Statements About Evolution

[The happy Objectivist]

By the way, Frank, if the universe is only 14.7 billion years old, how is it it is 94 billion light years wide?

That is something that has always puzzled me and another thing is if all the space is expanding and everything is supposed to be getting farther apart, how come our solar system is not expanding too? I'm sure there is a good answer for this that I'm just not aware of but it bothers me.

 

[AV1611VET]

What were they created from, AV?

Nothing.

They were spoken into existence ex nihilo.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Nothing.

They were spoken into existence ex nihilo.

Well, then I'd say that's an equivocation fallacy. Creation means a rearrangement of existing material into something new like making a rock wall or a house out of lumber sawn from trees. It does not and can not mean creation ex nihilo. We don't have any observations or evidence of anything created ex nihilo. That's something I've never seen brought up to creationists and it's definitely a problem for them. I mean we can imagine something creating things by speaking them into existence but I think definitions must be based on facts and not imagination. The notion of creation ex nihilo is a floating abstraction.

 

[AV1611VET]

Well, then I'd say that's an equivocation fallacy.

You're entitled to your opinion.

Creation means a rearrangement of existing material into something new like making a rock wall or a house out of lumber sawn from trees.

Do you know the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia?

It does not and can not mean creation ex nihilo.

That's because your example is faulty.

Your example is based on creatio ex materia, not creatio ex nihilo.

In short, you're trying to dismiss creatio ex nihilo with creatio ex materia.

We don't have any observations or evidence of anything created ex nihilo.

You're standing on it (i.e. the earth).

That's something I've never seen brought up to creationists and it's definitely a problem for them.

Interesting -- since I bring it up all the time.

I mean we can imagine something creating things by speaking them into existence but I think definitions must be based on facts and not imagination.

Then test creatio ex nihilo in a lab.

Would you even know where (or how) to begin?

If you can't, then I would say creatio ex nihilo is a miracle, not a natural phenomenon.

The notion of creation ex nihilo is a floating abstraction.

You're entitled to your opinion.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

You're entitled to your opinion.Do you know the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia?That's because your example is faulty.

Your example is based on creatio ex materia, not creatio ex nihilo.

In short, you're trying to dismiss creatio ex nihilo with creatio ex materia.You're standing on it (i.e. the earth).Interesting -- since I bring it up all the time.Then test creatio ex nihilo in a lab.

Would you even know where (or how) to begin?

If you can't, then I would say creatio ex nihilo is a miracle, not a natural phenomenon.You're entitled to your opinion.

How can I reliably distinguish creation ex nihilo from something that is merely imaginary?

 

[AV1611VET]

How can I reliably distinguish creation ex nihilo from something that is merely imaginary?

You can start by taking the right perspective.

It is not "imaginary;" it is "miraculous".

 

[The happy Objectivist]

You can start by taking the right perspective.

It is not "imaginary;" it is "miraculous".

This does not answer my question. I'm going to accede to Kylie's wishes and not respond further. You obviously can't provide such a method with a flippant comment like that.

 

[AV1611VET]

This does not answer my question. I'm going to accede to Kylie's wishes and not respond further. You obviously can't provide such a method with a flippant comment like that.

Fair enough.

We can't move forward in the conversation, so long as you are using the wrong terminology.

 

[Kylie]

That is something that has always puzzled me and another thing is if all the space is expanding and everything is supposed to be getting farther apart, how come our solar system is not expanding too? I'm sure there is a good answer for this that I'm just not aware of but it bothers me.

The gravity of the sun holds it together.

It's like if you had a sheet of rubber that was being stretched apart, but two magnets that were next to each other. The magnets would stay connected by their magnetic attraction, even though the rubber was stretching. The magnetic force would overcome the separating force of the stretching rubber. Likewise, the gravitational attraction of the sun is enough to overcome the separating force of the expansion of space, at least at the local level.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

The gravity of the sun holds it together.

It's like if you had a sheet of rubber that was being stretched apart, but two magnets that were next to each other. The magnets would stay connected by their magnetic attraction, even though the rubber was stretching. The magnetic force would overcome the separating force of the stretching rubber. Likewise, the gravitational attraction of the sun is enough to overcome the separating force of the expansion of space, at least at the local level.

Thank you for the answer. That makes sense.

 

[chilehed]

You're entitled to your opinion.Do you know the difference between creatio ex nihilo and creatio ex materia?That's because your example is faulty.

Your example is based on creatio ex materia, not creatio ex nihilo.

In short, you're trying to dismiss creatio ex nihilo with creatio ex materia.You're standing on it (i.e. the earth).Interesting -- since I bring it up all the time.Then test creatio ex nihilo in a lab.

Would you even know where (or how) to begin?

If you can't, then I would say creatio ex nihilo is a miracle, not a natural phenomenon.You're entitled to your opinion.

AV1611VET finally says something that I fully agree with!

 

[Kylie]

@Mark Quayle did you miss my most recent response to you in post 218?

 

[Mark Quayle]

@Mark Quayle did you miss my most recent response to you in post 218?

I don't know. I'm lost. I'm away from my computer for another week at least and am trying to figure out how to do this on my phone.

 

[Mark Quayle]

The degree of difference that we'd see would depend on several factors, such as how much impact the selective pressures imposed and how much time had elapsed.

For example, if there was some selective pressure that had a large impact, we'd expect that the difference in reproduction between those individuals that had advantageous variations and those that had detrimental traits would be greater than if the impact was small.

And, of course, the more time we allowed, the more time the selective pressures would have to act on the population.

All other things being equal, I agree.

 

[Kylie]

I don't know. I'm lost. I'm away from my computer for another week at least and am trying to figure out how to do this on my phone.

Ah. I'd noticed that you had been away for a while, I was starting to worry something had happened to you. We can wait until you are back to your computer if you want.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Ah. I'd noticed that you had been away for a while, I was starting to worry something had happened to you. We can wait until you are back to your computer if you want.

I'm back. Sort of

 

[AV1611VET]

I'm back. Sort of

Welcome back, Mark!

 

[Kylie]

I'm back. Sort of

Welcome back!