Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

[Alter2Ego]

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.

ALTER2EGO -to- NORFOLK AND CHANCE:
What "repeated testing that produces predictable results" are you referring to in which space is known to expand--without guidance from an intelligent source? No such evidence exists.

What the scientists have been able to test and predict are preexisting universal laws, which they then apply to the behavior of planets and the expansion of space. Who put those laws in place? Laws and precision indicate an intelligent personage guided the outcome. Big Bang Theory relies on spontaneous events in which one accident after the other happened at the right place and at the right time. I can tell you this: it takes more faith to believe precision was the result of spontaneous events, so you're in worse shape than I am.

Not only do scientists not know who put those laws in place so that precision is the result, to top it off, some of their predictions are wrong. Do you think I dismiss Big Bang Theory just for the sake of it? It defies logic that unguided events aka accidents could produce precision. Besides that, I've read several of these reports, and I pay close attention to the language used in the reports. Take, for example, the WMAP Project.

As of October 2010, the WMAP spacecraft is in a graveyard orbit after 9 years of operations. The Astronomy and Physics Senior Review panel at NASA Headquarters has endorsed a total of 9 years of WMAP operations, through September 2010.[3] All WMAP data are released to the public and have been subject to careful scrutiny. Recent examinations of WMAP data has uncovered systematic errors. A predictable, scan-induced quadrupole pattern of the WMAP mission is in perfect agreement with the published WMAP quadrupole. Scan-induced anisotropy is a common problem for all sweep missions and like the foreground emissions, should be removed from final maps.[12] Some of the correction techniques and analyses by critics have been duplicated by third parties and appear correct.[13] After corrections all that remains is a nearly featureless surface and hence much less information than originally published.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe

http://www.scribd.com/Muths999999/d/79167303-C-L-Bennett-et-al-Seven-Year-Wilkinson-Microwave-Anisotropy-Probe-WMAP-Observations-Are-There-Cosmic-Microwave-Background-Anomalies

[Norfolk And Chance]

What "repeated testing that produces predictable results" are you referring to in which space is known to expand--without guidance from an intelligent source? No such evidence exists.

Jaw droppingly stupid.

What "repeated testing that produces predictable results" are you referring to in which space is known to expand--without guidance from an invisible whicker basket orbiting Zooton? No such evidence exists.

What the scientists have been able to test and predict are preexisting universal laws, which they then apply to the behavior of planets and the expansion of space. Who put those laws in place?

Satan?

Laws and precision indicate an intelligent personage guided the outcome. Big Bang Theory relies on spontaneous events in which one accident after the other happened at the right place and at the right time. I can tell you this: it takes more faith to believe precision was the result of spontaneous events, so you're in worse shape than I am.

You do realise that because we call them "Laws" that they are not necessarily designed by some "being", like human laws are. Right? A Law of the universe is just an expression to define a property of the universe that appears to be predictable.

Big Bang theory to you might be something that you struggle to believe wasn't caused by god, but what I would say to you (if you accept the universe is 13.7bn years old and that the big bang happened) is why would god go to all that bother? Why would he not just pop everything out of nowhere into existence, ready made, that'd be easier - it's what it says in the bible.

Not only do scientists not know who put those laws in place so that precision is the result

I'm not aware that scientists think there needs to be a "who"?

to top it off, some of their predictions are wrong.

Sometimes scientists can be wrong!

Do you think I dismiss Big Bang Theory just for the sake of it?

Do I actually care?

I'm done with your post, I can't be bothered to answer the rest of it.

[Cyberman]

I think I see part of the problem. It looks like (and I apologise if this is wrong) A2E thinks there is a progressive heirarchy in science, from a hypothesis/theory to a fact to a law. If that's the case, then no wonder the poor fella's confused. Maybe it's radio static or sunspots or something. Just in case:

A hypothesis is a tentative statement about the natural world leading to deductions that can be tested. A working assumption, if you will.

A fact is an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.”

A law is a descriptive generalisation about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

A theory is a conceptual framework that explains existing observations and predicts new ones.

(All definitions taken from here.)

To sum up: A hypothesis is an embryo theory which, under the proper conditions and if it eats up all its greens, may just possibly grow up to be a theory. However, a theory can never become a law or even a fact, no matter how much testing is done or how many letters the scientists has after his/her name.

---

Yes, I'm onto the taking-the-piss phase of dealing with reality deniers now. Next up will be the pointing-and-laughing stage. Can't wait!

[Alter2Ego]

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.

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.

ALTER2EGO -to- STIMBO:
I used the words "thousands of planets" since it’s a large enough number that one can multiply that number indefinitely. But you got the point that all these planets are in harmony with each other as a result of having differing gravitational pulls. That's a perfect example of precision. And you're arguing that it happened spontaneously aka by accident--including the formation of planets. What logic are you using? Telling me "Some of them may have..." amounts to speculation, something "conceived by the human imagination," as the Encyclopedia Britannica put it.

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.

ALTER2EGO -to- STIMBO:
You don't know any of that. You read that from some scientific website where people in academia do what they do: speculate. This is the point that most laypersons are not willing to accept. Because a person with a Ph.D. speculates about something, that doesn't give any more weight to what he or she is saying than if an unschooled person had said the same thing because they are all guessing. They don't know.

Here you are arguing for the destruction of planets--by accident, which then supposedly recreated themselves--by accident, and did this with such precision that by some accident they ended up having stable orbits. Everything you are relying upon for this to have occurred requires deliberation--not accidents. As a reminder, Websters New Collegiate Dictionary describes an accident as follows:

"a nonessential event that happens by chance and has undesirable or unfortunate results"

[Cyberman]

No, I'm not using the word "may" in the speculative sense. I'm using it in the sense that planet A has a chance to be massive enough to trap such gaseous clouds, while planet B does not. If I'd said "may possibly" then you would have a point and I would concede that. Interesting how that was the only substantive objection you had to that entire paragraph.

As for the assertion that I got my information from some scientific website, I ought to put that to Mr Franks, my senior school Astronomy teacher. Even at the age of 86, I'm sure he'd feel inclined to slap you daft(er) for such an insult. I may verify my information using current scientific knowledge, sure; I happen to care whether what I learn is accurate.

I'll close by reiterating what I said elsewhere: there's nothing random and accidental about the god-damn laws of physics!

[Epimethean]

Um, A2E, there is no evidence of cosmic harmony. This planet could be obliterated any year, and it could have been at any point heretofore, as it may be when the sun goes red giant. The fact that it hasn't so far is a math equation with massive variables, not one of which was likely penned by a divine watchmaker.

[Cyberman]

Side note: if science (astronomy, astrophysics, evolutionary biology, whatever) happened to agree with your holy book, would you still have such problems with it?

---

In other news: Wheee! 1500 posts!!

[Alter2Ego]

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.

ALTER2EGO -to- STIMBO:
You're not getting the point I made when I previously told you the scientists are speculating. Of course they can detect and measure and try to predict with their equipment. That's not the issue. There's no disputing the existence of the universe and the precision in it that makes it possible for humans studying it to be able to detect, measure, and predict certain things. But the discussion you and I are having is this: How could precision exist in the universe without an intelligent person having guided the outcome? Your argument is that as long as humans can detect what exists, God didn't do it, it happened by itself. My position is that intelligent design is evidence that it was done deliberately--and this points to the existence of an intelligent Designer/God.

[Cyberman]

And you're not getting the point I'm making. You missed this:

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.

You're the one positing a divine creator behind all that we see. Three guesses which of us has the burden of proof.

[Alter2Ego]

I look forward to joining Napoleon and whoever else is on your ignore list.

ALTER2EGO -to- STIMBO:
The reason why I put people on my Ignore list is because two of them were cursing me out. A third person calling himself Regens Küchl has been cyberbullying me at two other websites. The fourth person on my "Ignore" list wrote several foul and threatening posts to someone else on this forum. I don't need to read that mess, and I wasn't going to give him the chance to even engage me in conversation. Now that they're on "Ignore," I don't care what they write because I won't have to see it.

We are adults. There's no reason why we cannot have a discussion without turning it into a personal battle. Did anybody say we have to agree? No. Is cursing each other out going to make us more likely to agree? No. So why do it? What purpose does it serve to demean another person? None.