[_ Old Earth _] I Don't Get It...

[lordkalvan]

when you can say that logarithim functions such as these have no rules and somehow can to be without any rules then you have an argument lin, log and also exponotial functions. these have rules. something had to come up with.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. I did not say - at least, i certainly did not intend to say or imply - that logarithmic functions have no rules.

do you type by chance? you direct the words. you also just argued that God could have used evolution, and now deny that he did.

My understanding is that theistic evolutionists would use this argument. I was simply trying to present that argument. It is not an argument I hold to myself, but I am interested as to why 'created kind' theists reject it.

i said that if something that rules comes from nothing. how is that possible? the chicken and the egg. chance sets up the logarthimic function , if that is the case then ultimately we are here by chance.

If by chance you mean naturalistically and undirected by a supernatural agency, then I have no problem with that, nor do I regard it as inherently less plausible tan positing creation by a supernatural entity whose origins are apparently inexplicable.

i think if we are honest life is way too complicated to be by chance. we manipulate dna and have been for a while. could it be that a higher entity that doesnt want us to know it, has been doing just that? they designed these things.

As many of the things that have been attributed to supernatural agencies have been realized to have entirely naturalistic explanations as our knowledge and understanding increases, your argument seems to be no more than a God - or super-intelligent extradimensional aliens ;-) - of the gaps argument.

and dont give me that something designs is inefficient cases in nature. men do that all the time. we make things to fail. we do all the time. work on cars long enough and you will see this.

Although the efficiency or inefficiency of design can be used as an argument as to its supernatural origin, I think a more powerful argument against ID is the fact that there is no robust evidence to support the idea.

 

[jasoncran]

I'm not quite sure what you mean. I did not say - at least, i certainly did not intend to say or imply - that logarithmic functions have no rules.

My understanding is that theistic evolutionists would use this argument. I was simply trying to present that argument. It is not an argument I hold to myself, but I am interested as to why 'created kind' theists reject it.

If by chance you mean naturalistically and undirected by a supernatural agency, then I have no problem with that, nor do I regard it as inherently less plausible tan positing creation by a supernatural entity whose origins are apparently inexplicable.

As many of the things that have been attributed to supernatural agencies have been realized to have entirely naturalistic explanations as our knowledge and understanding increases, your argument seems to be no more than a God - or super-intelligent extradimensional aliens ;-) - of the gaps argument.

Although the efficiency or inefficiency of design can be used as an argument as to its supernatural origin, I think a more powerful argument against ID is the fact that there is no robust evidence to support the idea.

i am well aware that you were using barbarian's logic. the problem for your case is that we arent able to really know that something that we in the universe can't test and is from another universe whose laws allow it to interact with ours and is exempt from our laws.

next whose to say that what we have isnt designed to die? also i didnt nor wasnt meant to imply the current id contraversy.

thirdly, see that information thread by jwu and crying rocks posts in there. i am not able to defend the contra position as he could.

 

[jasoncran]

One misconception that a lot of people have with abiogenesis is the need for a specific sequence of nucleotides in order for life to proceed. Since the first life forms undoubtedly did not translate their own proteins, the order of nucleotides is irrelevant.

Again, however, abiogenesis is NOT a requirement of the TOE.

By the way, the parasite hypothesis refers to the Red Queen Hypothesis. Basically, the idea is sexual reproduction allows for greater variation and thus greater possibility for improved adaptations in the evolutionary arms race (Red Queen's Hypothesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

a HYPOTHESIS not theory or law.

 

[tiwtiwtiw]

The law of entropy already proves that order moves towards disorder. (Kind of like "an object in motion stays in motion") This is scientificly accurate as 1+1=2.

This directly supports against evolution.

...

Every one of those questions you've asked have been propsed to evolution. Evolution has answers for each question. However, each answer requires some assumptions. Which is why evolution is a theory, not proven.

While on the other hand, law of entropy is proven, not a theory.

...

To play devil's advocate (haha pun), I completely understand how someone can accept evolution. If you don't believe in God, this is as close as you can get to explaining life. If we as Christians can believe in something that we don't totally understand, why can non-Christians do the same?

I doubt everyone who believes in evolution has a phD in biology. So many believe it without fully understanding it. If we find holes in evolution theory and show it to them, wouldn't do much to convince them of anything.

...

Regarding the "create life" possibility, I think you're referring to the Miller-Urey experiment. The way I look at it is: The fact that it requires a scientist to make it happen only proves that intelligent mind is required to create life. i.e., intelligent design. Unintentionally, the experiment result actually supprorts creationism more than evolution.

...

Note to all: Never answer "because God says so" to a non-Christian's question.

 

[jasoncran]

The law of entropy already proves that order moves towards disorder. (Kind of like "an object in motion stays in motion") This is scientificly accurate as 1+1=2.

This directly supports against evolution.

...

Every one of those questions you've asked have been propsed to evolution. Evolution has answers for each question. However, each answer requires some assumptions. Which is why evolution is a theory, not proven.

While on the other hand, law of entropy is proven, not a theory.

...

To play devil's advocate (haha pun), I completely understand how someone can accept evolution. If you don't believe in God, this is as close as you can get to explaining life. If we as Christians can believe in something that we don't totally understand, why can non-Christians do the same?

I doubt everyone who believes in evolution has a phD in biology. So many believe it without fully understanding it. If we find holes in evolution theory and show it to them, wouldn't do much to convince them of anything.

...

Regarding the "create life" possibility, I think you're referring to the Miller-Urey experiment. The way I look at it is: The fact that it requires a scientist to make it happen only proves that intelligent mind is required to create life. i.e., intelligent design. Unintentionally, the experiment result actually supprorts creationism more than evolution.

...

Note to all: Never answer "because God says so" to a non-Christian's question.

how does the law of entropy apply to living matter? yes its true that without food or maintenence all life dies. that process of eating and repair of tissues is still adding energy to the mix.

 

[lordkalvan]

The law of entropy already proves that order moves towards disorder. (Kind of like "an object in motion stays in motion") This is scientificly accurate as 1+1=2.

This directly supports against evolution.

How? Evolution is not expressed within a closed system.

Every one of those questions you've asked have been propsed to evolution. Evolution has answers for each question. However, each answer requires some assumptions. Which is why evolution is a theory, not proven.

What are these assumptions? Do you understand what constitutes a scientific theory such as evolution? From your last sentence, it appears not.

While on the other hand, law of entropy is proven, not a theory.

I think you need to look up the scientific understanding of what constitutes a law and what constitutes a theory:

A law differs from a scientific theory in that it does not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and is often found to be false when extrapolated.

Source: Scientific law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A scientific theory comprises a collection of concepts, including abstractions of observable phenomena expressed as quantifiable properties, together with rules (called scientific laws) that express relationships between observations of such concepts. A scientific theory is constructed to conform to available empirical data about such observations, and is put forth as a principle or body of principles for explaining a class of phenomena.

Source: Scientific theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you have a better account for the observed phenomena that evolutionary theory explains and is as consilient, consistent and parsimonious as evolutionary theory is, please present it.

To play devil's advocate (haha pun), I completely understand how someone can accept evolution. If you don't believe in God, this is as close as you can get to explaining life. If we as Christians can believe in something that we don't totally understand, why can non-Christians do the same?

Many Christians find evolutionary theory entirely compatible with their faith and an initial creative act by God (Drs Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins, for example). Evolutionary theory does not 'explain life', it explains how existing life develops and changes.

I doubt everyone who believes in evolution has a phD in biology. So many believe it without fully understanding it. If we find holes in evolution theory and show it to them, wouldn't do much to convince them of anything.

That we do not understand everything about somethin is not evidence that what we do understand is false.

Regarding the "create life" possibility, I think you're referring to the Miller-Urey experiment. The way I look at it is: The fact that it requires a scientist to make it happen only proves that intelligent mind is required to create life. i.e., intelligent design. Unintentionally, the experiment result actually supprorts creationism more than evolution.

Eh, no. The experiment simply reproduced in the laboratory a simulation of the conditions that were thought to have existed on an early Earth. In other words, it provided the naturally occurring conditions in which the building blocks of life might form naturally - and they did.

Note to all: Never answer "because God says so" to a non-Christian's question.

Good point!

 

[tiwtiwtiw]

Every now and then, I look back and see how arrogant I was acting without realizing it. It's good to hear people telling me I'm wrong to keep myself in check. Knowing a bit more than some people automatically rockets my ego to "I know better than anyone" But in reality, I don't know more than anyone. Know much less is more likely. Please bear with me as I expose my ignorance a bit more. I rather trade ignorance for knowledge, than to hold onto ignorance.

how does the law of entropy apply to living matter? ...

I was referring to living matter is materials working in an organized way. Evolution would suggest that unorganized materials became organized, which is opposite of entropy.

How? Evolution is not expressed within a closed system.

I was considering the universe as a closed system.

Quote from source:

...it is merely a distillation of the results of repeated observation...

In that case, isn't definition of scientific laws weaker than what I've expected it to be? That it's an incomplete record of historical occurrences. It's like knowing the number "2" was in the previous 3 lotteries. That doesn't tell me anything about today's lottery numbers. Doesn't that makes science less useful?

...

Regarding the definitions of law and theory. There are longer and more precise definitions in our justice system regarding very specific events. And yet different people can read it and have different interpretations. The scientific law and theory definitions are not immune to this human trait of perspective. What you interpreted, someone else may interpret completely differently from the exact same words.

If you have a better account for the observed phenomena that evolutionary theory explains and is as consilient, consistent and parsimonious as evolutionary theory is, please present it.

Sure I can, but it may not make sense to discuss a resulting point when out starting point is not the same. Starting point being the interpretation of scientific law / theory definition.

Besides, there are scientists with much more knowledge than I that have debated on both sides of this argument. And yet, no common conclusion can be reached. So what chances of you and I finding a conclusion? Even if we do, it would be an uninformed one.

Many Christians find evolutionary theory entirely compatible with their faith ... it explains how existing life develops and changes.

I'm glad you are more informed of evolution than many people I've talked to. There seems to be many misunderstandings on both sides which yields inefficient discussions. I wish more people are like you here.

That we do not understand everything about something is not evidence that what we do understand is false.

True! at the same time, it's not evidence that it's true either. I was referring to those who incorrectly understands and yet proclaim it to be the truth. hm... sounds like something I would do. I should be more careful on my claims.

Eh, no. The experiment simply reproduced in the laboratory a simulation of the conditions that were thought to have existed on an early Earth....

... again, different interpretations of the same result. Which supports my earlier point that scientific definition is not absolute. As long as people are reading them, it's meaning fluctuates. Although I cannot say my interpretation is more valid than yours. After all, that's just like saying "because I said so"

 

[jasoncran]

Every now and then, I look back and see how arrogant I was acting without realizing it. It's good to hear people telling me I'm wrong to keep myself in check. Knowing a bit more than some people automatically rockets my ego to "I know better than anyone" But in reality, I don't know more than anyone. Know much less is more likely. Please bear with me as I expose my ignorance a bit more. I rather trade ignorance for knowledge, than to hold onto ignorance.



I was referring to living matter is materials working in an organized way. Evolution would suggest that unorganized materials became organized, which is opposite of entropy.



I was considering the universe as a closed system.

Quote from source:


In that case, isn't definition of scientific laws weaker than what I've expected it to be? That it's an incomplete record of historical occurrences. It's like knowing the number "2" was in the previous 3 lotteries. That doesn't tell me anything about today's lottery numbers. Doesn't that makes science less useful?

...

Regarding the definitions of law and theory. There are longer and more precise definitions in our justice system regarding very specific events. And yet different people can read it and have different interpretations. The scientific law and theory definitions are not immune to this human trait of perspective. What you interpreted, someone else may interpret completely differently from the exact same words.



Sure I can, but it may not make sense to discuss a resulting point when out starting point is not the same. Starting point being the interpretation of scientific law / theory definition.

Besides, there are scientists with much more knowledge than I that have debated on both sides of this argument. And yet, no common conclusion can be reached. So what chances of you and I finding a conclusion? Even if we do, it would be an uninformed one.



I'm glad you are more informed of evolution than many people I've talked to. There seems to be many misunderstandings on both sides which yields inefficient discussions. I wish more people are like you here.




True! at the same time, it's not evidence that it's true either. I was referring to those who incorrectly understands and yet proclaim it to be the truth. hm... sounds like something I would do. I should be more careful on my claims.




... again, different interpretations of the same result. Which supports my earlier point that scientific definition is not absolute. As long as people are reading them, it's meaning fluctuates. Although I cannot say my interpretation is more valid than yours. After all, that's just like saying "because I said so"

EVOLUTION doesnt state the cause of life on earth. you are incorrect the theory abiogenesis does.

 

[lordkalvan]

Every now and then, I look back and see how arrogant I was acting without realizing it. It's good to hear people telling me I'm wrong to keep myself in check. Knowing a bit more than some people automatically rockets my ego to "I know better than anyone" But in reality, I don't know more than anyone. Know much less is more likely. Please bear with me as I expose my ignorance a bit more. I rather trade ignorance for knowledge, than to hold onto ignorance.

I don't think any of us would lay claim to complete knowledge and absence of ignorance.

I was referring to living matter is materials working in an organized way. Evolution would suggest that unorganized materials became organized, which is opposite of entropy.

But evolution does not occur within a closed system, therefore the 2nd law of thermodynamics does not apply directly to prescribe its likelihood.

I was considering the universe as a closed system.

But within that Universe, the Solar System is not a closed system and, as far as we know, life has only evolved within the Solar System on one planet, which itself is not a closed system. Stars are being formed at this very moment, which again shows that within parts of the 'closed system' of the Universe, 'unorganized materials' continue to become 'organized'.

In that case, isn't definition of scientific laws weaker than what I've expected it to be? That it's an incomplete record of historical occurrences. It's like knowing the number "2" was in the previous 3 lotteries. That doesn't tell me anything about today's lottery numbers. Doesn't that makes science less useful?

I don't know what you had expected scientific laws to be in terms of weakness. I think the point that they may not be universally applicable acknowledges the fact that the laws only apply as far as our experience goes and that we do not always fully understand what lies beneath them (for example, we are fairly confident about the general applicability of the law of gravitation, but we are not at all confident about exactly what gravity is).

Regarding the definitions of law and theory. There are longer and more precise definitions in our justice system regarding very specific events. And yet different people can read it and have different interpretations. The scientific law and theory definitions are not immune to this human trait of perspective. What you interpreted, someone else may interpret completely differently from the exact same words.

I don't think your comparison bears scrutiny. Scientific laws are precise descriptions of particular observed phenomena that have born continuous and repeated scrutiny. Scientific theories provide overarching explanations that encompass a wide variety of observed phenomena. In both cases, scientists agree as to what those laws and theories say about the natural world because they correspond with the phenomena that they address, which is why they are classed as laws and theories.

Sure I can, but it may not make sense to discuss a resulting point when out starting point is not the same. Starting point being the interpretation of scientific law / theory definition.

In which case I would be interested to discuss this better account for the observed phenomena that evolutionary theory explains and is as consilient, consistent and parsimonious as evolutionary theory is, and how it interprets scientific laws and theories in a way that describes and accounts for the phenomena they address in the same consilient, consistent and parsimonious manner.

Besides, there are scientists with much more knowledge than I that have debated on both sides of this argument. And yet, no common conclusion can be reached. So what chances of you and I finding a conclusion? Even if we do, it would be an uninformed one.

Who are these scientists who have 'debated on both sides of this conclusion' and failed to reach a 'common conclusion? The existence of scientific laws and scientific theories suggests that the overwhelming consensus of scientists in the relevant fields has indeed reached a common conclusion.

I'm glad you are more informed of evolution than many people I've talked to. There seems to be many misunderstandings on both sides which yields inefficient discussions. I wish more people are like you here.

Thanks. I don't claim to know more about evolution than most people, but I have tried to inform myself as best I can. It's good to discuss the subject and new insights can come from the most unexpected places as a result of those discussions.

True! at the same time, it's not evidence that it's true either.

You're right about that!

I was referring to those who incorrectly understands and yet proclaim it to be the truth. hm... sounds like something I would do. I should be more careful on my claims.

I think it's something most of us have a tendency to be guilty of.

... again, different interpretations of the same result. Which supports my earlier point that scientific definition is not absolute. As long as people are reading them, it's meaning fluctuates. Although I cannot say my interpretation is more valid than yours. After all, that's just like saying "because I said so"

Well, perhaps.....

 

[tiwtiwtiw]

EVOLUTION doesnt state the cause of life on earth. you are incorrect the theory abiogenesis does.

Thank you for correcting. Sometimes people argue against me and use evolution as the counter point. That is where I get the majority of what I know of evolution. So according to you, at least, doesn't seem like they know evolution correctly themsevles.

Scientific laws are precise descriptions of particular observed phenomena that have born continuous and repeated scrutiny.

I remember in math class the teacher gave us an SAT problem:

***********************************************************
Trying to find the function f(x) by plugging in numbers for x. Experiment shows the following:
x=1, y=1
x=2, y=2
x=3, y=3
...
x=100, y=100
...
and so on

what is f(x)=?
**********************************************************

Everyone in class said "f(x)=y"

Teacher said the answer is actually "there isn't enough information to solve."

Because what if when we plug in x=1.5 and get y=4? Then f(x)=y would be incorrect. But we would never know if we only use whole numbers.

So then what if we try all the 0.5s for x too? well that's still not enough because there could be a different answer if x=1.25

There is no way we can find f(x) no matter how many numbers we try for x. For all we know, actual f(x) could be

f(x)=y, except when x=5.34223424564, y=10

Scientific laws are precise descriptions of particular observed phenomena that have born continuous and repeated scrutiny.

So just becuase something can be proven repeatedly to be true is actually not enough to prove that it's always true. By the same logic, just because 1+1=2 today does not actually prove that tomorrow (or yesterday) the the answer is (or was) still 2. It only proves 1+1=2 is true today.

It seems to me that people take scientificly proven ideas and expand the proof to beyond what the results show. This is not a fault of the scientific process. It's a human flaw to see connections even when it's not there sometimes. Many religious leaders loves to poke holes in scientific explanations via these flawed connections. But many religious leaders are guilty of the same flaw, since they are also human. Especially me, I caught myself incorrectly assuming many times about all things, religious or not.

Science cannot prove beyond what it has actually proven. So in a sense, science cannot prove anything regarding evolution because it all happened in the past. It's a matter of what one believes happened, not what was proven to be true. I am aware that the same can be said of creationism. From this perspective, evolution is more like a religion than science.

Who are these scientists who have 'debated on both sides of this conclusion' and failed to reach a 'common conclusion? The existence of scientific laws and scientific theories suggests that the overwhelming consensus of scientists in the relevant fields has indeed reached a common conclusion.

By "common conclusion," I mean something like 10+10=?, where no scientist would argue that the answer is 20.

Am I understanding it correctly that you believe the entire scientific community all agree on the topic of evolution/creationism in the same way they agree 10+10=20?

Side note: Overwhelming consensus cannot qualify as common conclusion if using my "common conclusion" definition above.

I haven't done much research on famous individuals who have debated on this topic. Although I highly doubt they don't exist. I just know from personal experiences. I have talked to experts in their fields, they disagree with their colleagues on this topic. By experts, I mean research professionals with high level degrees. I find it interesting that they have the same knowledge as their colleagues and yet disagree wtih them completely.

I can research for some famous debates between highly respected scientists if you like.

 

[lordkalvan]

Thank you for correcting. Sometimes people argue against me and use evolution as the counter point. That is where I get the majority of what I know of evolution. So according to you, at least, doesn't seem like they know evolution correctly themsevles.

I don't think jason is responsible for or can account for the lack of understanding of all those you identify who seem to confuse abiogenesis and evolution.

I remember in math class the teacher gave us an SAT problem:

***********************************************************
Trying to find the function f(x) by plugging in numbers for x. Experiment shows the following:
x=1, y=1
x=2, y=2
x=3, y=3
...
x=100, y=100
...
and so on

what is f(x)=?
**********************************************************

Everyone in class said "f(x)=y"

Teacher said the answer is actually "there isn't enough information to solve."

Because what if when we plug in x=1.5 and get y=4? Then f(x)=y would be incorrect. But we would never know if we only use whole numbers.

So then what if we try all the 0.5s for x too? well that's still not enough because there could be a different answer if x=1.25

There is no way we can find f(x) no matter how many numbers we try for x. For all we know, actual f(x) could be

f(x)=y, except when x=5.34223424564, y=10



So just becuase something can be proven repeatedly to be true is actually not enough to prove that it's always true. By the same logic, just because 1+1=2 today does not actually prove that tomorrow (or yesterday) the the answer is (or was) still 2. It only proves 1+1=2 is true today.

It seems to me that people take scientificly proven ideas and expand the proof to beyond what the results show. This is not a fault of the scientific process. It's a human flaw to see connections even when it's not there sometimes. Many religious leaders loves to poke holes in scientific explanations via these flawed connections. But many religious leaders are guilty of the same flaw, since they are also human. Especially me, I caught myself incorrectly assuming many times about all things, religious or not.

I don't disagree. There is a very human tendency to do this.

Science cannot prove beyond what it has actually proven.

Well, mostly science deals in evidence. Hypothesis can be proven wrong (i.e. they can be falsified - that is one of the characteristics for testing a hypothesis), but generally they can only be shown to be correct by the preponderance of evidence. For example, if we proposed the hypothesis that all swans are white, every sighting of a white swan would add weight to that hypothesis. However, sighting white swans does not preclude the possibility of there being black swans somewhere and no matter how many white swans we see, this will not prove the hypothesis beyond all doubt, while a single sighting of a black swan will immediately falsify the hypothesis.

So in a sense, science cannot prove anything regarding evolution because it all happened in the past.

By this argument we can reach no conclusions about what goes on in the Sun because everything going on in the Sun happens in the past from our perspective. We make conclusions from observing the consequences of past events all the time. Do you think that the fossilized remains that we call dinosaurs are actually dinosaurs at all, rather than just naturally occurring formations of rock. If you think they are dinosaurs, why do you think this? You weren't there to see them being born, living, dying and becoming fossils, after all.

It's a matter of what one believes happened, not what was proven to be true. I am aware that the same can be said of creationism. From this perspective, evolution is more like a religion than science.

Nope, evolution is science because it is based on observed, measured and analysed phenomena and events. It is evidence-based. You can examine all the evidence that is used to support evolutionary theory and even repeat many of the tests that are applied to that evidence to see if you get the same results. You can then draw reasoned conclusions based on that evidence.

By "common conclusion," I mean something like 10+10=?, where no scientist would argue that the answer is 20.

Am I understanding it correctly that you believe the entire scientific community all agree on the topic of evolution/creationism in the same way they agree 10+10=20?

I regard it as a 'common conclusion' in the same way as the decision of a jury is regarded as a common conclusion, i.e. the result of a reasoned conclusion arrived at according to the preponderance of evidence. There are very (very) few scientists engaged in the biological sciences who do not regard evolutionary theory as firmly established beyond all reasonable doubt.

Side note: Overwhelming consensus cannot qualify as common conclusion if using my "common conclusion" definition above.

If you want perfection, you won't get it it. The overwhelming consensus is that Earth orbits the Sun, which seems to be a common conclusion by any reasonable understanding of the term. It is an 'uncommon' conclusion indeed that the Sun orbits Earth.

I haven't done much research on famous individuals who have debated on this topic. Although I highly doubt they don't exist.

They don't have to be famous, just appropriately qualified in the material they are debating.

I just know from personal experiences. I have talked to experts in their fields, they disagree with their colleagues on this topic. By experts, I mean research professionals with high level degrees. I find it interesting that they have the same knowledge as their colleagues and yet disagree wtih them completely.

When you say 'disagree', what do you mean? Do you mean that they disagree with some detail of evolutionary theory or that they disagree with the theory as such? There is a great deal of difference between the two things. Disagreement amongst scientists is one way in which knowledge and understanding progresses.

I can research for some famous debates between highly respected scientists if you like.

That would be good, but there's no urgency.

 

[jasoncran]

lk, i wouldnt compare the work of a scientist to voir dire or a jury, that implies a preselected bias. why? the lawyers select who they think will best serve their case. at least in this country. i cant speak for brittain or france the eu.

 

[lordkalvan]

lk, i wouldnt compare the work of a scientist to voir dire or a jury, that implies a preselected bias. why? the lawyers select who they think will best serve their case. at least in this country. i cant speak for brittain or france the eu.

I take your point, Jason. I was thinking of the 'ideal' situation, I suppose, where the jury is selected as near randomly as possible.

 

[jasoncran]

I take your point, Jason. I was thinking of the 'ideal' situation, I suppose, where the jury is selected as near randomly as possible.

its done in my state by driver license but the lawyers select the jurors during vior dire and that is where the process is subjective.