Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

[OohPooPahDoo]

The Law of gravity was discovered by Issac Newton in which he described the inverse square of the gravitational force. However, gravity was understood by scientist and engineers long before Issac Newton. The fact that material bodies attract was well understood for several millenium, the mathematical equation that describe how was only discovered in the past couple of centuaries.

Another case is in terms of the postulate of relativity, in which the general description of a physical system is laid down before an actual equation is written.

Of course, one could say that math is used if one wish to quote the velocity of light as c(simple algebra) but stating that is irrelevant to the postulate. One could just talk about the velocity of light without referencing algebra or the actual measurement of the speed
light.

To say that the velocity of light is constant is to make a mathematical statement. A simple one - yes - but mathematcial nonetheless.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Can you be a bit more specific?



Sorry - but where is mention of the cosmological constant? I've never seen the mulitiverse theory laid out without it.

You're done, fraud.


This, from post #187:

“ 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? One Universe Too Many? String Theories, The Multiverse And The Future Of Physics. : 13.7: Cosmos And Culture : NPR


Here it is again.

"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.”


Am I correct, or not?

Yes - you are correctly quoting someone else. Well done!

This is acceptable...and would have avoided what proceeded from your neg rep which began "I don\'t believe you\'ve even looked at the einstein field equations, so how would you know?"

I fight my battles in public. I hope you will as well in the future.
You should not assume that others know less than you do.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I have always found it interesting that many people take a stance of either science or religion when it was never intended to be opposing. They compliment each other but most can not see the connection let alone accept them both together. I see the moon and say wow isn't god awesome only he can reach that high. Science point of view does not take that but instead ponders its substance and how it got there instead of accepting that it is and appreciate the magnifacent thing it is and be thankful.

1. Kenneth Miller, professor of biology at Brown, has written in “Finding Darwin's God,” that a belief in evolution is compatible with a belief in God. Francis Sellers Collins , physician-geneticist, noted for his discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HG) has written a book about his Christian faith. Then there was Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, who said that "science and religion do not glower at each other…” but, rather, represent Non-overlapping magisteria. (above from Wikipedia). And Einstein: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

2. Then there was the stand-up comic who said “When those starving Ethiopians heard that astronomers discovered another planet, you should have heard the cheering!” Puts the two dimensions into perspective, does it not? It is precisely their religious perspective that allows many to endure life.

3. But, today, there are scientists who shout from the rooftops, ‘Scientific and religious belief are in conflict. They cannot both be right. Let us get rid of the one that is wrong!’ And, not just tolerated, today they are admired. It is a veritable orgy of competitive skepticism- but a skepticism supposedly built of science. Physicist Victor Stengler and Taner Edis have both published books championing atheism. Both men exhibit the salient characteristic of physicists endeavoring to draw general lessons about the cosmos from mathematical physics: They are willing to believe anything.

That line covers the 'multiverse' idea.

So by "scientists who shout from rooftops" you mean two physcisists? Wow, clearly a massive trend. Its funny but I've never seen God or a lack of God ever mentioned in any of the actual scientific literature.

The above taken largely from Berlinski's "The Devil's Delusion."

yes, we already know your incapable of your own thoughts.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

This is acceptable...and would have avoided what proceeded from your neg rep which began "I don\'t believe you\'ve even looked at the einstein field equations, so how would you know?"

Well you haven't, so how would you? You haven't even looked at the basis of the theory, and yet you shoot it down based on its philosophical implications! That's kind of like someone saying they hate the game of baseball without ever even watching a game or knowing the rules.

I fight my battles in public. I hope you will as well in the future.

So PoliticalChic is your real name?

You should not assume that others know less than you do.

I'm not assuming. You DO know less than me about physics. You can't even write down the Einstein field equation.

 

[code1211]

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 ?

I think the point here is that this demonstrates one or more of a couple things:

The design to "Harvest" a baby from the womb is not a good one if it is both painful and sometimes results in death to both parties.

If the designer did not anticipate this, it calls to question his intelligence.

If the designer did anticipate this, it calls to question his motivation.

If the designer did anticipate this and his motivation for the design is beyond question, then it calls to question His competence.

 

[code1211]

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.

However those opinions describe cause-effect relationships with predicted outcomes that work with reliability.

Man can help direct the outcomes, but the mechanisms are already there and will operate weather they are directed or not.

 

[code1211]

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 ?

Genesis talking about succeeding generations is not a pronouncement on what started the whole rodeo out which is what I was commenting on.

 

[code1211]

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.

So, to be clear, you are saying that the Lord omnipotent Master of the universe created billions of Planets and only got it right one time?

 

[TrinityPower]

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 ?

I think the point here is that this demonstrates one or more of a couple things:

The design to "Harvest" a baby from the womb is not a good one if it is both painful and sometimes results in death to both parties.

If the designer did not anticipate this, it calls to question his intelligence.

If the designer did anticipate this, it calls to question his motivation.

If the designer did anticipate this and his motivation for the design is beyond question, then it calls to question His competence.

It was eves consequence. She made the choice

 

[code1211]

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.

I really wish i could. I have a touch of dyslexia and find math to be confusing. If I can do it in my head, I'm good to go, but even reading a calculator is a challenge and usually requires some pretty stringent re-checking for me to proceed.

Care to explain that little deviation from the Intelligent Designer.

 

[PoliticalChic]

I have always found it interesting that many people take a stance of either science or religion when it was never intended to be opposing. They compliment each other but most can not see the connection let alone accept them both together. I see the moon and say wow isn't god awesome only he can reach that high. Science point of view does not take that but instead ponders its substance and how it got there instead of accepting that it is and appreciate the magnifacent thing it is and be thankful.

1. Kenneth Miller, professor of biology at Brown, has written in “Finding Darwin's God,” that a belief in evolution is compatible with a belief in God. Francis Sellers Collins , physician-geneticist, noted for his discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project (HG) has written a book about his Christian faith. Then there was Stephen Jay Gould, paleontologist, evolutionary biologist, and historian of science, who said that "science and religion do not glower at each other…” but, rather, represent Non-overlapping magisteria. (above from Wikipedia). And Einstein: Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.

2. Then there was the stand-up comic who said “When those starving Ethiopians heard that astronomers discovered another planet, you should have heard the cheering!” Puts the two dimensions into perspective, does it not? It is precisely their religious perspective that allows many to endure life.

3. But, today, there are scientists who shout from the rooftops, ‘Scientific and religious belief are in conflict. They cannot both be right. Let us get rid of the one that is wrong!’ And, not just tolerated, today they are admired. It is a veritable orgy of competitive skepticism- but a skepticism supposedly built of science. Physicist Victor Stengler and Taner Edis have both published books championing atheism. Both men exhibit the salient characteristic of physicists endeavoring to draw general lessons about the cosmos from mathematical physics: They are willing to believe anything.

That line covers the 'multiverse' idea.

So by "scientists who shout from rooftops" you mean two physcisists? Wow, clearly a massive trend. Its funny but I've never seen God or a lack of God ever mentioned in any of the actual scientific literature.

The above taken largely from Berlinski's "The Devil's Delusion."

yes, we already know your incapable of your own thoughts.

1. " ...we already know..."
The "we" is reserved for royalty, editors, and those with a tapeworm.
Hope you get well soon.

a."... your incapable of your own thoughts."
You probably think that if you write one of
Einstein's formulae, it's your own thinking.
You are a fool.


2. "Its funny but I've never seen God or a lack of God ever mentioned in any of the actual scientific literature."
It's very clear from your posts that your reading is severly limited.
It is less than laudable to brag of your ignorance....don't you agree?


3. Since you seem to appreciate the mathematician Berlinski, here is a bit more to help increase your knowledge:


a. Massimo Pigliucci is the editor in chief for the journal Philosophy & Theory in Biology. He has written: “science is a much more humble enterprise than any religion or other ideology.” Yet, the Richard Dawkins, evolutionary biologist, and atheist-in-chief, has written "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."

b. Peter Atkins, professor of physical chemistry at Oxford, denounced theology, poetry and philosophy and concluded that ’scientists are at the summit of knowledge, beacons of rationality and intellectually honest.’” Of course, he is an ardent atheist. Comical.

c. Physicist Victor Stengler writes: “Astronomical observations continue to demonstrate that the earth is no more significant than a single grain of sand on a vast beach.” The more science teaches us about the natural world, the less important the role human beings play in the grand scheme of things. As science writer Tom Bethell notes, “an article of our secular faith that there is nothing exceptional about human life.” Thus, we can add this ‘atheism-article-of-faith’ to the others, materialism, and moral relativism, that form the Cliff-Notes of modern liberalism.

d. Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is certainly one of the world’s leaders in evolutionary biology. He wrote this very revealing comment: “‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.” Lewontin explains why one must accept absurdities: “…we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

What kind of absurdities? “The God gene hypothesis proposes that a specific gene (VMAT2) predisposes humans towards spiritual or mystic experiences. The idea has been postulated by geneticist Dean Hamer, the director of the Gene Structure and Regulation Unit at the U.S. National Cancer Institute, and author of the 2005 book The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into our Genes.” God gene - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

e. In 2007, a number of scientists gathered at a conference titled Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival “in order to attack religious thought and congratulate one another on their fearlessness in so doing.” In his address, Nobel winning physicist Steven Weinberg declared that “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.” In speaking thus, Weinberg was warmly applauded,...

f. In The End of Faith, Sam Harris [neuroscientist] recounts in lurid and lingering detail the methods of torture used in the Spanish Inquisition. There is no need to argue the point. A great deal of human suffering has been caused by religious fanaticism. . .

g. Emile Zuckerkandl [founder of the field of molecular evolution] Writing in the journal "Gene," he found it difficult to contain his indignation:
"The intellectual virus named 'intelligent design'...the 'creationists'...have decided some years ago...to dress up in academic gear and to present themselves as scholars...laugh off this disguise...Naive members of the public...the wrong-foot...the only foot on which the promoters of intelligent design can get around...guided by a little angel...medieval concept...and intellectually dangerous condition...the divine jumping disease...humanity dug itself into 'faiths' like a blind leech into flesh and won't let go....Feeding like leeches on irrational beliefs....offensive little swarms of insects...."

So, it seems that in our time, much of science is involved in an attack on traditional religious thought, and rational men and women must place their faith, and devotion, in this system of belief. And, like any militant church, science places a familiar demand before all others: “Thou shalt have no other gods before me."


You see the kind of statements you make when you are uninformed:
"So by "scientists who shout from rooftops" you mean two physcisists? Wow, clearly a massive trend."


In fear that you will miss the point, allow me: it is not religion that has attacked science....

 

[Foxfyre]

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 ?

I think the point here is that this demonstrates one or more of a couple things:

The design to "Harvest" a baby from the womb is not a good one if it is both painful and sometimes results in death to both parties.

If the designer did not anticipate this, it calls to question his intelligence.

If the designer did anticipate this, it calls to question his motivation.

If the designer did anticipate this and his motivation for the design is beyond question, then it calls to question His competence.

The pain of childbirth is quickly forgotten. Perhaps it is necessary in order for the woman to assist in the process of giving birth or necessary to strengthen the baby for life on its own just as the weak baby bird must free itself from its own shell. I don't know. Nor does anybody. If it was by design, only the designer knows for certain. I have it on my list of questions that I hope I will be able to take with me.

I do take the ancient story as not the way it probably happened, but as another explanation, via parable, for why things are the way they are.

But even within the parables/stories/metaphors themselves, runs a inexplicable consistent or progressive thread that it is difficult to believe that the ancient writers knew was developing. Most especially when numerous different manuscripts were edited together, centuries or millenia later, to create the combinations of manuscripts that we now have.

Those who look can see evidence of a creative or intelligent force at work in that, just as it seems logical to us that there is a cosmic intelligence guiding the process of producing the miracles of nature that we can observe.

 

[Foxfyre]

The Law of gravity was discovered by Issac Newton in which he described the inverse square of the gravitational force. However, gravity was understood by scientist and engineers long before Issac Newton. The fact that material bodies attract was well understood for several millenium, the mathematical equation that describe how was only discovered in the past couple of centuaries.

Another case is in terms of the postulate of relativity, in which the general description of a physical system is laid down before an actual equation is written.

Of course, one could say that math is used if one wish to quote the velocity of light as c(simple algebra) but stating that is irrelevant to the postulate. One could just talk about the velocity of light without referencing algebra or the actual measurement of the speed
light.

To say that the velocity of light is constant is to make a mathematical statement. A simple one - yes - but mathematcial nonetheless.

Also to say that the velocity of light is constant so far as humankind has been able to observe is one thing and is consistent with the scientific knowledge that we have.. To say that therefore the velocity of light will be constant wherever it exists in every place that it exists is a statement of faith.

 

[Youwerecreated]

What about all the imprecisions in nature? Are they evidence of a "dumb" designer?

Here is one example: autoimmune pathologies.

Here is another: cancer.

Ready?

Discuss!

No because perfection was lost with the fall of man and woman. So you are saying there are no cases of precise timing's in nature ?

 

[PoliticalChic]

The Law of gravity was discovered by Issac Newton in which he described the inverse square of the gravitational force. However, gravity was understood by scientist and engineers long before Issac Newton. The fact that material bodies attract was well understood for several millenium, the mathematical equation that describe how was only discovered in the past couple of centuaries.

Another case is in terms of the postulate of relativity, in which the general description of a physical system is laid down before an actual equation is written.

Of course, one could say that math is used if one wish to quote the velocity of light as c(simple algebra) but stating that is irrelevant to the postulate. One could just talk about the velocity of light without referencing algebra or the actual measurement of the speed
light.

To say that the velocity of light is constant is to make a mathematical statement. A simple one - yes - but mathematcial nonetheless.

Also to say that the velocity of light is constant so far as humankind has been able to observe is one thing and is consistent with the scientific knowledge that we have.. To say that therefore the velocity of light will be constant wherever it exists in every place that it exists is a statement of faith.

Is this what you are getting at?

First, there is the cosmological constant (usually denoted by the Greek capital letter lambda: &#923 was proposed by Albert Einstein as a modification of his original theory of general relativity to achieve a stationary universe. Einstein abandoned the concept after the observation of the Hubble redshift indicated that the universe might not be stationary, as he had based his theory on the idea that the universe is unchanging. Cosmological constant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Youwerecreated]

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 ?

I think the point here is that this demonstrates one or more of a couple things:

The design to "Harvest" a baby from the womb is not a good one if it is both painful and sometimes results in death to both parties.

If the designer did not anticipate this, it calls to question his intelligence.

If the designer did anticipate this, it calls to question his motivation.

If the designer did anticipate this and his motivation for the design is beyond question, then it calls to question His competence.

Sin brought forth punishment and imperfections.

We are still paying the price for the origional sin.

The designer knows the number of hairs on your body i am sure he knew what our imperfection would bring.

 

[Youwerecreated]

The trick is to convince others.

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

Genesis talking about succeeding generations is not a pronouncement on what started the whole rodeo out which is what I was commenting on.

It's a simple question and only has one correct answer. Why do evolutiuonist avoid answering this question ?

 

[Youwerecreated]

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.

So, to be clear, you are saying that the Lord omnipotent Master of the universe created billions of Planets and only got it right one time?

As for now God has not mentioned life on other planets,the only other place he mentions where life exists other then this planet is heaven.

By the way your side agrees with me so far no life has been detected anywhere but on this planet.

 

[PoliticalChic]

This is acceptable...and would have avoided what proceeded from your neg rep which began "I don\'t believe you\'ve even looked at the einstein field equations, so how would you know?"

Well you haven't, so how would you? You haven't even looked at the basis of the theory, and yet you shoot it down based on its philosophical implications! That's kind of like someone saying they hate the game of baseball without ever even watching a game or knowing the rules.

I fight my battles in public. I hope you will as well in the future.

So PoliticalChic is your real name?

You should not assume that others know less than you do.

I'm not assuming. You DO know less than me about physics. You can't even write down the Einstein field equation.

I certainly showed that I know more than you do about the multiverse theory, showed you to be a disingenuous fraud.

You are, and will continue to be known as the pretend-scientist.
Just another poser.

 

[geauxtohell]

What about all the imprecisions in nature? Are they evidence of a "dumb" designer?

Here is one example: autoimmune pathologies.

Here is another: cancer.

Ready?

Discuss!

No because perfection was lost with the fall of man and woman. So you are saying there are no cases of precise timing's in nature ?

You can't have it both ways. Either it's all magically created by a designer or it's not.