Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

[Parsifal]

Why does human life have to have a purpose?

Because people must agree with my religious views.

 

[MaryL]

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 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"?

The period table is well explained by chemistry and quantum physics.

And its hardly surprising we live on a planet suitable for life.

Precision is a word created by human beings. Design is evidence of a designer, true enough. But this a rather sophistic and self supporting argument, and it doesn't prove nature was DESIGNED. Perhaps, things are well ordered because, they just happened to have formed that way naturally? We evolved on a planet that had coincidental suitable chemistry that led to our existence. But, maybe THAT is God's hand in all this, subtle and ambiguious as it is.

 

[dilloduck]

Why does human life have to have a purpose?

People sure worry a lot for nothing.

 

[Big Fitz]

The idea of creating life via accidental "Frankenstein Gumbo" is about as likely as a tornado passing through a junkyard and assembling a fully functional and appointed 747.

Then again, that only looks at the creation of life. Where did the laws of nature come from? Why is it assumed that these too, were not created?

 

[Parsifal]

This business of saying that life is ordered therefore a creator was needed is silly.

The creator must be ordered too which means, if you're going to continue with the logic, it must have been created by something ordered which means IT must have been created by something ordered........

 

[Youwerecreated]

Many Christians were put to death because they would not give up their faith in Christ and Christ warned that would happen.

Actually Christians have killed more Christians for sectarian reasons than were martyred by non-Christians.

We shall conclude this chapter by a melancholy truth which obtrudes itself on the reluctant mind; that, even admitting, without hesitation or inquiry, all that history has recorded, or devotion has feigned, on the subject of martyrdoms, it must still be acknowledged that the Christians, in the course of their intestine dissensions, have inflicted far greater severities on each other than they had experienced from the zeal of infidels. -Edward Gibbon, The Decline And Fall Of The Roman Empire

I don't think true Christians kill Christians.

 

[Youwerecreated]

LMAO... Just LMAO We can barely see the othe r planets on our solar system and cannot really even see any other planets in the billions and billions of solar systems in the billions of galaxies.

Ahh such ignorant arrogance.... And this level of arrogance is argueing for the existance of a supreme god?

Unbelieveable, just unbelieveable.

Have you ever heard of the hubble telescope ? Yeah such ignorance

Talk about sound reasoning, just because the universe is so vast there must be life out there you are kinda right though. That life out there is God and the Angels.

You let us know when they find life out there.

https://www.google.com/search?q=hub....,cf.osb&fp=23f329d7da45b775&biw=1830&bih=715

 

[Youwerecreated]

This business of saying that life is ordered therefore a creator was needed is silly.

The creator must be ordered too which means, if you're going to continue with the logic, it must have been created by something ordered which means IT must have been created by something ordered........

Please provide a viable explanation on how life started ? There is evidence of design.

 

[Youwerecreated]

LMAO... Just LMAO We can barely see the othe r planets on our solar system and cannot really even see any other planets in the billions and billions of solar systems in the billions of galaxies.

Ahh such ignorant arrogance.... And this level of arrogance is argueing for the existance of a supreme god?

Unbelieveable, just unbelieveable.

Life would be pretty rough beyond our atmosphere.

ESA - Space Science - Surviving extreme conditions in space

 

[Montrovant]

How many planets has the Hubble been able to closely observe, YWC? The Hubble is not some magical device which allows us to determine if any planet is potentially able to sustain life. Our reach in the universe is incredibly small. We have observed very few planets closely enough to have much of an idea of their conditions.

And yes, life would be rough.....in space. However, if there are other planets similar to Earth, life would be less rough within their atmospheres.

You really should stay away from these discussions. They do nothing to support your points and show off how little you appreciate the vastness of the universe, as well as how much you overestimate man's knowledge.

 

[Youwerecreated]

How many planets has the Hubble been able to closely observe, YWC? The Hubble is not some magical device which allows us to determine if any planet is potentially able to sustain life. Our reach in the universe is incredibly small. We have observed very few planets closely enough to have much of an idea of their conditions.

And yes, life would be rough.....in space. However, if there are other planets similar to Earth, life would be less rough within their atmospheres.

You really should stay away from these discussions. They do nothing to support your points and show off how little you appreciate the vastness of the universe, as well as how much you overestimate man's knowledge.

Trust me I don't over estimate man's knowledge of the universe. But there is none, zero evidence of a planet being similar to earth. There is zero evidence of life existing on other planets. Just because the universe is vast does not mean there is another planet like earth out there and it supports life.

It actually looks worst coming from your side because the universe is so vast there is no reason believe life does not exist out there or there is no planet out there like this one. The main reason to make a claim like this is to try and take away the uniqueness of this planet.

About the hubble telescope they can see galaxies that supposedly formed shortly after the big bang about 13.1 billion years away and you don't think they can see near by planets if life exists on them ? Or an enviornment that could even support life ?

Hubble telescope finds farthest galaxy protocluster ever seen (Wired UK)

Do you realize how much closer mars and saturn are from earth ?

 

[Cammmpbell]

Really, Where did Josephus Roman/Jewish historian get his information from ?

Josephus on Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know what Josephus said....originally a one liner. You show me where Josephus or anyone else talked about mracles, crucifiction, resurrection, son-of-god, saviour of the world. You had better get your shit straight....the Jews don't believe the new testament.

http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

 

[Youwerecreated]

I know what Josephus said....originally a one liner. You show me where Josephus or anyone else talked about mracles, crucifiction, resurrection, son-of-god, saviour of the world. You had better get your shit straight....the Jews don't believe the new testament.

Did Josephus Refer to Jesus

Yes I know the Jews don't believe in the NT they are the cause of Jesus being put to death and they still have no messiah or temple.

He did mention Jesus and the christians and John the baptist.

Two References to Jesus

Josephus' writings cover a number of figures familiar to Bible readers. He discusses John the Baptist, James the brother of Jesus, Pontius Pilate, the Sadducees, the Sanhedrin, the High Priests, and the Pharisees. As for Jesus, there are two references to him in Antiquities. I will recount them in the order in which they appear.

First, in a section in Book 18 dealing with various actions of Pilate, the extant texts refer to Jesus and his ministry. This passage is known as the Testimonium Flavianum referred to hereafter as the "TF".

Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man, for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews, and many of the Gentiles. He was the Christ, and when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians so named from him are not extinct at this day.

Jewish Antiquities 18.3.3

Second, in Book 20 there is what could be called a passing reference to Jesus in a paragraph describing the murder of Jesus' brother, James, at the hands of Ananus, the High Priest.

But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.

Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1

Did Josephus Refer to Jesus

 

[Montrovant]

How many planets has the Hubble been able to closely observe, YWC? The Hubble is not some magical device which allows us to determine if any planet is potentially able to sustain life. Our reach in the universe is incredibly small. We have observed very few planets closely enough to have much of an idea of their conditions.

And yes, life would be rough.....in space. However, if there are other planets similar to Earth, life would be less rough within their atmospheres.

You really should stay away from these discussions. They do nothing to support your points and show off how little you appreciate the vastness of the universe, as well as how much you overestimate man's knowledge.

Trust me I don't over estimate man's knowledge of the universe. But there is none, zero evidence of a planet being similar to earth. There is zero evidence of life existing on other planets. Just because the universe is vast does not mean there is another planet like earth out there and it supports life.

It actually looks worst coming from your side because the universe is so vast there is no reason believe life does not exist out there or there is no planet out there like this one. The main reason to make a claim like this is to try and take away the uniqueness of this planet.

About the hubble telescope they can see galaxies that supposedly formed shortly after the big bang about 13.1 billion years away and you don't think they can see near by planets if life exists on them ? Or an enviornment that could even support life ?

Hubble telescope finds farthest galaxy protocluster ever seen (Wired UK)

Do you realize how much closer mars and saturn are from earth ?

There's a big difference between seeing there is a planet, and seeing that planet closely enough to know what the conditions on it's surface are. Just because I can look in the sky with the naked eye and see stars that are many light years away doesn't mean I can look in the sky and see the surface of Mars!

And the problem I have is not that you say we haven't seen evidence of life on other planets. I readily acknowledge that. What bothers me is when you imply, hint, or outright state that there is no other life in the universe. With our limited knowledge, no one can say whether or not there is other life out there with any kind of objectivity. It is yet another unknown.

 

[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.

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

If you tried the big bang enough times - yes, its reasonable to predict one would start in a state of low entropy.

The Universe is Finely Tuned for Life

Not at all a surprise considering we're alive.

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.

And for everyone planet and universe suitable for life there could be untold numbers that aren't.

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.”

Common sense has quite often led man to erroneous conclusions. It used to be "common sense" that ice would not float on water.

 

[Foxfyre]

As previously posted, one of the strongest pieces of evidence for the existence of God is in the fact that a concept of God or higher intelligence has existed and exists within every culture that we can identify in the historical record of Earth. And for those who choose not to believe in God or a higher intelligence, there are few, if any, things on Earth that produce more passion and determination to deny that something exists.

Then we begin narrowing down concepts in such a way that such a brilliant mind as Einstein, who did not accept the concept of a personal God who is specifically mindful of him, came to the conclusion that the very order of the universe was such to belie any reasonable mathematical possibility of it all happening purely by chance. His conclusion is that there is an intelligence within the whole guiding the process.

Taking the cosmological (cause and effect) argument for an intelligent designer alone:

We can rationally conclude that the universe exists. And that allows for three possibilities:
(a) It created itself
(b) It always existed
(c) It was created by an eternal being

Argument (a) is irrational as if nothing created itself, it had to be something and nothing at the same time, which violates the scientific law of contradiction.

Argument (b) is a possibility; however, the science that we have strongly suggests that the universe had a beginning. If we conclude that there was no beginning, we are going to have to throw out a whole lot of science books.

That leave us with Argument (c) that the universe came about as a result of a self-existent being. In short, the universe is an effect, and a self-existent force, intelligence, or "God" is its cause. That is the most rational of the three arguments.

 

[Dr.Drock]

As previously posted, one of the strongest pieces of evidence for the existence of God is in the fact that a concept of God or higher intelligence has existed and exists within every culture that we can identify in the historical record of Earth. And for those who choose not to believe in God or a higher intelligence, there are few, if any, things on Earth that produce more passion and determination to deny that something exists.

Then we begin narrowing down concepts in such a way that such a brilliant mind as Einstein, who did not accept the concept of a personal God who is specifically mindful of him, came to the conclusion that the very order of the universe was such to belie any reasonable mathematical possibility of it all happening purely by chance. His conclusion is that there is an intelligence within the whole guiding the process.

Taking the cosmological (cause and effect) argument for an intelligent designer alone:

We can rationally conclude that the universe exists. And that allows for three possibilities:
(a) It created itself
(b) It always existed
(c) It was created by an eternal being

Argument (a) is irrational as if nothing created itself, it had to be something and nothing at the same time, which violates the scientific law of contradiction.

Argument (b) is a possibility; however, the science that we have strongly suggests that the universe had a beginning. If we conclude that there was no beginning, we are going to have to throw out a whole lot of science books.

That leave us with Argument (c) that the universe came about as a result of a self-existent being. In short, the universe is an effect, and a self-existent force, intelligence, or "God" is its cause. That is the most rational of the three arguments.

You can't argue against options A and B and in favor of C when C includes A or B. In creationism you have to conclude a god created himself or has always existed.

 

[Foxfyre]

As previously posted, one of the strongest pieces of evidence for the existence of God is in the fact that a concept of God or higher intelligence has existed and exists within every culture that we can identify in the historical record of Earth. And for those who choose not to believe in God or a higher intelligence, there are few, if any, things on Earth that produce more passion and determination to deny that something exists.

Then we begin narrowing down concepts in such a way that such a brilliant mind as Einstein, who did not accept the concept of a personal God who is specifically mindful of him, came to the conclusion that the very order of the universe was such to belie any reasonable mathematical possibility of it all happening purely by chance. His conclusion is that there is an intelligence within the whole guiding the process.

Taking the cosmological (cause and effect) argument for an intelligent designer alone:

We can rationally conclude that the universe exists. And that allows for three possibilities:
(a) It created itself
(b) It always existed
(c) It was created by an eternal being

Argument (a) is irrational as if nothing created itself, it had to be something and nothing at the same time, which violates the scientific law of contradiction.

Argument (b) is a possibility; however, the science that we have strongly suggests that the universe had a beginning. If we conclude that there was no beginning, we are going to have to throw out a whole lot of science books.

That leave us with Argument (c) that the universe came about as a result of a self-existent being. In short, the universe is an effect, and a self-existent force, intelligence, or "God" is its cause. That is the most rational of the three arguments.

You can't argue against options A and B and in favor of C when C includes A or B. In creationism you have to conclude a god created himself or has always existed.

Using the cause and effect argument, it is a logical conclusion that some form of deisgn intelligence has always existed. Using scientific logic, Argument A is illogical and a scientific impossibility.

Using the science that we know, if we accept Argument B, we have to throw out a whole lot of science that we have accepted as settled science.

That leaves us with Argument C which is a very strong and scientific argument for the existance of intelligent design.

 

[Dr.Drock]

As previously posted, one of the strongest pieces of evidence for the existence of God is in the fact that a concept of God or higher intelligence has existed and exists within every culture that we can identify in the historical record of Earth. And for those who choose not to believe in God or a higher intelligence, there are few, if any, things on Earth that produce more passion and determination to deny that something exists.

Then we begin narrowing down concepts in such a way that such a brilliant mind as Einstein, who did not accept the concept of a personal God who is specifically mindful of him, came to the conclusion that the very order of the universe was such to belie any reasonable mathematical possibility of it all happening purely by chance. His conclusion is that there is an intelligence within the whole guiding the process.

Taking the cosmological (cause and effect) argument for an intelligent designer alone:

We can rationally conclude that the universe exists. And that allows for three possibilities:
(a) It created itself
(b) It always existed
(c) It was created by an eternal being

Argument (a) is irrational as if nothing created itself, it had to be something and nothing at the same time, which violates the scientific law of contradiction.

Argument (b) is a possibility; however, the science that we have strongly suggests that the universe had a beginning. If we conclude that there was no beginning, we are going to have to throw out a whole lot of science books.

That leave us with Argument (c) that the universe came about as a result of a self-existent being. In short, the universe is an effect, and a self-existent force, intelligence, or "God" is its cause. That is the most rational of the three arguments.

You can't argue against options A and B and in favor of C when C includes A or B. In creationism you have to conclude a god created himself or has always existed.

Using the cause and effect argument, it is a logical conclusion that some form of deisgn intelligence has always existed. Using scientific logic, Argument A is illogical and a scientific impossibility.

Using the science that we know, if we accept Argument B, we have to throw out a whole lot of science that we have accepted as settled science.

That leaves us with Argument C which is a very strong and scientific argument for the existance of intelligent design.

You'd have to "throw out" all the same science for C that you threw out for B.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

As previously posted, one of the strongest pieces of evidence for the existence of God is in the fact that a concept of God or higher intelligence has existed and exists within every culture that we can identify in the historical record of Earth.

I guess dragons are real, too then.