232d
@suzianne saidWaves do not do, specific functionally complex tasks where levels are checked, start-stop mechanisms are taking place neither is there any constraints to calculate or cause some action to occur or to stop one from continuing, neither are there instructions driving processes, nothing with syntax, symbolism, semantics.
Waves are not random. They are caused by the environment. Wind and seismic activity are two things which cause waves. All wave systems have a wavelength. It's where we get the word from. Waves are regular until something in the environment changes the wavelength.
Again, look up 'cause and effect'.
Water moving about is not an an example of overcoming entropy, having constrained formation as in a rug would be. Environmental changes brings about disorder greater possibilities while a structure is constrained, so is a functional system, it is very constrained to do specific tasks. Machines have high energy and low entropy that changes as they break down.
@suzianne said
No.
Environmental pressures cause mutations. Mutations are never caused "by chance". Some are just incredibly useful.
Cause and effect. Try researching that.
eyes to see
You believe this occurred due to random changes over time, if you watched this remember starting from nothing, every detail, every process, every piece would have had to get made and integrated into a system that interacted with every other system by chance and necessity instead of design if you were to suggest a Godless process could create us out of dead dirt.
232d
@kellyjay saidBillions of years is a long, long time.
https://youtu.be/h1r5qj_E5Bc
eyes to see
You believe this occurred due to random changes over time, if you watched this remember starting from nothing, every detail, every process, every piece would have had to get made and integrated into a system that interacted with every other system by chance and necessity instead of design if you were to suggest a Godless process could create us out of dead dirt.
232d
@kellyjay saidI thought we were talking about nature.
Waves do not do, specific functionally complex tasks where levels are checked, start-stop mechanisms are taking place neither is there any constraints to calculate or cause some action to occur or to stop one from continuing, neither are there instructions driving processes, nothing with syntax, symbolism, semantics.
Water moving about is not an an example of overcoming e ...[text shortened]... ed to do specific tasks. Machines have high energy and low entropy that changes as they break down.
@suzianne saidSorry for some reason my reply to this earlier didn't show up, I'm not sure what I did wrong. Billions of years in a very long time, but it doesn't matter when you look at all of the possibilities of things going wrong, those odds simply dwarf even that length of time by comparison, the search time required to get one piece correct against the possibilities of going wrong is too large, moreover, it isn't just one or two things that have to be correctly done but a host of them that need to be done at the same time, again increasing an already insurmountable odds against it happening.
Billions of years is a long, long time.
Add to that the timing issues, where if something that needs to be done, gets done, the next step has to happen right away, so now it is on the clock for immediate results longer times don't help because things don't stay static it will degrade, what was done right will not stay right. It is unrealistic to go from dead matter to life in an unguided, purposeless, process that doesn't have a goal and doesn't keep notes on what it learned because it is mindless.
223d
@Suzianne saidLook up the second main law of the thermodynamics, it is the law of entropy.
Waves are not random. They are caused by the environment. Wind and seismic activity are two things which cause waves. All wave systems have a wavelength. It's where we get the word from. Waves are regular until something in the environment changes the wavelength.
Again, look up 'cause and effect'.
It says that a system left to it's own will degrade to a lower grade of order until at the end the total entropy, total chaos has been reached.
There is no such a thing as dead matter spontaneously working itself up to enormously complex machines like humans.
Goes against the laws of nature.
On top of that, science agrees that mutations cannot make new species.
The evolution theory is dead and buried. It just has to sink in with the masses.
223d
@Carnivorum saidEvolution is not a system.
Look up the second main law of the thermodynamics, it is the law of entropy.
It says that a system left to it's own will degrade to a lower grade of order until at the end the total entropy, total chaos has been reached.
There is no such a thing as dead matter spontaneously working itself up to enormously complex machines like humans.
Goes against the laws of na ...[text shortened]... new species.
The evolution theory is dead and buried. It just has to sink in with the masses.
It's a law of nature. Survival of the fittest.
222d
@Carnivorum saidSorry, but this is just bad logic.
The fittest may survive, but there is nothing that produces all the time more and more fit creatures.
And as they say in that scientific article, codes within codes cannot be made by coincidence.
There is no known mechanism that can make duons, codes within codes.
So evolution is out.
Theories are allowed to be incomplete. A gap in a theory is not necessarily a flaw at all, let alone a fatal one.
The worst part is that your proposed replacement theory explains nothing at all. You're a snake oil salesman.
222d
@BigDogg saidWhat we see as the only thing that can build systems within systems to do complex functionally specified work is the mind of an agent, you are the one that has nothing even remotely able to explain what we see in life. To suggest anything else you should at least have some example showing it is probable otherwise you are not looking at reason due to causes, just blind faith and wishful thinking.
Sorry, but this is just bad logic.
Theories are allowed to be incomplete. A gap in a theory is not necessarily a flaw at all, let alone a fatal one.
The worst part is that your proposed replacement theory explains nothing at all. You're a snake oil salesman.