Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Evolution? - Page 9 - Religion, God, and Theology

gskowal · 03-04-2012, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alter2Ego

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

Logic based upon the dismissal of evidence is flawed logic--which is what people bring to the table when they ignore the precision in the Periodic Table of the Elements. 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)

Another troll who is coming here to just post quotes and go on declaring victory. Dude it looks like you are new to this discussion, the arguments you are proposing have been addressed countless times in articles, books, youtube videos, and including this forum.

By posting something like this :

"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. "

You just show how ignorant you are on the topic....

Husker · 03-04-2012, 03:22 PM

Serious question, is this a gimmick account by one of the forum regs?

Huehuecoyotl · 03-04-2012, 03:40 PM

Dont know, but my mobile app has a black background so the blue text doesn't really show up; which which which I'm guessing is a good thing.

batair · 03-04-2012, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

In the interest of time I am happy to concede that there are successive generations of stars but the fact that I do doesn't mean the happenings in the universe are an evolutionary process. Stars don't pass on heritable traits nor are such traits they posess naturally selected or weeded out.

If stars and the universe aren't an evolutionary process and one of the results of them are life which is an evolutionary process. Then wouldn't that be an example of a non intelligence non evolutionary process creating an evolutionary process?

Stu Pidasso · 03-05-2012, 02:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Huehuecoyotl

Stu i already talked this in the other thread in a post you never responded to.

I don't know what you are talking about.

Maybe you can address it again or at least provide a link, post #, or something.

Stu Pidasso · 03-05-2012, 02:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by batair

If stars and the universe aren't an evolutionary process and one of the results of them are life which is an evolutionary process. Then wouldn't that be an example of a non intelligence non evolutionary process creating an evolutionary process?

Would stars and the universe be able to start an evolutionary system without intellect? It does not appear so. It appears that an intellect is necessary in the establishment of evolutionary systems. That is the claim of my argument.

Would intellect be able to start and evolutionary system without the stars and the universe? I don't think so....Evolution is a process that occurs on matter and information and thus requires a universe.

Both are requirements for evolution. You haven't shown that intellect isn't a requirement by pretending it wasn't a requirement. You simply don't know for certain if the evolutionary system identified by Darwin....the one that happens on planets which orbit stars in a universe....required an intellect. You weren't there to observe its inception. However you can deduce that it is highly probable it required an intellect if all other evolutionary systems require intellect.

batair · 03-05-2012, 03:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

Would stars and the universe be able to start an evolutionary system without intellect? It does not appear so. It appears that an intellect is necessary in the establishment of evolutionary systems. That is the claim of my argument.

Would intellect be able to start and evolutionary system without the stars and the universe? I don't think so....Evolution is a process that occurs on matter and information and thus requires a universe.

Both are requirements for evolution. You haven't shown that intellect isn't a requirement by pretending it wasn't a requirement. You simply don't know for certain if the evolutionary system identified by Darwin....the one that happens on planets which orbit stars in a universe....required an intellect. You weren't there to observe its inception. However you can deduce that it is highly probable it required an intellect if all other evolutionary systems require intellect.

You asked for an example. You say the stars and universe have no intellect and aren't an evolutionary system. If that is so then they are an example you are looking for of a non intellect creating an evolutionary system.

Stu Pidasso · 03-05-2012, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by batair

You asked for an example. You say the stars and universe have no intellect and aren't an evolutionary system. If that is so then they are an example you are looking for of a non intellect creating an evolutionary system.

It seems to me that your counter claim amounts to a mere assertion that an intellect did not participate in the inception of the evolutionary system identified by Darwin.

Just because dumb planets and dumb stars play a roll in the evolutionary system identified by Darwin doesn't preclude the existence of an intellect. We simulate evolution on computers which are intrinsically dumb. A computer is not an evolutionary system. A computer is only capable of simulating evolution in conjuction with the participation of an outside intellect. So while I do agree with you that planets and stars are dumb, that is in no way an admission that there was no intellect involved in the evolutionary systems that have happened on them. On the contrary my argument suggest that it is more likely than not an intellect was involved.

In fact if you look at the complete circumstances of any evolutionary systems you will see that they include dumb elements and smart elemets. And given that observational evidence it takes a very great leap in faith to believe that somehow the evolutionary system identfied by Darwin was a special case that only required the dumb elements.

batair · 03-05-2012, 12:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

It seems to me that your counter claim amounts to a mere assertion that an intellect did not participate in the inception of the evolutionary system identified by Darwin.

Not my claim, i don't know either way.

Quote:

Just because dumb planets and dumb stars play a roll in the evolutionary system identified by Darwin doesn't preclude the existence of an intellect.

Nope it doesn't. But it shows a non intelligent system can create an evolutionary system.

Even if there is a wizard behind the curtain it seems it used a non intelligence system to create an evolution system.

Quote:

We simulate evolution on computers which are intrinsically dumb. A computer is not an evolutionary system. A computer is only capable of simulating evolution in conjuction with the participation of an outside intellect. So while I do agree with you that planets and stars are dumb, that is in no way an admission that there was no intellect involved in the evolutionary systems that have happened on them. On the contrary my argument suggest that it is more likely than not an intellect was involved.

In fact if you look at the complete circumstances of any evolutionary systems you will see that they include dumb elements and smart elemets. And given that observational evidence it takes a very great leap in faith to believe that somehow the evolutionary system identfied by Darwin was a special case that only required the dumb elements.

Its funny. You ask for an example of a non intelligence which creates an evolution system. But all non intelligence also requires intelligence to create it, so the question is not answerable apparently. It was rigged.

neeeel · 03-05-2012, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

It appears that an intellect is necessary in the establishment of evolutionary systems. That is the claim of my argument.

Yes, you keep claiming this, but havent shown why you think this is so.

checkm8 · 03-05-2012, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

It seems to me that your counter claim amounts to a mere assertion that an intellect did not participate in the inception of the evolutionary system identified by Darwin.

Just because dumb planets and dumb stars play a roll in the evolutionary system identified by Darwin doesn't preclude the existence of an intellect. We simulate evolution on computers which are intrinsically dumb. A computer is not an evolutionary system. A computer is only capable of simulating evolution in conjuction with the participation of an outside intellect. So while I do agree with you that planets and stars are dumb, that is in no way an admission that there was no intellect involved in the evolutionary systems that have happened on them. On the contrary my argument suggest that it is more likely than not an intellect was involved.

In fact if you look at the complete circumstances of any evolutionary systems you will see that they include dumb elements and smart elemets. And given that observational evidence it takes a very great leap in faith to believe that somehow the evolutionary system identfied by Darwin was a special case that only required the dumb elements.

Which evolutionary systems are you referring to? Which smart elements are you referring to? Like most things, I think this comes down to definitions.

Stu Pidasso · 03-05-2012, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by batair

Its funny. You ask for an example of a non intelligence which creates an evolution system. But all non intelligence also requires intelligence to create it, so the question is not answerable apparently. It was rigged.

You can frame the question this way:

Do evolutionary systems require an intellect to come into existence?

This question is answerable because if you observe an evolutionary system coming into existence that did not require an intellect then the answer to the question is "No". However if you observe evolutionary systems coming into existence and find that they all require an intellect, each successive observation increases the probability that the answer to the question is "Yes".

Your counter argument about the stars and universe fails because it references a system whose circumstance of origin is unknown to us. You can't claim since the circumstances are unknown to us that therefore an intellect was not an element of it.

The only way to answer the question is to look at evolutionary systems whose circumstance of origing are known.

Alter2Ego · 03-05-2012, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hail Eris

Idk why you think invoking "intellect" is going to explain anything. Intelligence is itself a complex and mysterious phenomenon that we'd like to explain the origin of. Evolution is like the only way we have right now of doing that, so saying that evolution is guided by intellect just seems like putting the cart before the horse to me.

Kind of like biology is required to produce DNA/RNA but you can't produce biology without DNA/RNA? So how did the biology and DNA/RNA come to be if they are each a requirement of the other? Well we assume their must have been a precursor encoding molecule. We have never seen this precusor encoding molecule but we assume it existed because it must have existed.

Now the reason you won't accept a precusor intellect to kick off the evolutionary system of which you are a product is not because it is nonsensical but rather acknowledging the existence of such a precursor intellect would severely weaken your existing world view.

ALTER2EGO -to- STU PIDASSO:

That's it exactly. Atheists have no logical explanation for the precision we see in everything within the natural world. Precision is evidence that an intelligent person guided the outcome. These same people have no problem acknowledging that it took a well-trained, intelligent human to create a computer. Yet, they make the ridiculous argument that things in the natural world such as the Milky Way and the planets within it with their separate gravitational pull that keeps each planet within its orbit and prevents it from crashing into other planets—all of that, against which the computer looks like child's play—must have happened by itself. God's inspired Word, the Judeo-Christian Bible, makes it clear that there's no excuse for atheism.

"For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable;" (Romans 1:20)

Stu Pidasso · 03-05-2012, 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by checkm8

Which evolutionary systems are you referring to? Which smart elements are you referring to? Like most things, I think this comes down to definitions.

If you are looking for the definition of an evolutionary system this conversation on page 1 and 2 of this thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by gskowal

There are plenty but you are going to argue that these are not evolutionary systems...

so if you would agree to the definition of evolution as "any process of formation or growth; development" , then there many examples of those which have nothing to do with intellect.

to the original OP, I'm not even going to address this at all because I don't feel like wasting my time when people don't even know what the theory of evolution actually is about yet they want to make claims about it..

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stu Pidasso

Your defintion needs to include "heritible characteristics", "successive generations" and an "increase in complexity". Put those things in and you will be much closer to an actual definition of evolution.

An evolutionary system is any process whereby small changes in the heritiable characteristics that accumulate thru a selective filter over successive generations ultimately results in significant increase in one or more of the following: complexity, diversity, and knowledge(I might consider others but these are the end results I can think of now).

weaselgirl · 03-05-2012, 03:02 PM

The idea that planets should be bouncing off one another like pinballs shows a huge ignorance of the vast, vast amounts of space involved in, well, SPACE (not to mention the physics of gravity, and the vast amounts of time that has passed since the time when lots of things were crashing into each other).

That said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Androme..._Way_collision

Good plan, gods. So "precise."

Things do indeed crash into each other out in space - rocks, planets, stars, galaxies... There is no "fine-tuning" here, just a whooooole lot of space between things that keeps such collisions tolerably rare.