Re: 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?
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?
Assuming so, doesn't that mean that you are saying that an Intelligent Designer is ordering the piles of sand that are all over the place?
The edge of that pothole lines up with 100% precision with edge of the water. According to your argument, that would indicate that the pothole was deliberately made to line up with the water.
Since we know that isn't true, we can deduce that the claim that precision indicates deliberation is incorrect. Precision can suggest design, but without it being a necessity it is not an indication.
Logic based upon the dismissal of evidence is flawed logic--which is what atheists bring to the table.
Well I'm not an atheist. But I can still see that your same old tired arguments are just plain bad ones.
Evidence of Jehovah God's existence is dismissed every single time one ignores the complexity of the natural world.
We all know that complexity, and precision, do not necessarily indicate design. Snowflakes are complex, but they're not designed. You're bringing up stuff that's already been refuted, and honestly, you're just debating them poorly.
To avoid the trap of stubbornness, one must allow logic and evidence to interact.
But you're the one displaying the most stubborn behavior. You don't address the rebuttals to your arguments, and instead just repeat yourself.
It seems to me that you're playing that old creationist game: "Lets see if you guys are capable of convincing me of this basic fact". Then you do everything you can do to avoid admitting that said fact is true.
Like you are now with the whole "Its only a theory" bit. What are you, in high school or something? The ignorance you display is surprising.