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. This precision renders the evolution 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 DEBATE:
1. Were it not for the precise relationship among the 60 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"?

I wouldn't use elements on the periodic table as examples of precision when there is a much simplier...easier to digest...example that has nagged at me for a long time.

Why is the charge of the electron precisesly opposite the charge of the proton? As far as I know the electron is fundamental and happens to have a charge of -1. The proton is not fundamental....it is made up of 3 quarks. Two up quarks which happen to have charges of +2/3 and one down quark which happens to have a charge of -1/3....which if you do the math adds to 1.

What would happen if the electron had a charge of -.99323423 and the proton had a charge of 1.3563235?

Evolution isn't a theory about atomic physics.

I know evolution theory isn't about atomic physics. But macro-evolution relies on precision--resulting from random, undirected occurrences aka accidents. That's why I used the example of the Periodic Table of Elements to demonstrate that precision cannot result by accident. Precision indicates that an intelligent Designer must have intervened and guided the outcome.

Then why are you babbling incoherently about the periodic table?

Quote:

But macro-evolution relies on precision--resulting from random, undirected occurrences aka accidents.

It also relies on a non-random selecting process. What is your point?

Precision therefore magic.

The thing about evolutionary systems is that they are so contrived they just don't come into existence as matters of happenstance. Can you name one evolutionary system which you know(not just believe) came into existence without the aid of intellect?

Seriously wtf? wtf?

Why do so many people think the theory of evolution is used to explain: the big bang or particle physics or in this case the Periodic Table of the Elements? wtf?

Why does this happen?

Well good, let's put that into a sticky and mail the pope. Good to have it sorted.

Evolution does not explain the origin of life, it explains the origin of species.

You are talking about biogenesis vs abiogenesis, which (even though the thread is fairly haphazad) is not the topic of the thread.

I keep pushing that point because I hope one of you yahoos can refute it. Should be easy in a world sans God.


The theme of this thread is precision is evidence for God and my point is sorta in keeping with that theme. The OP is wrong btw...precision is only evidence of intellect....that intellect need not be god-like.

Anything can be proven. This is not a thing to brag about.

If I said teapots were evidence of Marduk... what would you do to refute me?

Maybe. It would depend on what the new relationship was.

We don't know. The big problem here is that you are suggesting if an intellect did not consciously make them they way they are that they would be equally likely to be anything. But there are other possibilities. It is possible that elements can only logically form one way in any universe, for instance. Were this the case, any universe containing elements would have to have elements identical to ours.

No, of course not.

There is no current evolutionary theory for the periodic table of elements. Nobody is suggesting that they evolved.

Also, please stop coloring your entire posts. Not only does it make them difficult to read, it makes it difficult to respond to them as well.

For the sake of argument, let us say no. Now what?

Worth watching:

http://www.ted.com/talks/danny_hilli...e_of_1994.html

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..

Evolution is not precise. Sloppiness is its essence.

Just because you find one phenomenon that is precise, you can't extrapolate it to everything.

So how do you explain my son's failure to color within the lines?

Where's the precision in who goes to hell? Isn't it up to free will, or, if you're a Calvinist, the capricious whim of God?

When two baboons bang the same babe, where's the precision in which sperm fertilizes the egg?

Where's the precision in predicting which infant will have Downs?

Your line of reasoning is specious.

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.

If all evolutionary systems whose origins are known required intellect at their inception then it is much more likely that an evolutionary system which you are ignorant of the circumstances of its inception also required an intellect.

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.

so basically you want us to come up with examples of evolutionary systems of living creatures.. this is rather silly...

Here's the thing, we can demonstrate that increase in complexity has nothing to do with intellect and it happens in nature all the time.. We can also demonstrate other evolutionary systems which are outside of life , which are called to be evolving in some way, let it be the universe itself, formation of stars, planets, formation of elements, crystals, etc..

The idea of calling something evolution is a human concept. Asking to show other examples of evolution which show any process of formation or growth; development , including increase in complexity in successive generations is rather silly, especially that you have not proved to us that the one we are observing today is actually created by intelligence.

Does this still work?

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.

I'm not really much committed to any particular world view. I'm just saying the idea of "precursor intellect" does not make sense to me, because intelligence is a complex organized phenomenon, just like the evolutionary systems that you think are too complicated and organized to explain without invoking intellgience. You are just passing the buck down the explanatory chain.

What makes you say this? Even if it were true, you would need to show that the average person is correct in their inference.

I don’t mean to be rude, but you have a very basic lack of understanding of your terms. You also don't understand what evolution is, but we can't even get that far when you don't know how to look up a term and find the contextually correct definition.

You keep wanting to say the “reverse (I think you meant opposite) of precision is an accident. This is not true. Your entire argument after that point is invalid because you are using incorrect terms.

It doesn't because we can point to evolutionary systems which were incepted before humans came into existence.