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

[BobRyan]

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

Irrefutable points, details etc are sort of like kryptonite - people that need to avoid them... will. I notice you are avoiding the topic, page 1... the first two posts.... the details.

Was I not supposed to notice?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Irrefutable points, details etc are sort of like kryptonite - people that need to avoid them... will. I notice you are avoiding the topic, page 1... the first two posts.... the details.

Was I not supposed to notice?

You made no such points. So why even post this?

What point do you think that you have made?

 

[BobRyan]

WoW! Those first two posts must be very "very" difficult for our friends to deal with.

I thought it would be easier than this for them.

 

[BobRyan]

You made no such points. So why even post this?

What point do you think that you have made?

Still avoiding the first two posts... on this thread while claiming you see no points made??

What exactly is your logic there.. are we simply supposed to forget the topic and the points in the OP???

 

[Subduction Zone]

WoW! Those first two posts must be very "very" difficult for our friends to deal with.

I thought it would be easier than this for them.

You appear to be fooling yourself.

 

[BobRyan]

You appear to be fooling yourself.

hmmm. "still" not addressing the first two posts I see.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Okay lets go back to the OP:

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.

Agreed.

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

Agreed.

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.

Yes, this is agreed to too, but now you run into problems, this has been demonstrably refuted.

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)

And this is a pointless non sequitur.

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

And we are back to demonstrably wrong claims/

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

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

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

Wrong about what atheists claim. And yes, some creationists are very ignorant and use poor arguments. Is there a point here?

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.

And this is a strawman since no one claimed thsi.

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

Oh my. Please, don't accuse others of your shortcomings.

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.
.

Okay so a long post full of errors on your part that made no valid points. The thread could have ended right there as a loss.

 

[Subduction Zone]

hmmm. "still" not addressing the first two posts I see.

Patience. Post number two next. There were no valid claims in post one.

 

[BobRyan]

Patience. Post number two next. There were no valid claims in post one.

"ignoring the detail" not as compelling as you may first have imagined.

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.
.

follow the details.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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 a kind of blind faith in the "very talented rock" scenario.

Yes, creationists are rather ignorant when it comes to the sciences since blind faith is not needed for evolution. Oddly when others offer to help you to understand how we know that life evolved you never take them up on their offers. Instead you prefer to make obviously false claims about them. By the way, no one believes in a "talented rock".

But the difference is that humans DO see dust turned into rabbit in a day - every day.

And we DON'T see even one talented rock do that - ever!

Oh my, a red herring and a very biased and an argument from ignorance. You need more than this.

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

Yep we see that every day and it argues that the infinite creator with sufficient power and wisdom could do the entire thing in a day with resulting in the compete rabbit in a single step. (i.e. the nature of "infinite")

Clearly creationists have the informed-faith-with-evidence in the example above where every day - we "see" the dust-to-rabbit transformation in the living systems God created.

Blind faith is the "talented rock" version-

===== BTW -- as for Creationist embracing the Bible doctrine on Origins ---

Finding out that legal code is not something that the Bible presents as fable or fiction is left as an exercise for the reader. A lot of serious Bible students found that out a long time ago.

Even atheists figured it out - as world class professors of Hebrew and OT studies point out for the genesis account. (much less trying to inject fiction as a form of Bible "legal code")


Professor James Barr, Regius Professor of Hebrew at the University of Oxford, has written:


‘Probably, so far as I know, there is no professor of Hebrew or Old Testament at any world-class university who does not believe that the writer(s) of Genesis 1–11 intended to convey to their readers the ideas that:

(a) creation took place in a series of six days which were the same as the days of 24 hours we now experience

(b) the figures contained in the Genesis genealogies provided by simple addition a chronology from the beginning of the world up to later stages in the biblical story

(c) Noah’s flood was understood to be world-wide and extinguish all human and animal life except for those in the ark.

Or, to put it negatively, the apologetic arguments which suppose the "days" of creation to be long eras of time, the figures of years not to be chronological, and the flood to be a merely local Mesopotamian flood, are not taken seriously by any such professors, as far as I know.’
=================================== end quote

Too much unrelated nonsense. I got tired. Bring up your points one at a time. Try not to use inflammatory or misleading language and phrases. I doubt if you can do this, but it is the proper way to argue. If I used your sorts of language about the Bible I would be quickly moderated. You should extend the same courtesy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"ignoring the detail" not as compelling as you may first have imagined.



follow the details.

I do follow the details. Once again you are projecting. Can you debate properly without using inflammatory language? Use proper terminology. For science find valid sources that do not require their followers to avoid the scientific method.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"ignoring the detail" not as compelling as you may first have imagined.



follow the details.

Once again, there were no "details". Only nonsense. Try again.

I need to repeat myself. Bring up well supported claims. Since this is a supposed to be a scientific debate the only "details" should be properly supported scientific ones.

 

[BobRyan]

Patience. Post number two next. There were no valid claims in post one.

"ignoring the detail" not as compelling as you may first have imagined.

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.
.

follow the details.

Once again, there were no "details". Only nonsense. Try again.

I need to repeat myself. .

I see you repeating yourself a lot - as I noted earlier. But that is not a substantive way to address the details in the first two posts of this thread.

If you are happy not responding to them fine... I am not blaming you for not having an answer.

 

[pitabread]

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.

Sure.

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.

Depending which "creationists" one is referring to, yes some of them claim the Bible shows that.

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)

Sure.

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

This does not follow from the above.

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.

This also does not follow from the above.

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

This is just non-sensical. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

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

 

[BobRyan]

Yes, creationists are rather ignorant when it comes to the sciences since blind faith is not ... <obligatory rant deleted here>.

Can you debate properly without using inflammatory language? ....

You are responding to your own post or mine?

I am simply asking that you respond to the details in the first two posts rather than using your inflammatory language.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"ignoring the detail" not as compelling as you may first have imagined.



follow the details.



I see you repeating yourself a lot - as I noted earlier. But that is not a substantive way to address the details in the first two posts of this thread.

If you are happy not responding to them fine... I am not blaming you for not having an answer.

Back to your same old song. There were no "details". You only made bogus claims.

I see that my more than reasonable solution was ignored. That make people wonder why.

Once again, if you have "details" bring them up one at a time. Do not post rather facile and lame arguments. They do not help you. If you want to refute evolution you need evidence, not rhetoric.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You are responding to your own post or mine?

I am simply asking that you respond to the details in the first two posts rather than using your inflammatory language.

What "details"? I could not see any. Nor as there any inflammatory language. Only facts. I know that those are uncomfortable facts. And if I was wrong guess what it would take to demonstrate that. It would take evidence not rhetoric. So far your posts have been long on rhetoric and short on evidence.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
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.

Sure.

It is helpful to get the first few obvious steps agreed to --- since they are not even remotely controversial.

BobRyan said: ↑
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.

Yes, creationists claim the Bible shows that.

True. another obvious point that I think everyone should be able to agree with.

BobRyan said: ↑
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)

Sure.

Thanks. again.. .not controversial.

 

[BobRyan]

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
.

This does not follow from the above.

How so? If you notice the link it shows that in fact without miracle-interruption with "infinite" knowledge and power -- we already see the matter transformation of dirt-to-rabbit in a single day.

So how is it you say this "does not follow" having "infinite" capability step in and reverse that effect of man deconstructing rabbit back to dirt in less than a day -

Or given that we already have the matter transform of dirt-to-rabbit happening every single day in real life "while we observe" on a smaller scale without inserting the infinite at all ... then how is it that adding "the infinite" capability of God would leave us stuck at no greater ability than we see already happening today???

 

[BobRyan]

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.

This also does not follow from the above.

It is just an observation and since Dawkins also claims this will not be observed to happen - while we observe... it is more than reasonable to conclude this.

However as I noted at the start the Creationists will doubt the existence of "such a talented/skilled rock".

Interesting that you say infinite power and knowledge cannot transition from dirt to rabbit in a day... but then say that the rock can do it all by itself given enough time and chance and that one should not reasonably doubt that suggestion??


I find a certain paucity in the logic that goes that rout .