Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

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.yourdictionary.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 Encyclopedia 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 or by accident and wind up in the opposite realm as Scientific Law? Or is the precision seen among the elements on the Periodic Table evidence of intelligent design? 3. Big Bang theory relies upon things happening by chance, which amounts to hit-and-miss. Big Bang theory deals with the expansion of space but presents no explanation for the existence of the millions of planets in the heavens, each with their individual fields of gravity that prevent them from crashing into each other. How does random, unguided events account for our fine-tuned universe?

Thread copied here from the Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents? thread in the Proposed New Topics forum.

Hi Alter2EgoWhat I see is really only one law and that is that all forces will find their point of balance or equilibrium eventually.The molecules of a crystal formed up that way because all of their integral forces are precisely the same and they come together in a way that appears ordered. In fact, those molecules are no more ordered than the molecules in a pile of sand. All of the molecules in the pile of sand are precisely where they need to be given the forces acting on them. All of the 'stuff' in the universe is coming to a state of balance as dictated by the forces working on them.Why should it take an intelligent agent to make one omnipresent condition?

No, it doesn't. If you think so, please present evidence. Fields of gravity do not prevent planets from crashing into each other.It's actually not hard to understand why you have so much trouble with these things since your understanding of them is so terribly wrong. The real question is why you feel the need to put your ignorance so proudly on display.

That's really sad isn't it. It certainly says that the average person is pretty pitiful. Thank God it seems many folk here must have been born in Lake Wobegon. Sorry you missed out.

Ouch!That's a terrible definition. Precision and accuracy are not at all the same thing. This is total rubbish. It is an absurd misuse of the word "precision".Your post is of high precision - it is full of a lot of detail.Your post is not at all accurate - it is mostly false.

Why just 60? Why not all 90 or so of the elements that appear in nature?The basis for the order in the periodic table is well known. Perhaps the mysticism you are hinting at is more apparent to people who have never taken a chemistry or physics course.It turns out that the behavior of atoms can be predicted from knowing a few masses and charges and some mathematics. All atoms are made up of the same basic particles (neutrons, protons, and electrons) and while some of these particles are themselves divisible, we don't need knowledge of those detals to be able to accurately predict the chemical properties of the atoms. The math accurately predicts the order and similarity of the properties of the elements.The 'precision' that you are awed by is a gross simplification of what can be known about atoms from a small amount of mathematics. In fact, given natural laws, the properties of atoms are neither chance, nor design, but are inevitable.One might as well say that it is by chance that you remain attached to earth's surface rather than floating off into the cosmos.

It's not clear what your point is about the periodic table. Yes, every atom has either one proton, or two, or three, or four. There are no atoms with 9.67313 protons. This is because there's no such thing as .67313 of a proton, they're discrete entities. So it doesn't take some sort of intelligent guiding force to make this so.

Jack Benny used to play the violin very badly - but my father always used to say that he must have been a good player in real life to play it that badly on stage. I don't know if that's true or not but if you stop and think about it, comedy takes a lot of planning. What Lucy and Ethel did at the candy factory looked like chaos but it had to be carefully choreographed and rehearsed.Reality is often a bizarro world where nothing is what it seems. What seems to be planned is random and what seems to be random is directed by inexorable forces. The first element has one proton, the second has two, the third has three and so on. That isn't a sign of planning; it's just the only way it could be. It didn't take a committee of experts to insert the number six between five and seven. And's it's no great feat to predict the existence of the number nine.

It's absolutely amazing how people like the originator of this thread can say so many things that are absolutely bullshit and yet expect anyone over about the age of eight to take their posts seriously.Take for example his assertion of "Some of those 60 elements are gases and are therefore invisible to the human eye."Gasses are not always invisible to the human eye. Chlorine gas is a pale yellow green for example. Fluorine is pale yellow.When a poster makes really imbecilic, half-witted, moronic, ludicrous statements about stuff that is really easy to check and often covered in a basic high school chemistry course how in the world can they expect anyone to take anything they say seriously?Of course it is possible that the poster hasn't gotten to High School yet and doesn't have access to services like Google.

In On the difference between Science and ID or Biblical Creationism I pointed out how the Periodic Table is a great example of the differences between Science and nonsense like Intelligent Design and Creationism.As I said at the time:

quote:

---

The importance of Mendeleev's Periodic Table (it was not the first and actually others were working on the same concepts he presented at the time, similar to what happened with Darwin) but it was unique because it not only explained what we did see but also made concrete predictions about what would be discovered including revisions to the then current body of scientific knowledge.

---

Mendeleev's contribution is that it made specific predictions and specific tests that would either confirm or falsify his explanation.ID makes no such predictions, no predictions of any value actually. It is just wishful thinking at best and mental masturbation more often.

Or that the poster is a mad internet troll, that has posted this crap all over the web and been banned from inunerable fora for being a total tosser?

quote:

---

PROTOTYPICAL:
Hi Alter2Ego
What I see is really only one law and that is that all forces will find their point of balance or equilibrium eventually.

​

The molecules of a crystal formed up that way because all of their integral forces are precisely the same and they come together in a way that appears ordered. In fact, those molecules are no more ordered than the molecules in a pile of sand. All of the molecules in the pile of sand are precisely where they need to be given the forces acting on them. All of the 'stuff' in the universe is coming to a state of balance as dictated by the forces working on them.

​

Why should it take an intelligent agent to make one omnipresent condition?

---

Hello Prototypical.You asked why should it take an intelligent agent, while under the same breath, you acknowledge that the integral forces of molecules are "precise" and all the molecules in the same are "precisely" where they should be. So as you see it, precision resulted spontaneously or by accident. Is that what you are saying?I will await your response, before I further pursue your line or argument.

Assuming so, doesn't that mean that you are saying that an Intelligent Designer is ordering the piles of sand that are all over the place?

quote:

---

SUBBIE:
Fields of gravity do not prevent planets from crashing into each other.

​

It's actually not hard to understand why you have so much trouble with these things since your understanding of them is so terribly wrong. The real question is why you feel the need to put your ignorance so proudly on display.

---

ALTER2EGO -to- SUBBIE:
The real question is why doesn't your above post include supporting evidence to support your fallacious claim that, to quote you: "Fields of gravity do not prevent planets from crashing into each other."While we're on the topic of "ignorance so proudly on display," below, for the benefit of the forum, is info on the role of gravity on the planets.

quote:

---

Description of planets:
As most people know, there are nine planets in our solar system. They are Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto.

​

Mercury's gravity is equal to 38% of Earth's gravity.

​

Venus' gravity is equal to 91% of Earth's gravity.

​

To escape Earth's gravity, an object must be traveling at a speed of 24,840 mph.

​

Mars gravity is equal to 38% of Earth's gravity.

​

Jupiter gravity is 254% percent stronger than Earth's gravity

​

Saturn's gravity is 1.08 times stronger than Earth's gravity.

​

Uranus' gravity is 91% of Earth's gravity.

​

Neptune's gravity is 1.19 times greater than Earth's gravity.

​

Pluto's gravity is about 8% of the Earth's gravity.

---

http://library.thinkquest.org/C001245/OrbitPc.html ALTER2EGO -to- SUBBIE:
Notice above that each of the planets in our solar system have varying fields of gravity. It is that variation in gravitational pull, combined with the mass and size of each planet, that keeps each planet within its individual elliptical orbit. Keep your eyes on the words bolded in sea green in the remainder of the quotation below.

quote:

---

Solar System Design:
Gravity also has a major role in each planets orbital path. Gravity is what keeps each planet on track and not flying all over the place. However, gravity is a two way street in space. Just as the Sun applies its gravity on all planets in our solar system, each planet applies its own gravity back on the Sun. Since the Sun is so massive, the planets can't move the Sun with their gravity and are forced to move around the Sun. Since there is so much gravity, what keeps the planets from being pulled into the Sun?. The answer has to deal with a planets speed.

---

http://library.thinkquest.org/C001245/OrbitPc.html QUESTION #1 to SUBBIE: Did you notice that the last part of the quotation from the source said "Gravity is what keeps each planet on track and not flying all over the place"? QUESTION #2 to SUBBIE: Did you notice that the source said "each planet applies its own gravity"? QUESTION #3 to SUBBIE: Did you notice that the fields of gravity for the planets are different and that each planet has a different size and mass? (You will see the varying size, mass, and gravitational pull for each planet in our solar system when you click on the weblink.)