Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

When the straight man delivers lines like these, the comedian is almost superfluous.I admit defeat. It is beyond my power to teach you anything about physics. Perhaps Dr. Adequate or someone else will prove to be my better.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

The starry eyed and dim witted buffoon
Could not distinguish twixt planet and moon
With ignorance wilfully
Clung to so skillfully
Proves that intelligence was not equally strewn

I dunno, man. Its starting to look intentional. For example, if he was on the other side and saying stuff like this:

quote:

---

Hey, look at Psalm 14:1...

​

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

​

It says right there that god doesn't exist!

---

Would you really believe that was a simply misunderstanding? Or seeing what you want?I mean, the errors are so gross that I'm having trouble believing that its unintentional.

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:Logic based upon the dismissal of evidence is flawed logic--which is what atheists bring to the table. For instance, the 92 natural elements found within the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth are so interrelated and precise that scientists refer to it as Periodic LAW. The existence of Laws or precision indicates it was deliberately done.Evidence of Jehovah God's existence is dismissed every single time one ignores the complexity of the natural world. Flawed logic also results from ignorance or lack of knowledge about certain scientific facts. To avoid the trap of stubbornness, one must allow logic and evidence to interact.For instance, nobody can explain how Big Bang--which is nothing more than a theory about expanding space--could have resulted in the appearance of planets.The millions of planets in the universe each have separate gravitational fields that keep them within their own orbits and prevent them from crashing into each other. This could not have happened by accident or spontaneously. Why not? Because the definition of "accident" is as follows: "a nonessential event that happens by chance and has undesirable or unfortunate results." (Source: Websters New Collegiate Dictionary)The universe shows precision. Something that is precise indicates deliberation. In turn, something deliberately done says one thing: an intelligent being intervened and directed the outcome.Since humans clearly are not responsible for the appearance of planets in the heavens, then who did it? Somebody must have done it. God's inspired Word, the Judeo-Christian Bible responds to that question, as follows: "{1} In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. {14} And God Went on to say: 'Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years.' " (Genesis 1:1 and 14)

What do the following have in common.1. The 92 natural elements
2. The existence of Laws or precision indicates it was deliberately done.
3. nobody can explain how Big Bang--which is nothing more than a theory about expanding space--could have resulted in the appearance of planets.
4. The millions of planets in the universe
5. gravitational fields that keep them within their own orbits Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Your arguments seem to rely crucially on stuff you've made up.

Why? The elements are interrelated precisely because of quantum mechanics. Electrons cannot just take up any old orbit. Some are more stable than others because of the laws of physics. A physical law is just a description of how things work. There is nothing in them that demands an intelligence behind them.

1. The 92 natural elements
2. The existence of Laws or precision indicates it was deliberately done.
3. nobody can explain how Big Bang--which is nothing more than a theory about expanding space--could have resulted in the appearance of planets.
4. The millions of planets in the universe
5. gravitational fields that keep them within their own orbits.Answers
1. Ninety eight of the elements on the periodic table actually occur naturally.
2. Laws are descriptive of nature. They are formulated after whatever was done was done.
3. It's easy to find explanations of how planets formed subsequent to the Big Bang. I suppose I should assign half credit for acknowledging that the Big Bang happened.
4. Millions of planets? Yes, but only in the same sense that there are dozens of people on earth.
5. Planets gravitational field keep them within their own orbits? This is total nonsense, but after seeing your newest, and most ridiculous to date thread proposal I now see why you insist on saying this.

quote:

---

ALTER2EGO:
The existence of Laws or precision indicates it was deliberately done.

​

FOREVER YOUNG:
Why? The elements are interrelated precisely because of quantum mechanics. Electrons cannot just take up any old orbit. Some are more stable than others because of the laws of physics. A physical law is just a description of how things work. There is nothing in them that demands an intelligence behind them.

---

ALTER2EGO -to- FOREVER YOUNG:
Quantum mechanics does not help your argument. Here's why: Quantum mechanics is nothing more than a THEORY. That's theory as in: "a group of hypotheses that can be disproven." Not only that, quantum mechanics theory is focused on randomness, which is the exact opposite of precision because precision deals with order and predictablility--such as the example of the Periodic Table used in my OP.The elements on the Periodic Table are so precise and so interrelated to one another that, in the case of the first 60-discovered elements on the Periodic Table, scientists were able to accurately predict the existence of unknown elements and their characteristics. As you can see, that is the polar opposite of quantum mechanics theory which is based on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. You do realize that something that is "uncertain" is unpredictable; do you not? Edited by Alter2Ego, : No reason given.

We'll add quantum mechanics and the meaning of the word "theory" to the list of things you don't understand, then.

It's a lot easier to not add QM and the meaning of theory to the much shorter list I'm keeping.

A better definition of a theory is a tentative framework of understanding or interpretation constructed around a body of evidence, but details aside, what do you have to offer that's better than a scientific theory?--Percy

Your question is an appropriate one; yet its point seems like mere quibbling after someone has made this argument: The above illustrates what happens when a person having little to no scientific background looks into a general purpose dictionary hoping to find an argument.People with some knowledge of a subject can easily tell when some wannabe has simply done a cursory google search and blundered through the results to find something they can misinterpret. A wise, yet ignorant person would have understood that foreveryoung knew something they did not, and would not have tried to 'finese' their blind, enormous but through the china shop. But that understanding isn't what we see here.I could post a sentence or two trying to explain the relationship between quantum mechanics and the periodic table, but I am reminded that typing in pages of text in an attempt to explain classical mechanics to Alter2Ego made not even the slightest impression. So instead I'll provide a useful reference.For anyone actually interested in the relationship between chemistry and quantum physics, I'd recommend the following links as an introduction.http://www.chemprofessor.com/quantum.htm
http://www.chemprofessor.com/periodicqm.htm

quote:

---

We don’t need to know the wave properties of an electron for a lot of useful chemical applications. We can think in terms of indivisible Dalton atoms to balance reaction equations and work stoichiometry problems.

​

However, if we really need details about the electrons, we need quantum mechanics. The really bad news is that the mathematics needed for quantum mechanics requires advanced calculus. The students who cannot work these problems for themselves will have to trust that someone out there knew how to do it, trust that someone understands this stuff.

---

For Alter2Ego I'd recommend the following text:Proverbs 18:2 NKJV

quote:

---

A fool has no delight in understanding, But in expressing his own heart.

---

Edited by NoNukes, : Some grammar clean up.

In science, Theory is as good as it gets. There is nothing more than a theory. What makes them precise?

No, not necessarily. Take a look at this puddle: The edge of that pothole lines up with 100% precision with edge of the water. According to your argument, that would indicate that the pothole was deliberately made to line up with the water.Since we know that isn't true, we can deduce that the claim that precision indicates deliberation is incorrect. Precision can suggest design, but without it being a necessity it is not an indication. Well I'm not an atheist. But I can still see that your same old tired arguments are just plain bad ones. We all know that complexity, and precision, do not necessarily indicate design. Snowflakes are complex, but they're not designed. You're bringing up stuff that's already been refuted, and honestly, you're just debating them poorly. But you're the one displaying the most stubborn behavior. You don't address the rebuttals to your arguments, and instead just repeat yourself.It seems to me that you're playing that old creationist game: "Lets see if you guys are capable of convincing me of this basic fact". Then you do everything you can do to avoid admitting that said fact is true.Like you are now with the whole "Its only a theory" bit. What are you, in high school or something? The ignorance you display is surprising.