Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 6:44 am

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
#11
RE: Precision in NatuEvidence of God or Accidents?
(April 13, 2012 at 8:22 pm)Loading Please Wait Wrote: Yes. The periodic table did happen spontaneously by accident. Not God.

Actually the periodic table was no accident. The familiar periodic table was designed by Dmitri Mendeleev 1869. It was loosely based on John Newlands Law of Octaves from 1865. The idea of a periodic table(or periodicity of the elements) is extremely old and dates back to Aristotle.
Reply
#12
RE: Precision in NatuEvidence of God or Accidents?
(April 29, 2012 at 4:44 am)Phil Wrote:
(April 13, 2012 at 8:22 pm)Loading Please Wait Wrote: Yes. The periodic table did happen spontaneously by accident. Not God.

Actually the periodic table was no accident. The familiar periodic table was designed by Dmitri Mendeleev 1869. It was loosely based on John Newlands Law of Octaves from 1865. The idea of a periodic table(or periodicity of the elements) is extremely old and dates back to Aristotle.
I think he's talking about the elements on the periodic table themselves, not the table itself. But even those weren't an accident. With enough energy they would have necessarily formed no matter what according to the laws of physics.
Reply
#13
RE: Precision in NatuEvidence of God or Accidents?
(April 29, 2012 at 2:50 am)Alter2Ego Wrote: ALTER2EGO -to- STIMBO:

What you're not willing to acknowledge is that Big Bang is nothing more than a theory aka "a group of hypotheses that can be disproven." Big Bang theory is simply expansion of space. It cannot explain what caused thousands of planets to appear, each with their own gravitational pull that keeps them within their individual orbit so that the planets do not crash into each other.

The spontaneous expansion of space for no logical reason does not explain the precision in these planets in their relationship to each other. For that matter, no scientist can explain what triggered the Big Bang from the get-go.

The evidence that you speak of amounts to speculations as scientists attempt to explain why things are as they are in the universe. They don't know why, so they speculate. If they knew, the term Big Bang would have dropped the word "theory."

[Image: Triple.jpg]

Please kindly shut the fuck up. You are talking from sheer ignorance and haven't a fucking clue.

Here's a tip for you: GO LEARN WHAT THE FUCK A THEORY IS.

What is that thing we use to describe how gravity works? Oh yeah, it's a theory.
What is that thing we use to describe how evolution works? Oh yeah, it's a theory.
What is that thing we use to describe how germs work? Oh yeah, it's a theory.
What is that thing we use to describe how light works? Oh yeah, it's a theory.
What is that thing we use to describe how atoms work? Oh yeah, it's A FUCKING THEORY.

Get the message yet Einstein??

Or are you seriously sitting there saying you can disprove Photon theory, the theory of Evolution, general relativity, special relativity, Cell theory, Atomic theory, the theory of Matter and Energy, Quantum Mechanics... and all the other scientific THEORIES we have come up with to date?
Reply
#14
RE: Precision in NatuEvidence of God or Accidents?
(April 29, 2012 at 6:03 am)Napoleon Wrote:
(April 29, 2012 at 2:50 am)Alter2Ego Wrote: ALTER2EGO -to- STIMBO:

What you're not willing to acknowledge is that Big Bang is nothing more than a theory aka "a group of hypotheses that can be disproven." Big Bang theory is simply expansion of space. It cannot explain what caused thousands of planets to appear, each with their own gravitational pull that keeps them within their individual orbit so that the planets do not crash into each other.

The spontaneous expansion of space for no logical reason does not explain the precision in these planets in their relationship to each other. For that matter, no scientist can explain what triggered the Big Bang from the get-go.

The evidence that you speak of amounts to speculations as scientists attempt to explain why things are as they are in the universe. They don't know why, so they speculate. If they knew, the term Big Bang would have dropped the word "theory."

Please kindly shut the fuck up. You are talking from sheer ignorance and haven't a fucking clue.

Here's a tip for you: GO LEARN WHAT THE FUCK A THEORY IS.

What is that thing we use to describe how gravity works? Oh yeah, it's a theory.
What is that thing we use to describe how evolution works? Oh yeah, it's a theory.
What is that thing we use to describe how germs work? Oh yeah, it's a theory.
What is that thing we use to describe how light works? Oh yeah, it's a theory.
What is that thing we use to describe how atoms work? Oh yeah, it's A FUCKING THEORY.

Get the message yet Einstein??

Or are you seriously sitting there saying you can disprove Photon theory, the theory of Evolution, general relativity, special relativity, Cell theory, Atomic theory, the theory of Matter and Energy, Quantum Mechanics... and all the other scientific THEORIES we have come up with to date?

I'm putting you on my "Ignore" List. I will not accept your disrespectful behavior and your foul language, because it's uncalled for. From this point forward, everything you post will be invisible to me.
Reply
#15
RE: Precision in NatuEvidence of God or Accidents?
(April 29, 2012 at 11:00 am)Alter2Ego Wrote:
(April 29, 2012 at 6:03 am)Napoleon Wrote:
(April 29, 2012 at 2:50 am)Alter2Ego Wrote: ALTER2EGO -to- STIMBO:

What you're not willing to acknowledge is that Big Bang is nothing more than a theory aka "a group of hypotheses that can be disproven." Big Bang theory is simply expansion of space. It cannot explain what caused thousands of planets to appear, each with their own gravitational pull that keeps them within their individual orbit so that the planets do not crash into each other.

The spontaneous expansion of space for no logical reason does not explain the precision in these planets in their relationship to each other. For that matter, no scientist can explain what triggered the Big Bang from the get-go.

The evidence that you speak of amounts to speculations as scientists attempt to explain why things are as they are in the universe. They don't know why, so they speculate. If they knew, the term Big Bang would have dropped the word "theory."

Please kindly shut the fuck up. You are talking from sheer ignorance and haven't a fucking clue.

Here's a tip for you: GO LEARN WHAT THE FUCK A THEORY IS.

What is that thing we use to describe how gravity works? Oh yeah, it's a theory.
What is that thing we use to describe how evolution works? Oh yeah, it's a theory.
What is that thing we use to describe how germs work? Oh yeah, it's a theory.
What is that thing we use to describe how light works? Oh yeah, it's a theory.
What is that thing we use to describe how atoms work? Oh yeah, it's A FUCKING THEORY.

Get the message yet Einstein??

Or are you seriously sitting there saying you can disprove Photon theory, the theory of Evolution, general relativity, special relativity, Cell theory, Atomic theory, the theory of Matter and Energy, Quantum Mechanics... and all the other scientific THEORIES we have come up with to date?

I'm putting you on my "Ignore" List. I will not accept your disrespectful behavior and your foul language, because it's uncalled for. From this point forward, everything you post will be invisible to me.

Funny. You're incredibly easily offended, and you can't refute what he says, so you ignore him rather than reconsider your stance. How typical.
What falls away is always, and is near.

Also, I am not pretending to be female, this profile picture is my wonderful girlfriend. XD
Reply
#16
RE: Precision in NatuEvidence of God or Accidents?
(April 29, 2012 at 11:00 am)Alter2Ego Wrote: I'm putting you on my "Ignore" List. I will not accept your disrespectful behavior and your foul language, because it's uncalled for. From this point forward, everything you post will be invisible to me

Lads can you smell that? CAN YOU SMELL IT? It smells like.... VICTORY!
Reply
#17
RE: Precision in NatuEvidence of God or Accidents?
(April 28, 2012 at 10:19 pm)Alter2Ego Wrote: The reason why I listed Big Bang THEORY and Macroevolution THEORY together should be obvious: They both rely on precision without the intervention of an intelligent Designer/God who guided the outcome. These two theories have everything to do with one another. They are both unproven, are the inventions of the human imagination, and they amount to MYTH.

Did you really just say that with a straight face?

You are currently experiencing a lucky and very brief window of awareness, sandwiched in between two periods of timeless and utter nothingness. So why not make the most of it, and stop wasting your life away trying to convince other people that there is something else? The reality is obvious.

Reply
#18
RE: Precision in NatuEvidence of God or Accidents?
(April 29, 2012 at 2:50 am)Alter2Ego Wrote:


ALTER2EGO -to- STIMBO:

STIMBO receiving -- Go ahead ALTER2EGO -- OVER

(April 29, 2012 at 2:50 am)Alter2Ego Wrote: What you're not willing to acknowledge is that Big Bang is nothing more than a theory aka "a group of hypotheses that can be disproven."

Scientific Theory: a "systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner." The whole point of a theory is to disprove the shit out of it again and again until what remains is a diamond-hard kernel of truth.

Basically, saying something is "nothing more than a theory" is precisely the same as dismissing a world-class athlete as "nothing more than a gold-medal winner".

(April 29, 2012 at 2:50 am)Alter2Ego Wrote: Big Bang theory is simply expansion of space.
From a singularity.

(April 29, 2012 at 2:50 am)Alter2Ego Wrote: It cannot explain what caused thousands of planets to appear, each with their own gravitational pull that keeps them within their individual orbit so that the planets do not crash into each other.

Thousands, you say? Try millions upon millions upon millions. There may be hundreds of thousands in our Galaxy alone, based on estimates from the sample of almost a thousand exoplanets already confirmed to exist. But you're right; the Big Bang doesn't even try to explain how planets form. Similarly, as egg timer won't give you the date - is the egg timer useless? What does form planets, however, is localised concentration of gravity caused when a dense molecular cloud clumps together to form a protostar. Once the embryo star has accumulated enough matter to initiate nuclear fusion, the resulting ignition blows away most of the lighter elements in the cloud in the star's immediate vicinity. What remains is mostly rocky or metallic particles of dust, which clump together as a result of uncountable numbers of collisions. Once enough mass has accumulated, gravity takes over and the protoplanets increase in mass. Some of them may have enough gravity to trap the gas of the original cloud; Jupiter, for instance, has an unbelievably dense atmosphere formed primarily of the cloud from which the Solar System formed.

As to why the planets are in precise orbits that do not crash into each other: the early Solar System (and by extension, other star systems) was a mass of collisions; many of the moons in our system were in fact destroyed by such collision, then eventually reformed due to gravity. They still bear the scars to this day. So why are the planets in such peaceful orbits today? Simple. The planets and other bodies that were not in stable orbits didn't survive. Either they spiralled into the Sun, collided with other bodies and were destroyed or merged into one, or were flung out of the system altogether.

The beauty of this process is we can see it happening before our eyes and in various stages. All we have to do is look.

(April 29, 2012 at 2:50 am)Alter2Ego Wrote: The spontaneous expansion of space for no logical reason does not explain the precision in these planets in their relationship to each other. For that matter, no scientist can explain what triggered the Big Bang from the get-go.

This is quite a tangle. You've conflated the Big Bang with planetary formation, both of which I've just gone through. As to what 'triggered' the Big Bang, consider that the entire mass of the Universe was contained in the singularity. That means there was no space or time or anything we would recognise as a Universe, just that (to all intents and purposes) infinitely dense singularity. What reason do we have to expect such a thing to be stable? We know that unstable atomic structures can and do spontaneously break down, releasing as they do so quite insane amounts of energy. Just ask anyone from Hiroshima who was there in 1945.

(April 29, 2012 at 2:50 am)Alter2Ego Wrote: The evidence that you speak of amounts to speculations as scientists attempt to explain why things are as they are in the universe. They don't know why, so they speculate. If they knew, the term Big Bang would have dropped the word "theory."

The evidence of which I speak is detectable, measurable and predictable using equipment available to anyone. This stuff isn't some vast hidden conspiracy; pick up a textbook, go to your local observatory, open your damn eyes and look at the sky. All of the tools we have at our disposal - telescopes, x-ray satellites, microwave detectors, mathematics, not to mention higly trained and specialsed men and women who dedicate a good portion of their lives to discovering all this stuff - discover masses of data which, by some amazing coincidence [/irony] manages not to contradict all of the other data from all other independent but related fields. Thus, the measured age of the Earth doesn't make it older than the measured age of the Universe - though in point of fact this was not always the case and was, until more careful measurements were made, one of the major stumbling blocks preventing the Big Bang model from being accepted. So it's not like some cabal of scientists got together, made up a story and we liked it so much we decided to throw gods out of the picture and go with this one.

I look forward to joining Napoleon and whoever else is on your ignore list.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist.  This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair.  Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second.  That means there's a situation vacant.'
Reply
#19
RE: Precision in NatuEvidence of God or Accidents?
(April 29, 2012 at 4:12 pm)Stimbo Wrote:
(April 29, 2012 at 2:50 am)Alter2Ego Wrote: What you're not willing to acknowledge is that Big Bang is nothing more than a theory aka "a group of hypotheses that can be disproven."

Scientific Theory: a "systematic ideational structure of broad scope, conceived by the human imagination, that encompasses a family of empirical (experiential) laws regarding regularities existing in objects and events, both observed and posited. A scientific theory is a structure suggested by these laws and is devised to explain them in a scientifically rational manner."

The whole point of a theory is to disprove the shit out of it again and again until what remains is a diamond-hard kernel of truth.
ALTER2EGO -to- STIMBO:
Keep your eyes on the words within your quotation above that I bolded in red, and you will begin to see that when you read scientific papers in which people theorize, you're reading what equates to science fiction. While we're waiting for this absentee "diamond-hard kernel of truth," the only thing up for grabs at the present time is what was "conceived by the human imagination." That's why the expressions "Big Bang" and "Evolution" are both chained to the word THEORY like Siamese twins.


(April 29, 2012 at 4:12 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Basically, saying something is "nothing more than a theory" is precisely the same as dismissing a world-class athlete as "nothing more than a gold-medal winner".
ALTER2EGO -to- STIMBO:
That's not what I'm saying, and you know it. You're exaggerating. Anybody with common sense can tell the difference between a world-class athlete and a mere gold medal winner. On the other hand, a scientific theory is nothing more than a group of hypotheses that can be disproven. Scientific theory is a far cry from scientific fact. Below are definitions you will find useful. I will address the remainder of your rebuttal in another post.


IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS

Definition of Scientific Theory
A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm


Definition of Hypothesis
A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm


Definition of Scientific Fact:
An observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is ACCEPTED AS TRUE.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scientific+fact

Reply
#20
RE: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
What exactly is your point? Yes the Big Bang is theory, but it is supported by evidence and repeated testing that produces predictable results. You have invested far too much into "conceived by human imagination" and are completely blowing off the fact that it is then subjected to testing etc.

It is not just "some shit that some blokes made up, to answer the unanswerable questions", unlike your bible.
You are currently experiencing a lucky and very brief window of awareness, sandwiched in between two periods of timeless and utter nothingness. So why not make the most of it, and stop wasting your life away trying to convince other people that there is something else? The reality is obvious.

Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  the nature of sin Drich 137 17867 August 11, 2020 at 6:51 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Can someone show me the evidence of the bullshit bible articles? I believe in Harry Potter 36 4536 November 3, 2019 at 7:33 pm
Last Post: Jehanne
  If evidence for god is in abundance, why is faith necessary? Foxaèr 181 36869 November 11, 2017 at 10:11 pm
Last Post: Cyberman
  Atheists don't realize asking for evidence of God is a strawman ErGingerbreadMandude 240 27569 November 10, 2017 at 3:11 pm
Last Post: Cyberman
Question Why do you people say there is no evidence,when you can't be bothered to look for it? Jaguar 74 20083 November 5, 2017 at 7:17 pm
Last Post: GUBU
  Personal evidence Foxaèr 19 5980 November 4, 2017 at 12:27 pm
Last Post: c152
  Is Accepting Christian Evidence Special Pleading? SteveII 768 236195 September 28, 2017 at 10:42 pm
Last Post: Kernel Sohcahtoa
  Do Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence? SteveII 643 132061 August 12, 2017 at 1:36 am
Last Post: vorlon13
  Evidence: The Gathering Randy Carson 530 87221 September 25, 2015 at 5:14 pm
Last Post: abaris
  With Science and Archaeology and Miracle's evidence for God TheThinkingCatholic 35 11019 September 20, 2015 at 11:32 am
Last Post: Fidel_Castronaut



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)