Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

[PoliticalChic]

Disregarding for the moment whether anyone here really is or is not a scientist, it remains the case that PCs entire argument in regard to the idea of multiverses rested on the mistaken notion that evolution presents a view of life that is "random." It does not.

Whatever the validity or lack thereof of PC's understanding of the multiverse idea, it was therefore exerted in answer to a non-question.

Why? Because you say so? Everything you post is an opinion, your opinion, never backed up with anything. PC backs up everything she says and provides documentation, her equal you would never be, nor would you stand a chance in a debate with her or anyone else.

It seems what Dragon is saying is that

PC is wasting her time​

But PC likes to stomp on the stupid for her own enjoyment. So I don't know if her argument with OD is a waste of her time, or a simple hedonistic character flaw on her part.

So.....youzze got a problem wit' dat......?


Seems you reptilian types stick together.....

 

[code1211]

God of course he has always existed.

That is the rub in having a logical debate on matters of faith. The questioning must end at the point that faith picks up.

It could be said that life has always existed presenting as proof that life does exist and can be observed. Why is it essential that God, instead of life, has always existed?

That we are is proof that life exists and we all know that life existed in the whole of our lives.

How can we prove that life ever did not exist?

How can we prove that God ever did exist?

Would you rather I lie ?

One of the philosophers I read compared the argument that proceeded from God as a chain hanging from a ceiling and without God as the first link, that chain would fall.

The obvious question being what is holding up the first link?

It has nothing to do with you lying or not lying. Arguing logic in matters of faith eventually abandons logic in favor of faith. If the basis of all of your arguments is faith, then building a logical argument on that base is silly.

If you believe, you do. If you don't, you don't. Solving riddles is not divine.

 

[code1211]

Hmm,I wonder if that person knows that neanderthals had bigger brains then modern day humans,priceless.

Hey, dont slam on my ancestors!

Yep that is correct,they were 100% human.

But they were not homo sapien.

 

[code1211]

Death is just a part of life. Everyone and everything eventually dies, so dont get your panties in a wad.

LOL! So nature is 'precise' - except when it isn't. Got it.

You can't see precise in nature like a hydrolgic system ? or how bout the formation of a cell ?

How bout the formation of a human ? How bout a peacock or a mallard duck ? looks like they were painted.

How bout the big cat family ?

How bout the four seasons we exp ?

How bout we can count on the sun to rise every day ?

How bout having just the right amount of gravity present on one planet ?

How bout one planmet being able to sustain life ?

Just think of all the things i didn't bring up.

Because we are not under perfect conditions there is no designer ?well the bible gives you an answer as to why. So YOU Don't see precision in nature ? Open your eyes.

So all life that lives on this planet is evolved or designed to live on this planet?

This proves nothing for your case.

 

[code1211]

You can't see precise in nature like a hydrolgic system ? or how bout the formation of a cell ?

How bout the formation of a human ? How bout a peacock or a mallard duck ? looks like they were painted.

How bout the big cat family ?

How bout the four seasons we exp ?

How bout we can count on the sun to rise every day ?

How bout having just the right amount of gravity present on one planet ?

How bout one planmet being able to sustain life ?

Just think of all the things i didn't bring up.

Because we are not under perfect conditions there is no designer ?well the bible gives you an answer as to why. So YOU Don't see precision in nature ? Open your eyes.

It's only precise for a period of time. The wrong size asteroid is going in the wrong direction, it's all over for the entire planet. But with your views on science, I honestly don't know if you "believe" in asteroids.

The wrong asteroid, the wrong disease, the wrong natural disaster, and it's all over humans even with the fact that we've only been on earth for a tiny percentage of its existance.

Sin brought about the non perfect conditions.

I still would like an explanation for a planet spinning the opposite direction to the rest.

You never questioned why only this planet got everything it needs to sustain life ?

Goldilocks.

 

[code1211]

Demonstrate and please don't try to make me critique the Miller-urey experiment.

But the Miller-Urey experiment did generate amino acids in a soup of water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen, which attempted to mimic what was believed to be the conditions before the origin of life on earth. There's no need for a general critique of the experiment; it's been suggested by scientists that the composition of the "soup" used might not be accurate. Also, you need not point out that amino acids alone are not life; I know that. So does everyone. The fact remains that amino acids were created chemically in water.

Also, most animals and plants are composed largely of water and amino acids are produced in living things all the time. Water is a major component of amino acids. You're just plain wrong.

EDIT: If you're going to object that the amino acids in the experiment were performed in the electrical spark chamber which had no liquid water, I remind you that evaporation and precipitation occur in nature, too.

Funny you are providing evidence of design that produces amino acids Gods creation.

Oh boy,what kind of amino acids were formed in the miller urey experiment ?

Yes plants can produce amino acids but amino acids had to be formed before there were plants.

Now another problem for the experiment was nobody knows what the enviornment was like when life began. Really you believe lightning sparked the creation of amino acids ?

Let's not forget oxygen could not be present.

Now let's look a little closer to the miller urey experiment and see if it was a natural enviornment or not.

The Miller-Urey Experiement

It's pretty likely that oxygen was not around before life. Plants eat CO2 and waste out O.

There had to be some pretty significant planet forming before mammals could have drawn their first breath.

 

[code1211]

There is nothing really precise about nature.

The human body is full of design flaws. The fact that we breathe and eat via the same route has caused countless deaths.

The heart and genitals are not very well protected

Do I even have to mention the birth canal and the millions upon millions of women who have died in childbirth because of that particularly poor design?

Evolution is nothing but a series of just good enough fixes that take the least amount of energy and change resulting in a slightly better chance to survive and procreate.

How many bad genes have been transferred to the whole human family over the years ?

I contend that we are all just a tad retarded because we all are descended from the intermarriage of blood relatives.

Mommy-Auntie, can I have some ice cream?

 

[code1211]

I doubt the species who are a part of the 99.9% that ended up extinct would agree with the whole precision in nature view.

Or all the people who have died from horrible diseases for nothing. Unless God is trying to kill us with precision.

ALTER2EGO -to- OOH POO PAH DOO & DR.DROCK:

QUESTION: Who was it that caused animals to become extinct by killing off the creatures for sport, polluting the land and the animals' environment, chopped down trees the animals relied upon, spilled oil in the ocean and killed of fish and birds, etc.?

ANSWER: Rebellious humans who have no respect for God's laws.

Who's law was it that gave man dominion over the animals?

 

[code1211]

Post the thread when you start it I would like to watch it.

Nevermid Doc he hates evidence or questions that his fellow evolutionist ignore or can't answer.

I don't know what my opinion is on those, as I've never seen a question anyone who respects biology dodge a question about biology.

Well two of them have been ignored in this thread or dragon did give an opinion that has no backing.

Where did intelligence originate from ?

How did life begin ? do you have an opinion ?

Opinion is all that anyone can offer, no?

 

[code1211]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

Logic based upon the dismissal of evidence is flawed logic--which is what you're bringing to the table. For instance, the first 60 elements found within the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth are so interrelated and precise that scientists refer to it as Periodic LAW. The existence of Laws aka precision indicates an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER directed the outcome.

Evidence of God's existence is dismissed every single time one ignores the complexity of the natural world. Flawed logic also results from ignorance or lack of knowledge of certain scientific facts. To avoid the trap of stubbornness, one must allow logic and evidence to interact.

The Big Bang Theory is just that--a theory, and one that will never be proven as it amounts to nothing more than speculation aka personal opinions. Nobody can explain how this theory of expanding space is an explanation for the appearance of planets with their individual gravitational fields that prevents them from crashing into each other, and the fact that certain planets work to the advantage of earth.


Without intelligent direction, things would result by chance occurrences known as accidents. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines an accident as a "nonessential event that happens by chance and has undesirable or unfortunate results." As previously stated, the precision (which leaves no room for accidents) found in the world around us cries out to the existence of an intelligent, supernatural Designer or God. Things happening at random aka by accident cannot result in precision. Take, for example, the following.

Consider the earth's measurements and its location in our solar system. Earth is just the right size for our existence. If earth were slightly larger, its gravity would be stronger, with the result that hydrogen--a light gas--would not be able to escape the gravity of a bigger earth. The result? Earth's atmosphere would kill us because of the accumulation of hydrogen. On the other hand, if earth were slightly smaller, life-sustaining oxygen would escape and surface water would evaporate. In this case, we would also die.

Furthermore, the earth is at an ideal distance from the sun. Both astronomer John Barrow and mathematician Frank Tipler studied "the ratio of the Earth's radius and distance from the Sun" and concluded that human life would not exist "were this ratio slightly different from what it is observed to be." (Source: The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, by John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, copyright 1986, Oxford University Press)

In his book, Professor David L. Block wrote: "Calculations show that had the earth been situated only 5 percent closer to the sun, a runaway greenhouse effect [overheating of the earth] would have occurred about 4000 million years ago. If, on the other hand, the earth were placed only 1 percent further from the sun, runaway glaciation [huge sheets of ice covering much of the globe] would have occurred some 2000 million years ago." (Source: Our Universe: Accident Or Design? by David L. Block (1992)

I'm no scientist, but this is simply wrong. The stuff that everything is made of is comprised of the same stuff in different arrangements. The periodic table is periodic because if you add a neutron or an electron, you can predict the outcome. that is what science does.

This does not require a divine intelligence. It just requires things doing what things do.

No matter what you do to the elements, they are what they are and the react as they react.

It never changes and it never gets creative. If it did, that would be the signature of an Intelligent designer.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

The cover-up is always worse than the crime...
...your crime, ignorance....

1. Alan Lightman (born November 28, 1948 in Memphis, Tennessee) is an American physicist, writer, and social entrepreneur. He is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the author of the international bestseller Einstein's Dreams. He was the first professor at MIT to receive a joint appointment in the sciences and the humanities.
Alan Lightman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. The accidental universe:
Science's crisis of faith
By Alan P. Lightman
The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith?By Alan P. Lightman (Harper's Magazine)

3. In the article, Lightman explains the concept so that even a fraud such as yourself will find it difficult to obfuscate...

"Theoretical physicists, on the other hand, are not satisfied with observing the universe. They want to know why. They want to explain all the properties of the universe in terms of a few fundamental principles and parameters. These fundamental principles, in turn, lead to the “laws of nature,” which govern the behavior of all matter and energy.

….If the multiverse idea is correct, then the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental principles—to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that simply isn’t true.

Because there is no way they can prove this conjecture. That same uncertainty disturbs many physicists who are adjusting to the idea of the multiverse. Not only must we accept that basic properties of our universe are accidental and uncalculable. In addition, we must believe in the existence of many other universes. But we have no conceivable way of observing these other universes and cannot prove their existence. Thus, to explain what we see in the world and in our mental deductions, we must believe in what we cannot prove. Sound familiar? Theologians are accustomed to taking some beliefs on faith. Scientists are not. All we can do is hope that the same theories that predict the multiverse also produce many other predictions that we can test here in our own universe. But the other universes themselves will almost certainly remain a conjecture."


So....not only are you a fraud and a dunce....

...but this: 'The text I've highlighted in bold is just completely wrong. You don't even know what you're talking about,....'

...pretty much defines you.

I'm sorry, where does Lightman say that the muiltiverse theory is "by definition allowed to violate any scientific laws"? You've not shown me where he says that.

Also, where does lightman explain the theory itself? He doesn't. There's no mathematical equations in the article.


yes. Do you have a problem with it?

Multiverse?? Then 'to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile'!


Does that neon light flashing IDIOT over your head keep you awake at night?

Your arrogance continues to amuse me. Please continue to babble on about what you have no clue about. You read an article in Harper's and you think you understand a theory that takes years of study to understand - its quite amazing! When you're ready to attack the theory itself from a mathematical basis instead of based on your misinterpretations of a pop article, I'm ready!

1. In the service of diversity, a message board is bound to have all levels of posters. Some are brilliant, some not so much. The less-than-brilliant assemblage is never complete without the pretend-scientist: here we have one: Ooopsy-
Doo!

2. In “The Death of Feminism,” Dr. Phyllis Chesler explores feminism, academia and Islam. In it she reveals the way the pretend-academics cruise along while appearing to work in a field:
“They are loyal to their careers and their cliques, not to the truth. [In their writing, they] have pretended that brilliance and originality can best be conveyed in a secret, Mandarin language that absolutely no one, including themselves, can possibly understand…and this obfuscation of language has been employed to hide a considerable lack of brilliance and originality and to avoid the consequences of making oneself clear."

LOL! So mathematics is a "secret, Mandarin language" ? That's hilarious. Mathematics is a universal language, its open to all who wish to learn it. The fact you are too lazy to learn the tools you need to understand physics and cosmology doesn't change the fact that you need it to understand those things.

Far from being a "secret language" - I'd love to help you understand math. What was your last level? Algebra? Differential calculus? Let me know, I'll recommend a good text for you and would be more than happy to help you with any questions you might have.

3. Here, Ooopsy-Doo, in his pose as the pretend-scientist, he fits perfectly into that definition. Having made the mistake of pretending to understand the ‘Multiverse concept,” Ooopsy attempts to obfuscate by inserting the jargon that is designed to cloud rather than clarify.

its not a "concept" - its a theory - and it quite logically follows from the inflationary big bang model which has plenty of evidence to substantiate it.

Ooopsy writes:
a. “There's no mathematical equations in the article.”
b. “Your arrogance continues to amuse me. Please continue to babble on about what you have no clue about. You read an article in Harper's and you think you understand a theory that takes years of study to understand –“
c. “When you're ready to attack the theory itself from a mathematical basis instead of based on your misinterpretations of a pop article,…”


4. To review, Ooopsy-dunce is the one who picked the ‘Multiverse’ as his answer as far back as page one!

5. In Post #9 I provided this tutorial: “the ‘multiverse,’ [the Landscape] idea, that there could be an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natural laws of physics, vastly different from ours. … appeal to infinitely many universes crammed with laws of nature wriggling indiscreetly and fundamental physical parameters changing as one travels the cosmos. And- the entire gargantuan structure scientifically unobservable and devoid of any connection to expericnce.”

Any "tutorial" on a cosmological theory would be laid out in mathematics. i doubt you could even write down the einstein field equations and explain how the inflationary big bang model comes out of it - let alone how the multiverse follows from that.

a. “ The multiverse is a universe of universes. What we think of as the cosmos becomes, in this theoretical framework, just one of many pocket universes each with their own form of the laws of physics. “ One Universe Too Many? String Theories, The Multiverse And The Future Of Physics. : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR

So...I didn't 'misinterpret,' did I?
It doesn't take a normal intelligence years of study, does it? Well...in your case....

That's not the multiverse theory. Its a shadow of it. You cannot understand physics without math, any attempt is futile, stop trying.

6. Suddenly, Ooopsy doesn’t understand that the phony theory that he chose states that there may be multiple universes, each with their own laws of science totally different from those in our universe….i.e., thus, there are no universally true facts or laws!!!

I'm quite aware of that. That's quite a bit different from stating there are no scientific laws whatsoever.

7. Now, Ooopsy has implied that he has a Ph.D…..if so, it must stand for “Piled higher and Deeper.”

I have that warm, fuzzy feeling that only cruelty to the stupid can provide.

Its awarded to people for mastering the art of learning, not for mocking those who have, so you will most certainly never have one.

 

[code1211]

Well as usual you can't do what is asked of you. I will work on your request and it will be in the new thread.

CCMR - Ask A Scientist!

Here's why the earth rotates.

I happily await your very scientific link that's had many scientists contribute to it, that shows how sin brought about non perfect conditions.

Don't you find it funny that the planet turning on the right axis and at the right speed or do you concern yourself with such thinking ?

I don't know why you are hung up on this. This proves what it states and nothing at all beyond or because of it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That is the rub in having a logical debate on matters of faith. The questioning must end at the point that faith picks up.

It could be said that life has always existed presenting as proof that life does exist and can be observed. Why is it essential that God, instead of life, has always existed?

That we are is proof that life exists and we all know that life existed in the whole of our lives.

How can we prove that life ever did not exist?

How can we prove that God ever did exist?

Would you rather I lie ?

One of the philosophers I read compared the argument that proceeded from God as a chain hanging from a ceiling and without God as the first link, that chain would fall.

The obvious question being what is holding up the first link?

It has nothing to do with you lying or not lying. Arguing logic in matters of faith eventually abandons logic in favor of faith. If the basis of all of your arguments is faith, then building a logical argument on that base is silly.

If you believe, you do. If you don't, you don't. Solving riddles is not divine.

But you see my views are not simply based in faith.

 

[Youwerecreated]

That is the rub in having a logical debate on matters of faith. The questioning must end at the point that faith picks up.

It could be said that life has always existed presenting as proof that life does exist and can be observed. Why is it essential that God, instead of life, has always existed?

That we are is proof that life exists and we all know that life existed in the whole of our lives.

How can we prove that life ever did not exist?

How can we prove that God ever did exist?

Would you rather I lie ?

One of the philosophers I read compared the argument that proceeded from God as a chain hanging from a ceiling and without God as the first link, that chain would fall.

The obvious question being what is holding up the first link?

It has nothing to do with you lying or not lying. Arguing logic in matters of faith eventually abandons logic in favor of faith. If the basis of all of your arguments is faith, then building a logical argument on that base is silly.

If you believe, you do. If you don't, you don't. Solving riddles is not divine.

Hey, dont slam on my ancestors!

Yep that is correct,they were 100% human.

But they were not homo sapien.

Human are humans.

 

[Youwerecreated]

LOL! So nature is 'precise' - except when it isn't. Got it.

You can't see precise in nature like a hydrolgic system ? or how bout the formation of a cell ?

How bout the formation of a human ? How bout a peacock or a mallard duck ? looks like they were painted.

How bout the big cat family ?

How bout the four seasons we exp ?

How bout we can count on the sun to rise every day ?

How bout having just the right amount of gravity present on one planet ?

How bout one planmet being able to sustain life ?

Just think of all the things i didn't bring up.

Because we are not under perfect conditions there is no designer ?well the bible gives you an answer as to why. So YOU Don't see precision in nature ? Open your eyes.

So all life that lives on this planet is evolved or designed to live on this planet?

This proves nothing for your case.

Awful lot of coicidences with precise timing to believe everything evolved in a natural way. Because animals and humans have the ability to adapt does not prove they evolved from another family. It takes faith to believe accident upon accident accumulated into what we see now.

 

[code1211]

Would you rather I lie ?

One of the philosophers I read compared the argument that proceeded from God as a chain hanging from a ceiling and without God as the first link, that chain would fall.

The obvious question being what is holding up the first link?

It has nothing to do with you lying or not lying. Arguing logic in matters of faith eventually abandons logic in favor of faith. If the basis of all of your arguments is faith, then building a logical argument on that base is silly.

If you believe, you do. If you don't, you don't. Solving riddles is not divine.

Yep that is correct,they were 100% human.

But they were not homo sapien.

Human is human.

Not at all. There were various differences between Neandertal and Homo Sapien.

It would be as accurate to say dog is dog or horse is horse. Of course, of course.

It is not at all accurate. No more than saying that any of the other human strains that rose and disappeared were.

 

[Youwerecreated]

It's only precise for a period of time. The wrong size asteroid is going in the wrong direction, it's all over for the entire planet. But with your views on science, I honestly don't know if you "believe" in asteroids.

The wrong asteroid, the wrong disease, the wrong natural disaster, and it's all over humans even with the fact that we've only been on earth for a tiny percentage of its existance.

Sin brought about the non perfect conditions.

I still would like an explanation for a planet spinning the opposite direction to the rest.

You never questioned why only this planet got everything it needs to sustain life ?

Goldilocks.

You didn't respond to the question why most all planets spin one direction and a few others spin the opposite direction ?

Nor the question if everything originated from the big bang why did only one planet end up with conditions that would sustain life ? Just another coincidence ?

 

[code1211]

You can't see precise in nature like a hydrolgic system ? or how bout the formation of a cell ?

How bout the formation of a human ? How bout a peacock or a mallard duck ? looks like they were painted.

How bout the big cat family ?

How bout the four seasons we exp ?

How bout we can count on the sun to rise every day ?

How bout having just the right amount of gravity present on one planet ?

How bout one planmet being able to sustain life ?

Just think of all the things i didn't bring up.

Because we are not under perfect conditions there is no designer ?well the bible gives you an answer as to why. So YOU Don't see precision in nature ? Open your eyes.

So all life that lives on this planet is evolved or designed to live on this planet?

This proves nothing for your case.

Awful lot of coicidences with precise timing to believe everything evolved in a natural way. Because animals and humans have the ability to adapt does not prove they evolved from another family. It takes faith to believe accident upon accident accumulated into what we see now.

You are saying that all things were poofed into existence as they are and that they were perfect and yet that perfection is constantly changing and diverging from the perfection.

It is up to you to ignore all that proves this to be false or not.

It seems far more reasonable to me that very small changes from one generation to the next can make a very different current example.

It also seem s very reasonable that if the progression was from single cell animals to very complex animals like us, there would be remnants to indicate the the Single cell was the basis. We find this in the fact there is DNA in every single cell in every single body.

I said this before, but that seems a tad redundant for a thing that was poofed into existence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

But the Miller-Urey experiment did generate amino acids in a soup of water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen, which attempted to mimic what was believed to be the conditions before the origin of life on earth. There's no need for a general critique of the experiment; it's been suggested by scientists that the composition of the "soup" used might not be accurate. Also, you need not point out that amino acids alone are not life; I know that. So does everyone. The fact remains that amino acids were created chemically in water.

Also, most animals and plants are composed largely of water and amino acids are produced in living things all the time. Water is a major component of amino acids. You're just plain wrong.

EDIT: If you're going to object that the amino acids in the experiment were performed in the electrical spark chamber which had no liquid water, I remind you that evaporation and precipitation occur in nature, too.

Funny you are providing evidence of design that produces amino acids Gods creation.

Oh boy,what kind of amino acids were formed in the miller urey experiment ?

Yes plants can produce amino acids but amino acids had to be formed before there were plants.

Now another problem for the experiment was nobody knows what the enviornment was like when life began. Really you believe lightning sparked the creation of amino acids ?

Let's not forget oxygen could not be present.

Now let's look a little closer to the miller urey experiment and see if it was a natural enviornment or not.

The Miller-Urey Experiement

It's pretty likely that oxygen was not around before life. Plants eat CO2 and waste out O.

There had to be some pretty significant planet forming before mammals could have drawn their first breath.

How do you know there was no oxygen on this planet when life began ? The real reason you want to hold on to this view is because you know the building blocks of life amino acids could not have formed in that enviornment.

Did you know rocks contain oxygen ?

 

[code1211]

Sin brought about the non perfect conditions.

I still would like an explanation for a planet spinning the opposite direction to the rest.

You never questioned why only this planet got everything it needs to sustain life ?

Goldilocks.

You didn't respond to the question why most all planets spin one direction and a few others spin the opposite direction ?

Nor the question if everything originated from the big bang why did only one planet end up with conditions that would sustain life ? Just another coincidence ?

We know of only one planet with life. This does not preclude the possibility that there is one or a billion and one out there.

There are a bunch of right handed people and fewer left handed people. I don't see how the direction of the earth's rotation has any bearing on anything connected to this consideration.