Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?


#1

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."
Spontaneous | Easy to understand definition of spontaneous by Your Dictionary

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”?


#2

INTELLIGENT CREATOR vs Evolution
INTELLIGENT CREATOR vs Nature

The pattern:
INTELLIGENT CREATOR vs Scientific Theory whatever

Maybe it’s just me, but these thinly veiled religious threads that masquerade as science threads just get old after awhile.


#3

I have a thought. Who cares?! Live your life the way you want. Who cares how someone else is living? Big deal if they are God fearing Christians or Atheist. Why do people feeling the need to continually beat the hell out of this long dead horse.


#4

A2E has a strong drive to drill her beliefs into everyone’s head, regardless if they have already been discussed her ad infinitum. I gave her a “thank you” on this one to show that I don’t disagree with everything she believes. It was no doubt a wasted effort. But she is apparently not proceeding with these posts, because no one responded to her seriously. She only wants to tell people they are wrong.


#5

This doesn’t disprove Big Bang Theory or Evolution Theory. The Earth has been around 4.5 billion years. That’s a long time for things to “work perfectly”. I also do not understand how you deem the world to be precise? And based on what exactly, do you know of other planets inhabited by sentient beings where their world is not precise?

Point being, purely based on chance this planet was going to exist in exactly the way it is now. Purely based on chance there is another world almost identical to this one.


#6

ALTER2EGO -to- MAYLAR:
There nothing more thinly veiled as true science than one of the religious doctrines of Secular Humanists/members of the Religion of Atheism–namely macroevolution myth aka science fiction.


#7

ALTER2EGO -to- BULLS ON PARADE:
Your skepticism is not an effective rebuttal. If you are going to argue against my OP in which I presented the definitions of “accident” and “spontaneous” and “precision” and “law” (as in nature), you will have to try harder. Please provide scientific evidence that proves Big Bang theory and evolution theory actually occurred. Big Bang theory and evolution theory are entirely speculation-driven. There is not a shred of evidence for either of those two theories. Meanwhile, the evidence shows that repeated instances of precision requires intelligent intervention.


#8

No, they do not show that. You are speculating. I’m not going to discuss something with someone who blatantly disregards everything I say.

I can admit that I might be wrong, however it doesn’t seem that you can. Adieu


#9

#10

You need to prove precision first off, and there’s no evidence that there is any in the Universe. The laws of physics are precise for this incarnation of the Universe and life, but that doesn’t mean that other incarnation aren’t possible. If the laws of physics were different, would life still have formed? No one knows, but I think probably, yes. If there’s anything we’ve learned, it’s that life is persistent, and our version of it is not the only version that could have formed in the Universe.

Really, the arrogance of claiming the Universe is so precise because we are the only form of life that could have happened, or what “meant” to have happened is astonishing. No one knows that, and no one will ever know the possibilities of the Universe without being God.


#11

Trekky all you have to do is look at the odds of life forming by chance and chemicals. You will be surprised at what you will find. As far as precision is concerned , that’s not the word I would use. I wouldn’t even use complexity. Specified complexity is what I would use. Specified complexity is what converted Doctor Antony Flew away from atheism as he no longer could believe it intellectually. He then became a deist. Watch his last few videos and you will see the reason why he hoped that there is no afterlife. He was deftly afraid of being bored in eternity.

As far as the guy who uses daniel dennet in his signature. Dennet is a joke. Ill see your dennet and call you a veridical nde. Atheism is standing on just a few legs and one of them is materialism and soon that leg will be cut off.


#12

To someone that believes in moral relativity and atheism it’s no big deal at all. We are just pieces of meat, nerves, flesh and bones. There is no objective good and evil. I can see where someone that believes this way would think its not a big deal.


#13

Alter, the thing with the Big Bang is that it doesn’t disprove a creator. Just the opposite, it gives evidence for the universe having a beginning. That theory was developed by a catholic priest.

As far as evolution goes, I used to be an evolutionist myself, but I left evolution because of the flimsy evidence for Macroevolution and the non falsifiability of evolution. I still believe in adaptability because that has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt . I would consider myself now more into the intelligent design camp.
If evolution did happen on a macroscale (which I now doubt), it could not have happened by chance.


#14

Oddly enough, atheists do not accept the Big Bang theory, since a Christian came up with it. I can accept the possibility - it would fit with “He spoke and it was done; He commanded and it was established.” But for the BB to be correct, God had to have it “loaded” with everything that he intended to happen, and in that order . . .


#15

Correct Susanna, and things like this are why I believe that atheism is more of an emotional worldview then an intellectual one. As far as God having pre loaded everything to happen in that order, yes he could have done it that way, but he could also have chosen to intervene in certain intervals or his spirit could be what is keeping the universe going.
but what the big bang does show is that the universe had a beginning and if it had a beginning, it had a beginninger, and this is precisely why atheists must deny things like the big bang at all costs. This was also why atheists for a few hundred years before believed that the universe itself was static and eternal. In their eyes that conveniently did away with God, the big bang really gave them a headache and has been doing so ever since.

Also, the more we know of the universe the more it is starting to behave like a great thought then a great mechanism. As you said Susanna, “He Spoke, and it was Done”

As far as how God did it all precisely, it is probably too big for anyone in this finite reality to fully comprehend.
How amazing is our God :slight_smile:


#16

AMEN!


#17

If the BB is true, then it is very probable that God intervened in its action occasionally - at least once, when He “breathed into man the breath of life, and man became a living soul.”


#18

Correct Susanna, we can also see this in the odds of life coming about through chance and chemical reactions which are virtually zero.


#19

Chemistry isn’t chance. It has a solid foundation of science. Elements don’t just randomly combine with each other to make things; certain combinations are likely to happen because they are favorable. Iron, water, and oxygen will always make rust. They don’t randomly combine.


#20

Trekky that is why I said Chemicals and Chance, and its very important that I mentioned both of these because the odds that are calculated werent calculated by Chance alone. It was chance and chemicals.

Trekky I was an evolutionist for most of my life. That wall started crumbling down slowly and it started about 4 years ago
Ill give you an example of some of the things that lead me away from it.

Here is a video by Stephen Meyer which shows how Neither Chemicals nor chance are responsible for one of the most important part of DNA.
its an 8 minute video but the most important part of the video starts at 4:30 till the end of the video , it also completely obliterates the self organization theory that some a major biologist was into.
the nucleotide bases represent the

the sequential arrangment of those bases that conveys the assemply instructions for arranging the amino acids the right way. The famous biologist kenyon wanted to explain the sequencing of these
bases by referencing chemical attraction. he found out that there were no chemical bonds between the individual bases. There is no chemical attraction and therefore you cant invoke Chemicals to explain away the sequencing of those bases.

You will see what im talking about as you watch the video.

This is one of the most powerfull videos I have ever watched on DNA but it was just one of the things that caused me to tip over from evolution to Intelligent design.

Dr. Stephen Meyer: Chemistry/RNA World/crystal formation can’t explain genetic information - YouTube

Go through the video Trekky and let me know if you understood what Meyer was trying to convey and if he did a good job in explaining it.
Remember again, I never said chemicals are chance. I specifically said chemicals and chance.

This video should be in every high school class