"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

J C

papu wrote: »

This is the Milley Urey Experiment It shows how the inorganic materials and Ultraviolet Light, Raw energy in the for of Photons can create amino acids , fundamental blocks and the starting material for lifeforms.

Producing a 'broth' of amino acids and tar poisons doesn't explain how the amino acids became organised into the sophisticated systems that are found in even the simplest living cell.
It's analagous to bringing somebody into an abandoned scrapyard and claiming that the scrap and nettles could spontaneously assemble themselves into a jumbo jet, if given enough time!!!!

J C

himnextdoor wrote: »

And charcoal is produced in ovens that are too hot whilst dough is produced in cold ovens but there is a narrow, 'Goldilocks', band where bread is produced.

The 'Goldilocks' band ... eh ... is this another Evolutionist Fairytale???

... bread will never be produced by non-intelligently directed processes, because intelligently directed energy is required at all stages from sowing and harvesting the Wheat ... to transporting and milling it ... to mixing it with precise proportions of water, yeast, salt, etc. to produce dough ... to the use of an intelligently designed oven at an intelligently determined temperature and time to furn it into bread!!!

The Wheat would still be in the field, being eaten by a Dormouse, if intelligence didn't intevene to harvest and process it to produce bread.

Please give me, even one example, of where the appliance of raw energy without an intelligently designed system to harness and control it, results in an increase in complexity or utility?

shizz

J C wrote: »

Please give me, even one example, of where the appliance of raw energy without an intelligently designed system to harness and control it, results in an increase in complexity?

The Human Race? Or do you want to wait another 100 million years for a result?

papu

J C wrote: »

Producing a 'broth' of amino acids and tar poisons doesn't explain how the amino acids became organised into the sophisticated systems that are found in even the simplest living cell.
It's analagous to bringing somebody into an abandoned scrapyard and claiming that the scrap and nettles could spontaneously assemble themselves into a jumbo jet, if given enough time!!!!

Well the Example you gave does not hold , Forces act on these Molecules unlike in the scrapyard , there are Electrostatic , Van der waals , Hydrogen Bonding to name a few. A better analogy would be an astrological one , where by the Dust particles slowly over millions of years clumped together under the force of gravity , The force of gravity eventually causing the Fusion of the hydrogens which gives our star the power to Provide the energy. Without the Formation of the Solar system , Which again happened perchance and could have easily under different circumstances (had our sun burnt out too quickly or not provide enough power output . Evidence is there that the moon 2 moons which smashed into each other Giz Article.All this evolving into the Solar system as complex as it is today.. Though I doubt you accept this.

J C

shizz wrote: »

The Human Race? Or do you want to wait another 100 million years for a result?

Creation Scientists argue that in every case, the appliance of raw energy, without intelligent control and direction reduces order. Indeed, it has been observed so often, and without exception, that it is now a Law of Creation Science.

... so do you have any example that is repeatably observable that breaks this Law?

J C

papu wrote: »

Well the Example you gave does not hold , Forces act on these Molecules unlike in the scrapyard , there are Electrostatic , Van der waals , Hydrogen Bonding to name a few. A better analogy would be an astrological one , where by the Dust particles slowly over millions of years clumped together under the force of gravity , The force of gravity eventually causing the Fusion of the hydrogens which gives our star the power to Provide the energy. Without the Formation of the Solar system , Which again happened perchance and could have easily under different circumstances (had our sun burnt out too quickly or not provide enough power output . Evidence is there that the moon 2 moons which smashed into each other Giz Article.All this evolving into the Solar system as complex as it is today.. Though I doubt you accept this.

None of this stuff is repeatably observable ... if the appliance of energy without intelligent direction and control does produce increases in complexity, there should be multiple examples of this, from everyday life. The fact that it has never been observed tells its own story.

shizz

J C wrote: »

None of this stuff is repeatably observable ... if the appliance of energy without intelligent direction and control does produce increases in complexity, there sould be multiple examples from everyday life. The fact that it has never been observed tells its own story.

It's not repeatably observable because it all happens over millions of years!

Papu's example of gravity creating stars and through cycles creating heavier matter to make Planets is an example which is readily observable in the Universe. Albeit not to be consider complex organisms but certainly complex systems.

J C

shizz wrote: »

It's not repeatably observable because it all happens over millions of years!

Papu's example of gravity creating stars and through cycles creating heavier matter to make Planets is an example which is readily observable in the Universe. Albeit not to be consider complex organisms but certainly complex systems.

Surely some of the steps in the process should be repeatably observable, if it is happening.
... and if conventional physical processes can produce order by the non-intelligently directed appliance of energy, examples should abound ... but there are none ... and this is another proof for the intelligent design of life.

Mr. Boo

What is raw energy?

And bread is kind of a nice analogy for evolution of thought. Accidentalism, improvement, refinement. It's all there in the history of bread.


For the record: "Once upon a time there was nothing, then god created everything and destroyed everything, then man lived forever in paradise - happily ever after."

The greatest fairytale ever told.

J C

Mr. Boo wrote: »

What is raw energy?

... raw energy is non-intelligently directed or controlled energy.

Mr. Boo wrote: »

And bread is kind of a nice analogy for evolution of thought. Accidentalism, improvement, refinement. It's all there in the history of bread.

... the evolution of thought ... is by definition, intelligently directed ... and ditto for the development of bread production technology.

... still no evidence of non-intelligently directed processes producing anything worthwhile ...
... and no example of the non-intelligently directed appliance of energy increasing complexity or producing increased functionality.

Mr. Boo wrote: »

For the record: "Once upon a time there was nothing, then god created everything and destroyed everything, then man lived forever in paradise - happily ever after."

The greatest fairytale ever told.

The details are a matter of faith ... but the fact that life was intelligently created is in line with all known observations of the interaction of energy, matter and intelligence ... and it doesn't conform with any observation of the interaction of matter and energy in the absence of an intelligent input

... so, I guess it is boo ... hoo ... to you ... Mr Boo!!!:)

Mr. Boo

So "raw energy" is sunshine, the action of gravity, erosion, tectonics, smooth muscle action....etc? That's a fairly pointless term. I can see why there's not much information on the net about it.

The evolution of thought is not, by definition, "intelligently directed". Unless you're a creationist. This "intelligent direction", by the way, is another very broad term. Equally catch-all and useless in its way.

I think if you direct your narrow gaze to earlier posts about the inevitability of formation of life in a primordial soup, natural selection and extinction you will find lots of examples of non-intelligently directed processes with worthwhile outcomes. I do not expect you to actually do this as it would require taking your eyes off the rest of the flock, possible damnation, etc. (I love how you dropped the phrase 'development of bread production technology' in the middle of this brainfart so much btw)

Ditto for non-intelligently directed appliance of energy increasing complexity or producing increased functionality.

The last bit

The details are a matter of faith ... but the fact that life was intelligently created is in line with all known observations of the interaction of energy, matter and intelligence ... and it doesn't conform with any observation of the interaction of matter and energy in the absence of an intelligent input

... so, I guess it is boo ... hoo ... to you ... Mr Boo!!!

is pure muck. It makes little sense in conventional english, and the smilies at the end of these scribblings only ever hint as to your readiness to drink the cool-aid.

Sarky

I've been drinking for hours, I'm struggling to focus on the microphone by the keyboard and creation science still looks like a pile of **** spread by people who like to play at being scientists without doing any of the work it requires.

Are there any arguments for it that either aren't completely retarded like the CFSI rubbish J C has a stiffy for, or that haven't already been debunked a decade ago?

himnextdoor

Sarky wrote: »

Are there any arguments for it that either aren't completely retarded like the CFSI rubbish J C has a stiffy for, or that haven't already been debunked a decade ago?

No.

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

... raw energy is non-intelligently directed or controlled energy.

Nonsense. Raw energy is just energy. Whether it be the heat in an oven or the light from a light-bulb; whether it is confined to an electron or emitted as a result of a supernova, energy is always raw.

There is no such thing as 'un-raw energy'. Energy does not distinguish itself from energy.

What ingredient(s) do you suggest might 'dilute' energy; energy plus what?

Energy is not like Mi Wadi(tm).

(Clue: attenuation is not the same as dilution.)

J C

himnextdoor wrote: »

Nonsense. Raw energy is just energy. Whether it be the heat in an oven or the light from a light-bulb; whether it is confined to an electron or emitted as a result of a supernova, energy is always raw.

There is no such thing as 'un-raw energy'. Energy does not distinguish itself from energy.

What ingredient(s) do you suggest might 'dilute' energy; energy plus what?

Energy is not like Mi Wadi(tm).

(Clue: attenuation is not the same as dilution.)

I've explained the facts to you ... that the appliance of raw energy has never been observed to increase complexity or functionality ... and asked if anybody has an example that disproves this.

I defined what raw energy is ... and I explained that it is non-intelligently directed or controlled energy.

... all your laughing and scoffing doesn't invalidate what I have said ... and just shows that you have no answers to my points.

J C

Mr. Boo wrote: »

So "raw energy" is sunshine, the action of gravity, erosion, tectonics, smooth muscle action....etc? That's a fairly pointless term. I can see why there's not much information on the net about it.

... with the exception of smooth muscle action (which is intelligently designed) ... none of the other processes are observed to increase complexity or functionality, unless they are harnessed by intelligently designed processes ...
... for example, raw sunlight, on its own, just produces reductions in complexity and functionality such as sunburn and UV degredation of plastics and paints, that are exposed to its raw energy ...
... but sunlight can be harnessed to increase complexity and functionality by an an intelligently designed, CFSI-rich process, like photosynthesis or photovoltaic cells.

Mr. Boo wrote: »

The evolution of thought is not, by definition, "intelligently directed". Unless you're a creationist. This "intelligent direction", by the way, is another very broad term. Equally catch-all and useless in its way.

... so are you saying that the only people who use intelligence to develop and evolve their thoughts are Creationists?
... I''ll concede that you just might have a point there!!!:)

Mr. Boo wrote: »

I think if you direct your narrow gaze to earlier posts about the inevitability of formation of life in a primordial soup, natural selection and extinction you will find lots of examples of non-intelligently directed processes with worthwhile outcomes. I do not expect you to actually do this as it would require taking your eyes off the rest of the flock, possible damnation, etc. (I love how you dropped the phrase 'development of bread production technology' in the middle of this brainfart so much btw)

Ditto for non-intelligently directed appliance of energy increasing complexity or producing increased functionality.

... you're long on claims ... but very short on examples of the non-intelligently directed application of energy producing worthwhile outcomes. I'm not blaming you for the absence of examples ... because the appliance of raw energy has never been observed to produce increased compexity or functionality.

... and the 'bainfarting' ... and 'thought constipation' seems to all be on the Evolutionist side of this debate.
It ultimately comes down to a confusion between faith and fact ... the fact is that non-intelligently directed increases in complexity and functionality have never been observed ... and therefore a belief in Materialistic Evolution is an entirely faith-based belief ... but Materialists continue to argue that their beliefs are somehow grounded in observed reality ... when they decidely aren't.
On the other hand, even though God has never been observed ... the action of intelligence is physically manifest throughout the biosphere ... whether the intelligence was God or some other agent(s) is a matter of faith ... and Creation Scientists freely accept this.

I always think that it is quite ironic that Materialists, who pride themselves on their 'hard-headed' logic ... are the ones basing their worlview on a faith in something that has never been observed (an increase in complexity and functionality by non-intelligently directed processes) ... while Creationists have multiple observations from the physical world that show the action of super-intelligence, which provides 'hard-headed' logical proof for their beliefs in a transcendant God.

It turns out that the Materialists are the deeply religious ones (relying on faith alone for their beliefs in the hereto unobserved abilities of spontaneous processes) ... and the Theists are actually the real materialists (basing their beliefs on the observable physical evidence of intelligent action within the biosphere)!!!

Mr. Boo wrote: »

The last bit is pure muck. It makes little sense in conventional english, and the smilies at the end of these scribblings only ever hint as to your readiness to drink the cool-aid.

I thought that 'boo ... hoo ... to you ... Mr Boo' rhymed quite well !!!:):D

Sarky

J C wrote: »

... all your laughing and scoffing doesn't invalidate what I have said ... and just shows that you have no answers to my points.

We don't have to invalidate anything you've said for two reasons:

1. The creationist websites you cite (insofar as a pile of unscientific hogwash can be cited) have already been debunked years ago. The fact that you seem to ignore all the evidence that your sources are crap is just another delicious cherry on top.

2. Any scientific papers you cite are invariably evidence AGAINST your claims. If you can't even read the abstract of a scientific paper, then you must have been an abominably bad scientist. Or you were never a scientist at all.

At this stage you've lied so much that I wouldn't believe a word that comes from you. Not that you type much original content, you tend to just copy and paste someone else's words (which have been incorrect for years), add in a few extra emoticons and punctuation, and pass it off as science.

I don't think I've ever seen someone be so hilariously, completely wrong about anything in my life. You don't HAVE any points. You never did. You're wrong. You have been wrong for a very long time, and unless you open your eyes you'll continue to be wrong. And rational people everywhere will continue to point it out.

robindch

J C wrote: »

Raw energy can only produce useful functional artefacts when it is intelligently controlled and directed.

J C wrote: »

... raw energy is non-intelligently directed or controlled energy.

Mr. Boo

Raw sunlight? lol

so are you saying that the only people who use intelligence to develop and evolve their thoughts are Creationists?

No. But your lack of comprehension explains a lot.


Short on examples? I knew you'd continue to ignore everyone else's points for the sake of your blind faith.

I thought that 'boo ... hoo ... to you ... Mr Boo' rhymed quite well !!!

Yes. You did a good rhyme. Gold star.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

We don't have to invalidate anything you've said for two reasons:

1. The creationist websites you cite (insofar as a pile of unscientific hogwash can be cited) have already been debunked years ago. The fact that you seem to ignore all the evidence that your sources are crap is just another delicious cherry on top.

2. Any scientific papers you cite are invariably evidence AGAINST your claims. If you can't even read the abstract of a scientific paper, then you must have been an abominably bad scientist. Or you were never a scientist at all.

At this stage you've lied so much that I wouldn't believe a word that comes from you. Not that you type much original content, you tend to just copy and paste someone else's words (which have been incorrect for years), add in a few extra emoticons and punctuation, and pass it off as science.

I don't think I've ever seen someone be so hilariously, completely wrong about anything in my life. You don't HAVE any points. You never did. You're wrong. You have been wrong for a very long time, and unless you open your eyes you'll continue to be wrong. And rational people everywhere will continue to point it out.

Never mind your biased and predictable criticism of me ... do you have any examples to support your own beliefs about the magical powers of matter and raw energy to spontaneously increase the functional complexity of anything?

J C

robindch wrote: »

Originally Posted by J C
Raw energy can only produce useful functional artefacts when it is intelligently controlled and directed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by J C
... raw energy is non-intelligently directed or controlled energy.

Do you also scoff at the distinction between Crude Oil and the Lubricating Oil in your car, that has been refined from Crude Oil by the use of intelligently designed processes?

... as an engineer, have you ever come across a non-intelligently designed system that uses energy to increase the complexity and functionality of anything?
... if you have, your fellow Materialists could do with a 'dig out' from you ... because they have got themselves into a right 'pickle' on this one!!!:)



... very INTRIGUING indeed!!!!:D

Sarky

J C wrote: »

Never mind your biased and predictable criticism of me ... do you have any examples to support your own beliefs about the magical powers of matter and raw energy to spontaneously increase the functional complexity of anything?

Put the simple elements iron and sulphur together, subject them to heat. Any amount will do, no need to intelligently direct it. You end up with a more complicated substance made from two elements.

then of course there's every single biological process on the planet. Take away the sun and you'll have nothing to power them. Everything stops and decays. but of course you won't accept that because you suffer from this great big delusion that you're far too special to have happened as a result of natural physical processes. Your arrogance is offensive, to be perfectly frank.

And don't even think of trying to claim that the sun is intelligently designed. It's a ball of gas that ignited under its own gravitational forces. It's completely undirected in its emissions. The occasional solar flare causes havoc to all machinery, including the biological.

And I don't think it's biased to think you were either never a scientist or were merely a very bad one. You don't check your references, you don't change your models in light of evidence, you can't even read the abstract of any papers you cite!

You still have to answer my question from before: Are you lying about watching the videos in this thread, or are you lying about understanding them?

papu

J C wrote: »

None of this stuff is repeatably observable ... if the appliance of energy without intelligent direction and control does produce increases in complexity, there should be multiple examples of this, from everyday life. The fact that it has never been observed tells its own story.

Pretty simple example here try and stay with it , Its Scientific :rolleyes:

Take a Block of Ice , Chilled very close to absolute 0 , place this block out into the sun / oven whatever you want. The Heat energy is imparted to the block and eventually it becomes liquid , Inherently more complex than the solid form , A while after this it will become gass , more so complex than a liquid.

The addition of the energy causes the entropy to increase thus causing the complexity of the system to increase.

The knowledge we have on the formation of our solar system is through Looking into space with telescopes and observing these stages of process from other systems. Evidence to the bottom of this

Since the Universe is expanding (FACT)
and Light travels at a set speed (FACT)
the light coming to us is already Billions of years old and we are looking at something that happened in the past. Theres your evidence.

Also it is repeatedly observable , go outside tonight and Look up , Each one of those Lights in the sky is a Star , which formed in exactly the same way as ours. Through the wonders of angular momentum , Gravity and nuclear fusion

J C

papu wrote: »

Pretty simple example here try and stay with it , Its Scientific :rolleyes:

Take a Block of Ice , Chilled very close to absolute 0 , place this block out into the sun / oven whatever you want. The Heat energy is imparted to the block and eventually it becomes liquid , Inherently more complex than the solid form , A while after this it will become gass , more so complex than a liquid.

The addition of the energy causes the entropy to increase thus causing the complexity of the system to increase.

These are just three states of matter ... if the ice spontanously liquefied into wine ... now that would be adding specified complexity ... and functionality ... but this would be a materialistic miracle ... that has never happened ... and could never happen ... without an input of intelligence!!!!

Of course God is capable of such miracles ... He did it at Creation when He created the Grapevine ... and again at a certain wedding in Cana Israel, 2000 years ago.

papu wrote: »

The knowledge we have on the formation of our solar system is through Looking into space with telescopes and observing these stages of process from other systems. Evidence to the bottom of this

Since the Universe is expanding (FACT)
and Light travels at a set speed (FACT)
the light coming to us is already Billions of years old and we are looking at something that happened in the past. Theres your evidence.

Also it is repeatedly observable , go outside tonight and Look up , Each one of those Lights in the sky is a Star , which formed in exactly the same way as ours. Through the wonders of angular momentum , Gravity and nuclear fusion

That's like somebody describing the performance of a racing car ... and claiming that this shows how it was made.

J C

Sarky wrote: »

Put the simple elements iron and sulphur together, subject them to heat. Any amount will do, no need to intelligently direct it. You end up with a more complicated substance made from two elements.

This is just a straighforward chemical reaction ... its like saying that because hydrocarbons burn spontaneously when ignited in air, that this describes how a Jumbo Jet is manufactured ... as distinct from its source of energy.

Even though a Jumbo Jet relies on a simple spontaneous chemical reaction to provide it with power ... this doesn't account for how all of the CFSI was built into it by the appliance of Intelligent Design in its manufacture.

Sarky wrote: »

then of course there's every single biological process on the planet. Take away the sun and you'll have nothing to power them. Everything stops and decays. but of course you won't accept that because you suffer from this great big delusion that you're far too special to have happened as a result of natural physical processes. Your arrogance is offensive, to be perfectly frank.

Yes, you have identified one way everything could die (which is a dramatical loss of functionality) ... what you haven't identified is how the life could possiblly spontaneously arise and develop functionality, in the first place ... which is the question that Creation answers ... and Abiogenesis/Evolution purports to answer ... but doesn't.

Sarky wrote: »

And don't even think of trying to claim that the sun is intelligently designed. It's a ball of gas that ignited under its own gravitational forces. It's completely undirected in its emissions. The occasional solar flare causes havoc to all machinery, including the biological.?

The issue here is where did the gas come from? ... and saying that it all came out of nothing at the Big Bang is a non-answer with no logical validity ...
Even if you call it a fancy word like a 'singularity' ... because nobody knows how it could ever happen by materialistic processes, this still doesn't account for where it came from.

The other answer, that the Universe is there ... and it must have arisen by purely materialistic procesess, is just circular reasoning, based on nothing other than an overwhelming belief in Materialism ... irrespective of the fact that only a Transcendent Super-Intelligence could have created the Universere and life as we observe it.

robindch

J C wrote: »

These are just three states of matter

Did your "science" "education" not tell you about superfluids, Bose-Einstein condensates, fermionic condensates, ionic + quark-gluon plasmas etc, eh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_matter

papu

J C wrote: »

These are just three states of matter ... if the ice spontanously liquefied into wine ... now that would be adding specified complexity ... and functionality ... but this would be a materialistic miracle ... that has never happened, to my knowledge!!!!

Of course God is capable of such miracles ... He did it at Creation when He created the Grapevine ... and again at a certain wedding in Cana 2000 years ago.

That's like somebody describing the performance of a racing car ... and claiming that this shows how it was made.

Hmm not quite no you asked for complexity ,taking my example a step further , the next state would be a plasma , again a plasma is very different to the block of ice we originally started with , it has different properties , and if shown the two without knowing / seeing the transition process one would not assume they are of the same starting material.

Functionality , The functionality of a solid / gas / liquid/ plasma are completely different , the function of wine and water are similar if not almost the same

Well wasnt the point I was addressing , Replication of the theory was the question , A better analogy would be someone telling you that their car was the one and only car in the universe , But you could see the factory the cars were made in though binoculars..

Cool story Bro , this sounds like someone reading a story from a book and claiming it as fact.

J C

robindch wrote: »

Did your "science" "education" not tell you about superfluids, Bose-Einstein condensates, fermionic condensates, ionic + quark-gluon plasmas etc, eh?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_of_matter

I was answering papu's claim that the three most common states of matter, somehow account for the specified fiunctional complexity that is seen in living things ... and which is the 'hallmark' of intelligent action.

Superfluids, Bose-Einstein condensates, fermionic condensates, ionic + quark-gluon plasmas etc ... also aren't capable of replacing the appliance of intelligence either!!!

... anyway, Robin ... any chance of a 'dig out' for your Materialistic friends?
... by giving us an example of a non-intelligently designed system that uses energy to increase the complexity and functionality of anything?

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

These are just three states of matter ... if the ice spontanously liquefied into wine ... now that would be adding specified complexity ... and functionality ... but this would be a materialistic miracle ... that has never happened, to my knowledge!!!!

Of course God is capable of such miracles ... He did it at Creation when He created the Grapevine ... and again at a certain wedding in Cana 2000 years ago.

Did He? And was the wine independently verified as being wine?

It is much more plausible that, assuming the wedding you refer to did take place at all, that Jesus added some kind of drug in powder form to the water in order to make it intoxicating.

People were intoxicated and assumed the water to be wine. This, plus the placebo effect renders a more scientific explanation than yours.

I reckon Jesus learned some neat tricks in India; tricks that would cause simple-minded people to believe that He was the Son of God.

J C wrote: »

That's like somebody describing the performance of a racing car ... and claiming that this shows how it was made.

The racing car; another good analogy for evolution and natural selection and survival of the fittest.

Religionists would assume that the exhaust drives the car forward whereas a scientific examination of performance would yield clues to how the car works. The engine noise betrays the operation of the cylinders for example.

And remember, it is through the analysis of performance that methods of overcoming wind-resistance are conceived.

himnextdoor

J C wrote: »

I was answering papu's claim that the three most common states of matter, somehow account for the specified fiunctional complexity that is seen in living things ... and which is the 'hallmark' of intelligent action.

Superfluids, Bose-Einstein condensates, fermionic condensates, ionic + quark-gluon plasmas etc ... also aren't capable of replacing the appliance of intelligence either!!!

... anyway, Robin ... any chance of a 'dig out' for your Materialistic friends?
... by giving us an example of a non-intelligently designed system that uses energy to increase the complexity and functionality of anything?

The weather?