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

[BobRyan]

Purpose: Finding a common ground detail or two between creationists and atheists then finding where they start to diverge. Starting with “barren Earth” having no life on it.

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.

Given: the "lifeless rock" reference - as in the case of this interview with Stanley Miller:

terms/phrases from the interview with Stanley Miller

Q: Some 4.6 billion years ago the planet was a lifeless rock, a billion years later it was teeming with early forms of life. Where is the dividing line between pre-biotic and biotic Earth and how is this determined?

Answer: (Stanley Miller) :" ... A new discovery reported in the journal Nature indicates evidence for life some 300 million years before that. We presume there was life earlier, but there is no evidence beyond that point.

We really don't know what the Earth was like three or four billion years ago. So there are all sorts of theories and speculations. The major uncertainty concerns what the atmosphere was like. This is major area of dispute...

“As long as you have those basic chemicals and a reducing atmosphere, you have everything you need. 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.
..
There is another part of the story. In 1969 a carbonaceous meteorite fell in Murchison Australia. It turned out the meteorite had high concentrations of amino acids, about 100 ppm, and they were the same kind of amino acids you get in prebiotic experiments like mine. This discovery made it plausible that similar processes could have happened on primitive Earth, on an asteroid, or for that matter, anywhere else the proper conditions exist.
http://www.accessexcellence.org/WN/NM/miller.html

We notice terms in that interview with Miller - such as:
"Lifeless rock"
"all sorts of theories and speculation"
"another part of the story"
"prebiotic" experiment as in the case with the Urey-Miller experiment
.. terms that might also get used again in this thread.

=============================== now we begin

A. Everyone agrees (both Creationist and atheist at least) that there was a time on Earth where it is a barren planet - no LIFE of any kind on it. So gas, rocks, water, dust etc... no life.

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

There exists Creationists (as we all know) that 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 - 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.

Example: A story easy enough to tell - where creationists and atheists can agree

D. Everyone agrees (both Creationist and atheist at least) 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 capability ( 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" (Notice the details here #11 )

So much for

Eukaryotic cells originated from an endosymbiotic relationship between two (or more) unrelated early prokaryotic cells

err.. umm.. prokaryotes that popped out a eukaryote in true wondrous-saltation-miracle fashion???

Is that a claim that instead of starting with a barren lifeless Earth (as proposed in this OP) what we really had was a planet covered by prokaryotes anxious to become endosymbiotic-capable, and then advance from that to acquiring the talent of being able to produce eukaryotes??

In any case that would be an appeal to a mythical "kind" of eukaryote-capable prokaryote never seen.. that does not actually exist, having unknown properties to do what repeatable science knows is not even observable in the lab. So then what both sides can "agree to" in that respect is that there is no such thing as that sort of prokaryote else someone would be observing it right now.

The fact that "that" mythical "kind" of prokaryote in the quote above does not actually exist and that such a saltation cannot be observed ... is apparently another agreed upon detail between atheists and creationists.

The contrast noted in more detail here -- #12 where we contrast what we DO see every day with what even atheists will admit we do NOT see
=====================

1. It is reasonable to suppose that -Atheists will argue that no such being "exists".

2. It is reasonable to supposed that Creationists will argue that "no such talented rock exists" (nor even an aggregation of rocks able to do it)


Next we see some of the many times where that point gets illustrated on this thread -
here we see the point that rocks don't have the property to do that --#211
here we see the claim talented rocks should be able to do all of that 203
(or at the very least - prokaryotes can do it -- #190 )
=====================

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.

Another web site that makes some interesting points similar to this thread - just pointed out to me - today--

Seventy-five Theses

 

[BobRyan]

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.

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!

(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 already see that every day (adding infinite capability of "God" so it can "scale" does not weaken the prospect of it ) 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-

==================================== illustration
I present two option..

1. Inanimate rock solution: rocks alone get us to the present state...very talented rocks indeed.

2. Creationists solution: The infinite creator does it ... from dust - to - horse as He said - in a single "evening and morning".

We already see dust-to-horse in a single evening and morning at the micro level with matter-transforming-machines God made called plants taking it from dust to leaf. Then horse digestion taking it from leaf to horse.

The Alternator in a car provides charge to the battery when the car is running.
But that same source of technology also provides the home car charging device that can deliver 2 amp / 12/ amp/ 75 amp for short or long term charge whle the car is NOT running. The industry demonstrates it "has the capability" to do it either way.

A small concept - but it shows that infinite "ability" is capable of "scaling up" what we already see happening every day and it is reasonable then to have the single "evening and morning" matter transform from - dust to horse. On day 6.


===== 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

 

[SilverBear]

Everyone agrees that a man can turn a rabbit into dust into a single day. That is a given.

So then clearly - an infinite being with infinite power and wisdom can turn dust into a rabbit in a single day.

a terrorist can turn and airplane into a scattered debris field in little more than a few seconds. By your logic a police officer with a good tool box should be able to turn that debris field into a functional 747 in an afternoon.

But rocks, dust, gas, and sunlight will never turn into a horse ...

but philohippus managed to turn into a horse

 

[childeye 2]

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 faith in the talented rock.

Either way - it is faith. -- but they both have the same "barren Earth" start point and the same "present day" -- end point.

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Believing in a talented rock is not faith, it's unbelief in God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Everyone agrees that a man can turn a rabbit into dust into a single day. That is a given.

So then clearly - an infinite being with infinite power and wisdom can turn dust into a rabbit in a single day.

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"

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

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

Typical creationist error.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Faith comes by hearing and hearing by the word of God. Believing in a talented rock is not faith, it's unbelief in God.

Faith is not needed to accept evolution. Only evidence.

 

[Speedwell]

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 faith in the talented rock.

Either way - it is faith. -- but they both have the same "barren Earth" start point and the same "present day" -- end point.

And there are two scenarios: One is based on a shallow and theologically inadequate interpretation of an ancient holy text, the other is based on diligent investigation by countless dedicated scientists--and God is actively creative in both of them.

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

"By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible."—Hebrews 11:3

Faith says it is so.

 

[Subduction Zone]

"By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible."—Hebrews 11:3

Faith says it is so.

Faith leads to a belief in Islam if one is born in a Muslim country. In India it leads to a belief in Hinduism. In Many southeast Asian countries it leads to a belief in Buddha. Faith is not a pathway to the truth. Knowledge trumps faith. Knowledge makes your present life possible. Knowledge makes your communication here possible.

 

[BobRyan]

a terrorist can turn and airplane into a scattered debris field in little more than a few seconds.

And by my logic an infinite God with all power and all knowledge could put it back together.

What is your point??

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

This thread is what I call the "common sense thread" where even though we have two sides clearly outlined in the OP -- we can still lay out common sense obvious details.

When I point out in the OP that both atheists and creationists share the understanding that earth starts out in a state where it has no life on it... that is obviously true.. it is common sense.

When I point out that both agree that it now has a wide variety of life on it - that too is common sense.

When I point out in the OP that creationists start with a lifeless planet and then an infinite God that makes all life on earth in a literal 7 days - it is "common sense" that indeed that "is their claim". Infinite capability of an infinite God.

When I point out in the OP that the atheist has no other option but to take that lifeless starting condition of Earth rocks, water etc somehow having the talent/skill/property to come up with a horse over time (billions and billions of years freely accepted in that story line).. that is also common sense because they don't have in infinitely capable "god" to appeal to and also have no "evolution fertilizer". So then ... common sense again.

When I point out that atheists will claim that "there is no such talented God" - it is common sense that this is indeed what they claim.

When I point out that Creationists will claim "there is no such talented rock" -- it is common sense - that this is in fact what they claim.

So then "incredible" vs credibility is the theme when addressing the logic/reason behind attributing a barren-earth-to-horse sequence to a sufficiently talented being .. vs a sufficiently talented rock

In the OP the appeal is to common sense

 

[BobRyan]

For the record, your claim that it took modern humans 200,000 years to evolve is not supported by anything on page 1 or, indeed, any other page of this thread.

Pate 1.. post #11

================ post #11 =======================

And there are two scenarios: One is based on a shallow and theologically inadequate interpretation of ...

true -- of "what rocks can do"...

Yes.. I know.

Ophiolite said: ↑
I will argue that once a self sustaining, reproducible (with error) biochemical complex has been established there is nothing - bar chance - to stop it becoming a horse. And if it does not become a horse it will become something else, alive and potentially evolviing.

now more "science fact" to compare with the bacteria-transform story about rocks becoming horses over time - or even bacteria becoming horses over time (no matter how many times one says "billions" like Sagan)

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

The "bacteria-transform to some new level of taxonomy on the way to horse" story has never been observed to happen not even with observations over 70,0000 generations in the case of a species many time more genetically adaptive than humans.

(And all agree there is no such thing as evolution-fertilizer or evolution-limited-by-intent-of-observer Creationists and atheists agree there is no such thing as evolution primer-fertilizer )

So now - an experiment without the mythical "evolution-fertilizer" that all agree -- does not exist.

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". Some will argue that is giving wayy too much time for it since their story claims there are no homo erectus more recent than 143,000 years ago and no modern humans more than 200,000 years ago.

The 7 Homo Species Close to Present Humans That Existed on the Earth.

Which means it took no more than 57,000 years for the complete transition to modern humans to take place, by their own story telling. (I don't use that smaller number because it is already a big enough challenge for atheists to get from barren earth rock to horse in the billions of year they imagine for it).

(Actually modern human evolution is limited to 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?

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

I claim it includes direct observation of 75,000 generations over time - for prokaryotes.
I claim that they never turned into eukaryotes
I claim that 75000 generations for humans would cover over 3 million years.
I claim that modern humans "supposedly" evolved in less than 200,000 years.
I claim that prokaryotes have a vastly more adaptive DNA architecture/design (essentially wearing it on their sleeves) as compared to homo sapiens and therefore are specifically designed to adapt at the DNA level to their environment.

What part of this do you not already know???
And gaming aside "which detail matters to you"?

So what?

So objective unbiased readers will "notice".

 

[BobRyan]

Faith is not needed to accept evolution. Only evidence.

Because we see bacteria turn into horses all the time?

Remember that the "claim" is that rock-to-horse is absolute certain fact for many atheists.. #190

I will argue that once a self sustaining, reproducible (with error) biochemical complex has been established there is nothing - bar chance - to stop it becoming a horse. And if it does not become a horse it will become something else, alive and potentially evolviing.

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.

 

[Speedwell]

of what rocks can do...

Yes.. I know.

Fortunately, I found Christ before I found out that I was supposed to believe in a literal Genesis first. Many of us have, something around two billion of us. You've definitely got your work cut out for you.

 

[driewerf]

Everyone agrees that a man can turn a rabbit into dust into a single day. That is a given.

Hmm, no.
If you mean that a man can put a rabbit in a meat grinder he will have minced meat, no dust. So your post starts already badly.

So then clearly - an infinite being with infinite power and wisdom can turn dust into a rabbit in a single day.

1) Show me even the existence of such a being before we start to speculate what it can or can't do
2) dust (as in dust from the ground) is sand, Silicium oxide. Rabbits are mainly carbon, phosphor, hydrogen, oxygen etc. There is no silicium in rabbits. So show me how you turn silicium into all these elements. And that's ony the elements.
3) The carbon, phosphor etc of which rabbits are built are organised in very complicated molecules (DNA, RNA, proteins etc). Show me how these molecules can be synthesized in one day from the elements (not yet) formed in step 2.
So your post isn't improving. At all.

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.

Well, yes, with grass as intermediate. Heck it can even turn into you, with the intermediate of some grass and a cow.
So your post is wrong for the third time.

Atheists will argue that no such being "exists".

Indeed. As christians have had 2020 years to demonstrate the existence of such a being, and fail for 2020 consecutive years.

Creationists will argue that "no such rock exists"

Which illustrate that they only can argue against straw man versions of what they argue against. Never the real stuff.
What I wrote earlier today still stands:

Close to 200 years after the first publication of The origin of Species, creationists still have nothing more but ignorance and ridicule. Nothing has changed since the days of the debate between Huxley and bishop Wilberforce.

watch and listen. Wilberforce's argument in the 1860's. Listen especially from 2:45 onwards

It is not so long ago that Ken Ham used this picture:

A clear reference to Wilberforce's phrase.
Ridicule, mockery and ignorance. That's all creationists have to offer.
And certainly no science or knowledge.

 

[SilverBear]

And by my logic an infinite God with all power and all knowledge could put it back together.

What is your point??

that your "logic" is painfully flawed

 

[SilverBear]

Because we see bacteria turn into horses all the time?

about as often as we see divine being popping new species into existence.

 

[BobRyan]

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. ”

about as often as we see divine being popping new species into existence.

nope.. not that often...

And as for talented rocks doing it... well we never see that.

Even Dawkins admits that it never happens while one is observing

 

[BobRyan]

Fortunately, I found Christ before I found out that I was supposed to believe in a literal Genesis first.

I found out that legal code in Exodus 20:11 is not poetry as it points to the Gen 2:1-3 summary -- a long time ago.

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


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.’

 

[BobRyan]

A clear reference to Wilberforce's phrase.
Ridicule, mockery and ignorance. .

I see evolutionists use that tactic a lot but not sure why they do it - unless maybe they just don't have answers to the points raised. It is great for emotional content but I find it "less than substantive"

 

[Speedwell]

I found out that legal code in Exodus 20:11 is not poetry as it points to the Gen 2:1-3 summary -- a long time ago.

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.

But you haven't answered my question about the voicing. Not having an answer for such an obvious question weakens your argument considerably.

Even atheists figured it out - as world class professors of Hebrew and OT studies point out


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.’

Quite right. "Day-ageism" is a dead end.