- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,371
- 10,611
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Creationists and atheists all agree that at one time the earth was a barren planet with absolutely no life on it - - and of course today it does have life on it.
Creationists will say that an infinitely capable Creator created all life on land in a single evening-and-morning on day six of creation week.
Atheists will claim rocks alone did all that over billions of years rocks-to-horse etc as the two end points (for example)
So then "some differences" exist at that point but not on the starting condition.
================================ agreement #2.
But we also agree that there is no such thing as "evolution primer-fertilizer" that one could add tot rocks to make them pop-out life or that one could add to prokaryote cultures to make them pop-out eukaryotes.
Stanley Miller: " People often say maybe some of the special compounds came in from space, but they never say which ones. If you can make these chemicals in the conditions of cosmic dust or a meteorite, I presume you could also make them on the Earth. I think the idea that you need some special unnamed compound from space is hard to support."
But "if there were" such a thing and it was reliable then any time you "add evolution primer" to the culture dish and the prokaryotes did not pop-out eukaryotes you could call that a "fail" of the primer.
And what is more - any time you did not intentionally add the "evolution fertilizer" but the prokaryotes did pop-out eukaryotes over time you might suppose that the experiment was "contaminated" by some stray bits of evolution-fertilizer getting into the experiment.
==============================
Fortunately there is no such thing as evolutiton-fertilizer or primer so that sort of fail scenario is nothing to worry about.
Hopefully all can agree.
============= and no such thing as evolution limited by "intent"
Not only is there no such thing as evolution-fertilizer but there is also no such thing as " evolution-limited-by-intent-of-observer passively watching" since the observer never had evolution-fertilizer to start with.
Creationists will say that an infinitely capable Creator created all life on land in a single evening-and-morning on day six of creation week.
Atheists will claim rocks alone did all that over billions of years rocks-to-horse etc as the two end points (for example)
So then "some differences" exist at that point but not on the starting condition.
================================ agreement #2.
But we also agree that there is no such thing as "evolution primer-fertilizer" that one could add tot rocks to make them pop-out life or that one could add to prokaryote cultures to make them pop-out eukaryotes.
Stanley Miller: " People often say maybe some of the special compounds came in from space, but they never say which ones. If you can make these chemicals in the conditions of cosmic dust or a meteorite, I presume you could also make them on the Earth. I think the idea that you need some special unnamed compound from space is hard to support."
But "if there were" such a thing and it was reliable then any time you "add evolution primer" to the culture dish and the prokaryotes did not pop-out eukaryotes you could call that a "fail" of the primer.
And what is more - any time you did not intentionally add the "evolution fertilizer" but the prokaryotes did pop-out eukaryotes over time you might suppose that the experiment was "contaminated" by some stray bits of evolution-fertilizer getting into the experiment.
==============================
Fortunately there is no such thing as evolutiton-fertilizer or primer so that sort of fail scenario is nothing to worry about.
Hopefully all can agree.
============= and no such thing as evolution limited by "intent"
Not only is there no such thing as evolution-fertilizer but there is also no such thing as " evolution-limited-by-intent-of-observer passively watching" since the observer never had evolution-fertilizer to start with.
Last edited: