Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

[Will Due]

 

More about it not being an accident:

"The early stages of life evolution are not altogether in conformity with your present-day views. Mortal man is not an evolutionary accident. There is a precise system, a universal law, which determines the unfolding of the planetary life plan on the spheres of space. Time and the production of large numbers of a species are not the controlling influences. Mice reproduce much more rapidly than elephants, yet elephants evolve more rapidly than mice."

Link

 

 

Edited September 2 by Will Due

[Will Due]

 

It was precise and certainly not accidental:

 

"Although the evolution of vegetable life can be traced into animal life, and though there have been found graduated series of plants and animals which progressively lead up from the most simple to the most complex and advanced organisms, you will not be able to find such connecting links between the great divisions of the animal kingdom nor between the highest of the prehuman animal types and the dawn men of the human races. These so-called “missing links” will forever remain missing, for the simple reason that they never existed."

Source

 

 

 

[psyche101]

And actual living proof it is indeed an accident. 

 

 

Not so precise.......

 

A living record of evolution.

Edited September 2 by psyche101

[Will Due]

 

"Through almost endless cycles of gains and losses, adjustments and readjustments, all living organisms swing back and forth from age to age. Those that attain cosmic unity persist, while those that fall short of this goal cease to exist." 

 

 

 

[lightly]

On 9/1/2024 at 7:27 PM, Will Due said:

 

"Through almost endless cycles of gains and losses, adjustments and readjustments, all living organisms swing back and forth from age to age. Those that attain cosmic unity persist, while those that fall short of this goal cease to exist." 

 

 I guess, since there is one Cosmos…it needn’t attain cosmic unity, it already IS.?    I further guess…ALL is Natural.   Nature is Miraculous!* 😇

Edited September 14 by lightly

[psyche101]

10 hours ago, lightly said:

 I guess, since there is one Cosmos…it needn’t attain cosmic unity, it already IS.?    I further guess…ALL is Natural.   Nature is Miraculous!* 😇

One flesh, one bone, one true religion
One voice, one hope, one real decision
Give me one light, yeah
Give me one hope, hey
Just give me, ah
One man, one man
One bar, one night
One day, hey, hey
Just gimme, gimme, gimme, gimme fried chicken!

[Alter2Ego]

On 9/1/2024 at 9:28 AM, L.A.T.1961 said:

The argument falls apart for intelligent design when you consider how many different perfect designs could be created. We have discovered this without a note from the devine.

There are many combinations of physical laws that would allow a universe to come into being and then persist for very long periods.

It would look different to this one. If intelligence created our universe why allow others to be technically possible when we need only one, surly the intelligence would not need the others and make it impossible for other combinations of physical laws to exist ?

So this particular version is not special, or needs to be guided by the hand of a creator.

L.A.T.1961:

Are you telling this forum that laws created themselves or that they are the result of accidents or chance?  Keep in mind the definitions of accident and natural law, as stated in my OP.  Notice that they are almost the exact opposite of each other.

 

Laws (found in nature):

"a sequence of events that have been observed to occur with UNVARYING UNIFORMITY under the same conditions." (Source: Webster's New World Dictionary)

 

Accident:

"a nonessential event that HAPPENS BY CHANCE and has undesirable or unfortunate results." (Source: Websters New Collegiate Dictionary)

 

 

[eight bits]

8 hours ago, Alter2Ego said:

"a sequence of events that have been observed to occur with UNVARYING UNIFORMITY under the same conditions." (Source: Webster's New World Dictionary)

For example, the laws of probability which describe events that happen by chance (whether "essential" or nor not, whether with or without "unfortunate results").

Perhaps we ought not to mistake a dictionary for a science textbook.

[L.A.T.1961]

On 9/16/2024 at 2:32 AM, Alter2Ego said:

L.A.T.1961:

Are you telling this forum that laws created themselves or that they are the result of accidents or chance?  Keep in mind the definitions of accident and natural law, as stated in my OP.  Notice that they are almost the exact opposite of each other.

 

Laws (found in nature):

"a sequence of events that have been observed to occur with UNVARYING UNIFORMITY under the same conditions." (Source: Webster's New World Dictionary)

 

Accident:

"a nonessential event that HAPPENS BY CHANCE and has undesirable or unfortunate results." (Source: Websters New Collegiate Dictionary)

 

 

Science identifies outcomes as following laws, nature is unaware of the direction of travel imposed on it due to the success or not of chance but the result does steer development toward more complex life.

This law incorporates random chance, driven by accidental changes, that might prove beneficial to a life form.

We don't see natures failures as they no longer exist. 

This makes things look like an overarching design is used with a destination, but there is no destination. 

[Piney]

6 hours ago, L.A.T.1961 said:

Science identifies outcomes as following laws, nature is unaware of the direction of travel imposed on it due to the success or not of chance but the result does steer development toward more complex life.

This law incorporates random chance, driven by accidental changes, that might prove beneficial to a life form.

We don't see natures failures as they no longer exist. 

This makes things look like an overarching design is used with a destination, but there is no destination. 

In the large scheme the Law of Increasing Functional Complexity works perfectly. But there are little dead ends with it's sub processes.

[TashaMarie]

On 8/13/2024 at 8:02 AM, Coil said:

I was surprised when I learned that many internal organs perform 40-120 functions simultaneously. If a person is given 2-3 jobs to do per day for 8 hours, he will be exhausted, but our internal organs do this work patiently throughout the life of the organism. What kind of thing can work for 80 years? And the body works like that. A huge margin of safety. 9 classes of angels worked on man to create us and make us gods in the future.

In space, we see the precise movement of stars and planets, the movement of which can be calculated for many centuries ahead, and this cosmic stability is provided by the gods so that we do not experience upheavals on our planet and cosmic threats to life. So that we can live on the planet for billions of years in stability.

Internal organs can and do fail.  Every minute of everyday someone loses their life due to their organs failing.  Surely it would have been better to give them less jobs or make them more durable?  If you look close enough everything around us is amazing and flawed to some extent.

[Coil]

On 9/19/2024 at 12:33 PM, TashaMarie said:

Internal organs can and do fail.  Every minute of everyday someone loses their life due to their organs failing.  Surely it would have been better to give them less jobs or make them more durable?  If you look close enough everything around us is amazing and flawed to some extent.

Organs are already durable, but our civilization, the very way of life of people, harmful chemical products are destroying even their margin of safety. So nature also denies people the long work of organs.

[Ell]

On 8/11/2024 at 9:50 PM, Alter2Ego said:

Anything that required deliberation is evidence that an intelligent designer intervened and guided the outcome.

That is not true. There are all kinds of extremely precise processes that function without deliberation, usually driven by the laws of entropy and by positive and negative feedback loops.

In general, in order to be able to deliberate an organism requires a nervous system. So it is unlikely that a plant will be able to deliberate. (It would be exciting to discover that a deliberating plant does exist, though.)

I assume that your post is about God? So I guess that your thesis is that God has a nervous system? If so, I wonder whether God's nervous system is edible? If we prepare God's nervous system for food, do we need to add salt or pepper or other condiments and herbs to improve the taste?

(Please do not eat me, I object to being eaten by humans. Besides, I have been told that I taste like pork, so please eat a pig instead, please.

But if humans were created in the image of God, does God taste like pork, I wonder?)

 

Quote

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

Which periodic table of the elements specifically? There is a variety of them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Types_of_periodic_tables

Please remind us which were those first sixty discovered elements. (I infer that you do not mean elements 1-60, as you specify 'discovered'. I also infer that you do not mean the discovery of the different isotopes of specific elements?)