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

[Larniavc]

The only question is - does such a being exist.

So pony up with the evidence of the god of the Bible’s existence

 

[Larniavc]

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.

That’s an interesting claim. Can you support it with evidence?

 

[Larniavc]

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.

I also have no real idea what you are trying to demonstrate.

 

[Larniavc]

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.

All the atoms in your computer were once dust. As were all the atoms in your body.

Billions of years ago one could have pointed to those atoms and claimed there would never be 3D animations from those atoms.

But here we are.

 

[pitabread]

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.

You might want to read up on the concept of emerging properties: Emergence - Wikipedia

There is no requirement for the individual parts to have all of the properties of the whole. Essentially the combined total is greater than the sum of the individual parts, so to speak.

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

Or another solution: creationists could learn about emerging properties. That is one area where a lot of the disconnect occurs in these discussions.

 

[Danthemailman]

So pony up with the evidence of the god of the Bible’s existence

I recommend that you read "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel. He is a former atheist who is now a devout Christian.

"My road to atheism was paved by science...but, ironically, so was my later journey to God." - Lee Strobel

 

[Subduction Zone]

I recommend that you read "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel. He is a former atheist who is now a devout Christian.

"My road to atheism was paved by science...but, ironically, so was my later journey to God." - Lee Strobel

Strobel's claims of being a former atheist are extremely dubious. Plus he knows no biology. Why would anyone listen to him?

There are Christians that at times get mad at God and claim to be an atheist until they get over their anger. They were Christians all along. Just ticked off ones for a while.

But go ahead post his best arguments. I remember how bad his other book was. We could all use a laugh..

 

[BobRyan]

It wasn't mutations that turned prokaryote to eukaryote.

true. Nothing did that. and in fact it has never been observed to happen not even with observation over 50,0000 generations in the case of a species many time more genetically adaptive than humans.

E. coli long-term evolution experiment - Wikipedia

The E. coli long-term evolution experiment (LTEE) is an ongoing study in experimental evolution led by Richard Lenski that has been tracking genetic changes in 12 initially identical populations of asexual Escherichia coli bacteria since 24 February 1988.[2] The populations reached the milestone of 50,000 generations in February 2010.[3] Lenski performed the 10,000th transfer of the experiment on March 13, 2017.[4] The populations reached 73,500 generations in early 2020, shortly before being frozen because of the COVID-19 pandemic.[5][6]

And of course 73,500 generations for bacteria translates to around 2.94 Million years for humans.

Whereas "modern humans" supposedly arrive in about 200,000 years according to "the story". (Actually more like 10,000 years given the 190,000 years of "no advancement" argument below )

Modern Humans Emerged 200,000 Years Ago. Why Was Technology Stagnant Until The Last 10,000?

Modern humans appeared 200,000; civilization 10,000; and advanced technology 500 years ago. Why no advancement for something like 190,000 years? originally appeared on Quora: the place to gain and share knowledge, empowering people to learn from others and better understand the world.

Answer by Richard Muller, Professor of Physics at UC Berkeley, author of Now, The Physics of Time, on Quora:

Modern humans appeared 200,000; civilization 10,000; and advanced technology 500 years ago. Why no advancement for something like 190,000 years?

 

[Danthemailman]

Strobel's claims of being a former atheist are extremely dubious. Plus he knows no biology. Why would anyone listen to him?

There are Christians that at times get mad at God and claim to be an atheist until they get over their anger. They were Christians all along. Just ticked off ones for a while.

But go ahead post his best arguments. I remember how bad his other book was. We could all use a laugh..

Are you a lawyer by profession?

 

[BobRyan]

hmmm-- after claiming you find "no details" in the OP we get this at your post 127... (finally)..

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

Okay lets go back to the OP:

your post 127 starts off reasonably

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.

Agreed.

indeed it is obvious to all.

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

Agreed.

BobRyan said: ↑
Creationists claim that the Bible Creation account shows that an infinite Being (infinite in wisdom and dpower) 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

Ok so those were easy steps.

Now I added this to the top of the OP to make sure everyone is on the same page...

First Premise -- on a combined complexity, power, wisdom and creative capability scale of 0 to infinity.

A rock: is at zero.
God: is at infinity

rocks ---------------------------------------atheist---------------------------God

Where "God" is the term defined in Websters as: "1 God : the supreme or ultimate reality: such as. a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped". The concept of a being infinite in wisdom, power, capability etc.

Do you agree or object? if you object draw the line you would agree to with only those three nouns on it and where "God" is defined as in the dictionary concept. Websters: "1 God : the supreme or ultimate reality: such as. a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped"

 

[BobRyan]

I 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.

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

ok fine

"There EXISTS 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

I don't want to get stuck on the easy part.

 

[BobRyan]

I 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)

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 is where it would help to actually look here #2

(as noted before)

Because it was noted there that we ALREADY DO see the matter transformation from dirt to rabbit every single day where the matter transforming "machines" of the plant and the rabbit take dirt convert it to leaf then take leaf and convert it to rabbit all in a single day. This happens every single day "already".

Adding "infinite capability" to that already observed scenario does not weaken it ... it gives is infinite capability to scale up. Obviously.

pitabread said: ↑
This does not follow from the above.

You needed to first read that #2 and then if you can imagine a way where it does not follow "show your work".

I have already pointed this out in a previous post.

 

[BobRyan]

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

Indeed brown hair vs white hair distribution changes in rabbits that remain rabbits... not evolution because a bazillion brown-hair white-hair ratio changes in phenotype over billions of years of time -- that leave you with "rabbits still" is NOT the salient point proven for evolutionism... it is the "salient point refuted"

 

[BobRyan]

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

8 “Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 For six days you shall labor and do all your work, 10 but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God; on it you shall not do any work, you, or your son, or your daughter, your male slave or your female slave, or your cattle, or your resident who stays with you. 11 For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea and everything that is in them, and He rested on the seventh day; for that reason the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and made it holy.

It is all third person -- consistently. In the Bible God often speaks of Himself in the third person.

Ex 4
10 Then Moses said to the Lord, “Please, Lord, I have never been eloquent, neither recently nor in time past, nor since You have spoken to Your servant; for I am slow of speech and slow of tongue.” 11 But the Lord said to him, “Who has made the human mouth? Or who makes anyone unable to speak or deaf, or able to see or blind? Is it not I, the Lord?

And your point???

 

[BobRyan]

It now appears that even you realize that you have no details. .

Feel free to join the conversation at any moment.

 

[pitabread]

I recommend that you read "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel. He is a former atheist who is now a devout Christian.

Having gone through the table of contents, is this book anything more than just a grab bag of ID arguments? (e.g. life too complex to evolve, fine tuning arguments, etc)?

 

[Subduction Zone]

hmmm-- after claiming you find "no details" in the OP we get this at your post 127... (finally)..

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


your post 127 starts off reasonably





indeed it is obvious to all.









Ok so those were easy steps.

Now I added this to the top of the OP to make sure everyone is on the same page...



Do you agree or object? if you object draw the line you would agree to with only those three nouns on it and where "God" is defined as in the dictionary concept. Websters: "1 God : the supreme or ultimate reality: such as. a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped"

Your premise is flawed from the beginning. If you want to claim a God the burden of proof lies upon you. I could go on because your argument continues to fail, but that is good enough for now.

 

[pitabread]

<snip>

Your posts are still difficult to follow, especially as you keep splitting replies into multiple posts, but then recombining quotes from other posts.

It's too much work to try to follow anything you're trying to say.

 

[BobRyan]

I 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.

This also does not follow from the above.

If you are going to argue that a rock has capacity/properties/skill to turn into a horse over time... then you would have had to already admit that God can do that from dust-to-horse in a single day, given that the concept for God and rock (see OP updated) are as agreed upon.


This is absolutely not non-sensical -- rather we are still dealing with the obvious when it comes to the claim that infinite capability is above "rock".

First Premise -- on a combined complexity, power, wisdom and creative capability scale of 0 to infinity.

A rock: is at zero.
God: is at infinity

rocks ---------------------------------------atheist---------------------------God

Where "God" is the term defined in Websters as: "1 God : the supreme or ultimate reality: such as. a : the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshiped". The concept of a being infinite in wisdom, power, capability etc.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Feel free to join the conversation at any moment.

I am in it. It appears that you are not.