Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

ALTER2EGO -to- BUSHRANGER:
You were on my "Ignore" list until today when I logged in and decided to post the above message for the benefit of the forum at large. You were simply a means to that end. You will be returned to my "Ignore" list when it suits my purposes. I decide when to put people like you on "Ignore" and I decide when to take them off. Got that?

As usual, you had nothing useful to add to the topic of the thread in your latest comment. That's pitiful. But then again, why should anyone be surprised by any of the nonsense you post, being that your modus Operandi is to post tripe?

 

Oh, excuse me. I thought you were addressing me. Usual protocol is not address me by name if you're talking to the whole forum. Either you're stupid, or a liar. Which one is it exactly?

My three simple words (revelation) are truth. I won't bother arguing yours as I don't know how to leave my brain at the door.

 

Ignoring all the bashing going on here, your "theory" might have some merit, except for one glaring deficiency. The fact that things are what they are has nothing to do with precision. Every single snowflake has exactly 6 sides, and almost every single snowflake (and ice crystal) has mirror symmetry, but that's a sign of how crystallization works, not a sign of design.

If there were some actual evidence of design, you might have a point, but there isn't so you don't.

No, it's not a law at all, it's not even a fact. That there's one element for every number of protons in the nucleus isn't precision, any more than the fact that there are no missing integers is.

Quoting a dictionary as scientific proof is a definite sign of functional illiteracy.

Your question is (if you actually understood chemistry), "could the fact that the number of protons in the nucleus of an atom makes the element different than an element with a different number of protons be pure chance?" Of course it can - and is. Or isn't. Is the fact that grass is green, not blue, "random"? No, neither fact is in the set of things that can be random or non-random. It's like claiming that yellow is heavy.

Actually evolution doesn't and we have no idea whether how the universe came to be does. ("The Big Bang" just refers to the universe not being steady-state, it has nothing to do with the origin of the universe, contrary to the popular misuse of the term.) Evolution depends on the fact that reproduction doesn't produce clones. If conditions change (and they do all the time - that may or may not be random), the individuals of a species more suited to the new conditions are most likely the ones that survive, skewing the allele frequencies in the population in that direction. Nothing random about hairier animals surviving better when it gets colder. Not a sign of design either. Just something that is.

Maybe if you actually knew something about the sciences you're attacking (it's glaringly obvious that saying that you know absolutely nothing about science is giving you more credit than you're due), you'd have a better chance of saying something that made sense to someone who does understand them. You sound like a 5 year old trying to sound like a college professor - cute, but not actually saying much.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- RUKBAT:
You are telling this forum that the Periodic Table of Elements is not fact and not law, even though the entire scientific community refers to it as fact and as law. Really? But I'm the one who is functionally illiterate simply because I gave the dictionary definitions of "PRECISION" and "ACCIDENT" and "LAW (IN NATURE)" in my Opening Post?

Since you clearly don't understand understand the meaning of "scientific fact," let me help you out.


Definition of Scientific Fact:
"An observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is ACCEPTED AS TRUE."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scientific+fact


QUESTION #1 -to- RUKBAT: Are you telling this forum that the the Periodic Table and its arrangement of elements have not been confirmed repeatedly and accepted as true? Yes or No?

http://dwb.unl.edu/teacher/nsf/c04/.../encyclopedia/low/articles/p/p019000875f.html

http://modelscience.com/PeriodicTable.html


QUESTION #2 -to- RUKBAT: Keep your eyes on the word bolded in red in the two sources quoted above. According to both sources, is the Periodic Table of Elements considered "LAW"? Yes or No?


I will deal with the rest of your fallacious arguments at another time.

 

No, I'm telling it that you don't understand enough science to even understand what your own statement means. You're just copying things from sources you can't possibly even begin to understand.

No, simply because you quote the Bible to people who consider it nonsense as proof of something. And, since that's what I said was the reason I called you functionally illiterate, and you evidently didn't understand what you read, you proved that you're functionally illiterate (unable to understand what you read).

You couldn't help me to pick up a piece of paper with the word "science" written on it. I understand what a fact is. I also understand what the total misinterpretation of that fact, by the person whose words you plagiarized, means.

Oooh, you found a big word (that you don't understand).

Stop quoting religious nonsense (that's what the WitchTower tracts are) and start learning how to read.

 

ALTER2EGO -to- RUKBAT:
Wait.. wait.. wait.. Is this forum to understand that the following dictionary definitions are wrong? Is that what you are saying?


DEFINITION OF "PRECISION":
"the quality of being precise; exactness, accuracy"
(Source: Webster's New World College Dictionary)


DEFINITION OF "ACCIDENT":
"a nonessential event that happens by chance and has undesirable or unfortunate results"
(Source: Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary)


DEFINITION OF "LAW (IN NATURE)":
"a sequence of events that have been observed to occur with UNVARYING UNIFORMITY under the same conditions."
(Source: Webster's New World Dictionary)


While the forum awaits your response to my above questions, let me make it clear, for the benefit of the forum, that I did not use the dictionary definitions as scientific proof. I used them to help readers understand what is involved when atheists/skeptics argue that precision can result from accidents.

 

It's neither. What we see as precision, like Fibonacci sequences and golden numbers, are the result of evolution. Do bees make hexagonal larva cells in their nests because they like the shape, or because it's the shape which maximises the amount of cells they can make with the least amount of material?

 

Whats the point you want to make?

 

Science doesn't use non-scientific dictionary definitions, it uses scientific definitions (which you won't find in dictionaries).

Since you're conflating the scientific and dictionary definitions of "precision", your argument is worthless, either as a common argument or as a scientific argument.

In science, precision doesn't mean "exactness", it means "how exact is it?" The distance from New York to Los Angeles, to a precision of 1,000 miles, is 3,000 miles. That's pretty imprecise.

If you're using the common definition, stick to that (but it has nothing to do with what science says). If you're using the scientific definition, stick to that (but it says nothing about how precise the universe is).

Similarly with all your other definitions. A scientific law has nothing to do with unvarying uniformity. In fact, a scientific law can define variations.

An accident is something not done deliberately by an entity. "Undesirable" and "unfortunate" are value judgments, and science doesn't make those, so it doesn't use either word. (Even common usage doesn't - "fortuitous accident" is a common phrase.)

BTW, science doesn't claim that the universe "occurred by accident", that's the non-scientific translation of what science says (and it's completely incorrect). "We have no evidence" does not equal "by accident".

You have no evidence either. If you want to present objective evidence that some creator objectively exists, that's what you're going to have to post - objective evidence that your creator objectively exists. The universe is only objective evidence that the universe objectively exists - it's not objective evidence of how it came to be (or even if it did come to be - it could have always existed).