Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

[Dragon]

You never questioned why only this planet got everything it needs to sustain life ?

You see, this is the kind of thing that makes me say that you have no intellectual integrity on this subject, that when confronted with an argument or evidence, you stick your fingers in your ears and ignore it. You have frequently posed an idea or argument, been answered, and then shortly thereafter repeated yourself as if nothing had ever been said. You are like a tape recorder playing back on an endless loop, not an actual engaged brain.

Here is what I said above on this exact subject, about the supposedly unique conditions on Earth to support life:

The anthropic principle holds: we are able to ask the question only because we live on a planet where conditions are right for life. On planets where conditions are not right, there is no life, and therefore no one to ask.

Conditions are not right for life here because life is here; it's the other way around. Life is here because conditions are right for it here.

Of course, you will ignore this, as always, and just repeat yourself after a little time has gone by, as always.

 

[Dr.Drock]

You can't see precise in nature like a hydrolgic system ? or how bout the formation of a cell ?

How bout the formation of a human ? How bout a peacock or a mallard duck ? looks like they were painted.

How bout the big cat family ?

How bout the four seasons we exp ?

How bout we can count on the sun to rise every day ?

How bout having just the right amount of gravity present on one planet ?

How bout one planmet being able to sustain life ?

Just think of all the things i didn't bring up.

Because we are not under perfect conditions there is no designer ?well the bible gives you an answer as to why. So YOU Don't see precision in nature ? Open your eyes.

It's only precise for a period of time. The wrong size asteroid is going in the wrong direction, it's all over for the entire planet. But with your views on science, I honestly don't know if you "believe" in asteroids.

The wrong asteroid, the wrong disease, the wrong natural disaster, and it's all over humans even with the fact that we've only been on earth for a tiny percentage of its existance.

Sin brought about the non perfect conditions.

I still would like an explanation for a planet spinning the opposite direction to the rest.

You never questioned why only this planet got everything it needs to sustain life ?

Why do you get on here and pretend to care about scientific evidence while simultaneously saying things like "sin brought about non perfect conditions."

You don't care that there's zero scientific support for that lunacy, so why do you pretend to care about scientific support in other areas?

 

[Newby]

You never questioned why only this planet got everything it needs to sustain life ?

You see, this is the kind of thing that makes me say that you have no intellectual integrity on this subject, that when confronted with an argument or evidence, you stick your fingers in your ears and ignore it. You have frequently posed an idea or argument, been answered, and then shortly thereafter repeated yourself as if nothing had ever been said. You are like a tape recorder playing back on an endless loop, not an actual engaged brain.
Here is what I said above on this exact subject, about the supposedly unique conditions on Earth to support life:

The anthropic principle holds: we are able to ask the question only because we live on a planet where conditions are right for life. On planets where conditions are not right, there is no life, and therefore no one to ask.

Conditions are not right for life here because life is here; it's the other way around. Life is here because conditions are right for it here.

Of course, you will ignore this, as always, and just repeat yourself after a little time has gone by, as always.

Pot met kettle...

 

[Dragon]

Pot met kettle...

I don't think you can show me one instance in which I've done the same thing.

 

[Dr.Drock]

You never questioned why only this planet got everything it needs to sustain life ?

You see, this is the kind of thing that makes me say that you have no intellectual integrity on this subject, that when confronted with an argument or evidence, you stick your fingers in your ears and ignore it. You have frequently posed an idea or argument, been answered, and then shortly thereafter repeated yourself as if nothing had ever been said. You are like a tape recorder playing back on an endless loop, not an actual engaged brain.
Here is what I said above on this exact subject, about the supposedly unique conditions on Earth to support life:

The anthropic principle holds: we are able to ask the question only because we live on a planet where conditions are right for life. On planets where conditions are not right, there is no life, and therefore no one to ask.

Conditions are not right for life here because life is here; it's the other way around. Life is here because conditions are right for it here.

Of course, you will ignore this, as always, and just repeat yourself after a little time has gone by, as always.

Pot met kettle...

YWC is doing what he does in every thread. Asks a question, gets an answer he doesn't like, then re-asks the question pages later pretending it wasn't already answered. Then once he's asked the question so many times and people get tired of repeating themselves, he annoints himself victor and pretends his bible blog links have stood up and defeated the scientific facts posed to him.

There's no point in debating him. He demands answers to his questions, then doesn't listen to the answers and he never answers questions posed to him. Never answers them with anything scientific.

 

[amrchaos]

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 the 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"?

The presence of patterns, in themselves, does not credit the existence nor discount the existence of an intelligent designer. Nor does it credit nor discount the existence of process. Patterns and designs can occur at random, like in the formation of snowflakes. Unless you believe this Intelligen Designer is actually designing each and every snowflake(what is the point??) it is normally assumed such formations are of random chance or "accident" as some ID supporters would suggest.

On the otherhand, the presence of a questionable object in reality that lacks pertinent reason for existance could be used as evidence against a planned purpose or intentional design.

For example, the appendix in the human body lacks a well defined function in the Human organism. In fact, the Appendix is occasionally a dangerous organic construct that is connected to the Large intestines with the potential of rupture, thus killing the human being in question. So why did a Intelligent Designer, with intentions of creating living human beings, place the appendix in the Human body? Is this not akin to an automaker placing a bomb next to the fuel tank of his automobiles? Its existence lacks rational and is unlikely the product of a rational thinking entity. Why? A rational thinking engineer would not add parts to a creation that lacks some purpose. The Appendix lacks purpose and therefore is not a product of a intelligent designer(who we are assuming is at least rational)

I like to call the Appendix(as in the human body) a Q functional Organic Construct (Q-FOC). It is an organic construct that lacks a well defined function in an organism.(Thus the term q-functional. Its Function in an organism is questionable) The presence of a Q-FOC suggest that the organism was not well planned or "designed" but occured through a series or evolutionary(or de-evolutionary) processes and is not fully functional. It may have had a purpose, or there may be a future purpose once it is fully developed but currently lacks a function or purpose.

The existence of the appendix, which is a Q-FOC, suggest that the human body went through evolutionary processes and not intelligently designed.

This does not rule out the existance of a higher being in the process of creating the human organism, but it tends to suggest that this being is more artist than engineer. That is it allow flaws in its creation and the evolutionary process is a means of obtaining this entities artwork. But in no way, with the presence of Q-FOCs in an organism, can we claim that the organism is "Intelligently Designed". Instead, the term "Creative Art" is more descriptive.

You might want to rethink your position,it seems the appendix does have a purpose another argument for intelligent design.

What does the appendix do? finally an answer!
Published on October 8, 2007 at 9:39 PM·32 Comments



inShare.1







Researchers at Duke University Medical Center say that the function of the frequently discarded appendix, an organ often credited with little importance and often dismissed as having no significant function, does it seems have a role to play after all.

Researchers in the United States say the appendix produces and protects good germs for the gut by "rebooting" the digestive system.

The team of immunologists at Duke University Medical Center say the human digestive system contains massive amounts of bacteria most of which are good and help the digestion of food.

However the researchers say sometimes the bacteria die off or are purged from the intestines as in diseases such as cholera or dysentery.

According to the researchers, the appendix's job is to "reboot" the digestive system when that happens with the bacteria safely harbored in the appendix.

Many doctors believe the appendix is a vestigial organ with no function and is no more than a blind ended tube connected to the cecum, from which it develops embryologically.

The cecum is a pouch-like structure of the colon and the appendix is near the junction of the small intestine and the large intestine and has abundant infection-fighting lymphoid cells, which suggests it plays a role in the immune system.

The most common diseases of the appendix (in humans) are appendicitis and carcinoid tumors. Appendix cancer accounts for about 1 in 200 of all gastrointestinal malignancies.


What does the appendix do? finally an answer!

Maybe you should quote the entire article


"Appendicitis is a condition where the the appendix becomes inflamed and in almost all cases it is removed either by laparotomy or laparoscopy; left untreated, the appendix will rupture, leading to peritonitis, then shock, and, if continued untreated, death.

The appendix is routinely removed without any notable ill effects or side effects and the scientists stress that even though the appendix seems to have a function, people should still have them removed when they are inflamed because since leaving it untreated could be fatal.

Dr. Bill Parker, a professor of surgery and one of the scientists responsible for establishing its status as a useful organ, says the function of the appendix seems related to the massive amount of bacteria that populates the human digestive system and where it is located just below the normal one-way flow of food and germs in the large intestine, helps support that theory.

The study appears in the online edition of the Journal of Theoretical Biology. "

In other words, this is an assumption of what the appendix does. The article even suggest that this is what it seems to do and therefore is not a declarative statement saying this is what the appendix does.

There is another article that help clarifies the difference between what it does versus what it maybe doing

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/health/research/17appe.html

In other words, we have a Hypothesis of what the Appendix does.--no experimental proof is presented. It is not a theory and only a guess and your article(which suggest that it is a theory) is not a refutation of my example.

Next time, please quote all the information and read it before making declarations of refutations.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The text I've highlighted in bold is just completely wrong. You don't even know what you're talking about, but its very amusing to me so keep going! Its always funny to see someone who thinks they can understand general relativity and quantum physics without math, but its even more funny to see someone who thinks they understand it better than those who understand the math!

The cover-up is always worse than the crime...
...your crime, ignorance....

1. Alan Lightman (born November 28, 1948 in Memphis, Tennessee) is an American physicist, writer, and social entrepreneur. He is a professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the author of the international bestseller Einstein's Dreams. He was the first professor at MIT to receive a joint appointment in the sciences and the humanities.
Alan Lightman - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2. The accidental universe:
Science's crisis of faith
By Alan P. Lightman
The accidental universe: Science's crisis of faith?By Alan P. Lightman (Harper's Magazine)

3. In the article, Lightman explains the concept so that even a fraud such as yourself will find it difficult to obfuscate...

"Theoretical physicists, on the other hand, are not satisfied with observing the universe. They want to know why. They want to explain all the properties of the universe in terms of a few fundamental principles and parameters. These fundamental principles, in turn, lead to the “laws of nature,” which govern the behavior of all matter and energy.

….If the multiverse idea is correct, then the historic mission of physics to explain all the properties of our universe in terms of fundamental principles—to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile, a beautiful philosophical dream that simply isn’t true.

Because there is no way they can prove this conjecture. That same uncertainty disturbs many physicists who are adjusting to the idea of the multiverse. Not only must we accept that basic properties of our universe are accidental and uncalculable. In addition, we must believe in the existence of many other universes. But we have no conceivable way of observing these other universes and cannot prove their existence. Thus, to explain what we see in the world and in our mental deductions, we must believe in what we cannot prove. Sound familiar? Theologians are accustomed to taking some beliefs on faith. Scientists are not. All we can do is hope that the same theories that predict the multiverse also produce many other predictions that we can test here in our own universe. But the other universes themselves will almost certainly remain a conjecture."


So....not only are you a fraud and a dunce....

...but this: 'The text I've highlighted in bold is just completely wrong. You don't even know what you're talking about,....'

...pretty much defines you.

I'm sorry, where does Lightman say that the muiltiverse theory is "by definition allowed to violate any scientific laws"? You've not shown me where he says that.

Also, where does lightman explain the theory itself? He doesn't. There's no mathematical equations in the article.

Again: "to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile,..."
Did you understand that???

yes. Do you have a problem with it?

Multiverse?? Then 'to explain why the properties of our universe must necessarily be what they are—is futile'!


Does that neon light flashing IDIOT over your head keep you awake at night?

Your arrogance continues to amuse me. Please continue to babble on about what you have no clue about. You read an article in Harper's and you think you understand a theory that takes years of study to understand - its quite amazing! When you're ready to attack the theory itself from a mathematical basis instead of based on your misinterpretations of a pop article, I'm ready!

1. In the service of diversity, a message board is bound to have all levels of posters. Some are brilliant, some not so much. The less-than-brilliant assemblage is never complete without the pretend-scientist: here we have one: Ooopsy-
Doo!

2. In “The Death of Feminism,” Dr. Phyllis Chesler explores feminism, academia and Islam. In it she reveals the way the pretend-academics cruise along while appearing to work in a field:
“They are loyal to their careers and their cliques, not to the truth. [In their writing, they] have pretended that brilliance and originality can best be conveyed in a secret, Mandarin language that absolutely no one, including themselves, can possibly understand…and this obfuscation of language has been employed to hide a considerable lack of brilliance and originality and to avoid the consequences of making oneself clear."


3. Here, Ooopsy-Doo, in his pose as the pretend-scientist, he fits perfectly into that definition. Having made the mistake of pretending to understand the ‘Multiverse concept,” Ooopsy attempts to obfuscate by inserting the jargon that is designed to cloud rather than clarify.

Ooopsy writes:
a. “There's no mathematical equations in the article.”
b. “Your arrogance continues to amuse me. Please continue to babble on about what you have no clue about. You read an article in Harper's and you think you understand a theory that takes years of study to understand –“
c. “When you're ready to attack the theory itself from a mathematical basis instead of based on your misinterpretations of a pop article,…”


4. To review, Ooopsy-dunce is the one who picked the ‘Multiverse’ as his answer as far back as page one!

5. In Post #9 I provided this tutorial: “the ‘multiverse,’ [the Landscape] idea, that there could be an infinite number of universes, each with some permutation of the natural laws of physics, vastly different from ours. … appeal to infinitely many universes crammed with laws of nature wriggling indiscreetly and fundamental physical parameters changing as one travels the cosmos. And- the entire gargantuan structure scientifically unobservable and devoid of any connection to expericnce.”

a. “ The multiverse is a universe of universes. What we think of as the cosmos becomes, in this theoretical framework, just one of many pocket universes each with their own form of the laws of physics. “ One Universe Too Many? String Theories, The Multiverse And The Future Of Physics. : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR

So...I didn't 'misinterpret,' did I?
It doesn't take a normal intelligence years of study, does it? Well...in your case....


6. Suddenly, Ooopsy doesn’t understand that the phony theory that he chose states that there may be multiple universes, each with their own laws of science totally different from those in our universe….i.e., thus, there are no universally true facts or laws!!!

7. Now, Ooopsy has implied that he has a Ph.D…..if so, it must stand for “Piled higher and Deeper.”

I have that warm, fuzzy feeling that only cruelty to the stupid can provide.

 

[Dragon]

Disregarding for the moment whether anyone here really is or is not a scientist, it remains the case that PCs entire argument in regard to the idea of multiverses rested on the mistaken notion that evolution presents a view of life that is "random." It does not.

Whatever the validity or lack thereof of PC's understanding of the multiverse idea, it was therefore exerted in answer to a non-question.

 

[Newby]

You see, this is the kind of thing that makes me say that you have no intellectual integrity on this subject, that when confronted with an argument or evidence, you stick your fingers in your ears and ignore it. You have frequently posed an idea or argument, been answered, and then shortly thereafter repeated yourself as if nothing had ever been said. You are like a tape recorder playing back on an endless loop, not an actual engaged brain.
Here is what I said above on this exact subject, about the supposedly unique conditions on Earth to support life:



Conditions are not right for life here because life is here; it's the other way around. Life is here because conditions are right for it here.

Of course, you will ignore this, as always, and just repeat yourself after a little time has gone by, as always.

Pot met kettle...

YWC is doing what he does in every thread. Asks a question, gets an answer he doesn't like, then re-asks the question pages later pretending it wasn't already answered. Then once he's asked the question so many times and people get tired of repeating themselves, he annoints himself victor and pretends his bible blog links have stood up and defeated the scientific facts posed to him.

There's no point in debating him. He demands answers to his questions, then doesn't listen to the answers and he never answers questions posed to him. Never answers them with anything scientific.

Funny, but I see Dragon as being exactly the same. I've seen Dragon not accept YWC's answers as well. Dragon thinks he answers questions posed to him, but all you get is an elaborate run around that doesn't answer a damn thing. He's not worth debating either.

 

[Newby]

Disregarding for the moment whether anyone here really is or is not a scientist, it remains the case that PCs entire argument in regard to the idea of multiverses rested on the mistaken notion that evolution presents a view of life that is "random." It does not.

Whatever the validity or lack thereof of PC's understanding of the multiverse idea, it was therefore exerted in answer to a non-question.

Why? Because you say so? Everything you post is an opinion, your opinion, never backed up with anything. PC backs up everything she says and provides documentation, her equal you would never be, nor would you stand a chance in a debate with her or anyone else.

 

[amrchaos]

Disregarding for the moment whether anyone here really is or is not a scientist, it remains the case that PCs entire argument in regard to the idea of multiverses rested on the mistaken notion that evolution presents a view of life that is "random." It does not.

Whatever the validity or lack thereof of PC's understanding of the multiverse idea, it was therefore exerted in answer to a non-question.

Why? Because you say so? Everything you post is an opinion, your opinion, never backed up with anything. PC backs up everything she says and provides documentation, her equal you would never be, nor would you stand a chance in a debate with her or anyone else.

It seems what Dragon is saying is that

PC is wasting her time​

But PC likes to stomp on the stupid for her own enjoyment. So I don't know if her argument with OD is a waste of her time, or a simple hedonistic character flaw on her part.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Disregarding for the moment whether anyone here really is or is not a scientist, it remains the case that PCs entire argument in regard to the idea of multiverses rested on the mistaken notion that evolution presents a view of life that is "random." It does not.

Whatever the validity or lack thereof of PC's understanding of the multiverse idea, it was therefore exerted in answer to a non-question.

Once again, the Earl of Error re-establishing his creds!


Far be it from I to suggest anything that might be advantageous to you....but per: "it remains the case that PCs entire argument in regard to the idea of multiverses rested on the mistaken notion that evolution presents a view of life that is "random." It does not."

....it might help your case to actually understand that about which you were posting.

....although it would certainly cut down precipitously on the number of posts you could muster.


As the triangle said to the circle, ‘you’re pointless.’

 

[Skull Pilot]

There is nothing really precise about nature.

The human body is full of design flaws. The fact that we breathe and eat via the same route has caused countless deaths.

The heart and genitals are not very well protected

Do I even have to mention the birth canal and the millions upon millions of women who have died in childbirth because of that particularly poor design?

Evolution is nothing but a series of just good enough fixes that take the least amount of energy and change resulting in a slightly better chance to survive and procreate.

 

[Alter2Ego]

If you are operating on dogmatic religious belief, which appears to be the case, then we have nothing to talk about at all. As for explaining away prophecies, that's of course quite simple; there is no prophecy in the Bible whose fulfillment cannot be accounted for by one of creative interpretation of later scriptures, deliberate falsification of them with earlier prophecies in mind, or, at best, normal human psychic ability. Also, the Bible is not one work but a collection of works joined together by fallible human authorities, and so even evidence of extraordinary content in one book of the Bible does nothing to support claims about any other book of the Bible.

ALTER2EGO -to- DRAGON:
Unless you can present examples of this, you are merely expressing your personal opinion and repeating what you heard from other atheists. How about you present Bible book, chapter, and verse where these supposed manipulated prophesies occurred?

But of course, if you are a dogmatist, as seems to be the case, you will not pay attention to any of this. If you want to discuss the origin of species on a scientific basis, I'll join in. If all you want is to spout Christian dogma, I'm not interested and will ignore you henceforth. Id appreciate it if you would make that clear, just for convenience' sake.

ALTER2EGO -to- DRAGON:
I have every intention of exposing evolution theory as a myth on this forum. And I will do it by means of scientific evidence. I will be starting a thread on that topic shortly.

 

[Dr.Drock]

If you are operating on dogmatic religious belief, which appears to be the case, then we have nothing to talk about at all. As for explaining away prophecies, that's of course quite simple; there is no prophecy in the Bible whose fulfillment cannot be accounted for by one of creative interpretation of later scriptures, deliberate falsification of them with earlier prophecies in mind, or, at best, normal human psychic ability. Also, the Bible is not one work but a collection of works joined together by fallible human authorities, and so even evidence of extraordinary content in one book of the Bible does nothing to support claims about any other book of the Bible.

ALTER2EGO -to- DRAGON:
Unless you can present examples of this, you are merely expressing your personal opinion and repeating what you heard from other atheists. How about you present Bible book, chapter, and verse where these supposed manipulated prophesies occurred?

But of course, if you are a dogmatist, as seems to be the case, you will not pay attention to any of this. If you want to discuss the origin of species on a scientific basis, I'll join in. If all you want is to spout Christian dogma, I'm not interested and will ignore you henceforth. Id appreciate it if you would make that clear, just for convenience' sake.

ALTER2EGO -to- DRAGON:
I have every intention of exposing evolution theory as a myth on this forum. And I will do it by means of scientific evidence. I will be starting a thread on that topic shortly.

You don't have to start a new thread. There's old threads you can post in that are equally stupid to the one you're about to post. All the dumb bible blogs have already been squashed, you can just read through the threads to save yourself the time.

But don't worry, science will keep advancing whether you want it to or not. Fundies can choose to get left in the dust, and sadly for them the only people affected negatively by the anti-education stance are their children. The rest of us will move along unharmed.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Wrong.

Demonstrate and please don't try to make me critique the Miller-urey experiment.

But the Miller-Urey experiment did generate amino acids in a soup of water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen, which attempted to mimic what was believed to be the conditions before the origin of life on earth. There's no need for a general critique of the experiment; it's been suggested by scientists that the composition of the "soup" used might not be accurate. Also, you need not point out that amino acids alone are not life; I know that. So does everyone. The fact remains that amino acids were created chemically in water.

Also, most animals and plants are composed largely of water and amino acids are produced in living things all the time. Water is a major component of amino acids. You're just plain wrong.

EDIT: If you're going to object that the amino acids in the experiment were performed in the electrical spark chamber which had no liquid water, I remind you that evaporation and precipitation occur in nature, too.

Funny you are providing evidence of design that produces amino acids Gods creation.

Oh boy,what kind of amino acids were formed in the miller urey experiment ?

Yes plants can produce amino acids but amino acids had to be formed before there were plants.

Now another problem for the experiment was nobody knows what the enviornment was like when life began. Really you believe lightning sparked the creation of amino acids ?

Let's not forget oxygen could not be present.

Now let's look a little closer to the miller urey experiment and see if it was a natural enviornment or not.

The Miller-Urey Experiement

 

[Youwerecreated]

It's only precise for a period of time. The wrong size asteroid is going in the wrong direction, it's all over for the entire planet. But with your views on science, I honestly don't know if you "believe" in asteroids.

The wrong asteroid, the wrong disease, the wrong natural disaster, and it's all over humans even with the fact that we've only been on earth for a tiny percentage of its existance.

Sin brought about the non perfect conditions.

I still would like an explanation for a planet spinning the opposite direction to the rest.

You never questioned why only this planet got everything it needs to sustain life ?

Why do you get on here and pretend to care about scientific evidence while simultaneously saying things like "sin brought about non perfect conditions."

You don't care that there's zero scientific support for that lunacy, so why do you pretend to care about scientific support in other areas?

Make an argument will you that is legit.

 

[Youwerecreated]

There is nothing really precise about nature.

The human body is full of design flaws. The fact that we breathe and eat via the same route has caused countless deaths.

The heart and genitals are not very well protected

Do I even have to mention the birth canal and the millions upon millions of women who have died in childbirth because of that particularly poor design?

Evolution is nothing but a series of just good enough fixes that take the least amount of energy and change resulting in a slightly better chance to survive and procreate.

How many bad genes have been transferred to the whole human family over the years ?

 

[Dr.Drock]

Sin brought about the non perfect conditions.

I still would like an explanation for a planet spinning the opposite direction to the rest.

You never questioned why only this planet got everything it needs to sustain life ?

Why do you get on here and pretend to care about scientific evidence while simultaneously saying things like "sin brought about non perfect conditions."

You don't care that there's zero scientific support for that lunacy, so why do you pretend to care about scientific support in other areas?

Make an argument will you that is legit.

I happily will, once you provide scientific evidence that "sin brought about non perfect conditions."

 

[Youwerecreated]

If you are operating on dogmatic religious belief, which appears to be the case, then we have nothing to talk about at all. As for explaining away prophecies, that's of course quite simple; there is no prophecy in the Bible whose fulfillment cannot be accounted for by one of creative interpretation of later scriptures, deliberate falsification of them with earlier prophecies in mind, or, at best, normal human psychic ability. Also, the Bible is not one work but a collection of works joined together by fallible human authorities, and so even evidence of extraordinary content in one book of the Bible does nothing to support claims about any other book of the Bible.

ALTER2EGO -to- DRAGON:
Unless you can present examples of this, you are merely expressing your personal opinion and repeating what you heard from other atheists. How about you present Bible book, chapter, and verse where these supposed manipulated prophesies occurred?

But of course, if you are a dogmatist, as seems to be the case, you will not pay attention to any of this. If you want to discuss the origin of species on a scientific basis, I'll join in. If all you want is to spout Christian dogma, I'm not interested and will ignore you henceforth. Id appreciate it if you would make that clear, just for convenience' sake.

ALTER2EGO -to- DRAGON:
I have every intention of exposing evolution theory as a myth on this forum. And I will do it by means of scientific evidence. I will be starting a thread on that topic shortly.

Post the thread when you start it I would like to watch it.

Nevermid Doc he hates evidence or questions that his fellow evolutionist ignore or can't answer.