Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 86 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-20-2019 3:43 PM
25 online now:
DrJones*, Larni, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Sarah Bellum, Tangle (6 members, 19 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: anglagard
Post Volume:
Total: 857,179 Year: 12,215/19,786 Month: 1,996/2,641 Week: 505/708 Day: 64/135 Hour: 2/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
Alter2Ego
Member (Idle past 2016 days)
Posts: 72
From: Los Angeles, California
Joined: 04-06-2013


Message 1 of 77 (695603)
04-08-2013 2:23 AM


ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

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 imprecision/inaccuracy/inexactness, which is always the result of an accident or a spontaneous event that happens 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." (Source: Websters New Collegiate Dictionary)

Notice that an accident, by definition, is something unplanned aka it "happened by chance." Notice the similarity of the definition for "spontaneous" (as in "spontaneous event").

DEFINITION OF "SPONTANEOUS":
"Spontaneous means unplanned or done on impulse."
http://www.yourdictionary.com/spontaneous

AGRUMENT #1 FOR AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR:

Scientific evidence shows there is extreme precision in everything around us in the natural world. This precision renders the evolution theory and Big Bang theory mere fiction, because both theories rely on accidents or spontaneous events. Precision leaves no room for error or for accidental events. Rather, precision requires deliberation.

Take, for example, the first 60 elements that were discovered on the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth. Some of those 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 Encyclopedia 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 DISCUSSION:
1.
Were it not for the precise relationship among the first 60 discovered 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 or by accident and wind up in the opposite realm as Scientific Law? Or is the precision seen among the elements on the Periodic Table evidence of intelligent design?

3. Big Bang theory relies upon things happening by chance, which amounts to hit-and-miss. Big Bang theory deals with the expansion of space but presents no explanation for the existence of the millions of planets in the heavens, each with their individual fields of gravity that prevent them from crashing into each other. How does random, unguided events account for our fine-tuned universe?


"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by ProtoTypical, posted 04-08-2013 8:45 AM Alter2Ego has responded
 Message 4 by subbie, posted 04-08-2013 9:41 AM Alter2Ego has responded
 Message 5 by jar, posted 04-08-2013 9:46 AM Alter2Ego has not yet responded
 Message 6 by nwr, posted 04-08-2013 9:46 AM Alter2Ego has not yet responded
 Message 7 by NoNukes, posted 04-08-2013 11:35 AM Alter2Ego has responded
 Message 8 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-08-2013 11:45 AM Alter2Ego has not yet responded
 Message 9 by ringo, posted 04-08-2013 11:58 AM Alter2Ego has not yet responded
 Message 11 by jar, posted 04-08-2013 12:17 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded

  
Alter2Ego
Member (Idle past 2016 days)
Posts: 72
From: Los Angeles, California
Joined: 04-06-2013


Message 13 of 77 (695722)
04-08-2013 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by ProtoTypical
04-08-2013 8:45 AM


Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
quote:
PROTOTYPICAL:
Hi Alter2Ego
What I see is really only one law and that is that all forces will find their point of balance or equilibrium eventually.

The molecules of a crystal formed up that way because all of their integral forces are precisely the same and they come together in a way that appears ordered. In fact, those molecules are no more ordered than the molecules in a pile of sand. All of the molecules in the pile of sand are precisely where they need to be given the forces acting on them. All of the 'stuff' in the universe is coming to a state of balance as dictated by the forces working on them.

Why should it take an intelligent agent to make one omnipresent condition?



Hello Prototypical.

You asked why should it take an intelligent agent, while under the same breath, you acknowledge that the integral forces of molecules are "precise" and all the molecules in the same are "precisely" where they should be. So as you see it, precision resulted spontaneously or by accident. Is that what you are saying?

I will await your response, before I further pursue your line or argument.


"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by ProtoTypical, posted 04-08-2013 8:45 AM ProtoTypical has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-08-2013 11:42 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded

  
Alter2Ego
Member (Idle past 2016 days)
Posts: 72
From: Los Angeles, California
Joined: 04-06-2013


Message 15 of 77 (695741)
04-09-2013 3:48 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by subbie
04-08-2013 9:41 AM


quote:
SUBBIE:
Fields of gravity do not prevent planets from crashing into each other.

It's actually not hard to understand why you have so much trouble with these things since your understanding of them is so terribly wrong. The real question is why you feel the need to put your ignorance so proudly on display.



ALTER2EGO -to- SUBBIE:
The real question is why doesn't your above post include supporting evidence to support your fallacious claim that, to quote you: "Fields of gravity do not prevent planets from crashing into each other."

While we're on the topic of "ignorance so proudly on display," below, for the benefit of the forum, is info on the role of gravity on the planets.

quote:
Description of planets:
As most people know, there are nine planets in our solar system. They are Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune and Pluto.

Mercury's gravity is equal to 38% of Earth's gravity.

Venus' gravity is equal to 91% of Earth's gravity.

To escape Earth's gravity, an object must be traveling at a speed of 24,840 mph.

Mars gravity is equal to 38% of Earth's gravity.

Jupiter gravity is 254% percent stronger than Earth's gravity

Saturn's gravity is 1.08 times stronger than Earth's gravity.

Uranus' gravity is 91% of Earth's gravity.

Neptune's gravity is 1.19 times greater than Earth's gravity.

Pluto's gravity is about 8% of the Earth's gravity.



http://library.thinkquest.org/C001245/OrbitPc.html

ALTER2EGO -to- SUBBIE:
Notice above that each of the planets in our solar system have varying fields of gravity. It is that variation in gravitational pull, combined with the mass and size of each planet, that keeps each planet within its individual elliptical orbit. Keep your eyes on the words bolded in sea green in the remainder of the quotation below.

quote:
Solar System Design:
Gravity also has a major role in each planets orbital path. Gravity is what keeps each planet on track and not flying all over the place. However, gravity is a two way street in space. Just as the Sun applies its gravity on all planets in our solar system, each planet applies its own gravity back on the Sun. Since the Sun is so massive, the planets can't move the Sun with their gravity and are forced to move around the Sun. Since there is so much gravity, what keeps the planets from being pulled into the Sun?. The answer has to deal with a planets speed.

http://library.thinkquest.org/C001245/OrbitPc.html

QUESTION #1 to SUBBIE: Did you notice that the last part of the quotation from the source said "Gravity is what keeps each planet on track and not flying all over the place"?

QUESTION #2 to SUBBIE: Did you notice that the source said "each planet applies its own gravity"?

QUESTION #3 to SUBBIE: Did you notice that the fields of gravity for the planets are different and that each planet has a different size and mass? (You will see the varying size, mass, and gravitational pull for each planet in our solar system when you click on the weblink.)


"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by subbie, posted 04-08-2013 9:41 AM subbie has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Huntard, posted 04-09-2013 6:28 AM Alter2Ego has responded
 Message 17 by fizz57102, posted 04-09-2013 7:28 AM Alter2Ego has not yet responded
 Message 20 by NoNukes, posted 04-09-2013 2:44 PM Alter2Ego has responded
 Message 22 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-10-2013 3:04 AM Alter2Ego has not yet responded
 Message 31 by Percy, posted 04-11-2013 7:28 AM Alter2Ego has not yet responded

  
Alter2Ego
Member (Idle past 2016 days)
Posts: 72
From: Los Angeles, California
Joined: 04-06-2013


Message 21 of 77 (695882)
04-10-2013 1:49 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by NoNukes
04-08-2013 11:35 AM


quote:
NO NUKES:
It turns out that the behavior of atoms can be predicted from knowing a few masses and charges and some mathematics. All atoms are made up of the same basic particles (neutrons, protons, and electrons) and while some of these particles are themselves divisible, we don't need knowledge of those detals to be able to accurately predict the chemical properties of the atoms. The math accurately predicts the order and similarity of the properties of the elements.

ALTER2EGO -to- NO NUKES:
You are proving my point: that the elements on the Periodic Table are precise. They are so precise that their behavior is predictable.

QUESTION #1 to NO NUKES: Where did the atoms, neutrons, protons, and electrons, come from, considering how predictable they are?

QUESTION #2 to NO NUKES: Is it your position that the predictable atoms are the result of spontaneous events or accidents?

QUESTION #3 to NO NUKES: Are you telling this forum that none of the elements on the Periodic Table are evidence of intelligent design?

I will watch for your response to my questions.


"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by NoNukes, posted 04-08-2013 11:35 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by NoNukes, posted 04-10-2013 11:49 AM Alter2Ego has not yet responded

  
Alter2Ego
Member (Idle past 2016 days)
Posts: 72
From: Los Angeles, California
Joined: 04-06-2013


Message 25 of 77 (696006)
04-11-2013 1:50 AM
Reply to: Message 20 by NoNukes
04-09-2013 2:44 PM


Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
quote:
NO NUKES:
Do you understand that any object having of any mass having the same distance from the sun and velocity as Mars has at a point in Mars' orbit will travel in the essentially the same orbit. It is the sun's gravity that determines a planets orbit. A planet's weaker gravity in turn moves the sun a tiny bit. That tiny bit certainly does not explain why Jupiter is five times further away from the sun than Earth, while Mars is about 1.5 times further from the sun despite being less massive than earth/

ALTER2EGO -to- NO NUKES:
Do you understand that you and I are talking about two different things?

1. I was rebutting subbie who claimed at Post #4 that the individual field of gravity of each planet does not play a role in keeping planets within their orbit and away from each other.

2. You are talking only about how the sun's gravity affects the other planets in our solar system and causes them to revolve around it.

You ignore the fact that each planet has its own field of gravity, which prevents each of them from being removed from their orbital path around the sun. If the sun's gravity was the only deciding factor, the sun would have long since pulled the other planets into itself because the sun has a stronger gravitational field and gravity causes planets to pull inwards. This is confirmed by the following source:

quote:
Orbital Speed
The mass formula above tells you that satellites orbiting massive planets must move faster than satellites orbiting low-mass planets at the same distance. Massive planets have stronger gravity than low-mass planets so a satellite orbiting a massive planet is accelerated by a greater amount than one going around a lesser mass planet at the same distance. To balance the stronger inward gravitational pull of the massive planet, the satellite must move faster in its orbit than if it was orbiting a lesser mass planet. Of course, this also applies to planets orbiting stars, stars orbiting other stars, etc.

http://www.astronomynotes.com/gravappl/s8.htm

Click the weblink below, and you will notice that each planet is on a different orbital path around the sun.
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Solar_sys8.jpg

BTW: I notice you evaded all three of the questions I asked you. I need not wonder why.


"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by NoNukes, posted 04-09-2013 2:44 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by dwise1, posted 04-11-2013 2:17 AM Alter2Ego has not yet responded
 Message 27 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-11-2013 2:34 AM Alter2Ego has not yet responded
 Message 32 by subbie, posted 04-11-2013 9:44 AM Alter2Ego has not yet responded
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 04-11-2013 10:04 AM Alter2Ego has responded

  
Alter2Ego
Member (Idle past 2016 days)
Posts: 72
From: Los Angeles, California
Joined: 04-06-2013


Message 28 of 77 (696011)
04-11-2013 3:09 AM
Reply to: Message 16 by Huntard
04-09-2013 6:28 AM


quote:
HUNTARD:
Nope, sorry, Pluto's not a planet.

ALTER2EGO -to- HUNTARD:
Pluto is very much a planet. It was reclassified as a "dwarf planet", but it is a planet just the same.

quote:
What Is Pluto?

Today, Pluto is called a "dwarf planet." A dwarf planet orbits the sun just like other planets, but it is smaller. A dwarf planet is so small it cannot clear other objects out of its path.



http://www.nasa.gov/...nts/k-4/stories/what-is-pluto-k4.html

QUESTION #1 to HUNTARD: What does the expression "just like other planets" indicate about dwarf planets such as Pluto?


"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Huntard, posted 04-09-2013 6:28 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by Pressie, posted 04-11-2013 4:11 AM Alter2Ego has not yet responded
 Message 30 by Huntard, posted 04-11-2013 6:14 AM Alter2Ego has responded

  
Alter2Ego
Member (Idle past 2016 days)
Posts: 72
From: Los Angeles, California
Joined: 04-06-2013


Message 34 of 77 (696028)
04-11-2013 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Huntard
04-11-2013 6:14 AM


Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
quote:
ALTER2EGO -to- HUNTARD:
Pluto is very much a planet. It was reclassified as a "dwarf planet", but it is a planet just the same.

HUNTARD
If it was still a planet, it would be called a planet. Words have meanings, you know.


ALTER2EGO -to- HUNTARD:
Of course words have meaning. And the last source I quoted said Pluto is a "dwarf planet.' Remove the word "dwarf" and what are you left with?

quote:
QUESTION #1 to HUNTARD: What does the expression "just like other planets" indicate about dwarf planets such as Pluto?

HUNTARD
That they exhibit some similar characteristics as planets. This apparently has confused you into thinking they are completely similar. Which they aren't as your quote clearly states.


ALTER2EGO -to- HUNTARD:
The confusion is yours. That's what happens when one decides to play along with the game of semantics that those in the scientific community tend to play.

quote:
What Is Pluto?
Today, Pluto is called a "dwarf planet." A dwarf planet orbits the sun just like other planets, but it is smaller. A dwarf planet is so small it cannot clear other objects out of its path.
http://www.nasa.gov/...nts/k-4/stories/what-is-pluto-k4.html

As you can see, NASA, the last source I quoted, used the expression "just like other planets" when describing Pluto. That can only mean one thing: Pluto is indeed a planet.

quote:
HUNTARD
Besides, if you want to include dwarfplanets as normal planets, your original quote would still be wrong, as it says there are nine planets, but if we count the dwarfplanets as planets as well, there would be 13. So take your pick, either way, the quote is wrong.

ALTER2EGO -to- HUNTARD:
The first source I quoted was referring to the largest among the 13 when it said there are 9 planets in our solar system, obviously. The routine of the scientific community is to exclude the smaller planets aka dwarf planets during the count. Somewhere down the road, they may discover even smaller planets, at which point, they might decide to play more games of semantics with the word "planet." In any event, the argument over what is a "planet" does not have any effect on the point of this thread: that precision in nature is evidence of intelligent design.


"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Huntard, posted 04-11-2013 6:14 AM Huntard has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by Huntard, posted 04-11-2013 10:42 AM Alter2Ego has not yet responded
 Message 36 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-11-2013 10:44 AM Alter2Ego has not yet responded
 Message 37 by 1.61803, posted 04-11-2013 10:47 AM Alter2Ego has not yet responded
 Message 43 by Percy, posted 04-11-2013 1:19 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded
 Message 48 by NoNukes, posted 04-11-2013 3:06 PM Alter2Ego has responded

  
Alter2Ego
Member (Idle past 2016 days)
Posts: 72
From: Los Angeles, California
Joined: 04-06-2013


Message 39 of 77 (696043)
04-11-2013 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by NoNukes
04-11-2013 10:04 AM


Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
quote:
NO NUKES:
You provided the following quote. I added some emphasis

quote:
Orbital Speed
The mass formula above tells you that satellites orbiting massive planets must move faster than satellites orbiting low-mass planets at the same distance. Massive planets have stronger gravity than low-mass planets so a satellite orbiting a massive planet is accelerated by a greater amount than one going around a lesser mass planet at the same distance. To balance the stronger inward gravitational pull of the massive planet, the satellite must move faster in its orbit than if it was orbiting a lesser mass planet. Of course, this also applies to planets orbiting stars, stars orbiting other stars, etc."

Do you understand that your quote demonstrates my point and not yours.


ALTER2EGO -to- NO NUKES:
You are the only person between us two who thinks that to be the case. If the other planets did not have their own field of gravity, the sun would have been able to suck them in. That's what you will never admit because you have a difficult time admitting you are in error.


"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 04-11-2013 10:04 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by Taq, posted 04-11-2013 1:18 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded
 Message 46 by NoNukes, posted 04-11-2013 2:49 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded
 Message 54 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-11-2013 4:47 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded

  
Alter2Ego
Member (Idle past 2016 days)
Posts: 72
From: Los Angeles, California
Joined: 04-06-2013


Message 40 of 77 (696044)
04-11-2013 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by NoNukes
04-11-2013 10:04 AM


Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
quote:
NO NUKES:
The subject matter of the statement above is satellites orbiting planets. The quote says that in that case the mass of the planet and not the mass of the satellite determines the orbital speed.

Now consider the solar system. In that case, the sun is serving the position of massive planets in your quote, while the planets are satellites orbiting the sun. So which mass would the principle of your quote say determines the orbit of the planets (satellites)? The sun and not the planets. In fact, the last sentence of your quote says exactly that.


ALTER2EGO -to- NO NUKES:
That's not what the source says. The source says the smaller object "must move faster," indicating it is the small object's speed and gravity that prevents it from being sucked into larger planets. Notice this point in the words bolded in light green from the same quotation.

quote:
Orbital Speed
The mass formula above tells you that satellites orbiting massive planets must move faster than satellites orbiting low-mass planets at the same distance. Massive planets have stronger gravity than low-mass planets so a satellite orbiting a massive planet is accelerated by a greater amount than one going around a lesser mass planet at the same distance. To balance the stronger inward gravitational pull of the massive planet, the satellite must move faster in its orbit than if it was orbiting a lesser mass planet. Of course, this also applies to planets orbiting stars, stars orbiting other stars, etc.

QUESTION #4 to NO NUKES: Did you notice that the source specifically says the smaller planet "must move faster" and that it did not say the larger planet makes the smaller planet move faster?


"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 04-11-2013 10:04 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-11-2013 12:53 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded
 Message 44 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-11-2013 2:11 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded
 Message 45 by NoNukes, posted 04-11-2013 2:13 PM Alter2Ego has responded

  
Alter2Ego
Member (Idle past 2016 days)
Posts: 72
From: Los Angeles, California
Joined: 04-06-2013


Message 49 of 77 (696062)
04-11-2013 3:52 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by NoNukes
04-11-2013 3:06 PM


Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
quote:
ALTER2EGO:
As you can see, NASA, the last source I quoted, used the expression "just like other planets" when describing Pluto. That can only mean one thing: Pluto is indeed a planet.

NO NUKES:
Did you also read further done on the same web page the explanation of why Pluto is not called a planet anymore? What did you make of that?



ALTER2EGO -to- NO NUKES:
Yes, I read all that. And as I previously stated, a "dwarf planet" is still by definition a planet. In 1930, Pluto was accepted as a planet. Then in 2006, the International Astronomical Union decided that a new system of classification was needed to describe what is to be referred to as "planet.' In other words, it's nothing but a game of semantics--which I will not play.

http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Dwarf


"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by NoNukes, posted 04-11-2013 3:06 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Taq, posted 04-11-2013 4:27 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded
 Message 57 by NoNukes, posted 04-11-2013 8:40 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded

  
Alter2Ego
Member (Idle past 2016 days)
Posts: 72
From: Los Angeles, California
Joined: 04-06-2013


Message 50 of 77 (696064)
04-11-2013 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by NoNukes
04-11-2013 2:13 PM


Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
quote:
NO NUKES:
Since you have your finger directly on the issue, I'll make another attempt to explain. I will quote here only the two sentences that you are misinterpreting. My own emphasis added.
quote:
Massive planets have stronger gravity than low-mass planets so a satellite orbiting a massive planet is accelerated by a greater amount than one going around a lesser mass planet at the same distance. To balance the stronger inward gravitational pull of the massive planet, the satellite must move faster in its orbit than if it was orbiting a lesser mass planet

The two quoted sentences explicitly say that a more massive planet causes a satellite orbiting the more massive planet to go faster than the satellite would go if were orbiting a smaller planet. Note that no mention is made of the mass of the satellite. That's because the mass of the satellite, as long as it is small compared to the planet, is irrelevant.

ALTER2EGO -to- NO NUKES:
Notice the portion within the above quotation that I bolded in light green. The source also says that the satellite "must move faster in its orbit," indicating that the satellite's own gravitational forces are a contributing factor and that the more massive planet is not the only reason why the smaller planet speeds up. That's the point I've been making. To hear you tell it, the more massive planet is the only deciding factor in all this interplay of planet movements.

If anything, the examination of planets and their reaction to each other's field of gravity proves the point of this thread: that there is precision in the natural world and that precision cannot result by accidental means.


"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by NoNukes, posted 04-11-2013 2:13 PM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Taq, posted 04-11-2013 4:33 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded
 Message 53 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-11-2013 4:43 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded
 Message 55 by NoNukes, posted 04-11-2013 6:38 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded

  
Alter2Ego
Member (Idle past 2016 days)
Posts: 72
From: Los Angeles, California
Joined: 04-06-2013


Message 60 of 77 (696101)
04-11-2013 10:46 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by NoNukes
04-11-2013 10:04 AM


Re: Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?
quote:
NO NUKES:
You don't trust anyone here, so if there is any person offline you can trust, who knows even a little about astronomy, I suggest that you ask them about your statement above. But you are beyond my help. I'll take whatever suspension this comment has earned, but you are an absolute buffoon.

Hmm.... That has a familiar ring. It rhymes with sore loser. You know, buffoon and lose. I hear stuff like that wherever I debate people who can't accept defeat gracefully.

"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by NoNukes, posted 04-11-2013 10:04 AM NoNukes has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by NoNukes, posted 04-11-2013 11:11 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded

  
Alter2Ego
Member (Idle past 2016 days)
Posts: 72
From: Los Angeles, California
Joined: 04-06-2013


Message 64 of 77 (697062)
04-20-2013 9:52 PM


ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

Logic based upon the dismissal of evidence is flawed logic--which is what atheists bring to the table. For instance, the 92 natural 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 or precision indicates it was deliberately done.

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

For instance, nobody can explain how Big Bang--which is nothing more than a theory about expanding space--could have resulted in the appearance of planets.

The millions of planets in the universe each have separate gravitational fields that keep them within their own orbits and prevent them from crashing into each other. This could not have happened by accident or spontaneously. Why not? Because the definition of "accident" is as follows:

"a nonessential event that happens by chance and has undesirable or unfortunate results." (Source: Websters New Collegiate Dictionary)

The universe shows precision. Something that is precise indicates deliberation. In turn, something deliberately done says one thing: an intelligent being intervened and directed the outcome.

Since humans clearly are not responsible for the appearance of planets in the heavens, then who did it? Somebody must have done it. God's inspired Word, the Judeo-Christian Bible responds to that question, as follows:

"{1} In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. {14} And God Went on to say: 'Let luminaries come to be in the expanse of the heavens to make a division between the day and the night; and they must serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years.' " (Genesis 1:1 and 14)


"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by NoNukes, posted 04-20-2013 10:24 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded
 Message 66 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-21-2013 1:01 AM Alter2Ego has not yet responded
 Message 67 by foreveryoung, posted 04-21-2013 1:21 AM Alter2Ego has responded
 Message 68 by NoNukes, posted 04-21-2013 1:53 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded
 Message 75 by New Cat's Eye, posted 04-22-2013 3:22 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded

  
Alter2Ego
Member (Idle past 2016 days)
Posts: 72
From: Los Angeles, California
Joined: 04-06-2013


Message 69 of 77 (697112)
04-21-2013 2:08 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by foreveryoung
04-21-2013 1:21 AM


quote:
ALTER2EGO:
The existence of Laws or precision indicates it was deliberately done.

FOREVER YOUNG:
Why? The elements are interrelated precisely because of quantum mechanics. Electrons cannot just take up any old orbit. Some are more stable than others because of the laws of physics. A physical law is just a description of how things work. There is nothing in them that demands an intelligence behind them.



ALTER2EGO -to- FOREVER YOUNG:
Quantum mechanics does not help your argument. Here's why: Quantum mechanics is nothing more than a THEORY. That's theory as in: "a group of hypotheses that can be disproven." Not only that, quantum mechanics theory is focused on randomness, which is the exact opposite of precision because precision deals with order and predictablility--such as the example of the Periodic Table used in my OP.

The elements on the Periodic Table are so precise and so interrelated to one another that, in the case of the first 60-discovered elements on the Periodic Table, scientists were able to accurately predict the existence of unknown elements and their characteristics. As you can see, that is the polar opposite of quantum mechanics theory which is based on Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. You do realize that something that is "uncertain" is unpredictable; do you not?

Edited by Alter2Ego, : No reason given.


"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by foreveryoung, posted 04-21-2013 1:21 AM foreveryoung has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-21-2013 3:16 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded
 Message 72 by Percy, posted 04-22-2013 7:32 AM Alter2Ego has responded
 Message 74 by Taq, posted 04-22-2013 2:58 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded

  
Alter2Ego
Member (Idle past 2016 days)
Posts: 72
From: Los Angeles, California
Joined: 04-06-2013


Message 76 of 77 (700321)
06-01-2013 11:09 PM
Reply to: Message 72 by Percy
04-22-2013 7:32 AM


quote:
PERCY:
A better definition of a theory is a tentative framework of understanding or interpretation constructed around a body of evidence, but details aside, what do you have to offer that's better than a scientific theory?

--Percy



ALTER2EGO -to- PERCY:
I offered something far superior to scientific theory in my OP. I presented Scientific Facts and Scientific Law dealing with the precision and complexity of the elements on the Periodic Table. I presented a sound argument that because of the complexity and precision among the first 60-discovered elements on the Periodic Table, scientists were able to accurately predict the existence of missing elements.

Meanwhile, you and the other members of the Religion of Atheism have presented nothing resembling an effective rebuttal to my OP. None of you can present a logical and credible explanation for how the elements on the Periodic Table could be the result of spontaneous generation or accidental events.

In fact, several atheists showed up attempting to derail my thread by arguing about the difference between "planets" and "dwarf plants," as if that is supposed to explain away the fact that the planets remain in their orbits because of their individual fields of gravity--another evidence of precision, which points to the Intelligent Designer aka Jehovah.

Edited by Alter2Ego, : No reason given.


"That people may know that you, whose name is JEHOVAH, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." (Psalms 83:18)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by Percy, posted 04-22-2013 7:32 AM Percy has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Panda, posted 06-01-2013 11:51 PM Alter2Ego has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019