The problem is that "very bad things" happen to earth quite regularly. Case in point: Anyone ever been to Yellowstone national park?

Sounds like Brad's been reading Bill Bryson?

In any case, you're well informed

Yellowstone is just a huge caldera. It's only a matter of time before it blows. It is estimated an eruption of Yellowstone would leave somewhere as far away as New York under 3M of ash

Get yer brollies out

Yellowstone is just a huge caldera. It's only a matter of time before it blows

According to the Bill Bryson book I mentioned it happens (on average) every 600,000 years and the last eruption was 630,000 years ago (I think I got that right )

Maybe those atomic shelters in the backyard could be a good idea after all

Evolution is the cement mixer God is the technichan. [Jafo?]

you have to convince some of the people here first that there is a God. they want proof. I need none of course.

Kona...'you need none' implies you have none which in turn suggests there is none which signifies that he/she doesn't exist, which......

I need no proof of God because I believe in God.

And I believe in little green men

/me wonders if that qualifies for a date with Scully?

papidon,

The computer (watch, etc.) analogy is flawed. While many of the background forces (radiation, etc.) are random, the interrelationships between atoms and molecules have an affinity for certain combinations. Given enough time, that affinity, moderated by the random forces, can increase complexity (Jafo's random computer assembling robots ).

Frogboy,

That is an excellent argument for our need to eventually colonize other planets (even if we have to shape them or live in domes). Sooner or later, something will do severe damage to a portion of this planet (or even all of it). If we don't grow outward, we will surely die.

Kona,

As a scientist who does believe in God, I think it's possible to have both evolution *and* God. There is no fundamental conflict there. The wonders of our universe and our ability to learn to understand them speak volumes for the glory of God.

the little green men report great difficulty believing in fuzzy.

Unfortunately, we have no way to colonize other planets.

Despite what some people say, we can't go to Mars until we invent "shields" to keep up from getting zapped by interstellar radiation.

Bryson is great btw.

Actually Brad,

you're right, as far as it goes right now. But it is a goal we should strive toward, even if it takes a century or so to get there. While we could experience a world wide disaster in the next couple of centuries, the odds are, fortunately, small. But when it comes right down to it, as a civilization, we either have to give ourselves options to mitigate such catastrophies, or we will, sooner or later, fail.

There is only growth, or death. (I prefer growth )

I like Bryson's stuff, also. First saw him on the Learning Channel (IIRC), where the Yellowstone caldera was the topic of the program. Looked up and found other items of his to read.

There is only growth, or death. (I prefer growth

Look where growth has gotten us thus far. Due to growth in our so-called knowledge, we made machines which in turn led to a change of events to cause global warming, holes in the ozone, polluted waters, nuclear spills, etc. It reminds of a scene from a movie, 'The Time Machine', the newest one, just came out on DVD not too long ago. Well anyway he travels to the year 2056 or something like that and see's we have now colonized the Moon. Well long story short, we screw up the Moons orbit and it starts to crash into earth. Now as physically/scientifically inconceivable that is, the point remains...growth at what expense?

Hus,

Growth is better than stagnation, no matter what the side effects might be. Concerning things like global warming (at least the part of it that can be attributed to human behaviour), etc., growth and progress are the only realistic ways in which we can meaningfully address those issues. You can't flip a switch and have those problems go away. You can't stop progress in it's tracks, even for a little while. And even if you managed it, the cure would be worse than the disease.

Growth is not without risk, but trying to stay static, or even go backward, will cause *more* problems than growth will. So to answer your question about 'growth at what expense?', the cost of growth is *less* than the cost of not growing.

It's true that technological advances can be associated with side effects, problems, and misuse. But you can't put the genie back into the bottle. The only effective answer is to learn more and grow more and apply that to the problems, and then work to address any new ones that come up.

There are those who reflexively oppose any new progress based on ideas about potential harm, even if that progress might effectively address some of our current problems. In the misguided attempt to mitigate all possible harm, we leave ourselves without the tools to mitigate the harm that has already been done.

'Because it's there' is a biological imperative. Whether we evolved or were created from whole cloth, growth is an integral part of our character. Growth is life, and life is growth (banal as it may sound). We either grow (as individuals and as a species) or we are as good as dead. Growth is painful and expensive, failure to grow is fatal. There is *no* middle ground.

YellowStone has been buldging for a while now and it is really noticed along the lake shores where the water has run beyond the lake and into the surrounding woods. At first they thought it might be springs over flowing the lake, then after investigating they found the whole park is buldging pretty much, just waiting to go POP... Like Mt Saint Helens all over again, but with enough force and resulting earth quakes and ash to pretty much screw this country up and much of Canada...

The Atlantic and Pacific Conveyors will shut off making it so the warm water flow from the equator which also brings warm air with it will not be there anymore. Then people in the Amazon can all learn how to ride Taboggins...

The Yucatan Peninsula is thought to have been dug out by an impact that caused mass extinction and also might have caused a Magnetic Shift reversing poles for a time. Traces that support such a claim have been dug out of sea side cliffs in the Balatic sea area and a few other places. Also traces of radioactive particals found around the globe have been traced back to that specific impact.
Yep a really big rock could mooph just about if not all of us...

There are many things as you say that can and will happen eventually.

Did you know there is a island off of Africa which has a fault line running down the middle of it. If someone where to place a small payload in this fault in the correct area the resulting mass sliding into the ocean would cause a Tasunomi(spelling) that would reach would shoot out towards this side of the Atlantic at 600 - 700 mph, when it reached our shores it would swell up to 600 feet high and carry 50 miles and up inland? Florida would be washed away pretty much and it would change the whole of the USA's eastern coast line.

We spend too much money on new and enhanced ways to kill...

Also, water is a natural source of shielding for use in conjunction with other materials. It also could be built into the reclaimation process for any colonies in space. As far as traveling on ship goes, we would probably have to send out robotics, remote-bot's(mobies) and intelligent ships to do the building of a colony with some human techs. Then send colonists after a couple years so that they reach the intended colony after some sort of base camp was in place and in time to do some real humping on building the rest of the living space and such. They could scavenge the ships as needed, heck the ships could bedesigned with that thought in mind, with modular design. Say the Medical area was not self contained on the ship but could be converted to be so with ease...

anyway...

[Message Edited]

Tasunomi

Tsunami..hehe Interesting read IP.

na, just thinking with my fingers about Frogboys post.

Which I should have quoted, which is a total duh on my part...

Seems we have like interests in some things...


[Message Edited]

jafo,

"Ah...hope abandoned you, I'm afraid.....

To amend that analogy slightly.....what if instead of a cement mixer you had a dozen mindless robots and an eternity to 'fiddle' with potential ways to add one component to another.......eventually, sooner or later, all the right bits would be in the right places....and you'd have an accurate definition of 'evolution', [whereas 'God' could just be the the guy who kicks all the junk into the corner, says 'stuff it' and goes watch the football]."

And Aleatoric,

The computer (watch, etc.) analogy is flawed. While many of the background forces (radiation, etc.) are random, the interrelationships between atoms and molecules have an affinity for certain combinations. Given enough time, that affinity, moderated by the random forces, can increase complexity (Jafo's random computer assembling robots

I will agree that there will be some parts/components that Are going to come together as they should be; however the chances of *all* the necessary parts coming together in the *correct combinations* so that all you would need to do is turn the power on, is so astronomical as to be '0'.

you would have a better chance of hitting the lottery once per month for one year solid. And that's not even beginning to speak of the *far* higher complexity of the human body and mind.

Another example, if you were to find a house sitting in the middle of the Sahara Desert, complete with working water, gas, and electric utilities, a fully stocked
refrigerator and closet; and were told that the owner piled the materials there, came back later, and there stood the completed house. What would you think of his mental stability? Now, I am not impliying that one who believes in evolution is crazy, i'm only pointing out the unliklihood of our existence coming about in that way.

I need no proof of God because I believe in God.

Kona,

As I have already stated, there is a whole world of proof to support your belief. Just go out side. One proof is pregnancy. The body will destroy any foreign body within it. Yet, a fetus, which is not completely the mom, nor completely the dad, will not only survive but thrive. I think that's excellent proof of God's existanece. But as you say, not all believe. And that's o.k. To each his own, right?

time for me to go home, talk to ya'll later.

will agree that there will be some parts/components that Are going to come together as they should be; however the chances of *all* the necessary parts coming together in the *correct combinations* so that all you would need to do is turn the power on, is so astronomical as to be '0'. Another example, if you were to find a house sitting in the middle of the Sahara Desert, complete with working water, gas, and electric utilities, a fully stockedrefrigerator and closet; and were told that the owner piled the materials there, came back later, and there stood the completed house. What would you think of his mental stability? Now, I am not impliying that one who believes in evolution is crazy, i'm only pointing out the unliklihood of our existence coming about in that way.

It is possible to get order out of chaos under certain conditions, most important of which is that there's a net flow of energy in & out of the system being examined i.e it's NOT a closed system. A classic example is weather formations like tornados, cyclones etc. Witness the red spot on Jupiter. Biological entities are also open systems that use up energy in order to 'complexify' themselves.

One proof is pregnancy. The body will destroy any foreign body within it. Yet, a fetus, which is not completely the mom, nor completely the dad, will not only survive but thrive. I think that's excellent proof of God's existanece

I'm sorry but that's a pretty undisciplined interpretation of 'proof' How would the species succeed if it's immune system attacked it's foetus? By definition, only those where this *DIDN'T* occur would succeed.

papidon.....what if there were billions of groups of robots with the same set of components....given millions of years to get it 'right'?.....sure it is 'astronomical' [or rather infinitesimally small] but it is also very definitely NOT 'zero', hence the probability is finite and real....

My 'revised' analogy is pertinent and realistic and is the basis of the scientific interpretation of 'creation and evolution'.

Actually....put the correct components into Earth's 'melting pot' and you'd have a better chance of creating life than winning a supposedly genuinely 'random' lottery, or, put another way, scientists will successfully create life sooner than they will successfully guarantee a lottery win....[though heaven knows which they'd prefer to be able to do]...

One proof is pregnancy. The body will destroy any foreign body within it. Yet, a fetus, which is not completely the mom, nor completely the dad, will not only survive but thrive. I think that's excellent proof of God's existanece

Sorry, but the answer to that lies in blood groups. There are organ transplants you know. And blood transfusion. The body will indeed reject any other body unless it has a compatible blood group. And the faetus first uses his mom's blood, then eventually his own, which always is compatible with his mother's (genetics).

To come back to Kona's question about gendres, I'd like to remind you that not every species on earth have the same reproductive system as us.  Reproduction is usually well adapted to the species, and that's how it survives. That's evolution. What works best for a plant or animal is how it manages to survive. Those who's reproductive methods were not adapted, eventually gor extinct, and that's why they're not around anymore. What you see today is the result of millions, billions of years of trial and errors. Before animals and plants that we see today, there were many many many that never made it, and that we'll never know.

If God made every species on earth, why didn't he make them all reproduce the same way?

papidon,

You misunderstand the problem domain in which you're working. First, in terms of probability, the time frame involved is enormous. And given the tendency of atomic and molecular affinity to combine, the probability of various complex combinations is fairly high. Combine a relatively high probability of combination over a *very* long amount of time, and a *lot* can (and will) occur.

The following link provides a great deal of information concerning (and refuting) the statistical impossibility arguments of the literal creationists.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

To reiterate my own position, God exists and is responsible for the universe. Evolution *did* occur, and natural selection is currently our best theory concerning the mechanism of evolution.

Even the Pope accepts that the theories of evolution have validity, as long as God is still involved as the instantiating force.

There is *no* actual conflict between God and science. He created the universe and set in motion all of the circumstances that lead to the current situation.

He also designed us so that we can grow to study, learn, and understand the underlying principles that govern the universe, including the questions of our own evolution and existence.

To argue that God could not create in this fashion is to diminish Him. I prefer a God that can create the universe as we see it and understand it with science and the intellect and wisdom He gave us over a God that is limited by human dogma.

Even the Pope accepts that the theories of evolution have validity

Also, serious students of theology do not seem to be perturbed by scientific findings. This goes all the way back to Thomas Aquinas in the 14th? 15th? century.

Case in point: Anyone ever been to Yellowstone national park? Old Faithful, geysers, etc. You know why they're there? The entire part of that state is the top of a super volcano that goes up every once in a long long while. When it goes up, it'll wipe out most of North America. It's overdue.

Where is my inviso shield when I need it?

Scratch that:
Impregnable shield (Stardock of course... who else?)

[Message Edited]

Is it possible that Mount Rushmore was merely carved by erosion of wind over time? Obviously not. You can clearly see that it was Created.....

Mount Rushmore was *created*?

Man, now I'm really going to have to revise my position

I thought those guys looked familiar!