>Mike,
>
>>snip<
>
>I'll deal with all the "no"s a little later. <s>
>
>>>How can something 'prefer' without having an intelligence?
>>
>>Lets say I have a hawk and a dove and throw them into a box. The cardboard box will most likely select the hawk to win. Does it have intelligence? No. So how did selection happen? The perfered strategy of the environment (the box) includes everything in the environment and all their strategies. Check out game theory.
>
>Ahh, but the problem here is that an "outside force" (to use John's terms) created the situation.
>
>IOW, who made the box?
>
>Perhaps another approach will help..
>
>Atoms have in them the behavior that they will fly apart if the force that is holding them together is induced to release them. That is, their 'natural desire' is to separate much like two north or south ends of a magnet wish to do. When this happens we can get atomic bombs. The explosion is in so many words a release of energy, not the creation of energy. But, when this happens the violent expulsive forces exhibited are absolutely consistent with the observed laws of nature. It's the force holding them together that is evidently violating known laws of physics. But, that's a phenominon that is current. That is, it's ongoing.


>
>So, given this then we must conclude that the force holding the atoms together is greater than the force already in the atoms that 'desires' to exit.
>
>That leaves us at least two fundamental questions:
>
>1) What force originally placed the current energy in the atoms in their current form?
>2) What force is holding them together now?
>
>Now, time is a measurement we derive from the interaction of celestial bodies with each other. Earth rotating around the Sun and so forth. The 'power' that formed the atoms together has to exist before and outsode of those atoms. You might even say that it was eternal. <g> Given that time is a construct of the material universe, rotating planets and such.
>
>When their (the atoms) natural desire is to fly apart, how did they get forced together?
>
>And, given that all observations regarding order v non-order demonstrate that the universe is going only in one direction (order ---> non-order) how is it that we are foolish enough, for example, to postulate that evolution, which is the absolute antithesis of all known and observed fundamental principals of the universe, is in fact truth? Particularly since there is no evidence in geological or other records.
>
>And one observation:
>
>1) This 'force' exists quite apart from the material universe as the entire material universe is, well, made of those pesky atoms. Therefore, this force, must have existed before (speaking in time-based terms) atoms and I suppose we can conclude safely, will continue to exist after (time-based) all the material universe ceases to exist, at whatever point that might be.
>
>So.. This 'force' created the atoms by forcing them together, is a greater power than all the atoms in the universe, continues to hold them together quite in opposition from all known laws of physics.
>
>Now, whether or not there is order to the universe is easily dealt with. Hydrogen is always Hydrogen. That is, it is consistent. It has order and is self-consistent. Same for any other atom.
>
>So, a random, chaotic, non-intelligent, non-aware 'force' randomly created a system in which sustained order is not only created by the continuing intervention of that outside force but at the same time the order in the observable universe hasn't changed. As a matter of fact we are so confident of this order that we carbon date and use atomic clocks. This is quite against all laws of statistics I might add, given the presumption that this is all happening by total random chance. And continues to go on that way for how many millions of years do some say?
>
>Each microsecond that passes the random laws of the universe are contravened.


According to Maxwell's five equations, a charged particle accelerating through an electric field must radiate energy. This loss of energy will cost the particle either velocity or mass. In the case of an electron orbiting the nucleus of an atom, the electron 'should' decay in its orbit and finally crash into the nucleus and convert to energy according to E=mc^2.

That it doesn't is one of the major mysteries of physics. Pauli's exclusion principle was finally twisted to account for this mystery: No two electrons can have the same Pauli numbers. This 'explaination' doesn't explain anything, it just says 'because'.
JLK