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

[Hans Blaster]

Belief is the evidence of things not seen. In this case no atheist has seen a rock transform into a horse

Are you saying that all sculptors believe in gods?

 

[Speedwell]

Maybe they should take philosophy of science, but they certainly don't. I didn't, and I don't think such a course is required of any science major at any of the universities I've been associated with.

Maybe I just went to college too long ago.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
Belief is the evidence of things not seen. In this case no atheist has seen a rock transform into a horse

Are you saying that all sculptors believe in gods?

Not quite... I am saying no atheist has seen a rock turn into a horse. (no matter the time frame)

apparently I am not the only one here to make that observation

pitabread said: ↑
Nobody thinks a rock "transformed" into a horse

 

[Speedwell]

BobRyan said: ↑
Belief is the evidence of things not seen. In this case no atheist has seen a rock transform into a horse



Not quite... I am saying no atheist has seen a rock turn into a horse.

Why do you think that is important? Atheists have not seen any number of things which we can be reasonably sure actually happened.

 

[BobRyan]

When you say things like "rock transformed into a horse" you're conjuring the image of a rock literally turning into a horse.

No I am not. your use of "conjuring" is faulty. You are using extreme inference to support your own accusation based solely on your own use of extreme inference. You setup the straw man then assail it. As if I am suppose to object when you are playing both sides of the net for your match.

Everyone knows about the "billions" language some folks love to insert for stories dealing with evolution - that is "a given" not "something new for me to introduce" - all I need are the two end points.

1. The ancient world with no life on it.
2. The modern day earth with a large diversity of life

see the OP where this is established in post #1.

rock turns into a horse summation for that is taking the two end points and highlighting the problem of "inherent property".

So then the skill/ability/talent" that would need to be there at the start or the skill/capacity/capability to "acquire" that talent over time. There is no other option.

Your notion that it was left out - does not survive the facts in the thread...does not survive post #1.

I then contrast that with the creationist option that the skill/capability/talent is there at the start for the infinite Creator turns dust into horse on day 6, scenario. Where it is a single evening-and-morning in that case as I also point out on page 1 of this thread.

 

[BobRyan]

Atheists have not seen any number of things which we can be reasonably sure actually happened.

no doubt.

 

[BobRyan]

The idea that you have to directly observe and repeat everything for it to be valid science is absurd. Even creationists accept that fossils are evidence of extinct creatures.

The fact that a creature can go extinct is demonstrable today in real life observation as well as seeing a fossil of one that used to exist but does not exist today.

But we can see "today" that we have both prokaryotes and eukaryotes and we can see 'today' that direct observations of more then 75000 generations of prokaryotes do not show them turning into horses, or even eukaryotes over that number of generations.

There is no "fossil record of a prokaryote turning into a eukaryote".

But more than that - as the OP points out - there is no record of rocks on lifeless barren earth popping out eukaryotes nor even prokaryotes popping out eukaryotes.

wondrous miraculous saltations where prokaryotes find a bunch of organelles and organize them internally to become a eukaryote is a 'story' that some like and others do not. Let's not equivocate between that - and observing that an animal just went extinct.

 

[Speedwell]

The fact that a creature can go extinct is demonstrable today in real life observation as well as seeing a fossil of one that used to exist but does not exist today.

But we can see "today" that we have both prokaryotes and eukaryotes and we can see 'today' that direct observations of more then 75000 generations of prokaryotes do not show them turning into horses, or even eukaryotes over that number of generations.

Who knows? Maybe it never happened in nature the way scientists hypothesize.. But you will never convince anybody with that stupid argument, because scientists also hypothesize that it couldn't happen under the conditions maintained in the Lenski experiment.

But more than that - as the OP points out - there is no record of rocks on lifeless barren earth popping out eukaryotes nor even prokaryotes popping out eukaryotes.

Are you being hyperbolic again? Or do you really suppose that anyone believes that prokaryotes spontaneously self-assembled from inorganic matter?

wondrous miraculous saltations where prokaryotes find a bunch of organelles and organize them internally to become a eukaryote is a 'story' that some like and others do not. Let's not equivocate between that - and observing that an animal just went extinct.

It may be "only a story" but it's plausible, given what is known of biochemistry. There is certainly no harm in considering it as an hypothesis.

 

[pitabread]

No I am not. your use of "conjuring" is faulty. You are using extreme inference to support your own accusation based solely on your own use of extreme inference.

I am explaining how your own use of language is coming across. As I said , I'd it's not your intended meaning then you may wish to modify your phrasing.

Now if you don't care how you are coming across then so be it. I suspect you don't and given this train wreck of a thread, I still don't know what you think you're accomplishing here. At this point it seems little more than trolling.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But we can see "today" that we have both prokaryotes and eukaryotes and we can see 'today' that direct observations of more then 75000 generations of prokaryotes do not show them turning into horses, or even eukaryotes over that number of generations.

As I already explained, that argument is a foolish straw man. If you can't understand that, there seems little point continuing.

 

[BobRyan]

As I already explained, that argument is a foolish straw man. If you can't understand that, there seems little point continuing.

I understand that claiming that form of condemnation of someone else's post is pretty easy to do - we can all do it.

I prefer statements of fact.

Atheists coming to a Christian Forum should (in theory) be trying to make the most objective compelling case possible. resorting to name-calling and denegrating terms as "the solution" is hardly ... compelling.

Stick with facts.

 

[BobRyan]

I am explaining how your own use of language is coming across.

Can you find even one single person here that honestly imagines that I think evolution teaches that rocks will pop-out a horse on command and that is "evolution"?

Why present scenarios we both know have no supporting fact for the claim made?

Notice all the "details" your own response deleted from my post that explicitly refute your claim that someone here honestly thinks I believe such a thing given that the OP flatly refutes it.

Now if you don't care how you are coming across then so be it.

I think a lot of people at least read "the opening post" before coming to the end of the thread and skipping all the details. you post as if no one reads the OP. how can that be a serious solution for you?

I suspect you don't and given this train wreck of a thread, I still don't know what you think you're accomplishing here. .

I suspect you know exactly what is going on here - any Christian reading the first page will instantly see a problem - and even atheists that read the first full page of this thread will have a few unbiased, objective, thoughts pop up as well.

The "everyone agrees" list is hard to refute

 

[BobRyan]

Who knows? Maybe it never happened in nature the way scientists hypothesize..

certainly that is possible.. read the OP

C. Everyone agrees - there is "such a thing" as stories easy enough to tell. Creationists do not agree with atheists on which stories those are - but they do agree that such stories exist.

 

[Speedwell]

certainly that is possible.. read the OP

The point is, that what happened during the Lenski experiment has no bearing on it. You disagree with the hypothesis of how eukaryotes formed. No big deal, it's only an hypothesis. The point is, that the Lenski experiment is not a test of the hypothesis.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Not quite... I am saying no atheist has seen a rock turn into a horse. (no matter the time frame)

The only "rock" that ever became a "horse" was a block of stone carved into a statute of a horse. (w/ or w/o rider)

The "rocks to horses" view of evolution is just plain wrong. That is not what is claimed. Period.

 

[Speedwell]

The only "rock" that ever became a "horse" was a block of stone carved into a statute of a horse. (w/ or w/o rider)

The "rocks to horses" view of evolution is just plain wrong. That is not what is claimed. Period.

Bob knows better--it's just hyperbole used to express distain.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Atheists coming to a Christian Forum should (in theory) be trying to make the most objective compelling case possible. resorting to name-calling and denegrating terms as "the solution" is hardly ... compelling.

Calling your argument a "strawman" is not name calling and it is not a derogatory term. A strawman argument is an argument that one makesas a representation of your opponents argument that is badly wrong and usually deliberately so. A strawman argument is (purposefully) weak so that it can be knocked down with out much effort.

 

[Ophiolite]

Stick with facts.

May we take this as a commitment on your part to stop the false claims about 75,000 generations of prokayote? The error in your claim has been explained to you multiple times, yet you keep recycling it. Why? Facts are allways to be favoured over fiction, and you are promoting fiction.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I understand that claiming that form of condemnation of someone else's post is pretty easy to do - we can all do it.

I prefer statements of fact.

Well, it's a fact that the Lenski experiment is not intended or set up to produce eukaryotes from prokaryotes, and (as already explained) cannot do so. So it is misrepresenting it to suggest it as counter-evidence to the evolution of eukaryotes from prokaryotes; IOW, a straw man.

Atheists coming to a Christian Forum should (in theory) be trying to make the most objective compelling case possible. resorting to name-calling and denegrating terms as "the solution" is hardly ... compelling.

I criticised your argument - I've not called you names, and if you think calling your argument foolish denigrates you, you only have yourself to blame; it's foolish the way criticising a Ferarri for not being a tractor is foolish.

Stick with facts.

You got them, try to use them.

 

[Gene2memE]

BobRyan said: ↑
Belief is the evidence of things not seen. In this case no atheist has seen a rock transform into a horse.

Your logical fallacy is ambiguity

There is very good evidence for the development of life from very simple unicellular organisms to large, complex multicellular organisms over a period of roughly 3.2 billion years.

The origin of life is an unsettled question in the sciences. There are currently multiple, competing hypotheses about how life potentially developed. There is not, as yet, a satisfactory, answer to the question.

However, at no point in the scientific processes will there be (or can there be) anything other than a naturalistic explanation. To do so, science would have to abandon one of its chief underpinnings of methodological naturalism. And, if it does that, then it can't provide satisfactory answers to ANYTHING.

Not quite... I am saying no atheist has seen a rock turn into a horse. (no matter the time frame)

No atheist has seen Pluto complete an orbit. Does that mean that Pluto doesn't orbit the sun?