his existence.

 

[childeye 2]

So you claim. But you have yet to give a reason for the accuracy of your claims.

Love others as you would want to be loved is proof of this common Truth wherein there is a common faith.

 

[childeye 2]

Defining something does not make it real. You can assign any qualities to God you wish but that does not providence evidence for his existence.

No we can't assign qualities to God according to our wishes. The defining we do must come from proclaiming what is self evident for all people.

 

[BobRyan]

Interesting. What do you think the new Covid19 strain is that let’s it spread more easily if not evolution ?

Which we have now observed.

Not even remotely evolution... the gross equivocation between mutation within a single kind (in this case the virus did not become a bacteria or any other such thing... still a virus) -- is mutation not evolution.

If we delete the salient point of evolution and reduce it down to "a change happened" then having your fingernail grow is under that broad anything-qualifies form and it proves nothing.

Creationists - vs - evolutionist is not a debate where Creationists argue that "fingernails don't grow" or where Creationists argue "a virus will not remain a virus".

Details matter in the C-v-E discussions.

That is like saying the first meter of 100 meter sprint is not running.

No it is like saying that tying your shoes is not running.

The salient point in "running" is the "running" --- not the claim that someone can tie their shoes.

Be ignoring the actual salient point argument in evolution well then... everything is evolution.

No doubt evolution claims to be running along some line - each time you see someone tie their shoes.

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

Notice that you initially start out quoting this post from page 1.

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. ”

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

By contrast Creationists have evidence

(Infinite Creator makes matter transforming living "machines" where plant turns dirt into leaf "every day" and rabbit turns leaf into "more rabbit" every day).

And just as the guys promoting BB will claim that an expanding universe seen today - show them the BB extrapolated far in the past... so also the dirt-to-rabbit matter transformation in-a-single-day that we see in everyday life above - provide the "evidence" that an infinite being can do the whole thing for the entire rabbit in one single evening-and-morning just as He said.

Then proceed to ignore almost every detail in it - so that you can claim that a virus that remains a virus or a bacteria that remains a bacteria is that "bit" that solves the problem for evolution -

But that is utter nonsense - we all know that Dawkins was NOT claiming that we never can see "a bacteria remain and bacteria" while OBSERVING and that the only happens when we are not observing.

Your line of argument that is "everything is evolution" makes the claim that "evolution is not happening while we are observing" impossible.

When in fact Dawkins is talking about the same thing Creationists are talking about when he says "evolution" which is the salient point in that argument and not the sort of non-starter as "every change is evolution".

You are placing your own claims not only in opposition to Creationists but also to evolutionists like Dawkins and Collin Patterson and a great many others

 

[BobRyan]

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

.

That is evolution in action. A change in allele frequency over time. Which is a fundamental building block of TOE. .

No it isn't.

That is not what Dawkins said "we never observe" and we both know it.

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

hint:

Allele Frequency

In a simplified scenario, p and q are the only alleles in the population, and the population is not developing any mutations. If this is the case, the sum of the allele frequencies of p and q must equal 1 because with only two alleles the combined frequency must equal 100%.
...
A common misconception of allele frequency is that it is directly related to the evolutionary fitness of a particular allele. Just because an allele is frequent or infrequent has no bearing on the fitness of that allele. For example, many recessive traits that are deleterious “hide” in a population. This can mean that while it appears to exist at really low levels, it is in fact just hiding in the hybrids of the population.

Other times, a new beneficial mutation will have a very low allele frequency. A new allele must establish itself in a population by outcompeting other alleles. To do this is must be continuously replicated across many generations. In this way, many beneficial alleles are still highly underrepresented in the population because the population has not had time to evolve.

=====


However you are avoiding the details in the first two posts ... 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 did).

the OP now updated at the end to amplify this detail ... only more so.

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.
.

You seem to be trying to avoid the entire point of the thread just then... or am I missing something?

You are not only not addressing the context for the thread but you are actually posting in opposition to the evolution statement made by Dawkins in post #2. Why do that?

 

[BobRyan]

But you haven't answered my question about the voicing.

whaaat? "The voicing"? seriously?

 

[BobRyan]

Defining something does not make it real. You can assign any qualities to God you wish but that does not providence evidence for his existence.

Back to the OP we see this

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

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

Creationists 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 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 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"

The contrast noted in more detail here -- #12
=====================

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

Which includes this statement --

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

The proposal that a rock can do all that is not reasonable on the face of it. The proposal that an infinite being can do the dust-to-rabbit transform even better than we see it being done every day already... is not at all unreasonable. The only question is - does such a being exist.

 

[Speedwell]

whaaat? "The voicing"? seriously?

So you don't have a reason why the voicing switches to the third person at 16:20. OK. I suppose it wouldn't make any difference to you if your believed in Plenary Verbal Inspiration to start with.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
If we delete the salient point of evolution and reduce it down to "a change happened" then having your fingernail grow is under that broad anything-qualifies form and it proves nothing.

So I am suggesting we not do that.

Why would we do that?

Your argument needs it if you want to claim that any change of bacteria or virus that just leaves us still stuck at bacteria (or virus if that was the start chosen) -- is observed evolution "needs" to delete the salient point in your own argument. The very thing Dawkins claims is NOT happening when we look.

If we took out the salient point of Salvation and reduce it down to ‘believing in the supernatural’ then belief in ghosts qualifies and proves nothing.

Agreed. Taking out the key piece that is the grand assumption making the whole thing work - is not helpful.

 

[BobRyan]

So you don't have a reason why the voicing switches to the third person at 16:20. OK

Do you mean Genesis 16:20? If so... what is your point?

 

[Speedwell]

Do you mean Genesis 16:20? If so... what is your point?

My point was that Ex 16:20 seemed to be an explanatory note inserted by the transcriber rather than the quoted speech of God, as indicated by the voicing, a suggestion which you rejected out of hand--without offering any other explanation for it. Normally (and especially in a language without quotation marks) that change would be a "close quotes" marker. A related change occurs at the beginning of the chapter, where the transcriber tells us "God spake these words and said" followed by a change from third to first person voicing, where quoted speech begins.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The person that knows nothing about aerodynamics and "Gets on the plane anyway" is on the right path to truth.

Repeating one's errors does not make them any better.

IT is the everybody-including-atheist sense for the plane... that was the point.

No, not at all. One does not need to understand aerodynamics to know that air travel is safe. One only needs to study the statistics of travel. That is not a faith based position. Nor is atheism. But very few theists allow themselves to understand atheism, must less why it is not faith based.

 

[Larniavc]

Love others as you would want to be loved is proof of this common Truth wherein there is a common faith.

It’s a nice rule to live by but it’s not evidence Rory the claims of the Bible. Anyone can live that way.

 

[childeye 2]

It’s a nice rule to live by but it’s not evidence Rory the claims of the Bible. Anyone can live that way.

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

 

[BobRyan]

Repeating one's errors does not make them any better.

If I only had a nickle for every time someone thought they could avoid the point and just repeat themselves.

No, not at all. One does not need to understand aerodynamics to know that air travel is safe. One only needs to study the statistics of travel.

one does not need to know how to BE God before they can greet another human made by God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

If I only had a nickle for every time someone thought they could avoid the point and just repeat themselves.

You would still have no money since you had no point. Try to support claims with valid evidence.

one does not need to know how to BE God before they can greet another human made by God.

Sorry, this fails since all you have is belief and not evidence. The fact that air travel is safe is a evidence that one can find rather easily. The evidence for your beliefs seems to be totally lacking. And in case I need to remind you in this argument the Bible is the claim. It is not evidence.

 

[BobRyan]

My point was that Ex 16:20 seemed to be an explanatory note inserted by the transcriber

"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?