Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

[Montrovant]

So you enlightend POV is that the cosmos is PRECISE?

​

Yes, so precise that if any part of it was altered, it is possible that the effect could be catastrophic. For imstance, (with thanks for a local PhD scientist friend for these stats), consider all the variables that go into Planet Earth being able to sustain life as we know it:

--Polarity of water molecule. If greater, water would boil at higher temp. If less, water would boil at too low a temp; liquid water would be an inferior solvent; ice would not float, leading to runaway freeze-up.

--Size of earth. If too large, toxic atmosphere. If too small, not enough atmosphere.

--Distance from sun. If 5% closer, too hot (water would boil). If 1% farther away, too cold (water would freeze).

--Rate of rotation. If slower, temperature too extreme. If faster, wind velocity too high.

--Inclination of orbit. If too large, temperature differences too extreme.

--Orbital eccentricity. If too large, seasonal temperature differences would be too extreme.

--Axial tilt. If larger or smaller, surface temperature differences would be too great.

--Albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount impinging on surface). If greater, runaway glaciation. If less, runaway greenhouse effect.

--Location of heavy planets (Jupiter and Saturn) in outer orbits to deflect incoming comets.

To date, science has identified a total of 63 characteristics which must be properly tuned for life as we know it to exist on earth. Four of these to precision of 1 part in 1037 or better. Put them all together and the odds for them all to happen by chance would have so many zeroes you would need volumes to print them all. In fact, the odds of a single cell forming purely by chance is off the charts.

Of course, how many planets exist in the universe? When that number is taken into account, it makes the odds seem a bit different.

 

[Skull Pilot]

So you enlightend POV is that the cosmos is PRECISE?

​

Yes, so precise that if any part of it was altered, it is possible that the effect could be catastrophic. For imstance, (with thanks for a local PhD scientist friend for these stats), consider all the variables that go into Planet Earth being able to sustain life as we know it:

--Polarity of water molecule. If greater, water would boil at higher temp. If less, water would boil at too low a temp; liquid water would be an inferior solvent; ice would not float, leading to runaway freeze-up.

--Size of earth. If too large, toxic atmosphere. If too small, not enough atmosphere.

--Distance from sun. If 5% closer, too hot (water would boil). If 1% farther away, too cold (water would freeze).

--Rate of rotation. If slower, temperature too extreme. If faster, wind velocity too high.

--Inclination of orbit. If too large, temperature differences too extreme.

--Orbital eccentricity. If too large, seasonal temperature differences would be too extreme.

--Axial tilt. If larger or smaller, surface temperature differences would be too great.

--Albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount impinging on surface). If greater, runaway glaciation. If less, runaway greenhouse effect.

--Location of heavy planets (Jupiter and Saturn) in outer orbits to deflect incoming comets.

To date, science has identified a total of 63 characteristics which must be properly tuned for life as we know it to exist on earth. Four of these to precision of 1 part in 1037 or better. Put them all together and the odds for them all to happen by chance would have so many zeroes you would need volumes to print them all. In fact, the odds of a single cell forming purely by chance is off the charts.

Of course, how many planets exist in the universe? When that number is taken into account, it makes the odds seem a bit different.

What the believers tend to forget is that odds are meaningless when one is faced with infinite possibilities.

In an infinite system, to believe that Earth is a one off is infinitely naive.

 

[Foxfyre]

So you enlightend POV is that the cosmos is PRECISE?

​

Yes, so precise that if any part of it was altered, it is possible that the effect could be catastrophic. For imstance, (with thanks for a local PhD scientist friend for these stats), consider all the variables that go into Planet Earth being able to sustain life as we know it:

--Polarity of water molecule. If greater, water would boil at higher temp. If less, water would boil at too low a temp; liquid water would be an inferior solvent; ice would not float, leading to runaway freeze-up.

--Size of earth. If too large, toxic atmosphere. If too small, not enough atmosphere.

--Distance from sun. If 5% closer, too hot (water would boil). If 1% farther away, too cold (water would freeze).

--Rate of rotation. If slower, temperature too extreme. If faster, wind velocity too high.

--Inclination of orbit. If too large, temperature differences too extreme.

--Orbital eccentricity. If too large, seasonal temperature differences would be too extreme.

--Axial tilt. If larger or smaller, surface temperature differences would be too great.

--Albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount impinging on surface). If greater, runaway glaciation. If less, runaway greenhouse effect.

--Location of heavy planets (Jupiter and Saturn) in outer orbits to deflect incoming comets.

To date, science has identified a total of 63 characteristics which must be properly tuned for life as we know it to exist on earth. Four of these to precision of 1 part in 1037 or better. Put them all together and the odds for them all to happen by chance would have so many zeroes you would need volumes to print them all. In fact, the odds of a single cell forming purely by chance is off the charts.

Of course, how many planets exist in the universe? When that number is taken into account, it makes the odds seem a bit different.

How does the existence of other planets affect the odds of the conditions required to support life as we know it on Planet Earth?

 

[Skull Pilot]

Yes, so precise that if any part of it was altered, it is possible that the effect could be catastrophic. For imstance, (with thanks for a local PhD scientist friend for these stats), consider all the variables that go into Planet Earth being able to sustain life as we know it:

--Polarity of water molecule. If greater, water would boil at higher temp. If less, water would boil at too low a temp; liquid water would be an inferior solvent; ice would not float, leading to runaway freeze-up.

--Size of earth. If too large, toxic atmosphere. If too small, not enough atmosphere.

--Distance from sun. If 5% closer, too hot (water would boil). If 1% farther away, too cold (water would freeze).

--Rate of rotation. If slower, temperature too extreme. If faster, wind velocity too high.

--Inclination of orbit. If too large, temperature differences too extreme.

--Orbital eccentricity. If too large, seasonal temperature differences would be too extreme.

--Axial tilt. If larger or smaller, surface temperature differences would be too great.

--Albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount impinging on surface). If greater, runaway glaciation. If less, runaway greenhouse effect.

--Location of heavy planets (Jupiter and Saturn) in outer orbits to deflect incoming comets.

To date, science has identified a total of 63 characteristics which must be properly tuned for life as we know it to exist on earth. Four of these to precision of 1 part in 1037 or better. Put them all together and the odds for them all to happen by chance would have so many zeroes you would need volumes to print them all. In fact, the odds of a single cell forming purely by chance is off the charts.

Of course, how many planets exist in the universe? When that number is taken into account, it makes the odds seem a bit different.

How does the existence of other planets affect the odds of the conditions required to support life as we know it on Planet Earth?

Wow you really need to ask that question? The more planets there are the more likely there are planets similar to earth.

In an infinite universe the chances of another planet being able to support life similar to life on earth is more than possible and is most definitely probable.

Add planets that might be able to support life other than that found on earth and I would say the odds are very high that there is other life in the universe.

 

[Youwerecreated]

He has always existed no beginning and no end.

Based on your reasoning something had to have created Him. If you're asserting that organized beings had to have been created by something you are asserting that God was created by something.

Every war is wrong and Christians should have no part in war.

If you're saying that nobody who supports war is Christian you are saying that there are almost no Christians.

I am saying they need to rethink their views on war if they are a Christian. Jesus made it clear to peter that it was wrong.

God has always existed and we have no Idea of what makes up a spirit whether it even requires matter.

No God is not bound by physical laws that we are bound by. If the creator that created all we can see who am I to question him being eternal.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Then people continue to close their eyes to the evidence of design you are correct.

There isn't any scientific evidence for intelligent design.....None.....Not a shred.

Intelligent design may have occurred but there isn't any scientific evidence for it.

Anyone that can reason can see too many precise coincedences had to happen to produce all we can observe. That is evidence of ID what do you think theories of science are,they are assumptions and explanations given by reasoning of the evidence. The problem for secular scientist is they rule out the possibility odf design which causes them to go down the wrong road.

Why do you think they avoid the origins question they don't want to admit that design presents a better explanation as to how life started. Not just life the position of key planets for life.

 

[Foxfyre]

Of course, how many planets exist in the universe? When that number is taken into account, it makes the odds seem a bit different.

How does the existence of other planets affect the odds of the conditions required to support life as we know it on Planet Earth?

Wow you really need to ask that question? The more planets there are the more likely there are planets similar to earth.

In an infinite universe the chances of another planet being able to support life similar to life on earth is more than possible and is most definitely probable.

Add planets that might be able to support life other than that found on earth and I would say the odds are very high that there is other life in the universe.

I have long believed in the probability that there are many planets capable of supporting life as it appears on Planet Earth. But right now I am focused on the almost impossible odds that Planet Earth could support life as we know it purely as an accident of nature. The fact that other planets like Planet Earth probably exist does not affect those odds in any way.

When you throw the dice, the odds are the same no matter how many others people are also throwing dice.

 

[Youwerecreated]

"The creation model is at least as scientific as the evolution model, and is at least as nonreligious as the evolution model."

That statement is as stupid as any statement that has ever been made.

One would have to be unbelievably stupid to "think" that.

You're advocating having schools teach children to be complete idiots.

Do you take me as an idiot ? If so you can blame the University of Arizona.

 

[Youwerecreated]

So you enlightend POV is that the cosmos is PRECISE?

​

Yes, so precise that if any part of it was altered, it is possible that the effect could be catastrophic. For imstance, (with thanks for a local PhD scientist friend for these stats), consider all the variables that go into Planet Earth being able to sustain life as we know it:

--Polarity of water molecule. If greater, water would boil at higher temp. If less, water would boil at too low a temp; liquid water would be an inferior solvent; ice would not float, leading to runaway freeze-up.

--Size of earth. If too large, toxic atmosphere. If too small, not enough atmosphere.

--Distance from sun. If 5% closer, too hot (water would boil). If 1% farther away, too cold (water would freeze).

--Rate of rotation. If slower, temperature too extreme. If faster, wind velocity too high.

--Inclination of orbit. If too large, temperature differences too extreme.

--Orbital eccentricity. If too large, seasonal temperature differences would be too extreme.

--Axial tilt. If larger or smaller, surface temperature differences would be too great.

--Albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount impinging on surface). If greater, runaway glaciation. If less, runaway greenhouse effect.

--Location of heavy planets (Jupiter and Saturn) in outer orbits to deflect incoming comets.

To date, science has identified a total of 63 characteristics which must be properly tuned for life as we know it to exist on earth. Four of these to precision of 1 part in 1037 or better. Put them all together and the odds for them all to happen by chance would have so many zeroes you would need volumes to print them all. In fact, the odds of a single cell forming purely by chance is off the charts.

Of course, how many planets exist in the universe? When that number is taken into account, it makes the odds seem a bit different.

If you really believe maybe a natural process is the cause , you are taking that view on faith.

 

[Foxfyre]

Then people continue to close their eyes to the evidence of design you are correct.

There isn't any scientific evidence for intelligent design.....None.....Not a shred.

Intelligent design may have occurred but there isn't any scientific evidence for it.

Anyone that can reason can see too many precise coincedences had to happen to produce all we can observe. That is evidence of ID what do you think theories of science are,they are assumptions and explanations given by reasoning of the evidence. The problem for secular scientist is they rule out the possibility odf design which causes them to go down the wrong road.

Why do you think they avoid the origins question they don't want to admit that design presents a better explanation as to how life started. Not just life the position of key planets for life.

He's right though that there is no scientific evidence for ID. There is only logic and reason to support ID as Spinoza and Einstein both concluded purely by observation and reasoning that the incredible order of the universe coupled with the incredible odds that such interrelated order and precision could have occurred purely by chance. Einstein did not believe in a personal God or one that was personally involved in creation. But he refused the label of 'Atheist" in that nothing extranormal exists. He believed in ID.

That science cannot provide evidence for ID is simply a limitation of science. Not a limitation of ID.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Yes, so precise that if any part of it was altered, it is possible that the effect could be catastrophic. For imstance, (with thanks for a local PhD scientist friend for these stats), consider all the variables that go into Planet Earth being able to sustain life as we know it:

--Polarity of water molecule. If greater, water would boil at higher temp. If less, water would boil at too low a temp; liquid water would be an inferior solvent; ice would not float, leading to runaway freeze-up.

--Size of earth. If too large, toxic atmosphere. If too small, not enough atmosphere.

--Distance from sun. If 5% closer, too hot (water would boil). If 1% farther away, too cold (water would freeze).

--Rate of rotation. If slower, temperature too extreme. If faster, wind velocity too high.

--Inclination of orbit. If too large, temperature differences too extreme.

--Orbital eccentricity. If too large, seasonal temperature differences would be too extreme.

--Axial tilt. If larger or smaller, surface temperature differences would be too great.

--Albedo (ratio of reflected light to total amount impinging on surface). If greater, runaway glaciation. If less, runaway greenhouse effect.

--Location of heavy planets (Jupiter and Saturn) in outer orbits to deflect incoming comets.

To date, science has identified a total of 63 characteristics which must be properly tuned for life as we know it to exist on earth. Four of these to precision of 1 part in 1037 or better. Put them all together and the odds for them all to happen by chance would have so many zeroes you would need volumes to print them all. In fact, the odds of a single cell forming purely by chance is off the charts.

Of course, how many planets exist in the universe? When that number is taken into account, it makes the odds seem a bit different.

What the believers tend to forget is that odds are meaningless when one is faced with infinite possibilities.

In an infinite system, to believe that Earth is a one off is infinitely naive.

Your side has already eliminated the possibility of infinite talk by puting an age on the universe and the earth.

 

[Foxfyre]

Of course, how many planets exist in the universe? When that number is taken into account, it makes the odds seem a bit different.

What the believers tend to forget is that odds are meaningless when one is faced with infinite possibilities.

In an infinite system, to believe that Earth is a one off is infinitely naive.

Your side has already eliminated the possibility of infinite talk by puting an age on the universe and the earth.

As well as putting a beginning on the universe as we know it.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Of course, how many planets exist in the universe? When that number is taken into account, it makes the odds seem a bit different.

How does the existence of other planets affect the odds of the conditions required to support life as we know it on Planet Earth?

Wow you really need to ask that question? The more planets there are the more likely there are planets similar to earth.

In an infinite universe the chances of another planet being able to support life similar to life on earth is more than possible and is most definitely probable.

Add planets that might be able to support life other than that found on earth and I would say the odds are very high that there is other life in the universe.

Likely is the wrong term until proven there are and if it is absent of life then what ?

 

[Parsifal]

Anyone that can reason can see too many precise coincedences had to happen to produce all we can observe.

You don't understand what scientific evidence is. You shouldn't be attempting to discuss stuff you know nothing about.

"The creation model is at least as scientific as the evolution model, and is at least as nonreligious as the evolution model."

The level of stupidity required to believe that is staggering........It doesn't matter what your educational background is.......If you "think" that's true you're too stupid to be in this discussion.

The argument that religion (Genesis 1-3) is science and science (Evolution) is religion is one that only an idiot can swallow.....Sorry.

 

[Foxfyre]

Anyone that can reason can see too many precise coincedences had to happen to produce all we can observe.

You don't understand what scientific evidence is. You shouldn't be attempting to discuss stuff you know nothing about.

"The creation model is at least as scientific as the evolution model, and is at least as nonreligious as the evolution model."

The level of stupidity required to believe that is staggering........It doesn't matter what your educational background is.......If you "think" that's true you're too stupid to be in this discussion.

The argument that religion (Genesis 1-3) is science and science (Evolution) is religion is one that only an idiot can swallow.....Sorry.

It has been my experience that those who debate by calling others stupid have a great deal of experience with being stupid. If you cannot see that nobody brought Genesis into it other than you, add a reading comprehension dysfunction to that as well.

 

[Youwerecreated]

There isn't any scientific evidence for intelligent design.....None.....Not a shred.

Intelligent design may have occurred but there isn't any scientific evidence for it.

Anyone that can reason can see too many precise coincedences had to happen to produce all we can observe. That is evidence of ID what do you think theories of science are,they are assumptions and explanations given by reasoning of the evidence. The problem for secular scientist is they rule out the possibility odf design which causes them to go down the wrong road.

Why do you think they avoid the origins question they don't want to admit that design presents a better explanation as to how life started. Not just life the position of key planets for life.

He's right though that there is no scientific evidence for ID. There is only logic and reason to support ID as Spinoza and Einstein both concluded purely by observation and reasoning that the incredible order of the universe coupled with the incredible odds that such interrelated order and precision could have occurred purely by chance. Einstein did not believe in a personal God or one that was personally involved in creation. But he refused the label of 'Atheist" in that nothing extranormal exists. He believed in ID.

That science cannot provide evidence for ID is simply a limitation of science. Not a limitation of ID.

What is the scientific evidence that they can present for macroevolution ? In all my years I have seen none. I have seen evidence of microadaptations that is the limits of evidence. What evolutuionist have done is extrapolate from micro adaptations.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Anyone that can reason can see too many precise coincedences had to happen to produce all we can observe.

You don't understand what scientific evidence is. You shouldn't be attempting to discuss stuff you know nothing about.

"The creation model is at least as scientific as the evolution model, and is at least as nonreligious as the evolution model."

The level of stupidity required to believe that is staggering........It doesn't matter what your educational background is.......If you "think" that's true you're too stupid to be in this discussion.

The argument that religion (Genesis 1-3) is science and science (Evolution) is religion is one that only an idiot can swallow.....Sorry.

Really I have studied cells and mutations for eleven years. Scientific Evidence is evidence that can be tested, studied, and observed, are you seeing the problem for macroevolution yet ? You can prove or disprove scientific evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Anyone that can reason can see too many precise coincedences had to happen to produce all we can observe.

You don't understand what scientific evidence is. You shouldn't be attempting to discuss stuff you know nothing about.

"The creation model is at least as scientific as the evolution model, and is at least as nonreligious as the evolution model."

The level of stupidity required to believe that is staggering........It doesn't matter what your educational background is.......If you "think" that's true you're too stupid to be in this discussion.

The argument that religion (Genesis 1-3) is science and science (Evolution) is religion is one that only an idiot can swallow.....Sorry.

Really ,I presented your side with a question and you have provided no answer to,and I even showed how it could not happen by chance but I see no rebuttal maybe you are in over your head.

 

[Parsifal]

There is only logic and reason to support ID as Spinoza and Einstein both concluded purely by observation and reasoning

I like Spinoza a lot. He's one of my favorite Philosophers.

 

[Foxfyre]

Anyone that can reason can see too many precise coincedences had to happen to produce all we can observe. That is evidence of ID what do you think theories of science are,they are assumptions and explanations given by reasoning of the evidence. The problem for secular scientist is they rule out the possibility odf design which causes them to go down the wrong road.

Why do you think they avoid the origins question they don't want to admit that design presents a better explanation as to how life started. Not just life the position of key planets for life.

He's right though that there is no scientific evidence for ID. There is only logic and reason to support ID as Spinoza and Einstein both concluded purely by observation and reasoning that the incredible order of the universe coupled with the incredible odds that such interrelated order and precision could have occurred purely by chance. Einstein did not believe in a personal God or one that was personally involved in creation. But he refused the label of 'Atheist" in that nothing extranormal exists. He believed in ID.

That science cannot provide evidence for ID is simply a limitation of science. Not a limitation of ID.

What is the scientific evidence that they can present for macroevolution ? In all my years I have seen none. I have seen evidence of microadaptations that is the limits of evidence. What evolutuionist have done is extrapolate from micro adaptations.

Dunno, and there are probably those with a better understanding of that area of science who might be able to answer that.

There are some who refuse to deal with the fact that there are so many things that humankind knows and has observed that have no scientific explanation, but so far nobody has been foolish enough to try to say that nothing exists outside the limitations of science to explain.

For whatever reason, there are some who prefer to bank on the astronomical odds for a universe of pure happenstance. I will not denigrate or accuse them for that point of view because it is not outside all possibility that they are right. Just highly improbable given those same astronomical odds.

Far more probable is a concept of some form of intelligence guiding the process. For those willing to look at the evidence for that, in my opinion it requires far more faith to reject intelligent design than it does to embrace it.

Unfortunately, there are some so determined to reject any concept of any form of extranormal existence, they refuse to even look at the evidence, much less give it any intellectual consideration.