Question...

[TK2005]

If a tornado repeatedly struck a salvage yard, how long would it take to construct a Boeing 747?

 

[Dracil]

If we attempt to teach a Creationist about evolution, how long does it take before the Creationist moves on to yet another PRATT?

 

[TheInstant]

If a tornado repeatedly struck a salvage yard, how long would it take to construct a Boeing 747?

I doubt that it would ever happen.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

If we assume that 747s reproduce, a lot less than you expect.

 

[Adriac]

If you're trying to draw an analogy to evolution, it's flawed in every way and doesn't deserve an answer.

 

[TK2005]

And the answer to the question would be?

 

[TK2005]

TheInstant..........your honesty is appreciated.

 

[Dr.GH]

Nuts and bolts and sheet metal don't have sex, or genes. They do not eat, nor are they eaten. There is no natural selection pressure to cause them to adapt different shapes or sizes.

We need not expect them to evolve.

Nor does their lack of evolution tell us anything at all about life or its evolution.

Get it?

ETA: This "tornado" argument is a minor variant of the intelligent design creationism argument that "if it looks designed- it is designed" where "looks" just means complicated (in Dembski's specified complexity, "complex" is admitted to merely be improbable). The scientific and leagal failure of this argument is summarized in Section E.4 of the Dover "Pandas" Trail descission.

 

[Dracil]

The same answer you'd give to a one word yes/no question asking why you haven't stopped beating your wife?

In case you're not getting it, your question is flawed.

 

[Manakin]

TheInstant..........your honesty is appreciated.

Okay. So you got the answer you wanted. I'll go ahead and agree that the likelihood of assembling a 747 out of junk approaches zero, especially over finite time.

So what?

 

[TK2005]

The question isn't flawed at all. The chances of life originating on earth by accident is more remote than a tornado constructing a Boeing 747.

 

[Dracil]

See what I mean about Creationists and PRATTS?

 

[TheInstant]

The question isn't flawed at all. The chances of life originating on earth by accident is more remote than a tornado constructing a Boeing 747.

What makes you think that? Have you calculated the chances of each of these things happening?

 

[Baggins]

The question isn't flawed at all. The chances of life originating on earth by accident is more remote than a tornado constructing a Boeing 747.

Do you have any mathematical proof for this?

Or are we supposed to believe it because you say so.

Again you appear to using an argument from personal ignorance, viz:

I don't know how this could happen therefore it couldn't happen

As I said before; have you ever considered a scientific education ?

 

[Elduran]

The question isn't flawed at all. The chances of life originating on earth by accident is more remote than a tornado constructing a Boeing 747.

Go on then, cough up the probability calculations in each case. By my reckoning the probability of the Boeing being formed can probably be assumed to be zero because specific work is needed on many different parts, but unless you actually have statistics showing that the probability of life forming is nothing, then this comparison of probabilities is at best a foolish and totally incorrect analogy, and at worst a propagated lie by creationists to make abiogenesis seem less likely than it is.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

If a tornado repeatedly struck a salvage yard, how long would it take to construct a Boeing 747?

I am sorry, but your creationist mentors lied to you if they said that this was an honest representation of evolution or probabilities.

Do you honestly think that a scientific theory that has lasted for 150 years under the scrutiny of some of the most brilliant minds in the world would be destroyed by an argument that could be made by a two year old? Do you think we are that stupid?

Can you be so stupid that you accept such an argument, or did blind faith cause you to stumble into a ditch?

 

[DJ_Ghost]

The question isn't flawed at all. The chances of life originating on earth by accident is more remote than a tornado constructing a Boeing 747.

The question isn't flawed at all. The chances of life originating on earth by accident is more remote than a tornado constructing a Boeing 747.

Of course your analogy is flawed. Life is not created by an accident, it is created by a chemical process. hence the abiogenesis if life has NOTHING in common with the random action of a tornado in a junkyard.

What we know about Tornadoes in junkyards is this;-

If a tornado passes through a junkyard it will always cause damage. Correct?

What we know about chemistry is this;-

Combine the same chemicals in the same order under the same conditions and they will always have the same effect.

Hence your analogy shows that evolution must have occurred, because tornadoes always cause damage in junkyards.

Or of course you could just admit that meteorology and chemistry are not the same thing, so the analogy was flawed to begin with.

As people are trying to explain to you, the junkyard analogy is pointless because it attempts to compare apples to oranges. Or more accurately oranges to squirrels.

Ghost

 

[TeddyKGB]

If a tornado repeatedly struck a salvage yard, how long would it take to construct a Boeing 747?

Much longer than it would take a tornado to dig up Fred Hoyle.

 

[Ioinc]

I live in clearwater FL, just a few miles down the street from a small airport.

A few years bach (when Floriday) had about 4 really bad storms I did notice what began to look like s small prop plane... 2 or 3 more storms and I think she would have flown.

Actually, the best response to this quesiton I have yet read appears early on in "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins.

He handles this issue quite effectivly. I would recomend the book.

Read it and let me know if you still have questions.

 

[Dr.GH]

Actually, the best response to this quesiton I have yet read appears early on in "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins.

He handles this issue quite effectivly. I would recomend the book.

Read it and let me know if you still have questions.

You can't suppose that this YEC will actually read anything can you? I don't for one minute think that a self-righteous creationist would ever read anything that might contradict their spiritual superiority. They are too "divine," just too too divine.