Evolution and Creationism

Pro

4311

Texas

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

I can't wait until somebody starts talking about Sam Harris' book 'The Moral Landscape' and his assertion that science can determine moral values as well as religion does.

My Race Log

Champion

7347

SRQ, FL

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

AcesFull - 2010-10-13 2:00 PM

Its so very tragic that we are even having this debate.

What's tragic is that you're being so closed minded about it.

Edited by TriRSquared 2010-10-13 1:25 PM

My Race Log

Expert

715

PA

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

moondawg14 - 2010-10-13 2:14 PM

AndrewMT - 2010-10-12 1:57 PM

wabash - 2010-10-13 12:42 PM

moondawg14 - 2010-10-13 1:27 PM

wabash - 2010-10-12 11:05 AM how many bombs would have to explode in a junk yard until we got a fully functioning 747 airliner?

In theory, one. (assuming we can build a bomb with enough energy to assemble a 747 airliner.)

Of course, we already have a theory that a "bomb went off" ~12 billion and now we have many, many fully functioning 747 airliners.

not sure i'm following you.....

I think he's saying that we already have shown that an "explosion" went off (the big bang) and now we have quite a few fully functional 747's!

winner, winner, chicken dinner!

Also, that as long as the odds of assembling a 747 from an explosion are "one in (some really big number)" .... we could ,in theory, do it on the first try.

is it possible, yes. but would it ever happen? no.
do we see anything like that happening now?
what are the chances we could even create something as simple as a flip flop in a big bang explosion, let alone a jumbo jet.

My Race Log

Member

5452

NC

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

TriRSquared - 2010-10-13 2:23 PM

AcesFull - 2010-10-13 2:00 PM

Its so very tragic that we are even having this debate.

What's tragic is that you're being so closed minded about it.

How dare you address the FSM in such a manner?

Expert

715

PA

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

JBrashear - 2010-10-13 2:21 PM I can't wait until somebody starts talking about Sam Harris' book 'The Moral Landscape' and his assertion that science can determine moral values as well as religion does.

why dont you start us off then!

My Race Log

Pro

4311

Texas

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

wabash - 2010-10-13 1:26 PM

moondawg14 - 2010-10-13 2:14 PM

AndrewMT - 2010-10-12 1:57 PM

wabash - 2010-10-13 12:42 PM

moondawg14 - 2010-10-13 1:27 PM

wabash - 2010-10-12 11:05 AM how many bombs would have to explode in a junk yard until we got a fully functioning 747 airliner?

In theory, one. (assuming we can build a bomb with enough energy to assemble a 747 airliner.)

Of course, we already have a theory that a "bomb went off" ~12 billion and now we have many, many fully functioning 747 airliners.

not sure i'm following you.....

I think he's saying that we already have shown that an "explosion" went off (the big bang) and now we have quite a few fully functional 747's!

winner, winner, chicken dinner!

Also, that as long as the odds of assembling a 747 from an explosion are "one in (some really big number)" .... we could ,in theory, do it on the first try.

is it possible, yes. but would it ever happen? no.
do we see anything like that happening now?
what are the chances we could even create something as simple as a flip flop in a big bang explosion, let alone a jumbo jet.

If you concede that it is possible, then you can't rule it out one sentence later.

You do realize you're talking about statistical probabilities relative to an event that's happened once in ~15 billion years, right?

My Race Log

Pro

4311

Texas

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

wabash - 2010-10-13 1:26 PM

JBrashear - 2010-10-13 2:21 PM I can't wait until somebody starts talking about Sam Harris' book 'The Moral Landscape' and his assertion that science can determine moral values as well as religion does.

why dont you start us off then!

Pass; there's enough logs on the fire already.

My Race Log

Member

76

MoCo, MD

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

AndrewMT - 2010-10-13 1:08 PM

I tend to agree with you here, but for some people, there may be a kind of middle ground. The scientific thought process taken ad infinitim can be mentally and emotionally exhausting. I don't agree with, but can understand, the mindset that follows science until it can't yet provide a good answer and then fills in the gaps with religious explanations.

I can understand it too, but it's a flawed viewpoint. The God of the Gaps view ultimately diminishes a god to an increasingly small domain as the gaps shrink.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

-

My Race Log

Expert

715

PA

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

JBrashear - 2010-10-13 2:28 PM

wabash - 2010-10-13 1:26 PM

moondawg14 - 2010-10-13 2:14 PM

AndrewMT - 2010-10-12 1:57 PM

wabash - 2010-10-13 12:42 PM

moondawg14 - 2010-10-13 1:27 PM

wabash - 2010-10-12 11:05 AM how many bombs would have to explode in a junk yard until we got a fully functioning 747 airliner?

In theory, one. (assuming we can build a bomb with enough energy to assemble a 747 airliner.)

Of course, we already have a theory that a "bomb went off" ~12 billion and now we have many, many fully functioning 747 airliners.

not sure i'm following you.....

I think he's saying that we already have shown that an "explosion" went off (the big bang) and now we have quite a few fully functional 747's!

winner, winner, chicken dinner!

Also, that as long as the odds of assembling a 747 from an explosion are "one in (some really big number)" .... we could ,in theory, do it on the first try.

is it possible, yes. but would it ever happen? no.
do we see anything like that happening now?
what are the chances we could even create something as simple as a flip flop in a big bang explosion, let alone a jumbo jet.

If you concede that it is possible, then you can't rule it out one sentence later.

You do realize you're talking about statistical probabilities relative to an event that's happened once in ~15 billion years, right?

true. ok, its possible to try for that result infinitely. but it will never happen. that's how i should have stated that.
if blowing stuff up is a possible way to create something, we wouldnt need scientists and engineers and architects and technicians. nothing in our realms of life is made that way.

My Race Log

Master

2380

Beijing

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

wabash - 2010-10-12 2:26 PM

moondawg14 - 2010-10-13 2:14 PM

AndrewMT - 2010-10-12 1:57 PM

wabash - 2010-10-13 12:42 PM

moondawg14 - 2010-10-13 1:27 PM

wabash - 2010-10-12 11:05 AM how many bombs would have to explode in a junk yard until we got a fully functioning 747 airliner?

In theory, one. (assuming we can build a bomb with enough energy to assemble a 747 airliner.)

Of course, we already have a theory that a "bomb went off" ~12 billion and now we have many, many fully functioning 747 airliners.

not sure i'm following you.....

I think he's saying that we already have shown that an "explosion" went off (the big bang) and now we have quite a few fully functional 747's!

winner, winner, chicken dinner!

Also, that as long as the odds of assembling a 747 from an explosion are "one in (some really big number)" .... we could ,in theory, do it on the first try.

is it possible, yes. but would it ever happen? no.
do we see anything like that happening now?
what are the chances we could even create something as simple as a flip flop in a big bang explosion, let alone a jumbo jet.

Yes.   we can observe the universe moving in such a way that it appears everything was located in a single location ~10+ billion years ago.   We can also observe cosmological data that point to a very quick expansion (explosion?) of the universe during those first few moments.

we can also observe many, many fully-functioning 747s.   (in addition to various and sundry other flying machines, but you seem fixated on the 747, so I'll roll with it)

It is "happening now" and continues to happen.     Everything in our universe follows from that first "bomb" or "explosion."

And none of it precludes a Divine Creator.    (I will admit that it does preclude a literal interpreation of Genesis, however.)

My Race Log

Subject: ...

This user's post has been ignored.

Pro

4311

Texas

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

wabash - 2010-10-13 1:40 PM

JBrashear - 2010-10-13 2:28 PM

wabash - 2010-10-13 1:26 PM

moondawg14 - 2010-10-13 2:14 PM

AndrewMT - 2010-10-12 1:57 PM

wabash - 2010-10-13 12:42 PM

moondawg14 - 2010-10-13 1:27 PM

wabash - 2010-10-12 11:05 AM how many bombs would have to explode in a junk yard until we got a fully functioning 747 airliner?

In theory, one. (assuming we can build a bomb with enough energy to assemble a 747 airliner.)

Of course, we already have a theory that a "bomb went off" ~12 billion and now we have many, many fully functioning 747 airliners.

not sure i'm following you.....

I think he's saying that we already have shown that an "explosion" went off (the big bang) and now we have quite a few fully functional 747's!

winner, winner, chicken dinner!

Also, that as long as the odds of assembling a 747 from an explosion are "one in (some really big number)" .... we could ,in theory, do it on the first try.

is it possible, yes. but would it ever happen? no.
do we see anything like that happening now?
what are the chances we could even create something as simple as a flip flop in a big bang explosion, let alone a jumbo jet.

If you concede that it is possible, then you can't rule it out one sentence later.

You do realize you're talking about statistical probabilities relative to an event that's happened once in ~15 billion years, right?

true. ok, its possible to try for that result infinitely. but it will never happen. that's how i should have stated that.
if blowing stuff up is a possible way to create something, we wouldnt need scientists and engineers and architects and technicians. nothing in our realms of life is made that way.

Once again, you're confusing the fact that something's possible - and you've conceded it's possible, yet you're going back on your concession yet again - with it being likely. This doesn't take into account how you could leap from 'the possibility blowing stuff up can create other things' to 'that means nobody would need scientists', which is a rather large one.

My Race Log

Expert

715

PA

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

isnt it more correct to say that a 747 is a byproduct of a creation? without the original "explosion" billions of years ago that created life and people, the 747 would not be here. nothing else created a jumbo jet except man. the only reason a 747 was made was out of a "want" or "need". not a direct result of some big bang. if man was not here, are you implying that there'd still be jumbo jets hanging around present day?
what is happening now that also took place these billions of years ago? i dont see lifeforms or objects being spontaneously created.

My Race Log

Master

2380

Beijing

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

wabash - 2010-10-12 2:40 PM

JBrashear - 2010-10-13 2:28 PM

wabash - 2010-10-13 1:26 PM

moondawg14 - 2010-10-13 2:14 PM

AndrewMT - 2010-10-12 1:57 PM

wabash - 2010-10-13 12:42 PM

moondawg14 - 2010-10-13 1:27 PM

wabash - 2010-10-12 11:05 AM how many bombs would have to explode in a junk yard until we got a fully functioning 747 airliner?

In theory, one. (assuming we can build a bomb with enough energy to assemble a 747 airliner.)

Of course, we already have a theory that a "bomb went off" ~12 billion and now we have many, many fully functioning 747 airliners.

not sure i'm following you.....

I think he's saying that we already have shown that an "explosion" went off (the big bang) and now we have quite a few fully functional 747's!

winner, winner, chicken dinner!

Also, that as long as the odds of assembling a 747 from an explosion are "one in (some really big number)" .... we could ,in theory, do it on the first try.

is it possible, yes. but would it ever happen? no.
do we see anything like that happening now?
what are the chances we could even create something as simple as a flip flop in a big bang explosion, let alone a jumbo jet.

If you concede that it is possible, then you can't rule it out one sentence later.

You do realize you're talking about statistical probabilities relative to an event that's happened once in ~15 billion years, right?

true. ok, its possible to try for that result infinitely. but it will never happen. that's how i should have stated that.
if blowing stuff up is a possible way to create something, we wouldnt need scientists and engineers and architects and technicians. nothing in our realms of life is made that way.

Nonsense.   Scientists are very actively creating new elements by smashing the crap out of smaller matter.   (they also keep finding smaller and smaller parts of matter, but I digress)

You've heard of fusion right?    Our sun, through a very violent and destructive process, also creates new elements.

Scientists use other methods of "adding energy to systems" to create organic compounds from gasses: http://www.physorg.com/news197052398.html   Of course, this is just a recreation of a natural process that is ocurring right now (on another world from ours, no less)

My Race Log

Master

2380

Beijing

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

wabash - 2010-10-12 3:02 PM

isnt it more correct to say that a 747 is a byproduct of a creation? without the original "explosion" billions of years ago that created life and people, the 747 would not be here. nothing else created a jumbo jet except man. the only reason a 747 was made was out of a "want" or "need". not a direct result of some big bang. if man was not here, are you implying that there'd still be jumbo jets hanging around present day?
what is happening now that also took place these billions of years ago? i dont see lifeforms or objects being spontaneously created.

Then you're not looking hard enough.   (or you're willing yourself not to see it because of what it would mean to you personally)

And it's extremely disingenous to say "It's not happening now, so it never happened."

Lots of processes that are happening now didn't happen in the past. Lots of processes that happened in the past are not happening now.    Lots of things that are not happening now will happen in the future.

My Race Log

Expert

715

PA

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

you're on a molecular level, not the same complexity to me as that of an eyeball, a brain, or an airliner. and you're also talking about creating new "stuff" out of "stuff" we already have at our disposal. isnt that more like just combining, and not creating?
"matter is neither created nor distroyed, it just changes forms"

My Race Log

Master

2380

Beijing

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

oops! DP.

Edited by moondawg14 2010-10-13 2:18 PM

My Race Log

Pro

6767

the Alabama part of Pennsylvania

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

wabash - 2010-10-13 3:02 PM

isnt it more correct to say that a 747 is a byproduct of a creation? without the original "explosion" billions of years ago that created life and people, the 747 would not be here. nothing else created a jumbo jet except man. the only reason a 747 was made was out of a "want" or "need". not a direct result of some big bang. if man was not here, are you implying that there'd still be jumbo jets hanging around present day?
what is happening now that also took place these billions of years ago? i dont see lifeforms or objects being spontaneously created.

I don't see eggs getting fertilized by sperm, and then becoming miniature humans. Doesn't mean it doesn't happen all the time. Under the first microscopes, people thought they saw a little humunculus in the sperm that sort of uncurled itself and grew inside the uterus to become a baby-sized person. Seeing is not always believing.

And it takes a lot of energy to create new forms of matter. As mentioned above, the fusion processes of the sun do that very well. You and I are made out of the debris flung out of stars. Eventually, when the energy and fuels run down, the stars will go dark, and there will be nothing again, except the debris that wasn't burned up.

My Race Log

Master

2380

Beijing

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

wabash - 2010-10-12 3:18 PM you're on a molecular level, not the same complexity to me as that of an eyeball, a brain, or an airliner. and you're also talking about creating new "stuff" out of "stuff" we already have at our disposal. isnt that more like just combining, and not creating?
"matter is neither created nor distroyed, it just changes forms"

Eyeballs, brains, and airliners are all just created(combined) from "stuff." Molecules, even. We even know the processes of how they go from being "stuff" to being "eyeballs." We can even control the process to an extent, and we're learning more about it every day.

Your argument seems to be that it would be impossible for anyone other than a Divine Creator to create complex systems by adding energy or information to simple systems. This is demonstrably false.

You understand that "Creator Not Required" is NOT the same thing as "Creator does not Exist."

Right?

My Race Log

Champion

7347

SRQ, FL

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

AcesFull - 2010-10-13 2:57 PM

TriRSquared - 2010-10-13 1:23 PM

AcesFull - 2010-10-13 2:00 PM

Its so very tragic that we are even having this debate.

What's tragic is that you're being so closed minded about it.

I am completely and entirely closed to the idea of teaching children that a magical sky being had anything to do with life on Earth, and will quite comfortably remain closed to that idea.

Wow.

My Race Log

Expert

715

PA

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

gearboy - 2010-10-13 3:24 PM

wabash - 2010-10-13 3:02 PM

You and I are made out of the debris flung out of stars. are we really? i struggle with that thought...

My Race Log

Expert

715

PA

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

moondawg14 - 2010-10-13 3:26 PM

wabash - 2010-10-12 3:18 PM you're on a molecular level, not the same complexity to me as that of an eyeball, a brain, or an airliner. and you're also talking about creating new "stuff" out of "stuff" we already have at our disposal. isnt that more like just combining, and not creating?
"matter is neither created nor distroyed, it just changes forms"

Eyeballs, brains, and airliners are all just created(combined) from "stuff." Molecules, even. We even know the processes of how they go from being "stuff" to being "eyeballs." We can even control the process to an extent, and we're learning more about it every day.

Your argument seems to be that it would be impossible for anyone other than a Divine Creator to create complex systems by adding energy or information to simple systems. This is demonstrably false.

You understand that "Creator Not Required" is NOT the same thing as "Creator does not Exist."

Right?

i dont disagree with you on any of that. i just dont believe that anyone of us can create something out of nothing.

My Race Log

Master

2380

Beijing

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

TriRSquared - 2010-10-12 3:36 PM

AcesFull - 2010-10-13 2:57 PM

TriRSquared - 2010-10-13 1:23 PM

AcesFull - 2010-10-13 2:00 PM

Its so very tragic that we are even having this debate.

What's tragic is that you're being so closed minded about it.

I am completely and entirely closed to the idea of teaching children that a magical sky being had anything to do with life on Earth, and will quite comfortably remain closed to that idea.

Wow.

I dunno. Assuming he's framing his argument in the context of US public schools. I'm completely (and quite comfortably) opposed to the idea of having that taught in public schools as well. (unless someone can prove it)

If you want to send your kids to a school that specializes in it, however, have at it!

My Race Log

Pro

6767

the Alabama part of Pennsylvania

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

wabash - 2010-10-13 3:37 PM

gearboy - 2010-10-13 3:24 PM
You and I are made out of the debris flung out of stars.

are we really? i struggle with that thought...

Why? Where do you think the basic elements of the planets came from? While we may be made of very complex structures composed of complex molecules, the atoms at the roots of those molecules all can be broken out of the molecules, and all come from fusion processes in stars that combine hydrogen into larger atoms. As those atoms get flung out of the stars, they accumulate, in some cases forming gaseous clouds that eventually acquire enough mass to form a planet. If you want to take a religious bent to it, the whole "ashes to ashes, dust to dust" idea is at play here, but on a larger, cosmic scale.

My Race Log

Expert

715

PA

Subject: RE: Evolution and Creationism

gearboy - 2010-10-13 3:44 PM

wabash - 2010-10-13 3:37 PM

gearboy - 2010-10-13 3:24 PM
You and I are made out of the debris flung out of stars.

are we really? i struggle with that thought...

Why? Where do you think the basic elements of the planets came from? While we may be made of very complex structures composed of complex molecules, the atoms at the roots of those molecules all can be broken out of the molecules, and all come from fusion processes in stars that combine hydrogen into larger atoms. As those atoms get flung out of the stars, they accumulate, in some cases forming gaseous clouds that eventually acquire enough mass to form a planet. If you want to take a religious bent to it, the whole "ashes to ashes, dust to dust" idea is at play here, but on a larger, cosmic scale.

well, where do you think the basic elements of the planets came from?
where'd stars come from?
and im not bringing in any religion to this subject.

My Race Log

Evolution and Creationism (Page 7)

REGISTER TODAY