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?
-
Alter2Ego NewbieALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:
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 imprecision/inaccuracy/inexactnesswhich is always the result of an accident aka a spontaneous event that happen by chance with no one guiding the outcome. Websters New Collegiate Dictionary defines an accident as:
"a nonessential event that happens by chance and has undesirable or unfortunate results"
AGRUMENT #1 FOR AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR:
Scientific evidence shows there is extreme precision in everything around us in the natural world. This precision renders the evolution theory and 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 Encyclopdia 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 and Big Bang theories both rely upon things happening by chance aka at random. If evolution or Big Bang were credible explanations for the existence of life on earth or the existence of millions of planets in the heavens, how do either theory 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 the Periodic Table has been assigned the word "LAW"? -
1. Yes.
2. by accident. Yes.
3. Your theory on the third part is very sound and logical except that you fail to grasp exactly what started the big bang. Your argument is a very well rehearsed version of the "Order to Chaos" theory. And whilst this is all fine and dandy, you forget to take into account the fact that the earth and it's elements are not a closed system. In fact, the entire solar system, galaxy, universe are not closed systems either.
The elements on earth were formed during the initial nuclear fusion that birthed our star. Upon ignition, these elements were thrown out from the star and into orbit, forming the planets.
Our star was formed from hydrogen and helium atoms floating freely in space. Gravity took effect and drew them together, eventually creating enough mass and friction to create the star.
All of those free roaming gasses exist within our galaxy. The milky way to be exact. The galaxies are formed the same way stars are. Gasses collect together.
All of these hydrogen and helium atoms were initialized during the big bang. And whilst the atoms are decaying, enough of them are going through the process I just explained. Forming larger atoms that have to decay back down to that original form and therefor prolonging the cycle. -
Intelligent is even more seemingly there when you look at certain creatures. For example the bombadier beetle if had evolved would have died part of the way through. Or if for example a fish evolved into land dwelling creatures partway they'd be left with almost useless fins and almost useless legs making it hard for them to get food. Now I addresss the big bang. I talked to someone who believed in it. They said that first there were 2 atoms then there was all thoe atoms floating around. They just don't know how the 2 atoms got there. Matter cannot be created or destroyed.
-
How exactly would the bombadier beetle have died? And what do you mean evolve? Evolution is just changing to suit your needs. Evolution doesn't follow a set path.
There still are animals that are in between land and sea. Amphibians are perfectly good examples. They live in both and thrive in that environment. It suits them. On a further note, whales have pelvic bones. At one point or another, scientists believe they were land dwelling, and we have evidence to back that up.
And as for your friend who tried to explain the big bang, they were ill informed themselves. You are right, matter cannot be created or destroyed under standard physics. But if you look at atomic physics, then matter and energy become interchangable. Sub atomic quarks slipping in and out of existance created a single atom with infinite mass. This atom expanded and created large amounts of heat and energy as well as every atom we see today. -
Alter2Ego NewbieALTER2EGO'S QUESTION 1 FROM OPENING POST:
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?
BARBER BOB2 RESPONSE:
1. Yes.
ALTER2EGO -to- BARBER BOB2:
I realize that's your opinion, but this is a public forum where others have differing opinions. So please explain how the scientists could have connected the dots, so to speak, among 60 different elements on the Periodic Table, were it not for the relationship among the 60 elements. To do this, present examples of things that are related to each other, but people did not look at their relationship to each other to figure out that they were related.
________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18) -
Alter2Ego NewbieTHE TRICKSTER:
Intelligent is even more seemingly there when you look at certain creatures. For example the bombadier beetle if had evolved would have died part of the way through. Or if for example a fish evolved into land dwelling creatures partway they'd be left with almost useless fins and almost useless legs making it hard for them to get food.
ALTER2EGO -to- THE TRICKSTER:
That's an excellent point you made with the example of certain creatures. It's good to see that you appreciate the evidence of an intelligent designer/God.
________________
"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 QUESTION 2 FROM OPENING POST:
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?
BARBER BOB2 RESPONSE:
by accident. Yes.
ALTER2EGO -to- BARBER BOB2:
You are missing the point of the example I used with the Periodic Table of the Elements. 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.
________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18) -
Alter2Ego NewbieTHE TRICKSTER:
Now I addresss the big bang. I talked to someone who believed in it. They said that first there were 2 atoms then there was all thoe atoms floating around. They just don't know how the 2 atoms got there. Matter cannot be created or destroyed.
ALTER2EGO -to- THE TRICKSTER:
Unfortunately, no amount of evidence will get most skeptics/atheists to acknowledge the fact that atoms could not have created themselves. They look at precision and insist it happened by itself. These same people have no problem acknowledging that it required an intelligent human to create a mere stick of crayon or even something as sophisticated as a computer. But the complex universe--against which the computer looks like child's play--simply created itself, according to their logic.
________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18) -
1. Your example is once again innacurate. It's not looking at two things and realizing they're related without looking at how they are related. It's looking at the ingredients of two things and realizing they have the same ingredients and therefor are related. On the atomic particle, you have protons, neutrons, and electrons. We can accurately predict the atoms that follow based on what we currently have. I.E. Adding a proton and an electron to hydrogen will make helium and so on.
2. Nothing had to create it. You are looking at magnetism and the stabilization of energy. It wasn't humans. It wasn't god. It was magnetism.
3. -
They never replied to 3.
-
Oh nevermind, they did. Just not to me.
And I explained your atoms. I did so and you ignored me. Twat. -
That wasn't directed towards you, kiddo.
-
Me?
And how did that guy get a signature. -
Alter2Ego NewbieALTER2EGO'S QUESTION 3 FROM OPENING POST:
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?
BARBER BOB2 RESPONSE:
3. Your theory on the third part is very sound and logical except that you fail to grasp exactly what started the big bang. Your argument is a very well rehearsed version of the "Order to Chaos" theory. And whilst this is all fine and dandy, you forget to take into account the fact that the earth and it's elements are not a closed system. In fact, the entire solar system, galaxy, universe are not closed systems either.
The elements on earth were formed during the initial nuclear fusion that birthed our star. Upon ignition, these elements were thrown out from the star and into orbit, forming the planets.
Our star was formed from hydrogen and helium atoms floating freely in space. Gravity took effect and drew them together, eventually creating enough mass and friction to create the star.
All of those free roaming gasses exist within our galaxy. The milky way to be exact. The galaxies are formed the same way stars are. Gasses collect together.
All of these hydrogen and helium atoms were initialized during the big bang. And whilst the atoms are decaying, enough of them are going through the process I just explained. Forming larger atoms that have to decay back down to that original form and therefor prolonging the cycle.
ALTER2EGO -to- BARBER BOB2:
In your first paragraph, you mentioned that I "fail to grasp exactly what started the big bang." Perhaps you are not aware that "big bang" is just a theory and that there is no evidence to prove it. Furthermore, big bang is merely the expansion of space. It presents no explanation for how the millions of planets appeared in the heavens, each within their individual orbits that prevent them from crashing into each other.
Where did the planets come from? Who created their orbits? Who created gravitational forces that keep each planet within its own orbit? Big bang theory cannot explain any of that.
In your second paragraph and the ones that follow it, you speak of the elements and how they were formed. Then you go on to speak of free roaming gasses and how the stars were formed. What you are doing is presenting speculations. Where is your evidence to prove any of what you are saying?
Where did the gasses come from? Where did the atoms come from? Surely you don't think they simply popped up out of nowhere. This is a public forum where opinions/speculations are varied according to each individual. Therefore, speculations/opinions don't count for much.
In my opening post, I presented evidence of intelligent design by using the Periodic Table. The relationship among the elements on the Periodic Table is a scientific fact. Those elements are so interrelated that the entire scientific world regard their relationship as LAW. I presented that along with the logic that precision points to the existence of an intelligent Designer/God who intervened and guided the outcome.
The only thing that can trump the facts I presented about the Periodic Table is hard evidence that says otherwise. You've presented none. All you've done up to this point is tell me your opinions. Where are your facts?
________________
"That people may know that you, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18) -
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 fuck 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.
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.
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.
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.
Evidence for free roaming gasses in space:
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.
"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."
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.
Here is your evidence to point otherwise.
Now let's watch you tell me that it doesn't count.
This thread is locked, therefore no new posts can be made.
