Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

AGRUMENT #1 FOR AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR:

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 an accident aka a spontaneous event that happen 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"


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, for precision leaves no room for error or for accidental events. Take, for example, the first discovered 60 elements on the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth. Some of these 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 Encyclopædia 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 relies upon things happening by chance aka at random. If evolution were a fact, how does it 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 it has been assigned the word "LAW"?

[Loading Please Wait]

For the average person, precision indicates that an intelligent person guided the outcome.

You don't have to be intelligent to be precise.

You could easily train anything to be precise, let's say a chicken, to do certain tasks, very precisely. Precision does not equal intelligent design..

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?

No. But how does this pertain to intelligent design?

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?

Yes. The periodic table did happen spontaneously by accident. Not God.

3. Evolution relies upon things happening by chance aka at random. If evolution were a fact, how does it 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 it has been assigned the word "LAW"?

Evolution is not random, or by chance. Educate yourself.

[Jackalope]

Yes. The periodic table did happen spontaneously by accident. Not God.

I think "accident" is a poor choice of wording here.

Given the chemical makeup of the infant universe (predominately hydrogen, with some helium and a trace of lithum), and the means by which heavier elements form (nuclear fusion and radioactive decay) and are distributed (supernovae), the nature of the elements that could and would form was and is deterministic.

No accident, no "chance", and no probability. No design, no designer, and no creator.

It was inevitable.

@OP - I'm not going to say this is elementary physics, chemistry or cosmology, but it's pretty damn close.

P.S. You're conflating cosmology and biology. Don't do that. They have little to do with one another, at least not in the way that you imply.

[NoMoreFaith]

So basically, the argument is, 60 comes after 59 and so on until 1.

How the fuck else do things accumulate? 1 proton, 2 protons, 3 protons. Are you suggesting that because things accumulate in units of 1 whole, its precision?

Oh god, the stupidity, it hurts....

[Alter2Ego]

Yes. The periodic table did happen spontaneously by accident. Not God.

I think "accident" is a poor choice of wording here.

Given the chemical makeup of the infant universe (predominately hydrogen, with some helium and a trace of lithum), and the means by which heavier elements form (nuclear fusion and radioactive decay) and are distributed (supernovae), the nature of the elements that could and would form was and is deterministic.

No accident, no "chance", and no probability. No design, no designer, and no creator.

It was inevitable.

@OP - I'm not going to say this is elementary physics, chemistry or cosmology, but it's pretty damn close.

P.S. You're conflating cosmology and biology. Don't do that. They have little to do with one another, at least not in the way that you imply.

ALTER2EGO -to- CTHULHU DREAMING:

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.

[Cyberman]

Right - so all the accumulated evidence, such as the CMB which exactly matches Big Bang predictions, galaxies Doppler-shifted precisely as predicted by Big bang expansion, plus all the masses of mathematical calculations based on that evidence... that's all myth. Right. Got it. As opposed to - what? A timeless, spaceless über-scientist who magically wished the Universe into being and has a personal interest in the bedroom habits of one group of jumped-up apes living on one infinitesimal speck of rock lost in the immense wastes of that Universe, yet made it all appear as though it didn't have or need a Creator?

One of these things is not like the other.

[Jackalope]

Welcome to Strangeworld, where evidenced knowledge is myth, and myth and mysticism is fact.

This guy is a troll, he's spewed all of his questions across a dozen or more sites. Not going to bother with this one.

[Alter2Ego]

Right - so all the accumulated evidence, such as the CMB which exactly matches Big Bang predictions, galaxies Doppler-shifted precisely as predicted by Big bang expansion, plus all the masses of mathematical calculations based on that evidence... that's all myth. Right. Got it. As opposed to - what? A timeless, spaceless über-scientist who magically wished the Universe into being and has a personal interest in the bedroom habits of one group of jumped-up apes living on one infinitesimal speck of rock lost in the immense wastes of that Universe, yet made it all appear as though it didn't have or need a Creator?

One of these things is not like the other.

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."

[simplexity]

Speculation based off information already given is always better than starting with a pre-conceived notion(Your God) which is already even more complicated than the universe as we know it.

[Tobie]

The properties of the elements in the periodic table are easily explained by science. People like Mendeleev used the fact that atoms with similar structures ( i.e same number of electrons on outer shell ) will have similar properties to group them together. It is not difficult to see that similar things will have similar properties, but because they do, you feel the need to chalk it up to some *intelligent* creator. Tell me, what evidence do you have beyond your own bias and misunderstandings of scientific fact?