Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

[PoliticalChic]

I certainly showed that I know more than you do about the multiverse theory, showed you to be a disingenuous fraud.

You can't even write down the mathematical equations behind it.

Well, let's see what transpired.
I wrote this in post #187....

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.”

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....


And you were forced to admit that 'I didn't 'misinterpret,' did I'....


That after you tried to cloud the issue with 'it takes years of study..." and 'you need to post the equations to explain it...."

Neither turned out to be true.

David Blaine never made anything disappear as fast as your reputation.


Rather than wasting your time making up stories, and trying to hide your inadequacy, why don't you try to learn something that might prove valuable, such as folding fitted sheets.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I certainly showed that I know more than you do about the multiverse theory, showed you to be a disingenuous fraud.

You can't even write down the mathematical equations behind it.

Well, let's see what transpired.
I wrote this in post #187....

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.”

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....


And you were forced to admit that 'I didn't 'misinterpret,' did I'....


That after you tried to cloud the issue with 'it takes years of study..." and 'you need to post the equations to explain it...."

Neither turned out to be true.

David Blaine never made anything disappear as fast as your reputation.


Rather than wasting your time making up stories, and trying to hide your inadequacy, why don't you try to learn something that might prove valuable, such as folding fitted sheets.

Here, let me help you, a hint:

The first two terms on the LHS are the Ricci curvature of space-time, and the RHS is the stress-energy tensor that causes the curvature. The 3rd term on the RHS is the contribution from the cosmological constant and that is what is responsible for inflation. It can equivalently be moved the the RHS and thought of as a vacuum stress-energy.

BTW, what exactly is it you do when you're not telling people how stupid you think they are?

 

[PoliticalChic]

If I were to write down the Einstein field equation, you'd have no idea that i had.



Is that all you do? Insult people?





None of that is written in scientific trade journals. The relevance of a scientist's personal beliefs outside of his published research is the same as the relevance of the personal beliefs of the mechanics and engineers who write shop manuals for cars - zero.

1. You are a petulant little fellow, pretend-scientist.

You are so very afraid that folks won't label you as intelligent as soon as you self-identify yourself with the appellation 'scientist/'

What a joke.

A minute after you conjecture, everyone would know you are a jerk.

2. Case in point:
a."... your incapable of your own thoughts."
You probably think that if you write one of
Einstein's formulae, it's your own thinking.
You are a fool.

If I were to write down the Einstein field equation, you'd have no idea that i had."

You think you can insult me by referring to the fact that I can quote Berlinski.
Of course, I trap you by pointing out that you quote Einstein, and other scientists....
How many quote you?
Wonder why?


Then you go on to prove how accurate I was in saying, 'You are so very afraid that folks won't label you as intelligent as soon as you self-identify yourself with the appellation 'scientist,' by yammering 'you'd have no idea that i had...' na na na.'

Of course I would....because you know nothing other than what you have memorized.
That is, after all, the function of a pretend-scientist.

3. What could be more indicative of your inability than the glaring mistake you made in offering the 'multiverse' as an answer, then having it proven that you didn't know what the 'multiverse' is.

I'm perfectly happy to have readers judge your posts and mine.
How come you're not?

4. A six-year-old in chaps and a toy holster runs around shouting 'look, I'm a cowboy.'

But most of them grow up.

Then there's you: "look...I'm a scientist....I must be smart, huh?'

Not so much.

5. "Is that all you do? Insult people?"
No...I put folks like you in their place.
Feel the heat?


6. "None of that is written in scientific trade journals. The relevance of a scientist's personal beliefs blah blah blah...."

You claimed '"So by "scientists who shout from rooftops" you mean two physcisists? Wow, clearly a massive trend."

Are you upset that it is so easy to run rings around you?
You said only 'two'...so I added a bunch more.

What it proves is that you are a dunce: you shoot off your mouth without understanding what the parameters of the argument are.

7. How sad it mus be for you to have chosen a career based on the fear of your inadequacies being recognized.....then finding that your inadequacies being recognized.

Bummer.

I'd suggest that you take the same path as the hero in Joseph Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness,' but you wouldn't understand that....would you.


So, to review: in the future, if you wish to avoid similar spankings, a. don't begin an argument with a neg for not agreeing with you, b. be more civil with opponents, c. don't ever, ever, assume that others are not at least as smart as you are.

Do you have any science to discuss?[/QUOTE]

As an attempt to face-save, you'd like to steer this discussion away from your foibles?

Wise decision.


But...discuss anything with you?
The old saying that you so aptly demonstrate: “He knew his way out of the harbor, but after that, everything was open sea.”


You're dismissed.

 

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

Logic based upon the dismissal of evidence is flawed logic. Precision is seen in everything in the natural world. Precision indicates deliberation, and deliberation indicates an intelligent Designer/God intervened and guided the outcome. If it takes an intelligent human to create a stick of crayon, logic tells us it must have taken a supremely intelligent person to create the human and the complex universe.

By ignoring the complexity in the natural world, atheists opt for the Big Bang THEORY and evolution THEORY, both of which leave everything to spontaneous events aka accidents.

Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines an accident as: "a nonessential event that happens by chance and has undesirable or unfortunate results."


If one were to ask an atheist if their computer could have been the result of accidents, they would quickly deny it. Yet, while the computer looks like child's play against the complex universe and the complex forms of life on planet earth, these very same individuals will argue that the latter was the result of accidental occurrences (Big Bang theory and evolution theory). It raises the question: What logic are these people using? The earth is a prime example of precision, as noted below.


EARTH IS THE RIGHT SIZE:
Not only is earth the right size, its location in our solar system is beneficial for life on earth. 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 accumulation of hydrogen would kill all of us. At the opposite extreme, if earth were slightly smaller, life-sustaining oxygen would escape and surface water would evaporate. In this case, we would die from dehydration.


EARTH IS AT THE RIGHT LOCATION:
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)

~***~​

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

1. You are a petulant little fellow, pretend-scientist.

You are so very afraid that folks won't label you as intelligent as soon as you self-identify yourself with the appellation 'scientist/'

What a joke.

A minute after you conjecture, everyone would know you are a jerk.

2. Case in point:
a."... your incapable of your own thoughts."
You probably think that if you write one of
Einstein's formulae, it's your own thinking.
You are a fool.

If I were to write down the Einstein field equation, you'd have no idea that i had."

You think you can insult me by referring to the fact that I can quote Berlinski.
Of course, I trap you by pointing out that you quote Einstein, and other scientists....
How many quote you?
Wonder why?


Then you go on to prove how accurate I was in saying, 'You are so very afraid that folks won't label you as intelligent as soon as you self-identify yourself with the appellation 'scientist,' by yammering 'you'd have no idea that i had...' na na na.'

Of course I would....because you know nothing other than what you have memorized.
That is, after all, the function of a pretend-scientist.

3. What could be more indicative of your inability than the glaring mistake you made in offering the 'multiverse' as an answer, then having it proven that you didn't know what the 'multiverse' is.

I'm perfectly happy to have readers judge your posts and mine.
How come you're not?

4. A six-year-old in chaps and a toy holster runs around shouting 'look, I'm a cowboy.'

But most of them grow up.

Then there's you: "look...I'm a scientist....I must be smart, huh?'

Not so much.

5. "Is that all you do? Insult people?"
No...I put folks like you in their place.
Feel the heat?


6. "None of that is written in scientific trade journals. The relevance of a scientist's personal beliefs blah blah blah...."

You claimed '"So by "scientists who shout from rooftops" you mean two physcisists? Wow, clearly a massive trend."

Are you upset that it is so easy to run rings around you?
You said only 'two'...so I added a bunch more.

What it proves is that you are a dunce: you shoot off your mouth without understanding what the parameters of the argument are.

7. How sad it mus be for you to have chosen a career based on the fear of your inadequacies being recognized.....then finding that your inadequacies being recognized.

Bummer.

I'd suggest that you take the same path as the hero in Joseph Conrad's 'Heart of Darkness,' but you wouldn't understand that....would you.


So, to review: in the future, if you wish to avoid similar spankings, a. don't begin an argument with a neg for not agreeing with you, b. be more civil with opponents, c. don't ever, ever, assume that others are not at least as smart as you are.

Do you have any science to discuss?

As an attempt to face-save, you'd like to steer this discussion away from your foibles?

Wise decision.


But...discuss anything with you?
The old saying that you so aptly demonstrate: “He knew his way out of the harbor, but after that, everything was open sea.”


You're dismissed.[/QUOTE]
No I just want to talk about science lady

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

.

By ignoring the complexity in the natural world, atheists opt for the Big Bang THEORY and evolution THEORY, both of which leave everything to spontaneous events aka accidents.

Scientists opt for the Big Bang theory because it predicts observation reliably more than anything else.

 

[Youwerecreated]

.

By ignoring the complexity in the natural world, atheists opt for the Big Bang THEORY and evolution THEORY, both of which leave everything to spontaneous events aka accidents.

Scientists opt for the Big Bang theory because it predicts observation reliably more than anything else.

Would it be reasonable to predict a Big Bang can cause order ?



The Universe is Finely Tuned for Life


Strong evidence for a Designer comes from the fine-tuning of the universal constants and the solar system, e.g.
■ The electromagnetic coupling constant binds electrons to protons in atoms. If it was smaller, fewer electrons could be held. If it was larger, electrons would be held too tightly to bond with other atoms.
■ Ratio of electron to proton mass (1:1836). Again, if this was larger or smaller, molecules could not form.
■ Carbon and oxygen nuclei have finely tuned energy levels.
■ Electromagnetic and gravitational forces are finely tuned, so the right kind of star can be stable.
■ Our sun is the right colour. If it was redder or bluer, photosynthetic response would be weaker.
■ Our sun is also the right mass. If it was larger, its brightness would change too quickly and there would be too much high energy radiation. If it was smaller, the range of planetary distances able to support life would be too narrow; the right distance would be so close to the star that tidal forces would disrupt the planet’s rotational period. UV radiation would also be inadequate for photosynthesis.
■ The earth’s distance from the sun is crucial for a stable water cycle. Too far away, and most water would freeze; too close and most water would boil.
■ The earth’s gravity, axial tilt, rotation period, magnetic field, crust thickness, oxygen/nitrogen ratio, carbon dioxide, water vapour and ozone levels are just right.

Former atheist Sir Fred Hoyle states, “commonsense interpretation of the facts is that a super-intelligence has monkeyed with physics, as well as chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces in nature.”

Objection 1: (Barrow & Tipler) We should not be surprised that we do not observe features of the universe incompatible with our own existence, for if features were incompatible, we would not be here to notice it, so no explanation is needed.

However, as Craig pointed out, it does not follow that we should not be surprised that we do observe features compatible with our existence; we still need an explanation.

If you were dragged before a trained firing squad, and they fired and missed:
■it is true that you should not be surprised to observe that you are not dead, but
■it is equally true that you should be surprised to observe that you are alive.

If you were asked, “How did you survive?”, it would be inadequate to answer, “If I didn’t, I would not be here to answer you.”

Objection 2: All states of affairs are highly improbable, therefore every individual state of affairs is a “miracle”.

However, although all combinations on a combination lock are equally improbable to obtain randomly, a bank manager does not think that anyone could open the lock by chance. No-one would explain a Shakespearian sonnet by a chimp typing randomly, although any randomly typed letter sequence is equally improbable (“I love you dearly” surely requires more explanation than “asnhouyganpi;kvk klkjfl&#8221.

Objection 3: There are infinitely many universes.

But there is not the slightest evidence for them. In fact, no evidence is even possible, so proposal is unscientific. Better to believe in a supernatural designer, which has good analogical support.

The Universe is Finely Tuned for Life - Answers in Genesis

 

[code1211]

.




The Universe is Finely Tuned for Life


Strong evidence for a Designer comes from the fine-tuning of the universal constants and the solar system, e.g.
■ The electromagnetic coupling constant binds electrons to protons in atoms. If it was smaller, fewer electrons could be held. If it was larger, electrons would be held too tightly to bond with other atoms.
■ Ratio of electron to proton mass (1:1836). Again, if this was larger or smaller, molecules could not form.
■ Carbon and oxygen nuclei have finely tuned energy levels.
■ Electromagnetic and gravitational forces are finely tuned, so the right kind of star can be stable.
■ Our sun is the right colour. If it was redder or bluer, photosynthetic response would be weaker.
■ Our sun is also the right mass. If it was larger, its brightness would change too quickly and there would be too much high energy radiation. If it was smaller, the range of planetary distances able to support life would be too narrow; the right distance would be so close to the star that tidal forces would disrupt the planet’s rotational period. UV radiation would also be inadequate for photosynthesis.
■ The earth’s distance from the sun is crucial for a stable water cycle. Too far away, and most water would freeze; too close and most water would boil.
■ The earth’s gravity, axial tilt, rotation period, magnetic field, crust thickness, oxygen/nitrogen ratio, carbon dioxide, water vapour and ozone levels are just right.


[/url]

Outside of the friendly confines of Earth, the Universe is finely tuned to kill all life. The life giving properties of the Sun are mixed with lethal doses of radiation that kill everything and anything they burn. It is the unique combination of the magnetic field of Earth and the properties of the evolved atmosphere that have combined to allow us.

The original composition of the air on this planet was a witches brew of poisonous and lethal gases. It is only with the addition of the oxygen producing plant life that we find air that we can breath.

It's interesting, don't you think, that the most important and basic feature of the Earth that defends us from the lethal radiation of the Sun is the magnetic field and yet God didn't mention a thing about this in his addresses to the inspired who wrote down his words.

They wrote some things about those things they could see and understand, but nothing about the other stuff that maybe should have been transmitted.

 

[Cammmpbell]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

AGRUMENT #1 FOR AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR:

For the average person, precision indicates that an intelligent person guided the outcome. According to Webster's New World College Dictionary, the word "precision" is defined as follows:

"the quality of being precise; exactness, accuracy"


The reverse of precision is an accident aka a spontaneous event that happen by chance with no one guiding the outcome. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines an accident as:

"a nonessential event that happens by chance and has undesirable or unfortunate results"


Scientific evidence shows there is extreme precision in everything around us in the natural world. This precision renders the evolution theory and the Big Bang theory mere fiction, for precision leaves no room for error or for accidental events. Take, for example, the first discovered 60 elements on the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth. Some of these 60 elements are gases and are therefore invisible to the human eye. The atoms--from which the Earth's elements are made--are specifically related to one another. In turn, the elements--e.g. arsenic, bismuth, chromium, gold, krypton--reflect a distinct, natural numeral order based upon the structure of their atoms. This is a proven LAW.

The precision in the order of the elements made it possible for scientists such as Mendeleyev, Ramsey, Moseley, and Bohr to theorize the existence of unknown elements and their characteristics. These elements were later discovered, just as predicted. Because of the distinct numerical order of the elements, the word LAW is applied to the Periodic Table of the Elements. (Sources: (1) The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, (2) "Periodic Law," from Encyclopædia Britannica, Vol. VII, p. 878, copyright 1978, (3) The Hutchinson Dictionary of Scientific Biography


SIDE NOTE: Laws found in nature, as defined by Webster's New World Dictionary, are:

"a sequence of events that have been observed to occur with UNVARYING UNIFORMITY under the same conditions."


QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:
1. Were it not for the precise relationship among the first 60 discovered elements on the Periodic Table, would scientists have been able to accurately predict the existence of forms of matter that at the time were unknown?

2. Could the precise law within the first 60 discovered elements (on the Periodic Table) have resulted by chance aka spontaneously aka by accident? Or is this evidence for the existence an intelligent Designer/God who guided the outcome?

3. Evolution relies upon things happening by chance aka at random. If evolution were a fact, how does it account for the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth in which the first 60 discovered elements are so precise, and so interrelated with one another, that it has been assigned the word "LAW"?

Oh sure....now I'm totally convinced that the supreme creator of the universe dropped off the only keys to the kingdom 2000 years ago to a bunch of ignorant camel herders who believed in witches and thought the earth was flat. If he did he has an unbelievable sense of humor and he's not my god.

 

[code1211]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

AGRUMENT #1 FOR AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR:

For the average person, precision indicates that an intelligent person guided the outcome. According to Webster's New World College Dictionary, the word "precision" is defined as follows:

"the quality of being precise; exactness, accuracy"


The reverse of precision is an accident aka a spontaneous event that happen by chance with no one guiding the outcome. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines an accident as:

"a nonessential event that happens by chance and has undesirable or unfortunate results"


Scientific evidence shows there is extreme precision in everything around us in the natural world. This precision renders the evolution theory and the Big Bang theory mere fiction, for precision leaves no room for error or for accidental events. Take, for example, the first discovered 60 elements on the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth. Some of these 60 elements are gases and are therefore invisible to the human eye. The atoms--from which the Earth's elements are made--are specifically related to one another. In turn, the elements--e.g. arsenic, bismuth, chromium, gold, krypton--reflect a distinct, natural numeral order based upon the structure of their atoms. This is a proven LAW.

The precision in the order of the elements made it possible for scientists such as Mendeleyev, Ramsey, Moseley, and Bohr to theorize the existence of unknown elements and their characteristics. These elements were later discovered, just as predicted. Because of the distinct numerical order of the elements, the word LAW is applied to the Periodic Table of the Elements. (Sources: (1) The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, (2) "Periodic Law," from Encyclopædia Britannica, Vol. VII, p. 878, copyright 1978, (3) The Hutchinson Dictionary of Scientific Biography


SIDE NOTE: Laws found in nature, as defined by Webster's New World Dictionary, are:

"a sequence of events that have been observed to occur with UNVARYING UNIFORMITY under the same conditions."


QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:
1. Were it not for the precise relationship among the first 60 discovered elements on the Periodic Table, would scientists have been able to accurately predict the existence of forms of matter that at the time were unknown?

2. Could the precise law within the first 60 discovered elements (on the Periodic Table) have resulted by chance aka spontaneously aka by accident? Or is this evidence for the existence an intelligent Designer/God who guided the outcome?

3. Evolution relies upon things happening by chance aka at random. If evolution were a fact, how does it account for the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth in which the first 60 discovered elements are so precise, and so interrelated with one another, that it has been assigned the word "LAW"?

Oh sure....now I'm totally convinced that the supreme creator of the universe dropped off the only keys to the kingdom 2000 years ago to a bunch of ignorant camel herders who believed in witches and thought the earth was flat. If he did he has an unbelievable sense of humor and he's not my god.

No matter who your God might be, it's impossible to know the definition of God and look at the world around us and not conclude that he has a sense of humor.

 

[konradv]

AGRUMENT #1 FOR AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR:
For the average person, precision indicates that an intelligent person guided the outcome. According to Webster's New World College Dictionary, the word "precision" is defined as follows:

"the quality of being precise; exactness, accuracy"

The reverse of precision is an accident aka a spontaneous event that happen by chance with no one guiding the outcome. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines an accident as:

"a nonessential event that happens by chance and has undesirable or unfortunate results"
{snipped for brevity}

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:
1. Were it not for the precise relationship among the first 60 discovered elements on the Periodic Table, would scientists have been able to accurately predict the existence of forms of matter that at the time were unknown?

2. Could the precise law within the first 60 discovered elements (on the Periodic Table) have resulted by chance aka spontaneously aka by accident? Or is this evidence for the existence an intelligent Designer/God who guided the outcome?

3. Evolution relies upon things happening by chance aka at random. If evolution were a fact, how does it account for the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth in which the first 60 discovered elements are so precise, and so interrelated with one another, that it has been assigned the word "LAW"?

Accidents don't always have negative results, the discovery of penicillin coming to mind.

You're conflating the "origins" and "evolution" arguments. Acceptance of the precision of natural law with regard to physics and chemistry says nothing about a guiding hand to the resulting evolution of chemical processes culminating in life. They derive from the laws but don't seem to be directed in any way, other than those laid out by the Laws of Chemistry, with no evidence that they're anything but "random" and "accidental" with regard to the final result.

While the physical laws of nature are precise, the results of same with regard to biology are often anything but. There are too many mistakes for life to be directed intimately by a omnipotent deity. That's not to say there isn't an omnipotent deity. He just didn't achieve His creation the way you suggest.

 

[uscitizen]

Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

Only the ones that survive and prosper continue.

After a few million years nature does get kinda harmonious. Well until man came along.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Outside of the friendly confines of Earth, the Universe is finely tuned to kill all life. The life giving properties of the Sun are mixed with lethal doses of radiation that kill everything and anything they burn. It is the unique combination of the magnetic field of Earth and the properties of the evolved atmosphere that have combined to allow us.

The original composition of the air on this planet was a witches brew of poisonous and lethal gases. It is only with the addition of the oxygen producing plant life that we find air that we can breath.

It's interesting, don't you think, that the most important and basic feature of the Earth that defends us from the lethal radiation of the Sun is the magnetic field and yet God didn't mention a thing about this in his addresses to the inspired who wrote down his words.

They wrote some things about those things they could see and understand, but nothing about the other stuff that maybe should have been transmitted.

That is my point if everything was the result of the Big Bang why is that only one planet the one that is fully self contained and has all the right conditions for life.

This is just more support That God created this planet and made it unique.

If a big bang produced this planet why are not these conditions and life scattered throughout the universe ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

AGRUMENT #1 FOR AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR:

For the average person, precision indicates that an intelligent person guided the outcome. According to Webster's New World College Dictionary, the word "precision" is defined as follows:

"the quality of being precise; exactness, accuracy"


The reverse of precision is an accident aka a spontaneous event that happen by chance with no one guiding the outcome. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines an accident as:

"a nonessential event that happens by chance and has undesirable or unfortunate results"


Scientific evidence shows there is extreme precision in everything around us in the natural world. This precision renders the evolution theory and the Big Bang theory mere fiction, for precision leaves no room for error or for accidental events. Take, for example, the first discovered 60 elements on the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth. Some of these 60 elements are gases and are therefore invisible to the human eye. The atoms--from which the Earth's elements are made--are specifically related to one another. In turn, the elements--e.g. arsenic, bismuth, chromium, gold, krypton--reflect a distinct, natural numeral order based upon the structure of their atoms. This is a proven LAW.

The precision in the order of the elements made it possible for scientists such as Mendeleyev, Ramsey, Moseley, and Bohr to theorize the existence of unknown elements and their characteristics. These elements were later discovered, just as predicted. Because of the distinct numerical order of the elements, the word LAW is applied to the Periodic Table of the Elements. (Sources: (1) The McGraw-Hill Encyclopedia of Science & Technology, (2) "Periodic Law," from Encyclopædia Britannica, Vol. VII, p. 878, copyright 1978, (3) The Hutchinson Dictionary of Scientific Biography


SIDE NOTE: Laws found in nature, as defined by Webster's New World Dictionary, are:

"a sequence of events that have been observed to occur with UNVARYING UNIFORMITY under the same conditions."


QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:
1. Were it not for the precise relationship among the first 60 discovered elements on the Periodic Table, would scientists have been able to accurately predict the existence of forms of matter that at the time were unknown?

2. Could the precise law within the first 60 discovered elements (on the Periodic Table) have resulted by chance aka spontaneously aka by accident? Or is this evidence for the existence an intelligent Designer/God who guided the outcome?

3. Evolution relies upon things happening by chance aka at random. If evolution were a fact, how does it account for the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth in which the first 60 discovered elements are so precise, and so interrelated with one another, that it has been assigned the word "LAW"?

Oh sure....now I'm totally convinced that the supreme creator of the universe dropped off the only keys to the kingdom 2000 years ago to a bunch of ignorant camel herders who believed in witches and thought the earth was flat. If he did he has an unbelievable sense of humor and he's not my god.

You have the atheistic Ideology arguments down, well too bad they are based in ignorance.

 

[Youwerecreated]

AGRUMENT #1 FOR AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR:
For the average person, precision indicates that an intelligent person guided the outcome. According to Webster's New World College Dictionary, the word "precision" is defined as follows:

"the quality of being precise; exactness, accuracy"

The reverse of precision is an accident aka a spontaneous event that happen by chance with no one guiding the outcome. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines an accident as:

"a nonessential event that happens by chance and has undesirable or unfortunate results"
{snipped for brevity}

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:
1. Were it not for the precise relationship among the first 60 discovered elements on the Periodic Table, would scientists have been able to accurately predict the existence of forms of matter that at the time were unknown?

2. Could the precise law within the first 60 discovered elements (on the Periodic Table) have resulted by chance aka spontaneously aka by accident? Or is this evidence for the existence an intelligent Designer/God who guided the outcome?

3. Evolution relies upon things happening by chance aka at random. If evolution were a fact, how does it account for the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth in which the first 60 discovered elements are so precise, and so interrelated with one another, that it has been assigned the word "LAW"?

Accidents don't always have negative results, the discovery of penicillin coming to mind.

You're conflating the "origins" and "evolution" arguments. Acceptance of the precision of natural law with regard to physics and chemistry says nothing about a guiding hand to the resulting evolution of chemical processes culminating in life. They derive from the laws but don't seem to be directed in any way, other than those laid out by the Laws of Chemistry, with no evidence that they're anything but "random" and "accidental" with regard to the final result.

While the physical laws of nature are precise, the results of same with regard to biology are often anything but. There are too many mistakes for life to be directed intimately by a omnipotent deity. That's not to say there isn't an omnipotent deity. He just didn't achieve His creation the way you suggest.

Come on now you are seriously reaching that accidents lead to good do realize how many coincedences and accidents that had to happen for life as we know it not to prebiotic evolution would have had to be precise or there would be no life.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

Only the ones that survive and prosper continue.

After a few million years nature does get kinda harmonious. Well until man came along.

Definitely evidence of a designer.

 

[code1211]

That is my point if everything was the result of the Big Bang why is that only one planet the one that is fully self contained and has all the right conditions for life.

This is just more support That God created this planet and made it unique.

If a big bang produced this planet why are not these conditions and life scattered throughout the universe ?

If God created this planet, why are there not these conditions and life scattered throughout the Universe?

 

[Foxfyre]

If God created this planet, why are there not these conditions and life scattered throughout the Universe?

How do you know that they are not?

 

[konradv]

AGRUMENT #1 FOR AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR:
For the average person, precision indicates that an intelligent person guided the outcome. According to Webster's New World College Dictionary, the word "precision" is defined as follows:

"the quality of being precise; exactness, accuracy"

The reverse of precision is an accident aka a spontaneous event that happen by chance with no one guiding the outcome. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines an accident as:

"a nonessential event that happens by chance and has undesirable or unfortunate results"
{snipped for brevity}

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:
1. Were it not for the precise relationship among the first 60 discovered elements on the Periodic Table, would scientists have been able to accurately predict the existence of forms of matter that at the time were unknown?

2. Could the precise law within the first 60 discovered elements (on the Periodic Table) have resulted by chance aka spontaneously aka by accident? Or is this evidence for the existence an intelligent Designer/God who guided the outcome?

3. Evolution relies upon things happening by chance aka at random. If evolution were a fact, how does it account for the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth in which the first 60 discovered elements are so precise, and so interrelated with one another, that it has been assigned the word "LAW"?

Accidents don't always have negative results, the discovery of penicillin coming to mind.

You're conflating the "origins" and "evolution" arguments. Acceptance of the precision of natural law with regard to physics and chemistry says nothing about a guiding hand to the resulting evolution of chemical processes culminating in life. They derive from the laws but don't seem to be directed in any way, other than those laid out by the Laws of Chemistry, with no evidence that they're anything but "random" and "accidental" with regard to the final result.

While the physical laws of nature are precise, the results of same with regard to biology are often anything but. There are too many mistakes for life to be directed intimately by a omnipotent deity. That's not to say there isn't an omnipotent deity. He just didn't achieve His creation the way you suggest.

Come on now you are seriously reaching that accidents lead to good do realize how many coincedences and accidents that had to happen for life as we know it not to prebiotic evolution would have had to be precise or there would be no life.

Billions of years worth, I'll bet. Had to be precise? What does that mean? There were fits and starts, as the fossil and geological record shows. You'll have to show me where the precision in biology lies. For every remarkable process you cite, I can give examples of gross error. Omnipotent deity or luck-of-the-draw?

 

[Youwerecreated]

Accidents don't always have negative results, the discovery of penicillin coming to mind.

You're conflating the "origins" and "evolution" arguments. Acceptance of the precision of natural law with regard to physics and chemistry says nothing about a guiding hand to the resulting evolution of chemical processes culminating in life. They derive from the laws but don't seem to be directed in any way, other than those laid out by the Laws of Chemistry, with no evidence that they're anything but "random" and "accidental" with regard to the final result.

While the physical laws of nature are precise, the results of same with regard to biology are often anything but. There are too many mistakes for life to be directed intimately by a omnipotent deity. That's not to say there isn't an omnipotent deity. He just didn't achieve His creation the way you suggest.

Come on now you are seriously reaching that accidents lead to good do realize how many coincedences and accidents that had to happen for life as we know it not to prebiotic evolution would have had to be precise or there would be no life.

Billions of years worth, I'll bet. Had to be precise? What does that mean? There were fits and starts, as the fossil and geological record shows. You'll have to show me where the precision in biology lies. For every remarkable process you cite, I can give examples of gross error. Omnipotent deity or luck-of-the-draw?

No that is not true if you are gonna use the fossil record and geological evidence as evidence supporting the theory then you need to accept all the evidence and there is plenty of evidence of fossils found in the wrong strata.

There is evidence of less complex organisms that were formed further back in history according to the evoluition tree and dating methods that are found with and in strata above the younger organisms.

The only explanation is a disaterous phenomonon like a flood,and That they all existed at the same time.

Why do we have so many fossils found that were dated way back but show no evolutionary change from the same organisms living today ?