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

[BobRyan]

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.

I have grouped the pertaining details so the reader can see the point instantly in a single post. The last thing I want is for the reader to miss the detail simply because they did not want to take the time to sort through the posts.

Might not be the best thing for someone who finds those details inconvenient - but it works for the reader. I am sure you can appreciate this fact.

My goal is "always" to reach out to the unbiased objective reader.

In addition if a single post contains a part I agree with and 3 other points where I differ - I sometimes devote an entire post to the "agreed with" part - to emphasize that part where we agree.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I said




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".

Nope, that is pure nonsense on your part. A huge non sequitur is all that you have. We have scientific evidence for planetary formation, abiogenesis, and evolution. You . . . not so much.

 

[Speedwell]

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.

Exodus 20:1 is in the third person. the voicing shifts to first person in Exodus 20:2 to Exodus 20:10, then shifts back to third person at Exodus 20:11.

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???

Here again we have a transcriber, first quoting Moses, then God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Are you a lawyer by profession?

Nope. Nor am I a fool by profession. I don't think Strobel can honestly claim the same.

I noticed that you did not post any of Strobel's arguments. I don't blame you.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
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.

Illustrating the "detail" that such rocks do not have infinite skill/capability to turn themselves into a horse over time.

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

Rocks/ carbon, silicon does not contain any "emerging property" that would allow it to transform into a horse or "acquire" the skill to create 3D Animations.

If you think that Wikipedia article is claiming such things for inanimate objects you might want to read it again.

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.

Biology as an assembled "machine" works that way because of the infinite intelligence that did the assembly - but simply grouping rocks together does not.

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

And the article contains flawed statements

Theoretical physicist PW Anderson states it this way:

The ability to reduce everything to simple fundamental laws does not imply the ability to start from those laws and reconstruct the universe. The constructionist hypothesis breaks down when confronted with the twin difficulties of scale and complexity. At each level of complexity entirely new properties appear.

Flawed because an infinite intelligence with infinite capability can do MORE than take elements and "construct a car" that being can "construct the universe" . The "assembly" takes intelligence and "ability".

Psychology is not applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry. We can now see that the whole becomes not merely more, but very different from the sum of its parts.[17]

First of all chemistry IS applied physics where the application is infinite intelligence and "ability" of the creator just as biochem is applied chemistry by that same being.

The fact that the "application" involves assembly and design that (in the case of the car) gives the rocks certain ability/capacity is a reflection of the intelligent assembly and design. IT is not "a function of the rocks".

 

[Danthemailman]

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)?

Try going beyond the just table of contents and read the book.

 

[Speedwell]

Illustrating the "detail" that such rocks do not have infinite skill/capability to turn themselves into a horse over time.



Rocks/ carbon, silicon does not contain any "emerging property" that would allow it to transform into a horse or "acquire" the skill to create 3D Animations.

If you think that Wikipedia article is claiming such things for inanimate objects you might want to read it again.



Biology as an assembled "machine" works that way because of the infinite intelligence that did the assembly - but simply grouping rocks together does not.

I am losing the thread of your argument. Your claim appears to be that chemical elements cannot self-assemble into more complex structures. If we accept that claim arguendo, where does it lead?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Illustrating the "detail" that such rocks do not have infinite skill/capability to turn themselves into a horse over time.



Rocks/ carbon, silicon does not contain any "emerging property" that would allow it to transform into a horse or "acquire" the skill to create 3D Animations.

If you think that Wikipedia article is claiming such things for inanimate objects you might want to read it again.



Biology as an assembled "machine" works that way because of the infinite intelligence that did the assembly - but simply grouping rocks together does not.

It is clear that you are awkwardly trying to argue against abiogenesis. We can debate that, but by doing so you concede the evolution argument. Are you sure that you want to do that?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Try going beyond the just table of contents and read the book.

Send me some money and I will. A poorly written book is not evidence. Why don't you try to use some of his arguments and see if they fly?

 

[Ophiolite]

If you are going to argue that a rock has capacity/properties/skill to turn into a horse over time . . .

No one is arguing that, except perhaps in your mind. Perhaps you are equivocating rock with complex chemical mix. That could work as a metaphor; Sagan pointed out that we are all made of stardust. However, you take a nice metaphor and present it as an absolute. That's cheap rhetoric.

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.

 

[pitabread]

Try going beyond the just table of contents and read the book.

Is it worth reading though? Does it offer anything beyond the bog standard ID arguments?

If it's just a rehash of things I've already read, what else would it offer?

 

[pitabread]

Rocks/ carbon, silicon does not contain any "emerging property" that would allow it to transform into a horse or "acquire" the skill to create 3D Animations.

That's the point. Individual components by themselves don't contain those properties. Properties emerge when things are combined in certain ways.

You appear stuck on the idea that the individual components must first acquire those properties. That's not what emerging properties is about.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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

Why do you expect something that happened once in the past to happen again in the future?

I've looked at the moon many times in my life. Not once when I was looking did Neil Armstrong step foot on it. Why doesn't he step on the moon again??

 

[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

Why do you expect something that happened once in the past to happen again

1. it never happened
2. By your own admission it is not "reproducible".
3. It is not science.

 

[BobRyan]

That's the point. Individual components by themselves don't contain those properties.

Neither do a pile of rocks. No matter how high the pile.

 

[Speedwell]

Neither do a pile of rocks. No matter how high the pile.

And? I am losing the thread of your argument. Your claim appears to be that chemical elements cannot self-assemble into more complex structures. If we accept that claim arguendo, where does it lead?

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said: ↑
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.

Illustrating the "detail" that such rocks do not have infinite skill/capability to turn themselves into a horse over time.

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

Rocks/ carbon, silicon does not contain any "emerging property" that would allow it to transform into a horse or "acquire" the skill to create 3D Animations.

If you think that Wikipedia article is claiming such things for inanimate objects you might want to read it again.

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.

Biology as an assembled "machine" works that way because of the infinite intelligence that did the assembly - but simply grouping rocks together does not.

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

Your response to that was...

That's the point. Individual components by themselves don't contain those properties.

Neither do a pile of rocks no matter how high you pile the rocks.

. Properties emerge when things are combined in certain ways. .

"combined" -- That's the box labeled "miracle goes here".

It is the creative assembly of the rocks that results in the car. But there has to be the Creator - to creatively assemble them. They do not have the "property" on their own to play a CD or provide directions to the exit you "need" on the highway.

 

[BobRyan]

And? I am losing the thread of your argument. Your claim appears to be that chemical elements cannot self-assemble into more complex structures.

My argument is that the "barren Earth" state we all agreed to in the OP as proposition "A" contained rocks that "do not have the property or skill or ability to acquire skill over time" to become a rabbit.

it is not a "property" of rocks that they would self-assemble to become a rabbit over time.

And even "a pile of rocks" no matter how high you pile them still do not gain that feature. zero times infinity is still zero.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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

Why would you expect it to happen again? Some events are one only events due t the nature of them. Not seeing this happen again does not really help you.

1. it never happened
2. By your own admission it is not "reproducible".
3. It is not science.

Okay, so you do not understand the scientific method. Perhaps we should start with a lesson o that. The scientific method does not rely on repeatable events. The events need not be repeatable, it is the tests of these events that need to be repeatable. The tests are repeatable, it is science.

 

[Speedwell]

My argument is that the "barren Earth" state we all agreed to in the OP as proposition "A" contained rocks that "do not have the property or skill or ability to acquire skill over time" to become a rabbit.

it is not a "property" of rocks that they would self-assemble to become a rabbit over time.

And even "a pile of rocks" no matter how high you pile them still do not gain that feature. zero times infinity is still zero.

Yes, we get it--that's your premise. How are you going to use that premise in an argument?