Jump to content


Photo

Random Energy Vs Intelligently Controlled Energy


  • Please log in to reply
71 replies to this topic

#1 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1794 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 17 August 2010 - 03:37 PM

Hello Everyone

Let's suppose two people want to live in a house in Florida. One guy is a scientist and believes in evolution. Note; the scientific evolutionist does not conclude that the universe evolved. According to evolutionary scientists the universe was the result of "natural laws" and time and chance. Therefore, time and chance caused the universe and specifically situations on this planet. Some of those situations resulted in the causation of life. According to evolutionary sciences evolution can only take place once there is a self replicating life form.

The creationist point of view is the opposite. The creationists believe that intelligent life created the physical world and all the creatures on this planet. On with the story. Like Adolph Hitler, Stalin, Marx.....(let me stop) this evolutionist doesen't have a problem with helping time and chance out a bit. He buys some land in Florida, goes to the building supply store and purchases the materials to build a five bedroom house.

:) Here's where randomensst and energy come in. Supposedly, randomness can produce great complexity. What is needed is energy. He has observed that there is a lot of energy in hurricanes. Hurricanes happen often in Florida. Moreover, hurricanes have lots of "random" energy.

He places the materials for his house on his property and waits for a hurricane to come along. A hurricane could "possibly" randomly assemble his five bedroom house he muses. Sure enough a hurricane happens. He goes out to his property after the hurricane only to find his building materials strewn all over the property. He finds some of his materials miles away. He has 5 billion years for hurricanes in Florida to build his house. Why 5 billion years? Because that's how long the earth has been here according to scientists. :)

The creationists mocks, "Show me one house in 5 billion years that time and chance has caused in Florida?" The evolutionists thinks. He can't think of one example. The creationists narrows his request for proof down. "Show me one house on planet Earth in 5 billion years that time and chance has caused? Silence... <_< ....
.

The creationists wants a five bedroom house in Florida also. So he calls up an architect, an intelligent one (are there any other kind?). Together, the two design a house. Then, they decide on an intelligent builder. The builder hires intelligent carpenters and masonry men. He rents equipment made by intelligent engineers and workers. Because they have involved lots of intelligent people, the house is built in less than a year. Which is more efficient creativity or evolution? Creativity wins hands down!

When the scientific evolutionist wants a house, does he trust in evolution or intelligent design? Again in 5 billion years there is not one example of a five bedroom house or even a one-bedroom house with hot and cold running water, a wastewater removal system, a heating and cooling system, and an electrical system anywhere on planet earth caused by time and chance! But it's possible claims the scientific evolutionost. Yes it is, because intelligent beings have done it millions of times over. Reluctantly, disssapointed and downtrodden because his time and chance theory can't be falsified the Evoutionist asks his creatoionist friend who built his house? :unsure: And the winner is...

#2 GerryT

GerryT

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 30 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Regina

Posted 17 August 2010 - 04:01 PM

Hello Everyone

Let's suppose two people want to live in a house in Florida. One guy is a scientist and believes in evolution. Note;  the scientific evolutionist does not conclude that the universe evolved. According to evolutionary scientists the universe was the result of "natural laws" and time and chance. Therefore, time and chance caused the universe and  specifically situations on this planet. Some of those situations resulted in the causation of life. According to evolutionary sciences evolution can only take place once there is a self replicating life form.

The creationist point of view is the opposite. The creationists believe that  intelligent life created the physical world and all the creatures on this planet. On with the story. Like Adolph Hitler, Stalin, Marx.....(let me stop) this evolutionist doesen't have a problem with helping time and chance out a bit. He buys some land in Florida, goes to the building supply store and purchases the materials to build a five bedroom house.

:) Here's where randomensst and energy come in. Supposedly, randomness can produce great complexity. What is needed is energy. He has observed that there is a lot of energy in  hurricanes. Hurricanes  happen often in Florida. Moreover, hurricanes have lots of "random" energy.

He places the materials for his house on his property and waits for a hurricane to come along. A hurricane could "possibly"  randomly assemble his five bedroom house he muses. Sure enough a hurricane happens. He goes out to his property after the hurricane only to find his building  materials strewn all  over the property. He finds some of his materials miles away. He has 5 billion years for hurricanes in Florida to build his house. Why 5 billion years? Because that's how long the earth has been here according to scientists.  :)

The creationists mocks, "Show me one house in 5 billion years that time and chance has caused in Florida?"  The evolutionists thinks. He can't think of one example. The creationists narrows his request for proof down. "Show me one house on planet Earth in 5 billion years that time and chance has caused? Silence... <_< ....
.

The creationists wants a five bedroom house in Florida also. So he calls up an architect, an intelligent one (are there any other kind?). Together, the two design a house. Then, they decide on an intelligent builder. The builder hires intelligent carpenters and masonry men. He rents equipment made by intelligent engineers and workers. Because  they have involved lots of intelligent people, the  house is built in less than a year. Which is more efficient creativity or evolution? Creativity wins hands down!

When the scientific evolutionist wants a house, does he trust in evolution or intelligent design? Again in 5 billion years there is not one example of a five bedroom house or even a one-bedroom house with hot and cold running water, a wastewater removal system, a heating and cooling system, and an electrical system anywhere on planet earth caused by time and chance! But it's possible claims the scientific evolutionost. Yes it is,  because  intelligent beings have done it millions of times over. Reluctantly, disssapointed and downtrodden because his time and chance theory can't be falsified the Evoutionist asks his creatoionist friend who built his house? :unsure: And the winner is...

View Post


What is random about natural selection?

#3 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 August 2010 - 04:34 PM

What is random about natural selection?

View Post


Nothing, because nature cannot select anything... Therefor the point is moot!

#4 GerryT

GerryT

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 30 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Regina

Posted 17 August 2010 - 04:37 PM

Nothing, because nature cannot select anything... Therefor the point is moot!

View Post


please explain. I don't follow.

#5 Mike Summers

Mike Summers

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1794 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Information theory, electronics, videography, writing, human psychology, psychotherapy
  • Age: 61
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Detroit Michigan area

Posted 17 August 2010 - 04:37 PM

Hi Gerry,

I realize natural selection is not random when it comes to evolutionary theory. Darwin's evolution can only take place after something is alive. Evolution would not apply to a material universe. However I do see scientists refering to the universe as having evolved.

I see I did misuse evolution a few times. I will correct that. Unless I overlooked it I did not mention natural selection in the post.
All the best,
Mike

#6 GerryT

GerryT

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 30 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Regina

Posted 17 August 2010 - 04:47 PM

Hi Gerry,

I realize natural selection is not random when it comes to evolutionary theory. Darwin's evolution can only take place after something is alive. Evolution would not apply to a material universe.  However I do see scientists refering to the universe as having evolved.

I see I did misuse evolution a few times. I will correct that. Unless I overlooked it I did not mention natural selection in the post.
All the best,
Mike

View Post


Sorry. The hurricane is usually used as a refutation of natural selection and evolutionary theory together. Thats my bad for reading into it.

#7 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 August 2010 - 04:49 PM

please explain.  I don't follow.

View Post


Nature... Cannot... Select... Anything...

#8 GerryT

GerryT

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 30 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Regina

Posted 17 August 2010 - 06:06 PM

Nature... Cannot... Select... Anything...

View Post


why... not....?...

....

#9 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 17 August 2010 - 06:38 PM

Because... nature... is... not... sentient.

Unless you are suggesting “Nature” is sentient...

#10 GerryT

GerryT

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 30 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Regina

Posted 17 August 2010 - 07:34 PM

Because... nature... is... not... sentient.

Unless you are suggesting “Nature” is sentient...

View Post


How does the process of natural selection require nature to be sentient?

#11 philosophik

philosophik

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 106 posts
  • Age: 30
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • ca

Posted 17 August 2010 - 08:39 PM

Because... nature... is... not... sentient.

Unless you are suggesting “Nature” is sentient...

View Post



Are you forgetting that all sentient creatures in the universe are a part of nature? Therefore nature is sentient, and not sentient at the same time. And natural selection deals with the part of nature that is sentient, namely biological life forms.

#12 Guest_Tommy_*

Guest_Tommy_*
  • Guests

Posted 17 August 2010 - 09:28 PM

Nature... Cannot... Select... Anything...

View Post


Natural pressures and forces can select. If you put dirt in a tank of water the heavier grains are more likely to settle near the bottom than the lighter ones. Similarly, in a competitive environment more adapted individuals are more likely to reproduce.

#13 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5799 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 17 August 2010 - 10:26 PM

Are you forgetting that all sentient creatures in the universe are a part of nature? Therefore nature is sentient, and not sentient at the same time. And natural selection deals with the part of nature that is sentient, namely biological life forms.

View Post


Perhaps this is why God is refered to as omnipresent <_<\

Or are you suggesting a global telepathic link of sentience that guides evolution?

#14 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 18 August 2010 - 03:33 AM

How does the process of natural selection require nature to be sentient?

View Post


How does “Nature” select anything? The phrase itself is an oxymoron unless “Nature” is sentient.

#15 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 18 August 2010 - 03:39 AM

Are you forgetting that all sentient creatures in the universe are a part of nature?

View Post

Are you suggesting that “Nature” is a sentient creature? Also, keep in mind, all the sentient creatures in the universe are here, on Earth. Unless you have evidence of physically sentient creatures elsewhere in the universe?

Therefore nature is sentient, and not sentient at the same time.

View Post

Not only is this statement self defeating, but it is a factually unsubstantiated opinion as well. Now, I don’t begrudge you your opinions. But they will be exposed as such…

And natural selection deals with the part of nature that is sentient, namely biological life forms.

View Post

Biological life forms are sentient, “Nature” is not…. Unless you are in possession of some evidences no one else is privy to? Then, by all means, provide it.

#16 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 18 August 2010 - 03:48 AM

Natural pressures and forces can select. 

View Post

Natural pressures do not select anything, nor do forces. If you can show me a picture of a “Natural Pressure” or “Force” selecting something, we can then discuss the sentience of said “Natural Pressure” or “Forces”. Until then, you are attributing false


If you put dirt in a tank of water the heavier grains are more likely to settle near the bottom than the lighter ones. 

View Post

And if you roll a rock down a hill, it will follow the path of least resistance. This is not “selection”; it is the “Law of Gravity” at work. No sentience involved, just the laws built into our universe following their design.

Similarly, in a competitive environment more adapted individuals are more likely to reproduce.

View Post

No similarity what so ever. Individuals are not rocks or gravity, or water or grain. Biological creatures do have the ability to choose. Rocks, grain, water and gravity do not.

#17 Harry

Harry

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 142 posts
  • Age: 53
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • UK

Posted 18 August 2010 - 05:46 AM

How does “Nature” select anything? The phrase itself is an oxymoron unless “Nature” is sentient.

View Post

Nature doesn't select anything.

Organisms that are better suited for their environment will have a greater chance of reproduction thus increasing the allele frequency in the gene pool. From here it is a matter of genetics. Mendel's Law (which is statistical, not selective) explains the "selection" we observe.

#18 GerryT

GerryT

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 30 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Regina

Posted 18 August 2010 - 05:59 AM

Natural pressures do not select anything, nor do forces. If you can show me a picture of a “Natural Pressure” or “Force” selecting something, we can then discuss the sentience of said “Natural Pressure” or “Forces”. Until then, you are attributing false
And if you roll a rock down a hill, it will follow the path of least resistance. This is not “selection”; it is the “Law of Gravity” at work. No sentience involved, just the laws built into our universe following their design.
No similarity what so ever. Individuals are not rocks or gravity, or water or grain. Biological creatures do have the ability to choose. Rocks, grain, water and gravity do not.

View Post


So then you agree with what natural selection actually is, you are just playing word games with the "selection" part for fun?

#19 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 18 August 2010 - 06:00 AM

Nature doesn't select anything.

View Post

Indeed, and that is exactly what I purported. Therefore, the words “natural selection” becomes an oxymoronic testament at best.


Organisms that are better suited for their environment will have a greater chance of reproduction thus increasing the allele frequency in the gene pool. From here it is a matter of genetics. Mendel's Law (which is statistical, not selective) explains the "selection" we observe.

View Post


The “selection” is actually and merely adaptation within a species/kind, by the species/kind. Therefore “natural selection” has done nothing, and is nothing, and is therefor moot.

#20 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 18 August 2010 - 06:04 AM

So then you agree with what natural selection actually is, you are just playing word games with the "selection" part for fun?

View Post


No, there are no word games going on, on my part. I merely straightened out a misnomer prior to going on to the next subject. “Natural Selection” is nothing, it doesn’t exist (just like macro evolution).

If it were fun, that is and added pleasure, not the focal point. And, as I stated, you fully understand the focal point by now.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users