Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Precision in Nature = Evidence of God


  • Please log in to reply
46 replies to this topic

#1    Alter2Ego

Alter2Ego

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 37 posts
  • Joined:03 May 2013
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:Los Angeles, California

Posted 05 May 2013 - 01:42 AM

ALTER2EGO -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/inexactness, which is always the result of an accident or a spontaneous event that happens 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." (Source: Websters New Collegiate Dictionary)



Notice that an accident, by definition, is something unplanned aka it "happened by chance." Notice the similarity of the definition for "spontaneous" (as in "spontaneous event").


DEFINITION OF "SPONTANEOUS":

"Spontaneous means unplanned or done on impulse."

http://www.yourdicti...com/spontaneous




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, because both theories rely on accidents or spontaneous events. Precision leaves no room for error or for accidental events. Rather, precision requires deliberation.

Take, for example, the first 60 elements that were discovered on the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth. Some of those 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"?


"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)

#2    ShadowBoy86x

ShadowBoy86x

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 252 posts
  • Joined:25 Sep 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ontario, Canada

Posted 05 May 2013 - 02:35 AM

*yawwwwwn* :td: :td:


#3    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,129 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 05 May 2013 - 04:37 AM

Someone isn't familiar with chaos theory.


#4    Emma_Acid

Emma_Acid

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,533 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

  • Godspeed MID

Posted 05 May 2013 - 09:28 AM

Precision in nature is proof only that the universe as we see it needs a certain set of parameters in which to exist. So your argument can be boiled down to - "the universe exists therefore God made it".

Not even really an argument.

"Science is the least subjective form of deduction" ~ A. Mulder

#5    Gromdor

Gromdor

    Psychic Spy

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,326 posts
  • Joined:16 Jul 2011

Posted 06 May 2013 - 03:29 AM

I don't get it.  Why does precision need deliberation?   My cat can knock over a vase and break it into precisely eight pieces, but I am pretty sure he didn't think that this vase is going to break into precisely eight pieces when he knocked it over.


#6    AquilaChrysaetos

AquilaChrysaetos

    Remote Viewer

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 590 posts
  • Joined:01 Dec 2012
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Wherever the wind takes me...

  • "Some people wish to be the sun, so they can brighten your day. I wish to be the moon, which shines down upon you in your darkest hour."

Posted 06 May 2013 - 03:48 AM

View PostEmma_Acid, on 05 May 2013 - 09:28 AM, said:

Precision in nature is proof only that the universe as we see it needs a certain set of parameters in which to exist. So your argument can be boiled down to - "the universe exists therefore God made it".

Not even really an argument.

It's a perfectly logical argument if the universe is precisely designed. In fact it should obviously be or first response. It's simple logic.
  • All designs have a designer
  • The universe is intricately designed
  • Therefore the universe has a designer


Jesus Christ - Matthew 28:18-20 said:

"All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age."

Posted Image


#7    Rlyeh

Rlyeh

    Omnipotent Entity

  • Member
  • 9,129 posts
  • Joined:01 Jan 2011
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The sixth circle

  • Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. - Terry Pratchett

Posted 06 May 2013 - 05:27 AM

View PostAquilaChrysaetos, on 06 May 2013 - 03:48 AM, said:

It's a perfectly logical argument if the universe is precisely designed. In fact it should obviously be or first response. It's simple logic.
  • All designs have a designer
  • The universe is intricately designed
  • Therefore the universe has a designer

Oh look I can do the same thing.
  • All designs have a designer
  • The universe isn't designed
  • Therefore the universe has no designer



#8    Odin11

Odin11

    Paranormal Investigator

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 869 posts
  • Joined:15 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Michigan

  • I like your Christ.
    I do not like your Christians.
    They are so unlike your Christ.
    -Gandhi-

Posted 06 May 2013 - 05:33 AM

View PostAquilaChrysaetos, on 06 May 2013 - 03:48 AM, said:

It's a perfectly logical argument if the universe is precisely designed. In fact it should obviously be or first response. It's simple logic.
  • All designs have a designer
  • The universe is intricately designed
  • Therefore the universe has a designer

Except that your first premise is blown out of the water by evolution by natural selection.

It’s not logical; it’s an argument from ignorance. And ignorance is this case is not stupidity, but lack of knowledge of natural selection.
Natural selection is a cumulative process, which breaks the problem of improbability up into small pieces. Each of these small pieces is slightly improbable, but not prohibitively so.

Design just raises an even bigger problem than it solves: who designed the designer? An intelligent designer must itself be far more complex and difficult to explain than anything it is capable of designing. So by using your logic (flawed as it is) a designer being complex and having an appearance of design itself therefore must have a designer.

Edited by Odin11, 06 May 2013 - 05:39 AM.

"If we believe absurdities, we shall commit atrocities." -Voltaire

Geology shows that fossils are of different ages. Paleontology shows a fossil sequence, the list of species represented changes through time. Taxonomy shows biological relationships among species. Evolution is the explanation that threads it all together. Creationism is the practice of squeezing one's eyes shut and wailing "Does not!" ~Author Unknown

#9    Emma_Acid

Emma_Acid

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 4,533 posts
  • Joined:29 Jan 2007
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:London

  • Godspeed MID

Posted 06 May 2013 - 07:25 AM

View PostAquilaChrysaetos, on 06 May 2013 - 03:48 AM, said:



It's a perfectly logical argument if the universe is precisely designed. In fact it should obviously be or first response. It's simple logic.
  • All designs have a designer
  • The universe is intricately designed
  • Therefore the universe has a designer

That isn't logical, as you're assuming that the universe is designed. As the basis of an argument that's completely flawed.

Of course the universe looks fined tuned to support life. If it didn't we wouldn't be here to observe it.

There may have been billions of universes before this one where the numbers were completely different, but as they would have been unable to support life, you wouldn't have had any one around to say "well this universe isn't particularly fine tuned".

Any life supporting universe would *have* to look find tuned. Doesn't mean it's been designed tho. Again, when you boil it down it's simply not an argument.

Edited by Emma_Acid, 06 May 2013 - 07:26 AM.

"Science is the least subjective form of deduction" ~ A. Mulder

#10    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,385 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 06 May 2013 - 03:26 PM

View PostAlter2Ego, on 05 May 2013 - 01:42 AM, said:

ALTER2EGO -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"

Science is not written for the average person.  In science we use language in a very precise manner.  That is so that our readers will know what we mean.  So if we're going to talk about scientific ideas, we use scientific definitions, not Webster's.  Start by tossing your Webster's New World College Dictionary on the trash heap.

Precision is how far we can carry the calculations.  If we carry them out eight places, then we have a number like:  Pi = 3.14159256.  But if our measuring device only allows us to measure to two places, then our accuracy is:  Pi = 3.14.  Accuracy is how close you come to reality to absolute Truth.  Precision is an arithmetic exercise.

My microscope can measure the width of a tree ring out to the nearest micron.  But the cross-hair in the eyepiece is 8 microns thick, so the precision is to the micron, but the accuracy is 8 microns.  On the printout the number goes out four places, but the accuracy only goes three.  Precision and accuracy are two DIFFERENT things.  "Exactness" is not defined.  The word is gibberish.

Quote


AGRUMENT #1 FOR AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR:

Scientific evidence shows there is extreme precision in everything around us in the natural world.


This is your first problem.  Being highly precise does not make an estimate at all accurate.  Get your terms straight.

Quote


This precision renders the evolution theory and Big Bang theory mere fiction, because both theories rely on accidents or spontaneous events.

Because events are not fully understood, does not mean that they are without cause.  You are getting cause-and-effect mixed up.  A couple of ideas currently being tossed around in cosmology are that the universe is eternal:  the Big Bang was really the Big Bounce in which all matter collapsed ALMOST to a singularity, then rebounded to its present state.  That ALMOST renders your statement "inexact," "imprecise (You didn't quite carry the calculation out far enough to capture reality.)" and inaccurate.

Quote


Precision leaves no room for error or for accidental events. Rather, precision requires deliberation.

Wrong again.  There is all sorts of room for error in even the most precise calculations.  I don't care how precise you are; I want to know how accurate you are.

I have to leave, but to quote Arnold, "I'll be back."
Doug

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#11    Copasetic

Copasetic

    438579088 what am I?

  • Member
  • 4,237 posts
  • Joined:12 Apr 2008
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 May 2013 - 04:33 PM

View PostAquilaChrysaetos, on 06 May 2013 - 03:48 AM, said:

It's a perfectly logical argument if the universe is precisely designed. In fact it should obviously be or first response. It's simple logic.
  • All designs have a designer
  • The universe is intricately designed
  • Therefore the universe has a designer


Another member brought up a great reply in regards to the watchmaker fallacy (your argument here). I've yet to seen any of the pop-in creationists (including ID creationists, who are really just more wordy creationists) address it. In fact it is quite funny to watch. Here is the premise:


View Posteight bits, on 03 March 2010 - 09:29 AM, said:

No single, individual watchmaker working alone has ever located a source of ore, mined it, refined the metal from it, made his or her own watchmkaing tools, ..., stayed with the watch to attend that it remains properly wound for the rest of its service life.

The single watchmaker does not even fashion the workbench seat that holds up his or her butt, a necessary condition for the watch to be made.

Obviously, however prominent a role the single self-designated "watchmaker" may play, he or she is one member of a vast society of makers who collectively bring it about that a watch gets made.

I conclude, then, that there must similarly be a society of intelligent designers, in order to account for the intelligently jury-rigged design we see all around us. The true gods are many; perhaps yours is one of them. Perhaps like the human "watchmaker," he takes credit for the contributions of the many gods, all of whose work comes together in an actual watch.

Arguments by analogy are ladydogs, Guyver. Four star ladydogs.

-

View Posteight bits, on 03 March 2010 - 04:12 PM, said:

[1] There is no evidence of unicity of intention in the design of even the simplest organism.
[2] The watchmaker argument clearly shows that a society of intelligent agents is needed to make even something as simple as a watch.
[3] I wrote a story, using a pseudonym, about having had a dream in which a god told me what happened.

I hope Eight bits doesn't mind me quoting him here.


#12    Doug1o29

Doug1o29

    Majestic 12 Operative

  • Member
  • 6,385 posts
  • Joined:01 Aug 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:oklahoma

Posted 06 May 2013 - 04:38 PM

View PostAlter2Ego, on 05 May 2013 - 01:42 AM, said:

3. Evolution and Big Bang theories both rely upon things happening by chance aka at random.
I'm back.

Another problem with definitions.  "Random" does NOT mean "haphazard."  A random distribution has very definite characteristics.  It has a mean of zero with a normal distribution.  That distribution has inflection points at +/- one standard error from the mean.  In such a population, 95% of the observations fall within 1.96 standard errors of the mean.  Chance DOES NOT equal random.

Perhaps you've heard of the "Laws of Chance."  Things in Nature follow those laws.  Dice on a gaming table follow those laws.  Cosmic rays striking DNA molecules follow those laws.

Perhaps you've heard of the "Laws of Chaos."  Those are another set of laws that matter conforms to, as in the waving of a flag in the breeze.

A random occurrence may entrain a series of events that, once started, follow very predictable course.

In short, you have totally failed to unseat evolution.  From what you've posted, it's difficult even to tell what it is you're talking about.
Doug

P.S.:  If you really believe in your god, then you don't need science for support.  Faith alone is sufficient.  That you are trying to use science to bolster your faith only indicates that your faith is not strong enough to support itself.  That you use pseudo-science to support your faith only means that your faith is propped up by mistakes.
Doug

Edited by Doug1o29, 06 May 2013 - 04:48 PM.

If I have seen farther than other men, it is because I stood on the shoulders of giants. --Bernard de Chartres
The beginning of knowledge is the realization that one doesn't and cannot know everything.
Science is the father of knowledge, but opinion breeds ignorance. --Hippocrates
Ignorance is not an opinion. --Adam Scott

#13    shrooma

shrooma

    doesn't have one screw fully tightened.....

  • Member
  • 3,562 posts
  • Joined:14 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:leeds, UK.

  • Live.
    Sin.
    Die.

Posted 06 May 2013 - 05:02 PM

thanks for saving me a lot of typing out doug, much appreciated!

- - - - -disclaimer- - - - -
all posts- without exception- are humourous.
if you fail to grasp the sublety, then don't whine on due to your lack of understanding.

#14    shrooma

shrooma

    doesn't have one screw fully tightened.....

  • Member
  • 3,562 posts
  • Joined:14 Feb 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:leeds, UK.

  • Live.
    Sin.
    Die.

Posted 06 May 2013 - 05:23 PM

View PostAlter2Ego, on 05 May 2013 - 01:42 AM, said:




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?
.
obviously they COULD, because they DID.
.


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?
.
no. it isn't.
.


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"?
[/size][/font]
.
this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
.
it would appear that someone is trying to come across as being clever when they aren't.
.
and succeeding spectacularly.

- - - - -disclaimer- - - - -
all posts- without exception- are humourous.
if you fail to grasp the sublety, then don't whine on due to your lack of understanding.

#15    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,275 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 06 May 2013 - 05:30 PM

The claim that there is precision or design to be seen in nature is false.  I look at Versailles, and I say, there is the design.  I look at a forest and mountain range, and I see randomness, no design.  The trees may obey a tree-line that wanders up and down according to local conditions, but that is just a response to local conditions, not design.  Mountains and rivers make their random wanderings.

That there are natural processes, the most famous being natural selection, that creates an illusion of design is true enough, but only in limited ways and as a result of perfectly understandable reasons.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users