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

[Subduction Zone]

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.

Then you are demonstrably wrong. We do have evidence that "rocks have the property". You simply refuse to understand those abilities.

And of course you have the mistaken belief that evolution relies upon abiogenesis. It does not. Once you clean up your arguments a bit and own up to your errors I will gladly go over abiogenesis with you. If a person cannot own up to his errors he clearly does not want to learn and there is no point in trying to help that person.

 

[BobRyan]

Given this post

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.

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

we got this response

No one is arguing that, except perhaps in your mind. Perhaps you are equivocating rock with complex chemical mix.

1. WE all agreed in the OP to the "barren Earth" starting conditions.
2. "mix" in you example - is the rocks,dust,and gas in that starting condition being chemical. No doubt "Chemicals" existed in the starting condition.

That's cheap rhetoric.

more logic please.

I will argue that once a self sustaining, reproducible (with error) biochemical complex has been established

1. you are arguing that rocks self-organize into a prion that needs no host system???
2. Fine ... I go you one better - a bacteria has no "Feature" that enables it to turn into a rabbit over time.

there is nothing - bar chance - to stop it becoming a horse.

NOW we have an evolutionist finally arguing for the salient point/mechanism in real evolution instead of "any change is evolution".

Glad to have one "on board".

And THAT is the very thing that the OP points to in post #2 .. that Dawkins says "DOES NOT happen" while science is actually observing. ... so then "fiction".

As one evolutionist argued "if it happened once why should we expect that it would ever happen again" -- ie NOT reproducible.

And as we saw in post #2 Dawkins points out - it is not OBSERVED while we are actually watching.

.. so then not science.

 

[BobRyan]

Then you are demonstrably wrong. We do have evidence that "rocks have the property".

the property to turn into a horse???? seriously??

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.

Ahh there that claim is "again".

Then what lab has exposed that property in rocks... details please.

(BTW you just "illustrated the point" in the OP)

which was this --

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

 

[pitabread]

snip

Why are you still insisting on repeating the same posts multiple times? Your posting style is needless cumbersome.

At any rate, my point re: emerging properties has already been made and it appears this is just going to go in circles. You're just repeating the non-sequiturs from the original OP.

 

[pitabread]

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

The sense I get from his posts is he doesn't understand how an argument works.

 

[Speedwell]

2. Fine ... I go you one better - a bacteria has no "Feature" that enables it to turn into a rabbit over time.

It has the "feature" of reproducing with randomly distributed heritable variation.

 

[BobRyan]

And of course you have the mistaken belief that evolution relies upon abiogenesis. It does not. On .

As I stated in the OP - paying attention to the details is key. In the OP we have two points where atheists and Creationists agree - the Earth had a condition at one point where it had no life at all on Earth. They both agree.

And they both agree that the present Earth exists.

Your argument that you have a non-abiogenesis solution that should be assumed/imagined does not fit the starting condition where everyone already agree that it existed, nor have you put forward a scenario where Earth always had life on it from eternity past.

The point remains.

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

And then I add - for those failing to grasp that level of common ground between the groups... the scenario of bacteria to horse transformation. Bacteria cannot jump the fence or give someone a rid across the open field ... but the horse can.

As we learned from observations of 50,000 generations of bacteria - they can't even turn themselves into eukaryotes.

 

[pitabread]

Then you are demonstrably wrong. We do have evidence that "rocks have the property". You simply refuse to understand those abilities.

Eh, I wouldn't entirely agree with this. If he's effectively trying to claim that individual minerals/molecules don't have the property of life, he technically right. For example, an individual hydrocarbon molecule isn't a living thing by itself. Rather, the combination of molecules in certain arrangements give rise to the properties that we define as living things.

The concept of emergent properties covers this phenomenon. Though it seems to be a concept not a lot of creationists are familiar with, hence the need to always invoke something "greater" explain it.

 

[BobRyan]

It has the "feature" of reproducing with randomly distributed heritable variation.

And is "observed" over 50,000 generations (more than all of human evolution) - to NOT even make it to eukaryote

 

[Tinker Grey]

Eh, I wouldn't entirely agree with this. If he's effectively trying to claim that individual minerals/molecules don't have the property of life, he technically right. For example, an individual hydrocarbon molecule isn't a living thing by itself. Rather, the combination of molecules in certain arrangements give rise to the properties that we define as living things.

The concept of emergent properties covers this phenomenon. Though it seems to be a concept not a lot of creationists are familiar with, hence the need to always invoke something "greater" explain it.

I've heard it said: A single H2O molecule doesn't have the property of wetness; wetness is an emergent property.

 

[BobRyan]

Eh, I wouldn't entirely agree with this. If he's effectively trying to claim that individual minerals/molecules don't have the property of life, he technically right. For example, an individual hydrocarbon molecule isn't a living thing by itself. Rather, the combination of molecules in certain arrangements

True.

And "There's the rub".

It is true that the car is made up of the elements in the rocks - but it is not true that the rocks must have property in them to self-organize into a car.

One could argue that they gain features/properties "when arranged" when organized - assembled... but that begs the issue of the "assembler" the "designer" the mind behind such an organization. Rocks don't have that.

 

[BobRyan]

I've heard it said: A single H2O molecule doesn't have the property of wetness; wetness is an emergent property.

A lot of h2o does.

A lot of rocks don't have the properties of life, or the skill, feature etc to turn into a horse over time.

 

[Speedwell]

True.

And "There's the rub".

It is true that the car is made up of the elements in the rocks - but it is not true that the rocks must have property in them to self-organize into a car.

One could argue that they gain features/properties "when arranged" when organized - assembled... but that begs the issue of the "assembler" the "designer" the mind behind such an organization. Rocks don't have that.

And...?

 

[pitabread]

One could argue that they gain features/properties "when arranged" when organized - assembled... but that begs the issue of the "assembler" the "designer" the mind behind such an organization. Rocks don't have that.

It doesn't really beg the question of an assembler or a designer though. That isn't what emergent properties are about.

We already have examples in chemistry of both self-organization and emergent properties. Things like crystal formations are a great example.

 

[Hans Blaster]

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.

Sure they do.

Rocks, or rather the silicon in rocks, can become transistors when they are rearranged. Then there are a whole other set of emergent properties to turn groups of transistors into a computing machine. Let's start with Si atoms...

Emergent property #1, semi-conduction:

Conduction or insulation or semiconduction is not a property of any atom, but of large groups of atoms. When the Si atoms are next to each other their wave functions overlap and create "conducting" band of electron states with a gap relative to the "valence" states. Applying a voltage across a semi-conductor promotes some electrons into the conducting band and they can flow through the solid silicon. (Note that this is a property of solid silicon in a nearly pure state.)

Emergent property #2, doped semiconductors:

If you add "dopants" to silicon it creates more charge carriers and alters the semiconductor properties. (Silicon can make 4 bonds, but if you replace a Si atom in the lattice with phosphorus that makes 5 bonds, there are only 4 places in the lattice, so the 5th available electron is available to be come a free charge [n-type doping]. If you use an atom that only makes 3 bonds then one of the neighboring Si atoms won't be properly bonded and creates a "hole" a positive charge carrier that migrates easily through the crystal when a voltage is applied.) The free electrons and holes alter the semiconductor properties.

Emergent property #3, the transistor effect.

If you make a sandwich of doped semiconductors, for example n-p-n, and try to pass a current from one n piece to the other, you can turn it on and off by applying a voltage to the interposed piece of p-doped semiconductor. You now have a switch that controls the flow from n-to-n by applying a voltage to p.

Emergent property #4, logic gate

If you assemble a number of transistors you can build simple logic gates that can perform operations like AND and NOR.

Emergent property #5, arithmetic operator.

If you assemble a number of logic gates you can do arithmetic on integer and pseudo-real numbers.

Emergent property #6, instruction based computing

By assembling a variety of logic gates into other functions (including memory) and those with the arithmetic operations into a microprocessor that can perform instructions from stored instruction set and store the results. A computer that can model 3D images is possible.

This computer is the result of multiple layers of emergent properties that depend on the Si atoms (and other atoms and their collective emergent properties to dope, insulate, and conduct), but are properties that are not intrinsically *in* the Si atom. A large pile of silicon is not a computer, nor is one atom, but the construction of a computer depends on a layered deployment of the emergent properties of Si atoms and the constructs made with them.

 

[BobRyan]

It doesn't really beg the question of an assembler or a designer though.

If there is an "observation" that a sufficiently large pile of rocks would self assemble into a combination that turns itself into a horse over time.. then that lab experiment needs to be posted.

We already have examples in chemistry of both self-organization and emergent properties. Things like crystal formations are a great example.

But we note that I never claim that rocks have no combination dust and gas that would result in H2S04 or that would be a crystalline form. We are specifically looking in the OP at animate (at the level of horse or rabbit) vs inanimate (pile of rocks).

I don't argue that any and all organization is out of scope. So crystalline forms are not being debated in the OP.

 

[BobRyan]

Sure they do.
Rocks, or rather the silicon in rocks, can become transistors when they are rearranged.

The Taj Mahal can be had - when basic materials are "arranged".

Creationists have no argument with God forming an animal from the dust of the ground.

The "point of debate" is when the claim is made that the dust of the ground will do that by itself.

 

[pitabread]

If there is an "observation" that a sufficiently large pile of rocks would self assemble into a combination that turns itself into a horse over time.. then that lab experiment needs to be posted.

Silly strawman aside, there is nothing stopping you from reading up on all of the last 150 years of combined evolution and abiogenesis research.

We have a pretty good idea of how things went from non-living matter to the biodiversity of life today.

But we note that I never claim that rocks have no combination dust and gas that would result in H2S04 or that would be a crystalline form. We are specifically looking in the OP at animate (at the level of horse or rabbit) vs inanimate (pile of rocks).

I don't argue that any and all organization is out of scope. So crystalline forms are not being debated in the OP.

The logical consequences of your own claims is that things like crystal formation shouldn't be possible without someone directing it.

 

[BobRyan]

Sure they do.

Rocks, or rather the silicon in rocks, can become transistors when they are rearranged. Then there are a whole other set of emergent properties to turn groups of transistors into a computing machine. Let's start with Si atoms...

Emergent property #1, semi-conduction:

Conduction or insulation or semiconduction is not a property of any atom, but of large groups of atoms. When the Si atoms are next to each other their wave functions overlap and create "conducting" band of electron states with a gap relative to the "valence" states. Applying a voltage across a semi-conductor promotes some electrons into the conducting band and they can flow through the solid silicon. (Note that this is a property of solid silicon in a nearly pure state.)

Emergent property #2, doped semiconductors:

If you add "dopants" to silicon it creates more charge carriers and alters the semiconductor properties. (Silicon can make 4 bonds, but if you replace a Si atom in the lattice with phosphorus that makes 5 bonds, there are only 4 places in the lattice, so the 5th available electron is available to be come a free charge [n-type doping]. If you use an atom that only makes 3 bonds then one of the neighboring Si atoms won't be properly bonded and creates a "hole" a positive charge carrier that migrates easily through the crystal when a voltage is applied.) The free electrons and holes alter the semiconductor properties.

Emergent property #3, the transistor effect.

If you make a sandwich of doped semiconductors, for example n-p-n, and try to pass a current from one n piece to the other, you can turn it on and off by applying a voltage to the interposed piece of p-doped semiconductor. You now have a switch that controls the flow from n-to-n by applying a voltage to p.

Emergent property #4, logic gate

If you assemble a number of transistors you can build simple logic gates that can perform operations like AND and NOR.

Emergent property #5, arithmetic operator.

If you assemble a number of logic gates you can do arithmetic on integer and pseudo-real numbers.

Emergent property #6, instruction based computing

By assembling a variety of logic gates into other functions (including memory) and those with the arithmetic operations into a microprocessor that can perform instructions from stored instruction set and store the results. A computer that can model 3D images is possible.

This computer is the result of multiple layers of emergent properties that depend on the Si atoms (and other atoms and their collective emergent properties to dope, insulate, and conduct), but are properties that are not intrinsically *in* the Si atom. A large pile of silicon is not a computer, nor is one atom, but the construction of a computer depends on a layered deployment of the emergent properties of Si atoms and the constructs made with them.

And if you don't "Assemble any of that" -- but just wait for sand to do it on its own???

let's take the starting point:

"The ingredient silicon comes from silica which is derived from sand. The process to make silicon is complex and involves many stages. This arduous process contributes to silicone rubber’s premium price compared to natural rubber. The silicone-making process involves extracting silicon from silica and passing it through hydrocarbons."

 

[pitabread]

The "point of debate" is when the claim is made that the dust of the ground will do that by itself.

How much reading on contemporary abiogenesis research have you undertaken lately?