It is amazing that today when we can create so much, that we couldn't yesterday, we don't believe in the possibility of creation

People say, it's impossible that a higher being could have created a man....

And our cars when they develop consciousness in a 1000 years sitting in some old junkyard will say,
how can a CAR just not be and then be, we hust have evolved from our injectors

In fact in this day and age, it should be harder to believe in evolution than in creation because we create something every day.
In the age of factories, high technology and even genetic engineering we have a trouble grasping creation?

Some day we will have some kind of Pepsi machine where you design a creature, fill the containers with raw material (chemicals) , push a few buttons
and a DNA strain will be sequenced, and out, instead of a 7up comes a little bottle with a cell ready to grow.
And there you have your pet freak, and they'll sell them at Gene-tech or whatever creepy companies they make.

Will even then be hard to imagine we also are someones pet freak made out of raw materials?

It is impossible if you are referring to God. From gametogenesis to fertilization to development of an embryo... We create life. Its a process that is understood.



Not sure that I understand what you are trying to say here. That a car will develop consciousness in 1000 years because they evolved that way? Well first I doubt the car will be able to stay intact long enough. Second if that was even possible it would take alot longer than 1000 years. Remember it took billions of years to form multicellular life.


Sure, but we don't create universes everyday or stars or planets or even life (possibly in the next 10 years)

Look, we created the car, factories, emision spilling ways of electrical power, therefore global warming.; What else needs to be said?........

Interesting post, northwest. I love the thing about the cars.

Of course, cars were created by people who behave like creators, not like the Wizard of Oz.

So, 1000 years from now, some remote descendant of mine will wander through that junkyard (doubtless by then the closest thing to a walk in the woods that will be available), overhear the conversation, and ask to join in.

Being my descendant, he or she will see no point in wasting the cars' time with fairy tales. "Yes, you did in some sense evolve from your injectors. That's good thinking. But, in the beginning, your ancestors were built by my ancestors."

And the conversation will proceed from there. Information will be exchanged. The cars will come to believe in my decendant's ancestors because they will be dealt with openly and transparently. It will be credible to them that somebody like my descendant would descend from somebody who would and could build a car.

For example, my descendant will not be hiding behind a bush, much less a burning bush, while this conversation took place. That, I think, would add to, rather than detract from, my descendant's credibility. Why would real creators do parlor tricks?

Where's the sport in wowing a car?

Anyway, it's time for me to take a real walk in real woods. I'd better go while there's still time.

If cars produced offspring which carried the complete information describing the parent(s, or combinations thereof) with some slight variations, and they competed and/or fought against obstacles in a dynamic environment, then yes, they might be able to evolve intelligence. It would take a helluva lot more than 1000 years.

I really don't think it's becoming harder to accept evolution vs. creation. In fact, quite the opposite. The key concept in this is that of the "higher being." If man is so complex, he necessitates a designer, than something even more complex should necessitate a designer even more. You can answer this in ways that make sense grammatically, like "god made himself," "god just is" etc. but they defy conceptualization. They're simply the answers necessary to quell the point.

Besides, no human being has ever created anything, in the same sense. It's the law of conservation of mass/energy.

unless the cars didn't like the stop lights and speed limits so they killed your ancestors and destroyed everything having to do with them.

then 2000 years later they're all huddled around trying to figure out where they came from, all the while scoffing at a manual for an '82 chevy that the stupid and less educated cars like to read.

There is too much evidence to discount either theory. I, for one, believe in both. ~Jackal

I don't think so. That manual would contain a number of credible details, and no incredible ones.

I'm thinking that in that world, the smart cars would be reading the manual. Twice. There'd be some point to it (beyond scoring emoticons in an internet debate, of course).

Assume none of the cars are Chevy's from the 80's. What then?

Mankind is very far from creating life. Life is so vastly complex it had to be designed by God, a creator. It is much too complex to have happened by chance.

The laws of probability will tell you that this universe with all of its ordered complexity, could not have come into being by chance. To have that much order and complexity, the universe had to be designed by an intelligent creator. There is enough coded information in one human chromosome to
fill a small library of books. This had to be designed by an
intelligent creator.
The probability against that happening by chance is very
very high. It's like giving a chimpanzee a typewriter and letting him hit the keys at
random. The probability against his being able to type a small library full of books by hitting keys at random is so high that for all
practical purposes you can consider it impossible.
Because of this, there are some scientists and mathematicians who are forced to
believe in the existence of God by logic alone.
In order for a single cell to live, all of the parts of the cell must be assembled before life starts. This involves 60,000 proteins that are assembled in roughly 100 different combinations. The probability that these complex groupings of proteins could have happened just by chance is extremely small. It is about 1 chance in 10 to the 4,478,296 power. The probability of a living cell being assembled just by chance is so small, that you may as well consider it to be impossible. This means that the probability that the living cell is created by an intelligent creator, that designed it, is extremely large. The probability that God created the living cell is 10 to the 4,478,296 power to 1.
Example: 10 to the 6th power is one million, 10 to the 7th power is 10 million, 10 to the 8th power is 100 million, 10 to the 9th power is a billion; each time the power goes up by one, the number goes up by ten times as much. 10 to the 4,478,296 power, is a tremendously large number.
[The probability of this was calculated by Fred Hoyle, famous astronomer and mathematician.]
Natural selection will weed out inferior members of a species according to environmental requirements. But, this only leads to a species changing to another variety of the same species known as a subspecies; that is all that is observed in nature. [Crickets in dark caves become white with no eyes; also fish in caves.] But natural selection has not been observed to cause one species to change into another new species. Fish do not change into amphibians; amphibians do not change into reptiles; reptiles do not change into mammals. Natural selection cannot account for the origin of the different species. There are a million missing links in the fossil record as it has been found. The intermediate stages that would be necessary for fish to become amphibians, and reptiles to become mammals, have not been found in the fossils. The fossils show evidence that all of the species were originally created by God and they did not evolve into one another.
"Biochemical systems are exceedingly complex, so much so that the chance
of their being formed through random shufflings of simple organic
molecules is exceedingly minute, to a point indeed where it is
insensibly different from zero"
- Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, p.3

"No matter how large the environment one considers, lfe cannot have had
a random beginning. Troops of monkeys thundering away at random on
typewriters could not produce the works of Shakespeare, for the
practical reason that the whole observable universe is not large enough
to contain the necessary monkey hordes, the necessary typewriters, and
certainly the waste paper baskets required for the deposition of wrong
attempts. The same is true for living material"
Ibid., p.148

"The trouble is that there are about two thousand enzymes, and the
chance of obtaining them all in a random trial is one one part in
(10^20)^2000 = 10^40000, an outrageously small probability that could
not be faced even if the whole universe consisted of organic soup. If
one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific
training into the conviction that life originated on the Earth [by
chance or natural processes], this simple calculation wipes the idea
entirely out of court"
Ibid., p.24

"Any theory with a probability of being correct that is larger than one
part in 10^40000 must be judged superior to random shuffling. The
theory that life was assembled by an intelligence has, we believe, a
probability vastly higher than one part in 10^40000 of being the correct
explaination of the many curious facts discussed in previous chapters.
Indeed, such a theory is so obvious that one wonders why it is not
widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological
rather than scientific."
Ibid., p.130

"All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn
out to reduce the genetic information and not to increase it."
- Lee Spetner, "Not by Chance"(Brooklyn, New York: The Judaica
Press,Inc.) p.138

"It appears that the neo-darwinism hypothesis is insufficient to explain
some of the observations that were not available at the time the
paradigm took shape. ...One might ask why the neo-darwinian paradigm
does not weaken or disappear if it is at odds with critical factual
information. The reasons are not necessarily scientific ones but rather
may be rooted in human nature"
- Christian Schwabe "On the Validity of Molecular Evolution", Trends in
Biochemical Sciences, July 1986, p.282

"The really significant finding that comes to light from comparing the
proteins' amino acid sequences is that it is impossible to arrange them
in any sort of evolutionary series" - Ibid. p.289

"Thousands of different sequences, protein, and nucleic acid, have now
been compared in hundreds of different species but never has any
sequnces been found to be in any sense the lineal descendant or ancestor
of any other sequence." - Ibid. pp. 289-290

"Each class at a molecular level is unique, isolated and unlinked by
intermediates. Thus molecules, like fossils, have failed to provide the
elusive intermediates so long sought by evolutionary biology." - Ibid
p.290

"There is little doubt that if this molecular evidence had been
available one century ago it would have been seized upon with
devastating effect by the opponents of evolution theory like Agassiz and
Owen, and the idea of organic evolution might never have been
accepted." - Ibid pp.290-291

"In terms of their biochemistry, none of the species deemed
'intermediate', 'ancestral' or 'primitive' by generations of
evolutionary biologists, and alluded to as evidence of sequence in
nature, show any sign of their supposed intermediate status" - Ibid
p.293

The evidence from the fossils shows that the species were created independantly of one another, by a creator. They did not happen by chance and they did not evolve into one another.

Well, give me something to work with, and we can discuss it.

Do the cars, whatever make and year they are, have any kind of science or engineering?

They must have some since, by hypothesis, they know what their own parts are, like injectors.

Wouldn't there be injectors in the manual?

So, what about those injectors? Do they work by physical mechanisms, or does the manual say

O mechanic, pray unto me, the Lord thy God, that in my righteousness I should
say unto the sun, hangeth still upon the waters that formeth the sky,
over the flatness of the earth, where men toil in repentance for the sins of Adam.

And yeah, it shall come to pass in the fullness of time that thy bladder of gasoline,
sucked from the ground by Abraham's rod from the seed of Ezeriah,
shall melt, thaw, and resolve itself into a dew.

And thereupon, lo, the explosiveness of thy gasoline shall be like unto
the host of the Canaanites, made frenzied in the eye of the Lord

I'm thinking not. Other views are possible.

First antiaging I was referring the the actual biological acts of creating life ie sex when I said 'We create life'
Second we are not far from creating life. Please keep up to date with recent scientific discoveries. http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/08/20...e.ap/index.html
Third stop copy and pasting the same post over and over again. It has been refuted by me and many others.

No it hasn't been refuted. The missing links have not been found and it is assumed they never will be.
I saw the latest attempt at making life from the so called primordeal soup of chemicals with electricity. All they got was some organic compounds that made bubbles, and the guy called this - like membranes. The chemistry involved in this may have had about 6 or 7 chemical steps.
To create a living cell you need over 10 to the 40th power chemical steps.
Man is no where near to creating life or anything like it, from chemicals.

Assumed they never will be? New discoveries are still being made, I am sure you haven't heard of the 2 discoveries made over the summer. We will make life within then next 10 years, and you would understand that if you were trained in the field. Yes it is difficult, but not as impossible as you make it out to be.



You make it seem as though life isn't originally made from chemicals.

Why are we talking about cars and evolution of cars? That was just silly exaggeration

My point is , creation is not impossible, we create every day

In the future will will also create stars and possibly grow planets from dust.
There is no limit to scientific progress

Well, let's review the bidding. GBart-the-Nerd was the one who introduced the evolution of cars as an independent phenomenon. He'll have to say why he went in that direction.

In the original post, you posed the hypothetical about cars, which I understood to be cars which humans have built with artificial intelligence who think they evolved without human intervention. I still love that.

I answered you, discussing your cars hypothetical. I thought the Pepsi machine thing was Eeew.

Llucid made some remarks about my post, posing an alternate scenario.

I answered her, briefly.

Boon! asked another question.

I answered Boon!'s question.

You posted to ask why we were discussing cars.

The cars were the best thing in your post, IMO, and reasonably well received. You now say your own work was silly exaggeration, and complain that some people were interested in your example enough to discuss it.

Ok, it's your thread. Sorry to have infringed on your bandwidth.

What I'm complaining about is that some people questioned the time it would take for cars to evolve...
as if I literally meant that cars will evolve

I meant it like an exaggeration and metaphor for any future creation that might develop consciousness.

And I also didn't literally mean a Pepsi-like machine, that was a joke, again to express
the simplicity in which one day man might sequence DNA molecules from chemicals in tanks.
Perhaps a better metaphor might be that wall paint color mixing machine, whatever it's called.


Another thing I'd like to point out is that creationism is a term hijacked by a few little verses in Genesis.
Neither is genesis the only creation story, nor is literal interpretation the only way to read it.
People assume that the only way to understand that part is either as a lie or as
a creation act in which a guy just snaps his fingers and makes a man out of mud.
Well, perhaps it is a metaphor , just like the Pepsi machine for a more complex process.