Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
- Locked due to inactivity on Aug 4, '16 4:22pm
Thread Topic: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
-
I still want to know how the guy got a signature.
-
heartless Newbiehe probably retypes it every time.
or it's a phone or something weird. -
Alter2Ego NewbieBARBER BOB2:
You know I enjoy it when people like you say that the big bang is just a theory. It gives me hope that you might feel the same way about other things, like the theory of gravity. And that you just might float the f--- away. Also, actually look up the definition of the big bang before you start trying to tie it into things that it has nothing to do with.
Big Bang: The explosion of dense matter that, according to current cosmological theories, marked the origin of the universe.
ALTER2EGO -to- BARBER BOB2:
First of all, let me make one thing clear to you. If you are going to start using foul language, the conversation between us will have to end. I have no tolerance for foul language.
Second, gravity is not merely a theory it is a LAW. A "theory" simply attempts to explain how something happened. A "law" is the actual reality, the evidence to support the theory. So the theory of gravity attempts to explain the law of gravity. The law of gravity is a reality. It can be proven with facts.
Big bang theory, meanwhile, is nothing more than a theory that is attempting to explain how space expanded. Unlike the theory of gravity which has the law of gravity to back it up, big bang theory does not have any law and no facts to back it up. It is nothing more than speculations aka the personal opinions of the scientist who dreamed it up.
Additionally, big bang theory does not explain where the planets came from and where gravitational forces came from. It simply is a theory that speaks of the expansion of space and has nothing whatever to do with an explosion.
In other words, you are arguing that big bang theory is about an explosion, when that is not even the case. Big bang theory is about the expansion of space. So you are arguing over what you don't even understand.
________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18) -
Alter2Ego NewbieBARBER BOB2:
Please tell me where you got the notion that this has anything to do with the orbits of planets? And we have had planets collide. It's believed that one collided with the earth in it's early life.
ALTER2EGO -to- BARBER BOB2:
You expect me to help you figure it out? You're the one erroneously claiming big bang is an explosion. Now that you realize you cannot explain where the planets came from, you expect me to tell you? My answer is Jehovah God created the planets.
Since you insist there is no God, perhaps you can tell the forum the latest science fiction explanation for how the planets appeared in the heavens. Even the big bang theorists don't know. Just like you, they will never admit that God did it.
________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18) -
Alter2Ego NewbieBARBER BOB2:
Now back to the big bang evidence.
-Galaxies are moving away from us at speeds proportional to their distance. This points to a universal expansion.
-The big bang suggests that the universe was once very very hot. So we should be able to find some remnant of this heat? Radio-astronomers have discovered a 2.725 degree Kelvin cosmic microwave background radiation which pervades the observable universe.
ALTER2EGO -to- BARBER BOB2:
The word "suggests" indicates it is a speculation aka an opinion. Without evidence, opinions don't count for much. Now, where is your evidence to prove any of this?
________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18) -
Alter2Ego NewbieBARBER BOB2:
On your planets issue, you are automatically deeming that the planets must have a creator which started their orbits. This is innacurate. Stars upon ignition have a stellar cycle. They spin. This spin influences the planets orbits and causes them to spin as well. Planets have collided with each other. But we've been here so long that most of the collisions have already happened. If two planets were to get close, they would collide some more.
ALTER2EGO -to- BARBER BOB2:
All of what you said above means nothing until you explain where the planets came from, including the stars. And what caused the stars to "ignite" in the past, assuming you even have proof they ignited. I mean, you're admitting it happened in the past. So how do you even know it happened.
Big bang theory does not provide answers to any of the questions I'm asking you, and you insist God didn't create the planets. So where did the planets come from? And why are they so precisely aligned? Is this all by accident? If so, since which did accidental occurrences result in precision?
________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18) -
Alter2Ego NewbieBARBER BOB2:
Evidence for free roaming gasses in space:
ALTER2EGO -to- BARBER BOB2:
We already know gasses exist. I mentioned that in my OP. I'm waiting for you to explain to this forum where the gasses came from. They created themselves?
BARBER BOB2:
The universe did not show up out of nothing. That's what you're suggesting.
A series of virtual particles: popping in and out of existence that through a false vacuum being the original source, compressed these into a tiny primeval atom in an inconceivably dense spot. A singularity occurred, causing the primordial universe to expand.
ALTER2EGO -to- BARBER BOB2:
Prove it, please. You are speculating again aka presenting your personal opinions. Let's start with the "virtual particles." Where did the "series of virtual particles" come from? They created themselves?
________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18) -
Alter2Ego NewbieALTER2EGO's previous comment:
"The fact that all 60 are interrelated, and with such precision, shows deliberation. It was intentional, in other words. So my argument is that someone guided the outcome--in this case, God, since it clearly wasn't done by humans."
BARBER BOB2:
Well I'm glad to see that opinions don't count for much. Apparently I don't have to respond to anything you say. After all, it's all only an opinion. (So are you actually going to listen or just discredit everything I say because my opinion doesn't agree with yours?)
Even your "evidence of intelligent design" is an opinion. You think that "+1" automatically means intelligent design. That's really depressing to hear. All an element is, is +1 proton +1 electron from the previous atom. This is all the relationship you keep bragging about is. And when an atom gets too big, it rips itself apart under it's own weight.
ALTER2EGO -to- BARBER BOB2:
Then suppose you tell this forum where the protons and electrons and atoms came from? They created themselves?
BTW: I didn't present an opinion, I presented logic: that precision indicates deliberation. I provided the definition of "accident" in my OP. Websters New Collegiate Dictionary defines an accident as:
"a nonessential event that happens by chance and has undesirable or unfortunate results"
Clearly, the elements on the Periodic Table are all essential and their effects are neither undesirable nor unfortunate in terms of their relationship to one another. Therefore, their existence does not fit the above definition of "accident." Instead, they fit the definition of "LAW." 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."
That amounts to precision and deliberation, which is the exact opposite of "accident." Your position is that it all happened by chance aka by accident. Then you turn around and present me with speculations/opinions of how this and that happened.
QUESTION #1 to BARBER BOB2:
Is it your position that none of the elements on the Periodic Table required a creator to bring each of them into existence?
I will await your response to my above question.
________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18) -
Sir or ma'am, this argument is circular. It consists of you asking me for proof, and then ignoring my proof and telling me it's not good enough. You aren't looking for proof. You're looking for something that matches your definition of the truth. So good day to you. I'm not going to subject myself to pompous ignorance anymore.
-
Alter2Ego NewbieALTER2EGO -to- BARBER BOB2 (previous response):
QUESTION #1 to BARBER BOB2:
Is it your position that none of the elements on the Periodic Table required a creator to bring each of them into existence?
I will await your response to my above question.
BARBER BOB2 RESPONSE:
Sir or ma'am, this argument is circular. It consists of you asking me for proof, and then ignoring my proof and telling me it's not good enough. You aren't looking for proof. You're looking for something that matches your definition of the truth. So good day to you. I'm not going to subject myself to pompous ignorance anymore.
ALTER2EGO -to- BARBER BOB2:
How convenient. The minute I asked you a direct question for which you realize the answer will debunk your position, all of a sudden, it's "circular argument."
I presented scientific evidence by way of the first 60 elements on the Periodic Table. Not only that, I presented the definitions of what's considered "accident" and what equates to "precision" and "scientific law."
The Periodic Table of the Elements is considered Periodic Law--meaning it is a scientific fact that can only be refuted by scientific facts. Meanwhile, you presented absolutely nothing besides speculations aka personal opinions about how the universe might have come into existence. That, along with your fallacious claim that the big bang was an explosion, when the theory has nothing to do with an explosion. Big Bang theory is about the expansion of space.
Along with your error about what big bang theory involves, you did not present one shred of evidence to back up your speculations. Finally, I asked you a direct question about the existence of elements on the Periodic Table, which you are now evading by putting on the outraged act.
There are currently 118 elements on the Periodic Table. My question above is not circular. It is a question directly related to the elements that you claim do not require a creator. Now that you realize the implication of what I'm asking, you are now evading the question by your pretense at outrage.
As you indicated, our conversation on this topic is over. I will not be addressing you again in this thread.
________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18) -
I don't know why I'm still posting here. But since I am, I'm not going to watch my language.
To your question
That is a very broad question. And if I had to give just a yes or no answer, then Yes. I do not believe that the elements Required[b] a creator, although we are able to alter them ourselves to recreate some of the larger ones.
When a star first ignites, it throws elements originally created during rapid nuclear fusion out into its orbit. These materials are what form into planets.
While a star is forming it goes through a process called nuclear fusion. Smaller atoms are smashed together to form larger ones. This is the stars nuclear fuel. When the fuel source is depleated, the star dies and collapses in on it's own core.
But because I didn't tell you something you wanted to hear, you're going to discredit this. After all, I didn't use a definition, right?
Nice conclusion you drew there. I obviously got scared that you'd debunk the lack of belief in something. (what the fu[b]ck?) But whatever helps you sleep at night.
And the one definition you never did define is scientific theory. You're right though, it is "Just an opinion." But a scientific theory is also more than just that. It's a substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed thorugh observation and experiment.
Your fucking God can't claim the same.
Personally, I believe that we are both Atheists. I just believe in one fewer Gods than you. And when you realize why you don't believe in any of the others, you'll understand another reason why I don't believe in yours. -
Alter2Ego NewbieALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:
Being the last person to post something in a thread means nothing if in the process, the last poster dodged direct questions and then started cursing out the person that asked him/her the questions. Dodging direct questions is what equates to "running" from the thread.
When barberbob2-the-PITIFUL was asked to explain how 26 elements on the Periodic Table required intelligent human beings to create them but the 92 natural elements on the same Periodic Table did not likewise require a Creator/God, his pathetic response (his last post above) was his way of dodging the bullet. Not only did he not address the question by answering it. He turned around and started cursing me out, as you can see in his last response above. He resorted to this behavior when he realized I had debunked his claim that there is no God. I did that by pointing him to the 92 natural elements on the Periodic Table.
Again, people that are winning a debate do not resort to cursing out their opponent. The one doing the cursing, while dodging direct question, is the tip off regarding who lost the debate.
________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18) -
I directly asked you a question about why you would not admit a single mistake in the other thread. In fact, I even admitted my mistake to make it easier. It wouldn't require some long post, just "I did X and it was bad. I apologize." But no, you failed to respond. It looks like you're dodging direct questions, whether or not anyone else is.
-
When barberbob2-the-PITIFUL was asked to explain how 26 elements on the Periodic Table required intelligent human beings to create them but the 92 natural elements on the same Periodic Table did not likewise require a Creator/God, his pathetic response (his last post above) was his way of dodging the bullet. Not only did he not address the question by answering it. He turned around and started cursing me out, as you can see in his last response above. He resorted to this behavior when he realized I had debunked his claim that there is no God. I did that by pointing him to the 92 natural elements on the Periodic Table.
-They did not require a human creator. I've already explained this. You just keep ignoring that fact.
-You're the one calling people "mental midgets". Who are you trying to fool here?
-You haven't debunked anything. You're just saying the same things over and over again and expecting it to yield results. Jeeze, you're like the handi-capped kid at the science fair who makes a diagram of the solar system. You hope that if you shout that "the big yellow one is the sun" over and over again, that you might get a better grade.
-"The 92 elements" this is getting very old. And I've already explained it. Maybe if you'd actually acknowledge anything I've said in response to you instead of acting like a victim and claiming you're right because you're too ignorant to read any reply, you would have seen that.
And my favorite part of your post was when you said that 26 elements REQUIRED humans to create them.
"required"
-
Alter2Ego NewbieALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:
Notice that barberbob2-the-PITIFUL--who relies on a team of foul-mouthed cheerleaders to defend him against me--has now shown up with his intellectually dishonest behind, insisting that the 92 natural elements created themselves but the 26 man-made elements that are far less sophisticated were the work of intelligent beings.
He expects me to read the crap he posted above, after he already cursed me out several times. How dense can anyone be? Why would I want to have any further dialogue with such a disgusting creature? Why would I want to read any of the trash he posts, after he tipped his hand and showed himself to have no class and after he recruited a team of foul-mouthed mental midgets to curse me out?
The guy has lost what little marbles he had left. Seriously. This is a case for the nut house.
Barberbob2-the PITIFUL: Read this carefully. If you hear your doorbell ringing and you look out the window and see people dressed in white, with a paddy wagon parked near the curb and a straight jacket on the side, don't resist them; okay? They are there to help you. Seriously, you need help. Your foul-mouthed, cheerleading crew can't do much for you as they are clearly lacking in the intelligence department. In fact, I suggest you send the nuthouse team to them as well.
FYI: I stopped reading the tripe you post hours ago. Don't bother posting to me, because I will not read any of the trash you post.
One last thing: I will not vanish from this forum for your benefit. You figured that by cursing me out and by encouraging others to do it, I would hurry up and leave. You'd best write the owner of this website and ask them to cancel my account, because that's the only way you will get rid of me. Your plan back-fired. The cursing and carrying on has convinced me to stay.
I will be posting in my threads from time to time and will be dealing specifically with the topics of my thread. I will continue to scroll pass everything you and your cheerleaders post, without reading it.
You and your cheerleading team are all on permanent "Ignore."
Now, get lost!
________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)
This thread is locked, therefore no new posts can be made.
