Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

ALTER2EGO to FMW:
I agree with you on that. Without the observable pattern in the existing elements, scientists would not have been able to predict the existence of unknown elements and their characteristics.

ALTER2EGO to FMW:
I disagree. The fact that there is a pattern to the elements on the Periodic Table shows interrelationship. In turn, that indicates deliberation. Something deliberately done indicates the presence of an intelligent being who intervened and guided the outcome. Saying precision is the result of spontaneous events—in which things happen without guidance but end up being complex and precise—defies logic.

ALTER2EGO to FMW:
And where did the stars come from? Who created them and put them within their own field of gravity so they stay within their own orbit? Surely you're not suggesting that the millions of planets in the universe just popped up out of nowhere.

ALTER2EGO to FMW:
I disagree. There is a definitive answer to all of your questions. Everything you listed in quotations above indicate the presence of an intelligent Designer/God who guided the outcome. If you can believe that it required an intelligent human to create a stick of chewing gum but argue that the far more complex universe did not likewise require an intelligent Designer/God, then I don't know what to tell you. Logic dictates that precision and intelligent design points to the intervention of an intelligent being.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

The DNA code is the most complex code ever written. Atheists will admit it required an intelligent human to write the most simplistic code. However, according to these same "logical" atheists, the most complex code ever written--the DNA code--wrote itself. They realize it was not written by humans, but they refuse to acknowledge that it must have required someone of vast intelligence to have written it. The point being, these people are simply being intellectually dishonest when they come with the excuse that it's a "logical fallacy." The Bible says these types of people are inexcusable.

"For his [God's] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable;" (Romans 1:20)

~***~​

 

Actually we know exactly how to create a planet and put it in orbit around a star, we just don't have the resources to do it.

If it is nonexistent, then by definition, it doesn't exist, therefore it is logically impossible to make something out of nonexistent elements. Not even God can do it. He would first have to bring the element into existence.

Now we lowly humans have created elements on our own. 20 of them to be exact since 1952.

Not yet, but who says we won't in the future? As others have said, just because we don't understand completely how something works doesn't automatically mean that God did it.

You do realize that the existence of a God does not preclude evolution and evolution does not preclude the existence of God. The same goes for the Big Bang. The only conflict between evolution and Christianity is the Biblical account of how life started, but a God could have very easily started the universe through the Big Bang and used evolution to create the diversity of life we see today.

 

I have an appendix and rabbits eat their own feces.

The precision here is where?

 

Oh, I remember this thread. It was about the "precision" of the pattern of atom numbers. Which is like rolling dice randomly and being surprised that you get only 1s, 2s, 3s, 4s, 5s and 6s and no 1.5s or 2.7s.

Particles come in natural numbers. You can't get half a particle, and obviously, if you only have whole particles to play with, you can't have anything but natural numbers (whole, non-negative numbers). The pattern "natural numbers" is the pattern this thread was once about.

If anyone has a problem with that logic, please point it out and I can go deeper into that part.

 

There's actually a good (well, at least, understandable) reason why rabbits and many other animals eat their own feces. It's the underlying reason why they HAVE to, that indicates their body is less than ideal. If I was omnipotent, and I wanted to design animals, I think I'd try to make their digestive system able to, well, digest the things they need the first time around.

 

Let's not forget that there is not an animal alive that can digest cellulose.

All cellulose break-down by organisms occurs via bacterial (and possibly archaeal) action. Even termites "digest" cellulose and lignan via prokaryotes in their guts.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

The reason why atheists argue so vehemently for evolution and Big Bang theories is because it gives them a convenient substitute for an intelligent Designer/God. Acceptance of both theories by atheists indicate their level of desperation in explaining how we got here.

A prime example of the idiocy that I've encountered when debating atheists at various websites is their willingness to believe ANYTHING--except in the existence of an intelligent Designer/God. Common sense tells us intelligent beings (humans, animals, etc.) could not have resulted from unintelligent means (a long string of spontaneous events/accidents). I have to constantly remind myself when debating an atheist that I'm not dealing with a person using common sense. I'm dealing with someone who is convinced that insults and foul language is indicative of high intellect.



Logic tells us that precision indicates deliberation. In turn, something deliberately done indicates an intelligent person. Just don't make the mistake of trying to use that type of logic with people that are too dense to get it.

When an atheist is asked to explain how life could have come from non-life without the intervention of an intelligent God or how planets could have appeared in the heavens within their own orbits, with their individual fields of gravity, the usual idiotic response is: "Big Bang" or "Evolution" THEORY--both of which amount to science fiction. Both theories rely on a long string of accidents and unguided events. The fact is that accidents cannot produce precision, because accident and precision are polar opposites.

PRECISION DEFINED:
"the quality of being precise; exactness, accuracy" (Source: Webster's New World College Dictionary)


ACCIDENT DEFINED:
"a nonessential event that happens by chance and has undesirable or unfortunate results" (Source: Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary)

 

No, idiocy is just accepting things on faith in light of evidence to the contrary.

Explain the recurrent laryngeal nerve.


Plus again since you creationists just can't seem to get it.

A SCIENTIFIC THEORY is based upon facts, laws and hypothesises, is testable and falsifiable, has no evidence that can't be worked into the theory (has never been demonstrated to be false) and due to the overwhelming amount of evidence in support is considered the best hypothesis (all theories are hypothesis but not all hypothesises are theories) available. It is however not considered proven as proof is considered impossible in science. Science is based upon probability not absolute certainty.


A SCIENTIFIC FACT is a verified observation.

A SCIENTIFIC LAW is a simple statement, quite often mathematical, that describes a scientific fact.

A SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESIS is an attempted explanation of a phenomenon.

A scientific theory is the top of the pyramid. There is nothing in science above a theory. On the other hand a scientific fact sits at the bottom. Theories > facts

 

I can't speak for all atheists but the reason I believe in evolution is that it explains events that are known to have happened, using mechanisms that are known to exist. It is not a 'substitute' for intelligent design: one could easily argue that the mechanisms that power evolution were intelligently designed, and indeed very many religious people do in fact believe in both evolution and an intelligent creator god. If current models of evolution were shown to be 100% accurate that would not disprove god. The entire foundation of your thinking here is irretrievably flawed.

Common sense tells us many things that turn out in fact to be wrong. You can not rely on common sense to give you the correct answer about everything.

Also, I hope you enjoy the breath of fresh air that must result from discussing this with someone who does not equate foul language with high intellect.

Precision often does indicate deliberation, but not always. If I ask the time, and it's precisely 14:12, does that mean I deliberately chose that time? Of course not. When I played ball with my kid a few months back, it landed precisely in the gap between the couch and the wall. Was that deliberate? No. Precision does not necessarily require deliberation.

And another thing: you complained about insults, and then said that anyone who disagreed with your logic is 'dense'. Nice way to discuss things respectfully.

Wow, that IS a pretty idiotic response. The big bang THEORY, evolution THEORY, gravitational THEORY, relativity THEORY.... none of them have anything at all directly to do with how the very first life form became alive. Anyone who says they do is talking nonsense, and I'd be happy to join you in saying so.

You might then wonder what my explanation is. Simple. I don't know. Nobody has ever observed any inorganic matter becoming organic matter, without it being caused by some other organic matter. So, whatever caused it, by definition, has to be something extraordinary. Abiogenesis is extraordinary. To apply common sense on something that is obviously extraordinary is... well, it defies common sense.

 

I wonder what god was thinking when he designed the Ebola virus :/

 

He works in mysterious ways.

 

I think the OP doesn't understand that evolution is quite precise in many respects in its own right.

It doesn't require a supreme being to guide animals or plants towards a certain adaptive change. Things like natural selection are very precise when survival is on the line. That's not because a divine being guided the animals to reproduce a certain way.

In some ways, you could say that assuming an intelligent being had to direct things is like saying that the invisible hand of capitalism is a conscious being. The market clears because of the results of aggregate choices. By the same token, species survive and adapt by making choices that overcome challenges and by breeding with the strongest, smartest, and healthiest of their kind.

In short, much of the intelligent design argument puts the cart before the horse. When looking back on the results of natural selection, it may seem like the process is guided consciously, but watching the process happen in progress clearly shows something else going on.

 

If I were the designer I'd just make poop grow on trees.

 

You keep violating your own premise with your god which falls under that etc bit you have in parenthesis which would be intelligence without an intelligent cause

 

DNA too complex to exist on its own therefore something more complex must have created it

Problem the creator should not be able to exist because it’s too complex to just occur naturally

 

so far romans 1: 20 apears to be false

 

DNA and other biological mechanisms are complex, certainly, but then so are many other things, such as non-biological chemical bonds. They all form naturally, though, as a consequence of the properties of their constituents.

Something really miraculous and wonderful about life for me is how, as Carl Sagan pointed out, there is an unbroken thread that stretches from the first life on Earth to us. Once it got started, it kept going and going and going through all these long ages, ever changing. At least, if life was never wiped out by some disaster in early Earth's history, it is so, though I can't imagine anything but the impact that eventually created our moon being powerful enough to manage that. So, post Mars-sized-object impact, life has been growing and changing non-stop for billions of years. Through most of that time, life was tiny and short-lived. The mechanisms we marvel at in cells today had a very, very, very long time to develop and become established. Everything fundamental about life on this planet has spent that much time growing and perfecting itself.. Most of what we are is mind-bogglingly ancient. Is it any surprise that life is complex and marvellous today, then?

 

Yes. Even though the god-version of the story gains no credibility from disproving the big bang, proving the big bang true explicitly disproves at least certain parts of some theology.

Common sense is not an acceptable form of science. This is because common sense is not always correct, and if it is, then there are actual reliable methods to use instead. Any correct form of common sense can be traced back to actual logical steps without having to appeal to common sense. Why doesn't your argument?

"precision indicates deliberation"? What logical absolute is that? Have you never had a grain of sand accidentally enter precisely through your eyelids?

They also rely upon large amounts of acceptable outcomes. The probability of an event occurring is irrelevant if there are other possible events that make little difference. It is very unlikely that planets form exactly the way they did in our solar system. However, there are millions, billions, trillions and more way it could have happened, all which would have a very low individual probability. But the universe had to go into one, and whichever it "chose", it was going to have a low individual probability (even if it was "accidental"). The argument from probability is only relevant if you can argue that our current situation is "better" than most of the others. Since there are many arbitrary values in our solar system, planets, moons, comets, asteroids, solar coefficients, galactic position, chemical composition and sizes for most of the planets, moons, the list can be made longer. If evolution is correct, not even the earth's conditions need to be precise, life would just adapt to its surroundings. After all, the reason life that could live on Mars doesn't exist on earth is because if it was, it'd die.

 

There is no god. Therefore, the universe cannot be fine tuned and must have occurred at random. However, the universe as it exists is statistically impossible. Since it is impossible for the universe to exist as it does randomly and there is no god then they has to be an infinite number of universes and our is one of the few that got the statistically impossible convergence.

I was once an atheist. The multiverse there and the sheer gall of it made me a deist.

 

How can we actually judge what the odds are of the universe being what it is? I think it's dubious to simply declare that our universe was too unlikely to have occurred naturally. Plus, a multiverse would mean that there is a LOT of 'waste' in the form of non-life-supporting universes alongside this one, which to me would only speak further against all forms of Intelligent Design.

Finally, it's absurd to assume that a mind as we know it can exist at some extra-universal level. Our minds are animal minds, the product of our evolved fleshy bodies. There is no known example of a mind existing by any other means. The idea of "spirit" is flawed, non-scientific thinking that is also the product of the human mind. Just because people think in terms of agency in nature, that doesn't mean that there are in fact "agents" in nature. It's a paranoid and superstitious way of thinking..

 

We observe. I suspect you are one of those ignorant atheists who don't understand the current observations to know that the universe is statistically impossible. I often find when arguing with athiests that they have no clue about modern theoretical physics and cosmology and why ideas like the multiverse exist.

GET WITH THE TIMES MAN!!!

The universe cannot exist randomly if there is only one universe.

Read up on the Anthropic Principle.

Its not simply declaring it. Our own observations have shown it. You know "science" that thing you only support when it supports you.

I do nut subscribe to the multiverse because the multiverse is a leap of faith. There is no evidence to support its existence other than the belief that there is no god. Since there is no god there has to be a multiverse.

 

There is evidence indeed. The multiverse concept was proposed as a suggested explanation for the fact that the universe expands at an accelerating rate. The evidence is there. The fact that the universe expands at an accelerating pace is observed fact. Since the phenomenon flies in the face of the laws of gravity, there needs to be an explanation for it. The multiverse is one such suggested explanation.

 

The universe expanding at an accelerating rate is not evidence for a multiverse. You need to take a logic class.

 

Pot is the Cure for Cancer

There's no way this is an accident. Praise the Lord.