Welcome, Guest: Register On Nairaland / LOGIN! / Trending / Recent / New
Stats: 3,148,394 members, 7,800,804 topics. Date: Thursday, 18 April 2024 at 07:00 AM

What Is Nature Exactly? - Religion (2) - Nairaland

Nairaland Forum / Nairaland / General / Religion / What Is Nature Exactly? (29390 Views)

Where Exactly Is Garden Of Eden??? / How Exactly Is Christianity Holding Nigerians Back. / What Exactly Has Atheism Done For Humanity? (2) (3) (4)

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) ... (17) (Reply) (Go Down)

Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by MrAnony1(m): 10:18am On Mar 13, 2016
UyiIredia:
@ MrAnony1 You can't expect a good answer form evolution-loving atheists who exist on the intellectual low ground. In any case, I believe nature was intelligently designed and when we see man making many coded digital devices that use codes like life does and make machines with lots of interacting parts we are seeing man make complex functional systems similar to life.
While I agree with you, I must press you further to name a specific example of a man-made complex functional system.
Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by MrAnony1(m): 10:22am On Mar 13, 2016
FOLYKAZE:
On a short note, nature is the phenomena of material existence. This is include the sum of power, properties, the cause (birth) and essense of an existence.


As per if Nature is intelligent has to do with how we define intelligence. Intelligence has to do with salience and capacity of reasoning things out. . .and in particular, there is need for a brain. There is no evidence to show that nature is intelligent.

Thanks for your response. Please could you continue by answering the questions following i.e. If nature is not intelligent, then how do you explain the existence of complex functional systems such as are goats?
Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by MrAnony1(m): 10:25am On Mar 13, 2016
Joshthefirst:

I believe nature is simply the sum total of the physical structures and processes occuring around us, living and non-living. I do not believe 'nature' is conscious or intelligent or capable of moving up in complexity and functional improvement through blind 'random processes'

Of course I give ID as an explanation for goats. grin

I give an example of the man-made robots made by various japanese tech groups that are currently helping clear out the nuclear zone in fukushima after the 2011 meltdown as an example of complex functional systems that came to exist with intelligence.




(waiting for someone to give a complex functional system that nature came up with.


tag:tufanja, ishilove, yourmain

Good to see you again bro. I agree with you but please can you post a link on the robots you are talking about?

@Reyginus, I hail thee!
Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by FOLYKAZE(m): 10:39am On Mar 13, 2016
MrAnony1:


Thanks for your response. Please could you continue by answering the questions following i.e. If nature is not intelligent, then how do you explain the existence of complex functional systems such as are goats?

Complex functional systems only exist in our thought. The system is what it is. . .vibrations and frequencies.

Thought is simply a relation of matter with matter, and is neither different nor superior to the hurtling of atoms against each other. This is a shock of material imparts creating vibration and reactions to matter. I see nothing complex in this than our mind making a mountain from nothing. The complexity is illusion.

2 Likes

Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by Nobody: 10:44am On Mar 13, 2016
krattoss:
i said u are wrong?..

no I didn't..
No you didn't. You ask who made a judge over what's right and wrong when you've already given .e the powers to what nature really is. You don't see a contradiction?
Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by CoolUsername: 10:49am On Mar 13, 2016
MrAnony1:

1. What is Nature exactly?


Nature is the name given to the forces that seem to govern the earth. Sometimes, the definition may extend to the observable universe.

MrAnony1:

2. Is Nature intelligent, such that it can deliberately create a complex functional system such as is a living goat?

Not necessarily.

MrAnony1:

3. If Nature is not intelligent then how do we explain the existence of goats?

Scientifically, all organisms share an amount of DNA with each other. Genetic mapping can show us the closest relatives to the goat.

It is rather evident that goats have not existed forever. Through radioisotope dating, scientists have dated layers of sedimentary rock according to when they were lain. Consequently, with this method, can easily know the period an animal lived by the particular layer a fossil is found.

A very simplified version can be found [url=kids.britannica.com/comptons/art-107857/The-geologic-time-scale-showing-major-evolutionary-events-from-650]here[/url]

Till date, no mammal has ever been found in Devonian rock for example -and I don't mean that they are statistically fewer, I actually mean 'zero', and no dinosaur has ever been found in rock that was lain after the Cretaceous period. So it's safe to say that mammals haven't always existed, right?

The scientific consensus is that mammals descended from synapsids (you should look that up) which weren't true reptiles, now these synapsid fossils also happen to exist before mammalian fossils. From there, natural selection and other evolutionary catalysts would have given rise to goats.

It's not so difficult to imagine once you have some background knowledge.

MrAnony1:

4. If your explanation is that complex functional systems such as are goats came by a series of happy accidents acting upon non-living base elements over a very long period of time, can you cite any similar examples where such a process has been observed? i.e. can you provide with evidence, examples of complex functional systems that came to exist without intelligence?

Let's talk about the evolutionary hypothesis of the eye, the eye started out as a simple photo-sensitive spot, capable of detecting shadows on the body of a microorganism, the second step was an indention of that spot which helped a descendant of the original microorganism detect the direction of light, step three was the partial closing of that indentation to form a rudimentary pinhole, to produce images, while the final involves the formation of a lens.

This shows how series of beneficial genetic mutations in a population, could have been preserved over time through natural selection (eyes help to detect predators) and refined into what we know today.

This hypothesis is solid because there is a known organism for each evolutionary 'step' that was talked about.
Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by Nobody: 11:02am On Mar 13, 2016
MrAnony1:


Good to see you again bro. I agree with you but please can you post a link on the robots you are talking about?

@Reyginus, I hail thee!
Welcome man. It's good you didn't forget this password.
Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by Joshthefirst(m): 11:16am On Mar 13, 2016
MrAnony1:


Good to see you again bro. I agree with you but please can you post a link on the robots you are talking about?

@Reyginus, I hail thee!
cleanup robots
Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by Joshthefirst(m): 11:24am On Mar 13, 2016
FOLYKAZE:


Complex functional systems only exist in our thought. The system is what it is. . .vibrations and frequencies.

Thought is simply a relation of matter with matter, and is neither different nor superior to the hurtling of atoms against each other. This is a shock of material imparts creating vibration and reactions to matter. I see nothing complex in this than our mind making a mountain from nothing. The complexity is illusion.
Unfortunately for your pov, organization denotes complexity at any level, and the hurtling of atoms against each other denotes chaos and randomness, not functionality. Complex functional systems are organized systems, and cannot be related to the hurtling of atoms against each other. So your post makes no sense. Unless everything is an illusion.
Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by UyiIredia(m): 4:18pm On Mar 13, 2016
MrAnony1:

While I agree with you, I must press you further to name a specific example of a man-made complex functional system.

In that case, a computer is a good example.
Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by MrAnony1(m): 4:48am On Mar 14, 2016
FOLYKAZE:


Complex functional systems only exist in our thought. The system is what it is. . .vibrations and frequencies.

Thought is simply a relation of matter with matter, and is neither different nor superior to the hurtling of atoms against each other. This is a shock of material imparts creating vibration and reactions to matter. I see nothing complex in this than our mind making a mountain from nothing. The complexity is illusion.
An illusion by definition is something that is not real. How can complex functional systems only exist in thought when the very thing that makes thought possible (i.e. the brain) is a complex functional system?
Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by MrAnony1(m): 5:16am On Mar 14, 2016
CoolUsername:

Let's talk about the evolutionary hypothesis of the eye, the eye started out as a simple photo-sensitive spot, capable of detecting shadows on the body of a microorganism, the second step was an indention of that spot which helped a descendant of the original microorganism detect the direction of light, step three was the partial closing of that indentation to form a rudimentary pinhole, to produce images, while the final involves the formation of a lens.

This shows how series of beneficial genetic mutations in a population, could have been preserved over time through natural selection (eyes help to detect predators) and refined into what we know today.

This hypothesis is solid because there is a known organism for each evolutionary 'step' that was talked about.

Thanks for replying to my questions I have a few things I would like to point out though....

1. Who observed this process take place? Can you provide any evidence that this is actually how the eye came to exist and not merely someone's guess?

2. The most basic micro-organisms from which you kick off your argument are already complex functional systems themselves. You were asked to show how a complex functional system could come from base elements without intelligence. I didn't ask you to show how a complex functional system can become a more complex functional system.

3. I don't think it is good scientific practice to propound theories when no actual observations have been made. Yes, the eye could well have evolved exactly the way that you claim it did but this remains pure speculation unless the process has actually been observed.

So once again, I'll restate my question highlighting the parts I need you to pay attention to...

"If your explanation is that complex functional systems such as are goats (or eyes) came by a series of happy accidents acting upon non-living base elements over a very long period of time, can you cite any similar examples where such a process has been observed? i.e. can you provide with evidence, examples of complex functional systems that came to exist without intelligence?"
Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by MrAnony1(m): 5:25am On Mar 14, 2016
UyiIredia:

In that case, a computer is a good example.

Joshthefirst:
cleanup robots

Many thanks.
Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by CoolUsername: 12:06pm On Mar 14, 2016
MrAnony1:



1. Who observed this process take place? Can you provide any evidence that this is actually how the eye came to exist and not merely someone's guess?

There are no eyewitness testimonies in this matter, we don't live for millions of years. What we do have is a crime scene of what happened, and scientists piece the case with available evidence. And you see, eyewitness testimonies are in no way superior to inferences. DNA sampling, has helped to exonerate hundreds of condemned murderers ever since it was developed. In summary, we don't have to place all the burden on eyewitness testimony when we have logical inference.

MrAnony1:

2. The most basic micro-organisms from which you kick off your argument are already complex functional systems themselves. You were asked to show how a complex functional system could come from base elements without intelligence. I didn't ask you to show how a complex functional system can become a more complex functional system.

Ah, but cells are just products of molecular self-assembly. Self-assembly of lipids and proteins form the cell membrane and DNA material, respectively. No outside interference is necessary.

MrAnony1:

3. I don't think it is good scientific practice to propound theories when no actual observations have been made. Yes, the eye could well have evolved exactly the way that you claim it did but this remains pure speculation unless the process has actually been observed.

A scientific theory is pure not speculation, DNA sampling, radioisotope dating, and therefore the entire atomic theory all have to be wrong for the evidence that they bring to be discredited.

But all these theories have been proven to be correct in many different and separate applications. Why do they suddenly have to be wrong in the case of evolution?

3 Likes 1 Share

Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by PastorAIO: 1:22pm On Mar 14, 2016
Very Good question. Almost the kind of thread that I would open myself, only that it would be ignored if I opened it.

My take on the issue is:

A) Nature is one of those words that people like to bandy about without giving much thought to what they actually mean. So therefore you'll find in used in many diverse contexts with many diverse meanings implied.

B) To properly have a discussion about Nature we will first have to define what we mean by it and study the different ways we have been using it to see what it is we are really saying when we use it.


Anyway, I have a question to ask. I keep hearing people appeal to nature as an explanation for complexities that they find in the operation and function of non-manmade things. So my question is:

1. What is Nature exactly?

A) One early mix up I've noticed in discussions of Nature is the presumption that Nature is an entity. Sometimes it is spoken of as if it is the sum of all material existence. It is sometimes even almost anthropomorphised.
This approach runs into trouble when Natural is contrasted with Artificial. One person says that the fumes coming out of a car are not natural but artificial therefore bad (notice that natural is usually considered good while artificial is considered bad). Another person refutes this by saying that everything in the fumes occurs naturally in nature and is derived from nature. Carbon monoxide is a natural gas, so therefore car fumes are also natural therefore good.

A funny example of this problem I encounter in my University days was of a girl that refused to take paracetamol for a headache because pills were not natural. But this same girl could smoke the hell out of indos. The claim of course being that Igbo is a herb that occurs naturally. Someone then pointed out the fact that there are far more terrible poisons and toxins occurring naturally in nature than man could ever create in a lab, and many of them infinitely more toxic than man's artificial efforts.

The tendency to see Nature as an entity or a certain type of object is flaw (even before we go on to whether Naturally automatically means good).

B) Then there is one other way to define nature, which I much prefer. I see nature as a type of process. So an event may arise due to a natural process, or it may arise due to a non natural process.
All around us we are surrounded by processes. The passage of day into night and back into day is a 24 hour process. The course of how we spend our day is another process.
I would say that Nature is the processes that would hold sway over events if Intelligence (human intelligence first and foremost) is not brought to act upon events. Natural actually comes from Natus in latin which means to give birth to.. In nature events naturally give birth to subsequent events. But that flow can be impinged upon.
In other words: Intelligence is capable of making Art. I contrast Art with Nature. Art is what is created by human ingenuity. Also called Artifice. From Latin:

artifice
Origin

late Middle English (in the sense ‘workmanship’): from Old French, from Latin artificium, based on ars, art- ‘art’ + facere ‘make’.

So the product of human artfulness is Artifice which gives us the Artificial.

There are some big implications here. 1, that human beings are at least in part NOT a part of nature but can impinge their wills upon nature as if from outside.

2, Where do we draw that distinction of the part of Man that is natural and the part that is capable of Artifice? This would imply that many is a supernatural (above natural) being but where do we distinguish the supernatural from the natural. A bit like a christological debate, are we Fully Natural or Fully Supernatural, or our we 2 'natures' in one, or are we a perfect blend of two natures as One nature? etc etc until you get headache.

3, It would imply that this world is not deterministic but probably Teleological too.



MrAnony1:
Hi everyone, been a while. (Free time seems inversely proportional to age these days....or is it a bell curve? Lol)

Anyway, I have a question to ask. I keep hearing people appeal to nature as an explanation for complexities that they find in the operation and function of non-manmade things. So my question is:

1. What is Nature exactly?

2. Is Nature intelligent, such that it can deliberately create a complex functional system such as is a living goat?

3. If Nature is not intelligent then how do we explain the existence of goats?

4. If your explanation is that complex functional systems such as are goats came by a series of happy accidents acting upon non-living base elements over a very long period of time, can you cite any similar examples where such a process has been observed? i.e. can you provide with evidence, examples of complex functional systems that came to exist without intelligence?

5. If your explanation is that complex functional systems such as are goats came by intelligent design, can you cite any similar examples where such a process has been observed? i.e. can you provide with evidence, examples of complex functional systems that came to exist with intelligence?

6. If you think that the two explanations are equally plausible i.e. complex functional systems such as is a goat can come about either by a series of accidental co-incidences or by intelligent action, then how do you consistently identify and differentiate between that which has been designed and that which hasn't been designed? Or do you think that it is impossible to make this classification just by observing the product.


P/s: I will only respond to genuine and serious replies to the thread. I WILL NOT respond if your answer contains mockery, blasphemy, or use of foul language.
I want the conversation to be strictly about what Nature means and whether there is evidence of intelligence in the creation of natural things or not. Any replies that have nothing to do with the questions in this topic will be ignored.

Cheers

1 Like

Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by PastorAIO: 1:50pm On Mar 14, 2016
MrAnony1:


2. Is Nature intelligent, such that it can deliberately create a complex functional system such as is a living goat?


Again Intelligence is a ill defined term that is often used without much deep thought into what is being said.

The above question presumes that Nature is an entity of which we may say it is intelligent or not. That's my first gripe.

Second gripe, There are actually two distinct things that are given the name intelligence.
1) The ability to perceive distinctions, and the ability to derive (or perceive) generalisations.

2) Intelligence is also used to refer to an entity that has Intention/s.



I'd like to throw my tuppence into the pool of definitions. I would say that Intelligence was an awareness and perception of the environment that is overshadowed by a purpose, whereby the information from the environment is evaluated and employed according to how it can help achieve the purpose.

It therefore follows that an intelligent being is purpose driven and for intelligence to exist teleology must be valid.
https://www.nairaland.com/294887/what-intellect-ona-kan-o#4191856

So it follows that when I see the question 'Is Nature Intelligent?', I can also interpret that to mean, 'Are Natural Processes Teleological?'. To which I would answer with a resounding 'Yes'.

1 Like

Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by GooseBaba: 4:48pm On Mar 14, 2016
If we start from the premise that man is intelligent, then we can also say nature is intelligent. I see nature's intelligence from the angle of death and destruction.

No need to shiiit for body. It's a fact Every thing under the sun can kill us from the food we eat to earthquakes, floods or hunger. Even our saliva or blood works for nature. It seems to me that all living things are parasites that nature is trying to get rid of.

Hence, it's intelligence... undecided

1 Like

Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by PastorAIO: 5:11pm On Mar 14, 2016
GooseBaba:
If we start from the premise that man is intelligent, then we can also say nature is intelligent. I see nature's intelligence from the angle of death and destruction.


It is indeed curious that we readily accept that Man, presumably a part of nature, is intelligent yet we refuse to consider that there could be intelligence anywhere else in Nature.

1 Like

Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by plaetton: 7:27am On Mar 15, 2016
Hello Anony.

Nice to have you back. It's been a while.

3 Likes 1 Share

Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by plaetton: 7:49am On Mar 15, 2016
Nature is not a distinct entity. Rather, nature is a loose generic term we use to describe the END-PRODUCTS of cosmic interactions in our celestial locality.
As such, nature encompasses all cosmic phenomena .

Since we know that all cosmic phenomena are products of chaos, it naturally follows that nature is an offspring of chaos.

Therefore, by simple deductive logic, it is scientifically obvious that Nature, a COMPLEX FUNCTIONAL SYSTEM, is BEGOTTEN, Refueled and continuously Maintained by the perpetual dance of mother ENERGY and father Random CHAOS.

So, nature itself, is the proof that random choas can and do create and evolve complex functional systems.

This basically answers all your questions.

But, my instincts tell me that these answers are just too simplistic for you, considering how you phrased your questions and the made-to-fit answers you're likely looking for.

In case you need more elaboration, I would be happy to oblige you.

However, I would only do so in purely scientific terms, involving complex scientific and mathematical facts ,ideas and theories .

1 Like 1 Share

Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by KingEbukaNaija: 10:00am On Mar 15, 2016
To understand how intricately nature was designed we have to emulate it . So far in its emulation , we can infer that nature undeniably requires intelligence . For the chaos crew :

1. Processes can be designed to be random even chaotic as you described and still have the efficacy to produce desired results

2. An observer can see processes as Random or chaotic but not necessarily same to the designer .


cc : plaetton , coolusername , pastoraio , GooseBaba

2 Likes

Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by plaetton: 10:21am On Mar 15, 2016
KingEbukaNaija:
To understand how intricately nature was designed we have to emulate it . So far in its emulation , we can infer that nature undeniably requires intelligence . For the chaos crew :

1. Processes can be designed to be random even chaotic as you described and still have the efficacy to produce desired results

2. An observer can see processes as Random or chaotic but not necessarily same to the designer .


cc : plaetton , coolusername , pastoraio , GooseBaba



Your entire argument is upside down,. as usual. undecided

Read my earlier response to Anony's query.

Nature, no matter how beautiful or orderly it appears, is a Child of Random CHAOS.

Every seemingly orderly process in nature has Randomness and Chaos as it's underpinning determinant.

Nature is not designed.
Nature evolved.

Shouldn't that be self evident ?

4 Likes 1 Share

Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by KingEbukaNaija: 10:33am On Mar 15, 2016
plaetton:


Your entire argument is upside down,. as usual. undecided

Read my earlier response to Anony's query.

Nature, no matter how beautiful or orderly it appears, is a Child of Random CHAOS.


Every seemingly orderly process in nature has Randomness and Chaos as it's underpinning determinant.

Nature is not designed.
Nature evolved.

Shouldn't that be self evident ?

You didn't understand the argument . Your 'randomness and chaos' cause of orderliness can still be a concept of design - see point 1 .

And point 2 states clearly that because you observe this as randomness and chaos does not mean its same to the designer .

Again nature evolving does not preclude design .

Softwares , products can be upgraded - new features - but its still a development process .

Computer Science puts to shame your argument .

2 Likes

Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by plaetton: 10:41am On Mar 15, 2016
KingEbukaNaija:


You didn't understand the argument . Your 'randomness and chaos' cause of orderliness can still be a concept of design - see point 1 .

And point 2 states clearly that because you observe this as randomness and chaos does not mean its same to the designer .

Again nature evolving does not preclude design .

Softwares , products can be upgraded - new features - but its still a development process .

Computer Science puts to shame your argument .

Well, you have defeated your own argument ( if was meant to be an argument at all).

So, are you making an argument for design or are you simply pontificating about your personal religious beliefs.

The reason I ask is that in this case, you seem to be whimsically pulling am imaginary designer out of your arxx as it suites you.

Your pontification, pretending to be an argument, is that even if order is created or evolved out of Random CHAOS, it must be the wish of the designer.

I am not sure if you realized how shallow and juvenile this position is.

4 Likes 1 Share

Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by KingEbukaNaija: 10:54am On Mar 15, 2016
plaetton:


Well, you have defeated your own argument ( if was meant to be an argument at all).

So, are you making an argument for design or are you simply pontificating about your personal religious beliefs.

The reason I ask is that in this case, you seem to be whimsically pulling am imaginary designer out of your arxx as it suites you.

Your pontification, pretending to be an argument, is that even if order is created or evolved out of Random CHAOS, it must be the wish of the designer.

I am not sure if you realized how shallow and juvenile this position is.

That is not shallow or juvenile .

Point 2 kind of elucidates point 1 . You as an observer sees it as random or chaos but its not necessarily same to the designer . Let me explain in the simplest way .

I can develop a program that requires getting random numbers to be generated and summed to 1million . What is my goal ? Sum random numbers to 1 million - a desired result . You as an observer sees it as a random process but I as the programmer does not see it as one . I think you can paint the big picture as regards your argument .

2 Likes

Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by KingEbukaNaija: 11:07am On Mar 15, 2016
And mind you plaetton - the universe coming from chaos was just an inference drawn from a study . Science is open to modifications and that random chaos cause of the universe's formation could likely change .

And can you explain how nature understood that an ordered system has arrived after a chaotic process ? I mean , according to you , blind random processes and chaos made possible an ordered system through luck . Evolution has no goal or direction ... remember ? . So whatever we have now its not even its goal because it has none . Sh.it could change at any instance

2 Likes

Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by plaetton: 11:18am On Mar 15, 2016
KingEbukaNaija:
And mind you plaetton - the universe coming from chaos was just an inference drawn from a study . Science is open to modifications and that random chaos cause of the universe's formation could likely change .

And can you explain how nature understood that an ordered system has arrived after a chaotic process ? I mean , according to you , blind random processes and chaos made possible an ordered system through luck . Evolution has no goal or direction ... remember ? . So whatever we have now its not even its goal because it has none . Sh.it could change at any instance

The universes is continually evolving.
We are only viewing the universe from a very very miniscule vantage point in space at a very very miniscule vantage point in time.

Chaos is the Order.

2 Likes 1 Share

Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by johnydon22(m): 11:18am On Mar 15, 2016
KingEbukaNaija:
And mind you plaetton - the universe coming from chaos was just an inference drawn from a study . Science is open to modifications and that random chaos cause of the universe's formation could likely change .

And this chaos is still in the fore front of universal evolution and modifications, it is still how the totality of natural manifestations occur.

Deep in the macro world, it is the chaotic tussle between Nebula and gravity that births stars, it is the violent nuclear fusion of stars that produces the most basic elements, it is the violent death of stars that scatter these elements in the cosmos making it possible for terrestrial planets like earth to have these in abundance.

There is no two ways about it, Chaos always produces results ...

And can you explain how nature understood that an ordered system has arrived after a chaotic process ? I mean , according to you , blind random processes and chaos made possible an ordered system through luck . Evolution has no goal or direction ... remember ? . So whatever we have now its not even its goal because it has none . Sh.it could change at any instance

No understanding was in place, Nature is ever changing, ever developing and ever chaotic.

The natural process does not understand a galaxy is already an ordered system before another slams into it and larger galaxies are born.

Old stars were less in composition than new ones because more elementary values enters the picture and the system gets more complex and changing.

There are thousands of asteroids that are in close orbit in this system that can crash into earth anytime.

Yes nature is a chaotic process and it is ever changing, it is not stagnant and no result is ever final..

So it will forever keep changing, it will forever keep modifying in respect to the constant chaotic values abound and that is the trait of a random system.

4 Likes 3 Shares

Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by plaetton: 11:24am On Mar 15, 2016
KingEbukaNaija:


That is not shallow or juvenile .

Point 2 kind of elucidates point 1 . You as an observer sees it as random or chaos but its not necessarily same to the designer . Let me explain in the simplest way .

I can develop a program that requires getting random numbers to be generated and summed to 1million . What is my goal ? Sum random numbers to 1 million - a desired result . You as an observer sees it as a random process but I as the programmer does not see it as one . I think you can paint the big picture as regards your argument .

You still don't get it, otherwise, you still wouldn't be pulling a designer out of your arxx, like you just did above.

How can you speculate about the viewpoints of a hypothetical designer.

You are basing your entire argument on a fact that is not evidence.
Or, are you the designer ?

3 Likes 1 Share

Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by plaetton: 11:26am On Mar 15, 2016
johnydon22:


And this chaos is still in the fore front of universal evolution and modifications, it is still how the totality of natural manifestations occur.

Deep in the macro world, it is the chaotic tussle between Nebula and gravity that births stars, it is the violent nuclear fusion of stars that produces the most basic elements, it is the violent death of stars that scatter these elements in the cosmos making it possible for terrestrial planets like earth to have these in abundance.

There is no two ways about it, Chaos always produces results ...


No understanding was in place, Nature is ever changing, ever developing and ever chaotic.

The natural process does not understand a galaxy is already an ordered system before another slams into it and larger galaxies are born.

Old stars were less in composition than new ones because more elementary values enters the picture and the system gets more complex and changing.

There are thousands of asteroids that are in close orbit in this system that can crash into earth anytime.

Yes nature is a chaotic process and it is ever changing, it is not stagnant and no result is ever final..

So it will forever keep changing, it will forever keep modifying in respect to the constant chaotic values abound and that is the trait of a random system.

I couldn't have put it better.

1 Like 1 Share

Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by CoolUsername: 12:05pm On Mar 15, 2016
KingEbukaNaija:
To understand how intricately nature was designed we have to emulate it . So far in its emulation , we can infer that nature undeniably requires intelligence . For the chaos crew :

Again I'll use my pothole analogy. Potholes form on poorly constructed or old roads due to friction and agents of denudation.

But say, I suddenly want to replicate a particular pothole, wouldn't I need to take measurements? Wouldn't I suddenly to decide on the materials end equipment I need? Wouldn't I need to meticulously, chip away on a rock (or whatever material I choose) to form that particular pothole? Does that make the original pothole intelligently designed?

KingEbukaNaija:

1. Processes can be designed to be random even chaotic as you described and still have the efficacy to produce desired results

The sun gives white people skin cancer, that is NOT a desirable effect of the sun or being white. Also, solar winds are detrimental to humanity, a strong enough solar wind would do a lot of damage to civilization.

In other words, the so-called 'design' is still messed up in more ways than one. It seems more like life adapted to its surroundings rather than the other round.

KingEbukaNaija:

2. An observer can see processes as Random or chaotic but not necessarily same to the designer .

True, but to the audience, chaotic processes do nothing to prove that there is indeed a designer. In other words, external proof of the designer is still needed.

3 Likes 1 Share

Re: What Is Nature Exactly? by Scholar8200(m): 12:06pm On Mar 15, 2016
MrAnony1:

P/s: I will only respond to genuine and serious replies to the thread. I WILL NOT respond if your answer contains mockery, blasphemy, or use of foul language.
I want the conversation to be strictly about what Nature means and whether there is evidence of intelligence in the creation of natural things or not. Any replies that have nothing to do with the questions in this topic will be ignored.

Cheers

Apologies to the op, I am not an expert here.

However, I see nature as the response of all Creation to the ordinances/laws set by the Creator with respect to changes in the Divine order of creation, after the fall.

If it were all energies , chaos and then order, whence the perfectly reasonable and constant laws (eg Gravity)? Who set those laws?

(You mentioned the Goat? I believe those animals underscore the fact of a Creator! Why? If man evolved from Apes, I would have expected that Apes, NOT Goats, would have a goatee!)

2 Likes 1 Share

(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10) ... (17) (Reply)

Buhari Celebrates Pastor Adeboye At 78, Says He Always Told Leaders Truth / Pope To Young Italians: Don't Be Selfish, We Need More Children Than Pets / Rev. Obofour Makes A Man To Smoke Weed In Church (video)

(Go Up)

Sections: politics (1) business autos (1) jobs (1) career education (1) romance computers phones travel sports fashion health
religion celebs tv-movies music-radio literature webmasters programming techmarket

Links: (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8) (9) (10)

Nairaland - Copyright © 2005 - 2024 Oluwaseun Osewa. All rights reserved. See How To Advertise. 127
Disclaimer: Every Nairaland member is solely responsible for anything that he/she posts or uploads on Nairaland.