Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

Discussion in 'Off-Topic Forum' started by Altered, Jun 21, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Altered

    Altered New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2013
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ALTERED -to- TRUSTEFT:
    You went from wash, rinse, and repeat to science fiction. Now you are coming up with speculations about species on another part of the universe. Which species would that be? Inquiring minds want to know.




    ALTERED -to- TRUSTEFT:
    As soon as you can produce the table of elements "based on something else we are not aware of" that was done by "another species" I will then concede defeat. I kid you not.
     
  2. Trusteft

    Trusteft HH's Asteroids' Dominator

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2004
    Messages:
    23,785
    Likes Received:
    3,558
    Trophy Points:
    153
    You keep avoiding anything you don't like. Keep asking questions that have already been answered and either ignoring the answers or just claiming they are not to your standards, which is ridiculous considering you....
    You are now just trolling.
    I'm out.
     
  3. Falstaff

    Falstaff Old Codger

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2002
    Messages:
    20,553
    Likes Received:
    311
    Trophy Points:
    123
    Troll was your conclusion before, I am ignoring his posting for now, its pure rubbish.
     
  4. Altered

    Altered New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2013
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ALTERED -to- TRUSTEFT:
    Anyone reading this thread will see that I have not avoided anything. If, as you claim, the answers were "already answered," maybe you could quote the answers verbatim and explain to me and the rest of the forum what questions of mine they were answers to. And, please, no more science fiction about aliens from another planet. . . unless you can prove the aliens exist and you can prove they occupy another planet. Can you do that?
     
  5. MIG-31

    MIG-31 Old time Member.. Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    75,904
    Likes Received:
    2,637
    Trophy Points:
    153
    hello, And im going to say this straight up...

    I have just read every single post made, And I agree in general you are actually avoiding quite a few points within this thread mentioned by other members.

    If you want a good discussion in this thread please read and respond to the replies without a Biased Opinion.

    This thread looks as though you are determined to believe in what you do so already and do not care in any other members opinion other than your own.
     
  6. Altered

    Altered New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2013
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ALTERED -to- MIG-31:
    Of course you agree in general. You are obviously an atheist who is moderating a thread that questions your position. Therefore, you are determined to not be neutral and to actively take sides. Moderators are not supposed to take sides. They are supposed to remain neutral.


    The only people complaining that I am not responding are those who can't answer the questions in my OP with scientific sources, and are evading my follow-up questions. And that's everyone that has shown up thus far. While we're on the topic of opinion, are you telling me that the opinions of Neshi and Judas and Trusteft are NOT biased?
     
  7. Altered

    Altered New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2013
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ALTERED -to- MIG-31:
    What do you think the skeptics in this thread have been doing?

    ANSWER: They have all been telling me what they are determined to believe.


    Not only that, I presented scientific facts regarding precision in my OP by using the example of the elements on the Periodic Table and cited my sources. Neshi turned up arguing evolution theory at Post #3 despite the fact this thread is not about evolution theory. In fact, in the very first paragraph of Post #3, Neshi made the claim that precision can occur by accident. When I asked Neshi to give at least one example, guess what Neshi presented as a response: NOTHING. NADA. Neshi completely ignored my request.


    Judas used a different tact. In so many words, Judas made it clear that my OP is not worthy of his/her time (Post #4).


    Judas also declared at Post 4 that the natural world is anything but precise. When I asked Judas for a credible scientific explanation for the precision in the first 60-discovered elements on the Periodic Table, guess what scientific evidence Judas presented? NOTHING. NADA.


    Meanwhile, Trustef showed up at Post 14 speculating about aliens from another planet.


    I asked Trusteft to present proof that there are species on another planet that would "decide to create a table of elements based on something else we are not aware of for the elements". Guess what Trusteft gave me as a response? NOTHING. NADA.


    I asked at least two times that someone present examples of precision repeatedly occurring--by accident--in man made creations. Did you see any of them present any of that? So now you've turned up to defend them, and you're accusing me of doing exactly what they are doing.


    Whenever moderators show up taking sides, that's a clue to me that the moderators do not know how to remain neutral and that they will pull the "power" card and either lock the thread or ban me. Been there. Experienced that.
     
    Last edited: Jun 22, 2013
  8. Neshi

    Neshi HH's cuddly Blue Bear

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    5,225
    Likes Received:
    441
    Trophy Points:
    108
    I am just unsure how your perception and opinion; "the elements are so precise, therefore made by someone", is more valid than someone elses with a varying opinion. You have given no evidence to back up your opinion, but require us to back up ours? That's a bit hypocritical isn't it?

    you obviously can't distinguish between the term theory and the scientific use of it, or you just act as if you don't to suit your own purposes. Outside of science, you might say something is 'just a theory', meaning it's supposition that may or may not be true. In science, a theory is an explanation that generally is accepted to be true.

    You describe things as if a "law" is the proven version of a theory, which it isn't.

    A theory is simply the most elaborate form of consistent scientific knowledge not yet disproved by experiment. In experimental sciences, a theory can never be "proved", it can only be "disproved" by experiment.

    A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain 'why'.

    Example: Consider Newton's Law of Gravity. Newton could use this law to predict the behavior of a dropped object, but he couldn't explain why it happened.

    The Theory of Gravity would attempt to answer why it happened.
     
    Last edited: Jun 23, 2013
  9. Falstaff

    Falstaff Old Codger

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2002
    Messages:
    20,553
    Likes Received:
    311
    Trophy Points:
    123
    ah christ...kill this thread now, its going over the falls now.
     
  10. Judas

    Judas Obvious Closet Brony Pony

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    39,670
    Likes Received:
    1,521
    Trophy Points:
    138
    I'm sorry, but that's essentially all that we are seeing... It's really that simple...

    While i'm all for outside of the box discussions and really venturing even outside what you are talking about, I don't talk in Absolutes like you are, I consider the possibility of what you have mentioned, but I at least keep at least a foot firmly planted, or at least make certain to touch ground once in awhile.

    You're asking for a philosophical discussion with all recorded, documented, mathematically understood and working theories and known to be 99.99% proven to be accurate and factual to be simply Tossed out the window entirely.

    I give you credit for trying, but there is no way to ground anything you are discussing, your method in which to try and even stir up some kind of conversation to "try" and have has done nothing but outright "attack" rather than better lay out a more diplomatical position to start the conversation. You can't just blow the entire form of everything .. EVERYTHING up and make everything we currently understand or generally will have to agree on as being completely non-reference-able.

    It's hard to have a conversation on anything that 2 people can't even agree one at the basic level, it's a total lack of communication. If you say 1+1=3 and I say 1+1=4 while the rest of the world says 1+1=2.... no one is going to understand any of it, nothing will make sense, any argument of how things are as we perceive it to be is moot and pointless. It would be better to just be enveloped into nothingness and talk to that nothingness infinitum.

    You ask for proof, proof widely available... but apparently isn't what you are looking for. You make the case that essentially "god" did it all. Yet you provide ZERO evidence to be able to make the claim of proof, but in your reality you have and it's us that have no proof to claim otherwise.

    So again I ask... what's the point?

    Until there is a clear point to the talk about, everything else you ask/state/ponder or want/don't want conjecture or general conversation on, is essentially impossible.
     
  11. MIG-31

    MIG-31 Old time Member.. Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    75,904
    Likes Received:
    2,637
    Trophy Points:
    153
    Oh dear... And you cant question somebody's religion when you have no clue to who I am!

    [​IMG]

    What Neshi / Judas and trusteft, don't come across as being biased. They are just tying so tell you is objectionable to what you are asking.

    Im afraid that if you are going to ask a question (or several) be prepared to listen to the answers. That's the point of a forum.


    If you are not going to take notice of any reply (without turning it around) toy your own opinion, Then that makes this entire thread pointless.
     
  12. Falstaff

    Falstaff Old Codger

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2002
    Messages:
    20,553
    Likes Received:
    311
    Trophy Points:
    123
    I recognize our thread creator, and I think this entire dialogue is an attempt at manipulation Jason, at least it is poorly executed, entirely for the amusement of ALTERED, or whatever name he has used before. If I am wrong I cannot overlook the intellectual somersaults he hopes to achieve by stirring the last dregs of his previous post like over used grounds of coffee.

    Jason, I would rather know why this fellow ALTERED came here in the first place, unless he is familiar with the site and intends to exercise his absurd sense of entitlement(s).

    Should be we be amused?
     
  13. mkk

    mkk Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2003
    Messages:
    5,334
    Likes Received:
    152
    Trophy Points:
    73
    [​IMG]
     
    Falstaff likes this.
  14. Altered

    Altered New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2013
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ALTERED -to- NESHI:
    I gave a scientific argument in my OP in the form of Periodic Law. Periodic Law is not opinion; it is universally accepted. It is based upon the known existence of the elements of planet earth according to the structure of their atoms.

    You and the other skeptics that showed up in this thread have presented nothing as a valid explanation for why those elements are so precise and complex. When I asked for examples of repeated accidental precision among things that are made by humans, nobody could present a single example. Yet, the skeptics are showing up in this thread arguing that the elements on the periodic table are precise by accident.
     
  15. Altered

    Altered New Member

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2013
    Messages:
    30
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    ALTERED -to- NESHI:
    You obviously can't understand that any theory--scientific or otherwise--is merely an educated guess. Theories are attempts at explaining why a phenomena occurred. Even when the explanation is accepted, it still remains a theory because new evidence can show up and cause the theory to be disputed. Below is how one source defines scientific theory. Keep your eyes on the words in bold print within the quotation.


    Definition of "Scientific Theory"

    http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm




    Now, notice the difference where scientific fact is concerned.

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


    I will address the remainder of your post at another time.
     
  16. Neshi

    Neshi HH's cuddly Blue Bear

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2005
    Messages:
    5,225
    Likes Received:
    441
    Trophy Points:
    108
    taking from the quotes you gave:
    the definition of a scientific theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis.
    the definition of a scientific fact is to say it's a observation accepted to be true.
    Both of them are confirmed repeatedly in a variety of tests and circumstances.

    I don't really see a difference. The theory is accepted to be true. The fact is accepted to be true. Both of them are true until proven otherwise. The point you are trying to make is moot.



    And I hope that you know that that periodic table you are so fond of mentioning, is based on the Atomic Theory.
     
    Last edited: Jun 24, 2013
  17. Sihastru

    Sihastru Never been clicked

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    428
    Likes Received:
    22
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Altered, look at this: Table of nuclides

    Not so pretty, is it? Do you know that even the first element is, in some of it's forms, radioactive? Did you know a few of it's forms are strictly man made?

    The actual table of elements, including most discovered isotopes. What you've been preaching about is the simplified and archaic table. In that table, elements from 1 to 98 have been found in nature, but the elements from 99 onwards, are ALL man made, synthesised only in man made labs! Is this why you want to limit the discussion to the first 60 elements?

    The actual table of elements is a complete mess. It's an elegant mess, but it's a mess. It's filled with elements and isotopes that are both naturally occurring and synthesised. Just because in school most of us only get to see the simplified version, the pretty version, does not give you the right to use it as a twisted argument. It might work in different circles, with people that can't do a google search or read an article on wikipedia... meaning, not here.
     
  18. Teme

    Teme Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2004
    Messages:
    8,496
    Likes Received:
    175
    Trophy Points:
    73
    As my friend said : "Don't argue with idiots, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience."
     
  19. Falstaff

    Falstaff Old Codger

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2002
    Messages:
    20,553
    Likes Received:
    311
    Trophy Points:
    123
    Look guys, we are dealing with an eight year old here, lets not stoop to his level.
     
  20. Judas

    Judas Obvious Closet Brony Pony

    Joined:
    May 13, 2002
    Messages:
    39,670
    Likes Received:
    1,521
    Trophy Points:
    138
    I'm still waiting for my single simple question to be answered....
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

visited