Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

[Foxfyre]

In my never-to-be-considered humble opinion, there are mysteries and 'whys' and 'what ifs' that exist in all aspects of nature, our planet, our galaxy, our universe that will never be explained by us or human scientists. I don't think we iknow all there is to know about anything and probably never well. I am 100% certain that we have a teensy fraction of the scientific knowledge that there is yet to be had. So anybody who says we have anything all figured out is, in my opinion, quite naive.

Having said that, when you look at organisms or ecosystems that are so utterly perfect in design and function, for most of us it is very difficult to discount some form of intelligence being behind it. And of course there is strong evidence for the theory of evolution, but who is to say that is not included in and part of that larger intelligence?

I believe in God and therefore accept that as the source of the intelligence, but even the Atheist can accept a concept of intelligent design. Einstein did not believe in a personal deity or a concept such as God. But he refused to be labeled 'Atheist" too as he embraced Spinoza's observations of a universe so complex and diverse with components of such utter beauty and perfection, that he rationally saw some kind of cosmic intelligence guiding the process throughout.

 

[code1211]

Well two of them have been ignored in this thread or dragon did give an opinion that has no backing.

Where did intelligence originate from ?

How did life begin ? do you have an opinion ?

Opinion is all that anyone can offer, no?

That is correct but the important part you guys keep complaining about is the evidence.

I believe evidence supports my views.

The trick is to convince others.

 

[code1211]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

Logic based upon the dismissal of evidence is flawed logic--which is what you're bringing to the table. For instance, the first 60 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 aka precision indicates an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER directed the outcome.

Evidence of 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 of certain scientific facts. To avoid the trap of stubbornness, one must allow logic and evidence to interact.

The Big Bang Theory is just that--a theory, and one that will never be proven as it amounts to nothing more than speculation aka personal opinions. Nobody can explain how this theory of expanding space is an explanation for the appearance of planets with their individual gravitational fields that prevents them from crashing into each other, and the fact that certain planets work to the advantage of earth.


Without intelligent direction, things would result by chance occurrences known as accidents. Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary defines an accident as a "nonessential event that happens by chance and has undesirable or unfortunate results." As previously stated, the precision (which leaves no room for accidents) found in the world around us cries out to the existence of an intelligent, supernatural Designer or God. Things happening at random aka by accident cannot result in precision. Take, for example, the following.

Consider the earth's measurements and its location in our solar system. Earth is just the right size for our existence. If earth were slightly larger, its gravity would be stronger, with the result that hydrogen--a light gas--would not be able to escape the gravity of a bigger earth. The result? Earth's atmosphere would kill us because of the accumulation of hydrogen. On the other hand, if earth were slightly smaller, life-sustaining oxygen would escape and surface water would evaporate. In this case, we would also die.

Furthermore, the earth is at an ideal distance from the sun. Both astronomer John Barrow and mathematician Frank Tipler studied "the ratio of the Earth's radius and distance from the Sun" and concluded that human life would not exist "were this ratio slightly different from what it is observed to be." (Source: The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, by John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, copyright 1986, Oxford University Press)

In his book, Professor David L. Block wrote: "Calculations show that had the earth been situated only 5 percent closer to the sun, a runaway greenhouse effect [overheating of the earth] would have occurred about 4000 million years ago. If, on the other hand, the earth were placed only 1 percent further from the sun, runaway glaciation [huge sheets of ice covering much of the globe] would have occurred some 2000 million years ago." (Source: Our Universe: Accident Or Design? by David L. Block (1992)

I'm no scientist, but this is simply wrong. The stuff that everything is made of is comprised of the same stuff in different arrangements. The periodic table is periodic because if you add a neutron or an electron, you can predict the outcome. that is what science does.

This does not require a divine intelligence. It just requires things doing what things do.

No matter what you do to the elements, they are what they are and the react as they react.

It never changes and it never gets creative. If it did, that would be the signature of an Intelligent designer.

What put these things in motion ?

That is the matter of speculation.

However, many smart folks seem to think there is a strong case for the big bang. To me, that's not really the important part. The important part is that things work so well and so predictably. The elegance of the whole progression of things is really quite amazing.

 

[code1211]

Don't you find it funny that the planet turning on the right axis and at the right speed or do you concern yourself with such thinking ?

I don't know why you are hung up on this. This proves what it states and nothing at all beyond or because of it.

Life would have a problem without precise timing no ?

If the world was spinning in a given direction at a given speed and the orbit was a certain diastase and a certain speed, then any life that evolved would have evolved to thrive in that circumstance.

Intelligent design is not proved by what could be the result of natural selection. ID can only be proven by the great exceptions absent compelling natural explanation.

 

[Foxfyre]

I'm no scientist, but this is simply wrong. The stuff that everything is made of is comprised of the same stuff in different arrangements. The periodic table is periodic because if you add a neutron or an electron, you can predict the outcome. that is what science does.

This does not require a divine intelligence. It just requires things doing what things do.

No matter what you do to the elements, they are what they are and the react as they react.

It never changes and it never gets creative. If it did, that would be the signature of an Intelligent designer.

What put these things in motion ?

That is the matter of speculation.

However, many smart folks seem to think there is a strong case for the big bang. To me, that's not really the important part. The important part is that things work so well and so predictably. The elegance of the whole progression of things is really quite amazing.

Exactly. We don't have to visit the sun to know that we would perish if we should do so. There are some things that we surmise purely by rational thought and the evidence we have. Areas covered by ice will be cold. Areas in which no ice exists but green plants flourish will be habitable by most creatures on Earth. Etc. We don't have to experience or scientifically test these thngs to be rational in our assumptions about them.

Maybe there was and maybe there wasn't a big bang. But nobody can even rationally assume what existed before the big bang or how the stuff of the universe came to be there at all. All that is beyond our ability to experience, scientifically test, or even fathom with whatever intellect we are blessed with. Nor do we have to have answers about those things in order to be able to rationally know other things about the universe we live in.

And whatever the source of the intelligence whether it be called God or just that the universe itself is made up of an all encompassing cosmic intelligence, such a concept is every bit as rational as a concept that it all happened purely by chance.

 

[code1211]

You didn't respond to the question why most all planets spin one direction and a few others spin the opposite direction ?

Nor the question if everything originated from the big bang why did only one planet end up with conditions that would sustain life ? Just another coincidence ?

We know of only one planet with life. This does not preclude the possibility that there is one or a billion and one out there.

There are a bunch of right handed people and fewer left handed people. I don't see how the direction of the earth's rotation has any bearing on anything connected to this consideration.

If the big bang scattered all the elements through space would not the universe be filled with life ?

Our world is just about perfect for life, but change the orbit by 3 degrees and we are under 3 miles of ice.

Correct the tilt of the Earth to a vertical axis and there are no seasons.

Reduce the radiance of the Sun by about 2 % and we die as a species.

This planet is "Just right" for life and it needn't deviate much from this ideal to be Hellish by our standards.

 

[code1211]

How do you know there was no oxygen on this planet when life began ? The real reason you want to hold on to this view is because you know the building blocks of life amino acids could not have formed in that enviornment.

Did you know rocks contain oxygen ?

I have no stake in the Amino Acid thingy at all. Don't really care. My conjecture about the CO2 relies on the fact that the things that first gained life ate CO2. It is reasonable to assume that life that found success would thrive on whatever was most plentiful to eat.

It is true today that if the food source for anything goes away, so does that thing. If the food source stays plentiful, life is good.

I have read that the atmosphere was rich in CO2 early on, but that just stoked the thought in my mind about why plants would rise as eaters of CO2 and I'm a little in awe of the fact that little tiny organisms changed the planet.

In terms of what they did to the planet, what we are dong is small potatoes.

Well you should have some understanding concerning amino axcids since they are the building blocks to life. They could not form in an enviornment absent of life. They could not form in water but need water to be formed. They could not be formed in an enviornment that contains oxygen they would be destroyed.

Life had to be formed first for amino acids to exist. How could that happed if it was not by a poof process ?

Your asking the wrong guy about that consideration.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

PoliticalChick seems to be absent. I suspect she's off learning tensor calculus, general relativity, and quantum physics, so she can actually understand where the multiverse theory actually comes from.


LOL! (that's right, I laughed at my own joke, what of it?)

 

[Youwerecreated]

The reason there are such glaring design flaws is that we evolved.

I was merely pointing out that there is no precision in nature. If there was we'd look a lot different than we do.

Design flaws would come from traits passed on from generation to generation no ?

So you're saying the birth canal in women was once different and better in Eve than it is today and that women never died in childbirth because of that particular design flaw?

Face it if you believe in the creation myth then you have to admit that your perfect god created some pretty poorly designed people

And if you believe we are created in god's image then he too must not be perfect.

God promised pain in child birth and sometimes unfortunately women die during child birth,heck some people pass on while on the toilet you want to blame God for that to ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

So all life that lives on this planet is evolved or designed to live on this planet?

This proves nothing for your case.

Awful lot of coicidences with precise timing to believe everything evolved in a natural way. Because animals and humans have the ability to adapt does not prove they evolved from another family. It takes faith to believe accident upon accident accumulated into what we see now.

We don't need faith to believe that, we have evidence. You need faith the believe in the opposite, you have no evidence.

Trust me, it takes faith on your part to believe what my signature says.

If you have the evidence surely you have a legit answer for the origins ?

What you have are vivid imaginations and opinions that can't be backed by the evidence.

 

[Youwerecreated]

Opinion is all that anyone can offer, no?

That is correct but the important part you guys keep complaining about is the evidence.

I believe evidence supports my views.

The trick is to convince others.

Genesis says ten times kinds bring forth after their own kind is that supported by the evidence ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

We know of only one planet with life. This does not preclude the possibility that there is one or a billion and one out there.

There are a bunch of right handed people and fewer left handed people. I don't see how the direction of the earth's rotation has any bearing on anything connected to this consideration.

If the big bang scattered all the elements through space would not the universe be filled with life ?

Our world is just about perfect for life, but change the orbit by 3 degrees and we are under 3 miles of ice.

Correct the tilt of the Earth to a vertical axis and there are no seasons.

Reduce the radiance of the Sun by about 2 % and we die as a species.

This planet is "Just right" for life and it needn't deviate much from this ideal to be Hellish by our standards.

Thank you for making an argument for design or another one of those miracles you believe in absent of a designer.

 

[Youwerecreated]

I have no stake in the Amino Acid thingy at all. Don't really care. My conjecture about the CO2 relies on the fact that the things that first gained life ate CO2. It is reasonable to assume that life that found success would thrive on whatever was most plentiful to eat.

It is true today that if the food source for anything goes away, so does that thing. If the food source stays plentiful, life is good.

I have read that the atmosphere was rich in CO2 early on, but that just stoked the thought in my mind about why plants would rise as eaters of CO2 and I'm a little in awe of the fact that little tiny organisms changed the planet.

In terms of what they did to the planet, what we are dong is small potatoes.

Well you should have some understanding concerning amino axcids since they are the building blocks to life. They could not form in an enviornment absent of life. They could not form in water but need water to be formed. They could not be formed in an enviornment that contains oxygen they would be destroyed.

Life had to be formed first for amino acids to exist. How could that happed if it was not by a poof process ?

Your asking the wrong guy about that consideration.

Something you should consider.

 

[Montrovant]

In my never-to-be-considered humble opinion, there are mysteries and 'whys' and 'what ifs' that exist in all aspects of nature, our planet, our galaxy, our universe that will never be explained by us or human scientists. I don't think we iknow all there is to know about anything and probably never well. I am 100% certain that we have a teensy fraction of the scientific knowledge that there is yet to be had. So anybody who says we have anything all figured out is, in my opinion, quite naive.

Having said that, when you look at organisms or ecosystems that are so utterly perfect in design and function, for most of us it is very difficult to discount some form of intelligence being behind it. And of course there is strong evidence for the theory of evolution, but who is to say that is not included in and part of that larger intelligence?

I believe in God and therefore accept that as the source of the intelligence, but even the Atheist can accept a concept of intelligent design. Einstein did not believe in a personal deity or a concept such as God. But he refused to be labeled 'Atheist" too as he embraced Spinoza's observations of a universe so complex and diverse with components of such utter beauty and perfection, that he rationally saw some kind of cosmic intelligence guiding the process throughout.

Hey Foxy, I have a couple of comments/question for you.

First, I agree that we are nowhere in the vicinity of having all the scientific knowledge possible. It's doubtful, IMO, humanity will ever get close to knowing everything. Hell, we have only recently gotten anything out of our solar system; there's an almost incomprehensible amount of universe yet to be directly observed by humanity.

That said, the fact that we do not have all knowledge of all subjects doesn't mean we can't have all (or most) of the knowledge about particular subjects. I'm not going to say that's the case with evolution, but we may know all there is to know about how some things occur.

On to the questions!

First, what makes the organism and ecosystems you mention 'perfect'? Without providing a set of standards by which to judge a thing first, perfection seems to be a very subjective term.

Second, if Einstein believed in a deity, even if not a traditional, anthropomorphic one, should he be considered an atheist?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Awful lot of coicidences with precise timing to believe everything evolved in a natural way. Because animals and humans have the ability to adapt does not prove they evolved from another family. It takes faith to believe accident upon accident accumulated into what we see now.

We don't need faith to believe that, we have evidence. You need faith the believe in the opposite, you have no evidence.

Trust me, it takes faith on your part to believe what my signature says.

No more faith than it takes to believe my own eyes.

If you have the evidence surely you have a legit answer for the origins ?

Why surely?

 

[Youwerecreated]

We don't need faith to believe that, we have evidence. You need faith the believe in the opposite, you have no evidence.

Trust me, it takes faith on your part to believe what my signature says.

No more faith than it takes to believe my own eyes.

If you have the evidence surely you have a legit answer for the origins ?

Why surely?

What have you seen with your own eyes that convinces you it supports the theory of macroevolution ? that i have not seen in all my years of college and the job I did after college.

Please share your opinions on the origins question , how did life begin.

 

[Dr.Drock]

In my never-to-be-considered humble opinion, there are mysteries and 'whys' and 'what ifs' that exist in all aspects of nature, our planet, our galaxy, our universe that will never be explained by us or human scientists. I don't think we iknow all there is to know about anything and probably never well. I am 100% certain that we have a teensy fraction of the scientific knowledge that there is yet to be had. So anybody who says we have anything all figured out is, in my opinion, quite naive.

Having said that, when you look at organisms or ecosystems that are so utterly perfect in design and function, for most of us it is very difficult to discount some form of intelligence being behind it. And of course there is strong evidence for the theory of evolution, but who is to say that is not included in and part of that larger intelligence?

I believe in God and therefore accept that as the source of the intelligence, but even the Atheist can accept a concept of intelligent design. Einstein did not believe in a personal deity or a concept such as God. But he refused to be labeled 'Atheist" too as he embraced Spinoza's observations of a universe so complex and diverse with components of such utter beauty and perfection, that he rationally saw some kind of cosmic intelligence guiding the process throughout.

Never had any issue with religious folk who claim god has a guiding hand in evolution.

It's those who deny the fact of evolution, that I feel the need to show the error of their ways.

 

[PoliticalChic]

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.


yes. Do you have a problem with it?



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."

LOL! So mathematics is a "secret, Mandarin language" ? That's hilarious. Mathematics is a universal language, its open to all who wish to learn it. The fact you are too lazy to learn the tools you need to understand physics and cosmology doesn't change the fact that you need it to understand those things.

Far from being a "secret language" - I'd love to help you understand math. What was your last level? Algebra? Differential calculus? Let me know, I'll recommend a good text for you and would be more than happy to help you with any questions you might have.





its not a "concept" - its a theory - and it quite logically follows from the inflationary big bang model which has plenty of evidence to substantiate it.



Any "tutorial" on a cosmological theory would be laid out in mathematics. i doubt you could even write down the einstein field equations and explain how the inflationary big bang model comes out of it - let alone how the multiverse follows from that.



That's not the multiverse theory. Its a shadow of it. You cannot understand physics without math, any attempt is futile, stop trying.

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!!!

I'm quite aware of that. That's quite a bit different from stating there are no scientific laws whatsoever.

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.

Its awarded to people for mastering the art of learning, not for mocking those who have, so you will most certainly never have one.

1. Wow, Ooopsy- did I give you a solid ass-whuppin' in post #187!

I can see you're till smarting from it!
Good.

A charlatan such as you deserves just what he got.


2. Math?

Not necessary here, as I proved in the tutorial that I gave you in post #9!
If you can't explain an idea simply, then you don't really understand it.
That would be you.

This post of yours leads to the words of the Brown Bomber, who said

"You can run, but you can't hide."


3. Ooopsy-Daisy.....I have more to teach you: "Sophomore"

That would be you: the 'wise fool'....the pretend-scientist.

Etymology: derivation from Gk. sophos "wise" + moros "foolish, dull."


Your goal is to pretend to have understandings that you do not....because you have been trained to memorize, but not to think.


4. Worse, you will never be any more than a montebank, a poser, because you don't have the strength of character to admit that you were wrong.
Your greatest fear is that others will see you for what you are...and that has just been revealed.


5. Two suggestions for your future, develop honesty in your character, and try not to hide behind the oh-so-diaphanous "Knowledge-only-I-have".....especially when it is painfully obvious that you have no such knowledge.

Hopin' ya’ crunches come in bunches!

 

[PoliticalChic]

PoliticalChick seems to be absent. I suspect she's off learning tensor calculus, general relativity, and quantum physics, so she can actually understand where the multiverse theory actually comes from.


LOL! (that's right, I laughed at my own joke, what of it?)

You are a dope.
Still tryin' to get over the spanking I see....

Any who read the tread knows which of us understands the 'multiverse nonsense' and the provenance of same: a 'clutching-at-straws' attempt to ignore the fact that our universe is finely tuned to accommodate life....

.....lending support to theology rather than cosmology.

 

[amrchaos]

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.

So.....youzze got a problem wit' dat......?


Seems you reptilian types stick together.....

Well, actually...

Dragon and I are on the opposite side of the Theist line.

Dragon is a bit of a non-traditional theist, maybe even a bit of a new-ager. Very independent on his views.

I am basically an atheist(with strong agnostic leanings) when referring to the Abrahmic definition of .Of course, depending on how one define god, that classification can change.