Can a tornado ever assemble a Boeing 737?

Originally posted by theAmospProphecy
because every religion has some organizing principal that requires a blind assumption for atheists its physics

Umm...last time I checked physics isn't an assumption. According to Wiki: Physics (Ancient Greek: φύσις physis "nature") is a natural science that involves the study of matter[1] and its motion through spacetime, as well as all applicable concepts, including energy and force.[2] More broadly, it is the general analysis of nature, conducted in order to understand how the universe behaves.

Wiki Physics

Edit to add: Physics and the Big Bang Theory have nothing to do with evolution, just FYI.

reply to post by Titen-Sxull

Just a thought...

But airplanes don't reproduce. The key to evolution is slight variations in the genetic code caused by self-replication or sexual reproduction.

"Mules" can't reproduce either, but they are still bio-robotics.

I guess it all comes down to human understanding...
Instead of the original rules, that govern the boundaries and behaviour of any Species..

So where did these "rules" come from that control the boundaries and behaviour of all the different species?
After all the resources of the Earth are Natural, as are the "Species", yet the Natural resources are not always living.

The human "Primate" is certainly a strange breed...
What or Who are we all trying to convince, regarding our human beliefs or understanding.

Maybe the tornado would evolve or change so that eventually it could make a Boeing 737...

That's deep.

Originally posted by sykickvision
This is one of the debates that never really ends.

Both sides have compelling arguments.

To me, it does appear as if there is something beyond perception that has slowly guided things into the way they are. It happens via evolution AND an intelligent choice being made.
Life would have never persisted if it hadn't cared about itself, even on the smallest scale. Either you live, or you die, or you live & breed & THEN you die. Isn't there more to life than just the proliferation of the species? Sure the species survives - but what about you? You die anyway. You reap none of the benefits.
Why did evolution stop (or greatly slow down) in insects? Dragonflies today are like dragonflies of yesteryear, only smaller. Same wings, same eyes, same legs. No doubt same habits. Surely there could have been improvement on the design, something could have been done to make them sleeker, faster, more intelligent. What stopped the change? The world has changed a lot. Their environment has changed. Their food? Maybe not. So...why hasn't the food developed skills to avoid the dragonflies better?

I know this makes little sense, as I've said before my brain works with ideas & pictures - not words.

I really think that life left to random chance over time will end in no life at all. Sometimes evolution works fast to ensure survival of a species, sometimes it seems to stop. Sometimes it either doesn't work fast enough or not even at all.
If changes are random, then we should see roses with every imaginable scent - but they all smell like roses to me.

Just my scattered thoughts.

What I want to know is the concept of chance with people who believe that with infinite time things without any order can combine themselves and undergo changes that will bring about say a nose in the face of humans.


You see when you ask them what they understand by chance, it will turn out that it is not chance but program.



Pachomius

Originally posted by SLaPPiE
I really can't believe an intelligent human asked that question looking for an intelligent response.
I'm not going to reply to the question. Nor am I going to get in to any probability discussion.


I would like to point out that these type of questions make the ATS squad look like a pack of fools.
If I had my way this would go into the deleted forever thread pile.
Useless waste of space.

Sorry no one told you OP.

You got's problems.

Originally posted by Pauligirl

Originally posted by Confusion42
I'm confused

Did I write anything that can be said I'm in the creationist / intelligent design / anti-evolution camp?

It's because the tornado in a junk yard is an old worn out creationist / intelligent design / anti-evolution argument.
Answered pretty well here.
www.ebonmusings.org...
Where did you get it from, or are you saying this was an original thought for you?.
Are you looking for an argument for it or against it?

I'm not sure; Most likely I read it somewhere and than now years later was just pondering it.

Honestly, I'm not looking for arguments. Just looking for opinions.

I kinda like the idea of the following:

Assuming theres a multi verse and 13+ Dimensions
(basically assuming infinity)

The answer to my original question becomes:

Not only is it possible, but there indeed exists universes filled with monkeys typing shakesphere, and wind making airplanes (even if they are 'biological')

Something like that.

Originally posted by Confusion42Honestly, I'm not looking for arguments. Just looking for opinions.

I would like your opinion on how you think a tornado hitting a football stadium, that is filled with airplane parts has any thing to do with "Origins".

Originally posted by nophun

Originally posted by Confusion42Honestly, I'm not looking for arguments. Just looking for opinions.

I would like your opinion on how you think a tornado hitting a football stadium, that is filled with airplane parts has any thing to do with "Origins".

edit on 30-9-2010 by nophun because: (no reason given)

I never said it had anything to do with "Origins"... ?

Originally posted by ghaleon12
Maybe the tornado would evolve or change so that eventually it could make a Boeing 737...

That's deep.

I havn't even pondered that.

That's deep indeed.

Originally posted by Confusion42

Originally posted by nophun

Originally posted by Confusion42Honestly, I'm not looking for arguments. Just looking for opinions.

I would like your opinion on how you think a tornado hitting a football stadium, that is filled with airplane parts has any thing to do with "Origins".

edit on 30-9-2010 by nophun because: (no reason given)

I never said it had anything to do with "Origins"... ?

Why are you acting like this is not a well known ID argument. You want opinions on your original post ? It is retarded on every level imaginable.

Why did you post this in the "Creation and Origins" forum ?
Do you think we will not see you are trolling "eviluionists" ?

The funny part of this thread is when you say stuff like "I never said it had anything to do with "Origins" or "Did I write anything that can be said I'm in the creationist" it is equally as stupid as "Can a tornado ever assemble a Boeing 737". I personally did not think this was a possibility.

Good day.

No, and what is your point? I can assume some theory behind this, but I'd rather hear you say it yourself so that I don't put words in your mouth.

I would say that the universe is only moving into disorder. The plane would never be put together.

The only way the plane could ever be put together is if entropy was negative and there was some sort of energy being put into the equation. The energy would have to be "orchestrated" as well, just like when energy comes into a cell and proteins use this energy for many cellular functions, many of which are completely dependent on shape.

Originally posted by nophun

Originally posted by Confusion42

Originally posted by nophun

Originally posted by Confusion42Honestly, I'm not looking for arguments. Just looking for opinions.

I would like your opinion on how you think a tornado hitting a football stadium, that is filled with airplane parts has any thing to do with "Origins".

edit on 30-9-2010 by nophun because: (no reason given)

I never said it had anything to do with "Origins"... ?

Why are you acting like this is not a well known ID argument. You want opinions on your original post ? It is retarded on every level imaginable.

Why did you post this in the "Creation and Origins" forum ?
Do you think we will not see you are trolling "eviluionists" ?

The funny part of this thread is when you say stuff like "I never said it had anything to do with "Origins" or "Did I write anything that can be said I'm in the creationist" it is equally as stupid as "Can a tornado ever assemble a Boeing 737". I personally did not think this was a possibility.

Good day.

I figured it was the best place to post; Where else?

But note that I don't like religion and I do like evolution. Both micro and maco.

Most of the larger parts would break before even getting close to being assembled.

Just think of what a plane crash looks like.

reply to post by Confusion42


I am a bit confused by you.
Alot of what you say comes off like what you know about evolution was teached to you by a creationist. Obviously this is confusing if your last post is true.

An example of this is how you end your last post.

Originally posted by Confusion42
..I do like evolution. Both micro and maco.

This is a creationist thing. (he whole micro/macro evolution)
I will just quote the Wiki here and give a little explanation due to laziness.

Macroevolution is a scale of analysis of evolution in separated gene pools. Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.

See a lot of creationist seem to think that microevolution is possible but not macroevolution. The main issue is creationist just do not want to admit speciation is possible. This is stupid for obvious reasons.

Simply ask said creationist "What biological barrier prevents speciation ?". They will have no answer, yet still argue against macroevolution.

Okay I am ranting a bit. The point of he story is ...

Saying "micro and maco" is redundant.
Unless someone can show a barrier preventing speciation there is no sane way to say you "believe" in microevolution but not macroevolution.

Oh yeah... and the whole .. observed instances of speciation thing.
www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...

Originally posted by theAmospProphecy
THANKS trailer trash. I rather forgot that point. I am a christian, and find the theory of evolution to be perfectly reasonable (although I wish people would stop trying to use the word proof) and it in no way adversely affects my faith. I was merely trying to point out that the whole atheistic notion of happenstance is a statistical impossibility.
moreover, every faith, including atheism, requires people to make a great many very non scientific leaps of logic.
and because people will ask, the assumptions required of atheism are
that we are the single luckiest planet in our known universe
that, despite what we know about quantum particles, the laws of nature simply just ARE, and for some reason just have to be that way. (because every religion has some organizing principal that requires a blind assumption for atheists its physics)

OOPS.... There was nothing to set the context so I naturally assumed that someone was promoting Genesis. Atheists? I don't believe there are any, really. People just say that sometimes for various reasons. Look into their eyes and see the emptiness of their words.

Off topic: I believe in God but prefer to avoid religions. Complications, contradictions and preachers I can do without. I believe that when we leave the earth religions stay behind.

tt

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by cacnotcam
Ok. Call me completely lost but could someone explain how this question makes and type of sense? I know it is in comparison to something but to what, exactly? Obviously a tornado cannot weld, screw in bolts, etc, thus could never assemble the plane. With that being said, what ARE we saying here exactly?

The same goes for the tornado and airplane argument. Of course, a tornado couldn't create an airplane. A tornado only knows how to be a tornado. That's how nature is. So, the OP's argument goes: Since the natural world couldn't create an airplane, then it couldn't create something as complex as a human being, so God Must have done it! It's a belief based on process of elimination (which, unless you've exhausted all possibilities, is highly flawed).

Hoyle's Fallacy

Thank you. I understand the argument now! I am much less confused now.

Originally posted by Confusion42

Question 2: If there are an unlimited amount of days, and tornado hits Football field full of Boeing 737 parts daily (thus infinite amount of attempts), would the tornado ever assemble the jetliner?

If the probability of success is nonzero and we conduct an infinite number of trials, then we expect to find an infinite number of successes.

But I suspect you're just playing the tired old creationist game - which doesn't merit a response.

Ah! Irreducible Complexity! The unscientific idea that life is far too complex to have evolved either by chance or by natural selection. So complex that there must be a designer or creator. But if that were so then that designer would necessarily be much more complex than its designs which leads directly to the question "Who designed the designer?" and so on ad absurdum.

What is more complex, an object that is biological and alive?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/b977e39cbbc6.jpg[/atsimg]



Or an object that is inanimate yet complex, such as a famous painting like the Mona Lisa?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/754977d147ba.jpg[/atsimg]


Given an infinite number of variables that don't involve any intelligent actions of sentient beings could that painting just happen?


And for those that believe they came from monkeys, you shouldn't insult yourself so badly thinking this fellow shown above was your ancestor millions of years ago

Originally posted by Blue_Jay33
And for those that believe they came from monkeys, you shouldn't insult yourself so badly thinking this fellow shown above was your ancestor millions of years ago

Inaccuracy with regard to human evolution aside, that is no where near as insulting as believing that all humanity's problems began in Club Ahmed with a talking snake.