Precision in Nature = Evidence of God

[mandimeoutof10]

god....

[sy2502]

Oh and for the rest of the posters, I doubt OP is a Jehovah's Witness, for the very simple reason he's actually trying to reason and argue his beliefs, instead of just parroting canned answers.

On the other hand, I have been banned from several "Christian" moderated forums for debunking Christendom's 3-prong god (Trinity) and its version of Dante's fictional hell. [/COLOR]

Ok maybe I was wrong. But if he is a JW he's one of the less brainwashed.

[Alter2Ego]

"While the Big Bang theory explains how the universe has expanded and cooled since it began, it is quite silent on what "pulled the trigger," so to speak. We simply don’t know what started the process. How there could be nothing at one moment and an entire baby universe the next? "

First.... your use of colors are annoying and are not the best ones to use on a black background.

Second, whats the issue with the fact that they said exactly what the big bang theory is? It is and has always been an explanation of the expansion of the universe after it began. They're just stating that "we don't know" when talking about why or how the universe began. That's correct since we don't.

ALTER2EGO -to- INDIVDUDE:
If you (and a couple others who have made similar comments) don't like the colors I use, put me on "Ignore". I'm typing against a white background, not a black background.

I frankly don't believe the colors are the problem but rather the content of what I post. I have posted similar arguments at a few websites where there are no color options--meaning I am forced to write everything in black-and-white. And guess what? The behavior of the atheists is exactly like it is here. In fact, at the black-and-white text only websites, the atheists have a field day cursing me out. So it's not the color of the text that is at issue. You simply resent what I am writing and are using the colors as an excuse to complain for the benefit of moderators.

[MaximosJ]

ALTER2EGO -to- INDIVDUDE:
I frankly don't believe the colors are the problem but rather the content of what I post. I have posted similar arguments at a few websites where there are no color options--meaning I am forced to write everything in black-and-white. And guess what? The behavior of the atheists is exactly like it is here. In fact, at the black-and-white text only websites, the atheists have a field day cursing me out. So it's not the color of the text that is at issue. You simply resent what I am writing and are using the colors as an excuse to complain for the benefit of moderators.

Well, you're wrong, at least with respect to me. I'm not an atheist. Armchair psychologizing at its finest, though.

[ChickenDiapers]

If god is so perfect why dont my wisdom teeth fit on my jawline

God wants ur dentist 2 earn some money, son. See, He is not a monster

[Alter2Ego]

"While the Big Bang theory explains how the universe has expanded and cooled since it began, it is quite silent on what "pulled the trigger," so to speak. We simply don’t know what started the process. How there could be nothing at one moment and an entire baby universe the next? "

First.... your use of colors are annoying and are not the best ones to use on a black background.

Second, whats the issue with the fact that they said exactly what the big bang theory is? It is and has always been an explanation of the expansion of the universe after it began. They're just stating that "we don't know" when talking about why or how the universe began. That's correct since we don't.

ALTER2EGO -to- INDIVDUDE:
Big Bang theory, according to you, has always been used to explain the expansion of the universe. "Always," you said. The reality is that the idea began in 1916 when Albert Einstein developed his General Theory of Relativity, and then Einstein's idea was later linked up with the Cosmological Principle. It was not until 1929 that Edwin Hubble made Big Bang theory part of formal scientific thinking.

Since when did 1916 and 1929 equate to "always"?


BTW: Big Bang theory is nothing more than the expansion of space. It cannot explain where the billions of planets came from.


QUESTION #1 to INDIVDUDE: If the billions of planets are the result of accidents or spontaneous events--meaning they created themselves--how do you explain the fact that all of the planets have different fields of gravity that keep them within their own orbits so that they don't crash into each other? Was that by accident, or design?

[MaximosJ]

[color=darkblue]ALTER2EGO -to- INDIVDUDE:
Big Bang theory, according to you, has always been used to explain the expansion of the universe. "Always," you said. The reality is that the idea began in 1916 when Albert Einstein developed his General Theory of Relativity, and then Einstein's idea was later linked up with the Cosmological Principle. It was not until 1929 that Edwin Hubble made Big Bang theory part of formal scientific thinking.

Since when did 1916 and 1929 equate to "always"?

It is beginning to look like you are here not to truly debate, but to score points. I say that because of the weird way in which you are seizing on particular words (like "always" in this case) and trying to force them to have meanings that suit your purposes, when it is obvious that the meanings that you are forcing are not the only (or most natural) meanings of the words.

For example, here is something that people say about themselves quite often: "I always go to bed by midnight." <--That does not mean that I have gone to bed at midnight since the beginning of time. It would not make sense for you to object, "You have only existed since the 1980's. Since when did the 1980's equate to 'always?'" That is what you are doing in this case, though, with respect to what Indivdude said. What he meant, obviously, is that the big bang theory has always been used (from the beginning of its existence) to explain the expansion of the universe. That is exactly analogous to what people mean in ordinary conversation when they say that they have "always" done something. You are either being purposefully obtuse or you are not very familiar with the way words are typically used in ordinary speech.

[sy2502]

Often when scientists�mere imperfect humans�cannot deal with the fact that human knowledge has its limits, they claim certain things are "random." You also seem to be ignoring the fact that Quantum Physics is basically a theory and that scientific theories are nothing more than speculations aka "a group of hypotheses that can be disproven."

So let me summarize the discussion so far:
- You make a thread to claim there's some amazing precision in nature that proves the existence of god, precision which you claim is supported by science
- Posters here use science to dispute your claim about the amazing precision.
- You reply to that by saying science doesn't know everything and they are speculations anyway.

I won't even get into discussing the difference between scientific theories and speculation, but if you don't think science is reliable why did you bring it up at all? Or is science reliable only when it suits you?

[Mr Beer]

[color=darkblue]ALTER2EGO -to- MR BEER:
You already made that false claim in my other thread dealing with Macroevolution myth and I responded to you there.

I hope you had fun typing that out, because again, I stopped reading when you starting lying...with your first sentence. You've been banned from multiple forums, for refusing to debate and instead spamming. Troll.

[Alter2Ego]

So let me summarize the discussion so far:
- You make a thread to claim there's some amazing precision in nature that proves the existence of god, precision which you claim is supported by science
- Posters here use science to dispute your claim about the amazing precision.
- You reply to that by saying science doesn't know everything and they are speculations anyway.

I won't even get into discussing the difference between scientific theories and speculation, but if you don't think science is reliable why did you bring it up at all? Or is science reliable only when it suits you?

ALTER2EGO -to- SY2502:
It seems you are under the delusion that everything spouted by scientists equates to: "it must be so." There is a vast difference between scientific fact and scientific speculations/theories. I will use scientific fact when it is available--meaning, there is evidence to support the scientific conclusion. If there is no evidence to support it, I will kick it to the curb and regard it as nothing more than science fiction.

If you choose to believe everything stated by people in academia's scientific world because that works for you, then go for it. I happen to have different standards. I treat what scientists say with a pinch of salt if there is no physical evidence to support it.

[chlaxman]

QUESTION #1 to INDIVDUDE: If the billions of planets are the result of accidents or spontaneous events--meaning they created themselves--how do you explain the fact that all of the planets have different fields of gravity that keep them within their own orbits so that they don't crash into each other? Was that by accident, or design?[/COLOR]

U wot m8?

The planetary orbits are relatively stable now due to the age of the solar system. That wasn't always the case. Hence our moon.

And the orbits of the planets and other objects in our solar system were caused by neither accident nor design, but gravity.

[sy2502]

It seems you are under the delusion that everything spouted by scientists equates to: "it must be so." There is a vast difference between scientific fact and scientific speculations/theories. I will use scientific fact when it is available--meaning, there is evidence to support the scientific conclusion. If there is no evidence to support it, I will kick it to the curb and regard it as nothing more than science fiction.

If you choose to believe everything stated by people in academia's scientific world because that works for you, then go for it. I happen to have different standards. I treat what scientists say with a pinch of salt if there is no physical evidence to support it.

That was not my point. YOU are the one that brought science into the discussion from the very beginning, asserting it supported your position. If you don't think science is worth much, why did YOU bring it up?

[MaximosJ]

Alter2Ego, are you just ignoring my posts in this thread or what? (Maybe the guy actually put me on ignore?)

[Alter2Ego]

It is beginning to look like you are here not to truly debate, but to score points. I say that because of the weird way in which you are seizing on particular words (like "always" in this case) and trying to force them to have meanings that suit your purposes, when it is obvious that the meanings that you are forcing are not the only (or most natural) meanings of the words.

For example, here is something that people say about themselves quite often: "I always go to bed by midnight." <--That does not mean that I have gone to bed at midnight since the beginning of time. It would not make sense for you to object, "You have only existed since the 1980's. Since when did the 1980's equate to 'always?'" That is what you are doing in this case, though, with respect to what Indivdude said. What he meant, obviously, is that the big bang theory has always been used (from the beginning of its existence) to explain the expansion of the universe. That is exactly analogous to what people mean in ordinary conversation when they say that they have "always" done something. You are either being purposefully obtuse or you are not very familiar with the way words are typically used in ordinary speech.

ALTER2EGO -to- MAXIMOS J:
If someone says they "always" do a certain thing, then the thing they always do is specific to themselves and obviously is not with reference to the beginning of time since the person obviously has not existed since the beginning of time. So what's your point in even using that as an argument? On the other hand, if someone says something outside themselves always happens and the exterior event does not always happen, it means the person is exaggerating--which is a form of lying.

I gave Indivdude the history of Big Bang theory, showing it has not been around for even 100 years. In case you didn't realize it, scientists have existed and studied the heavens for more than 3,000 years. Therefore Indivdude's claim about Big Bang theory "always" being around is overly exaggerated, since it does not even approach the thousands of years scientists have been studying the heavens.

Frankly, I don't know why you are even harping on what I commented to Indivdude when he made the exaggerated claim about Big Bang theory. I immediately moved on to something else during my conversation with him by asking him about the billions of planets in the heavens. Is it possible you didn't notice that?

[Alter2Ego]

It seems you are under the delusion that everything spouted by scientists equates to: "it must be so." There is a vast difference between scientific fact and scientific speculations/theories. I will use scientific fact when it is available--meaning, there is evidence to support the scientific conclusion. If there is no evidence to support it, I will kick it to the curb and regard it as nothing more than science fiction.

If you choose to believe everything stated by people in academia's scientific world because that works for you, then go for it. I happen to have different standards. I treat what scientists say with a pinch of salt if there is no physical evidence to support it.

That was not my point. YOU are the one that brought science into the discussion from the very beginning, asserting it supported your position. If you don't think science is worth much, why did YOU bring it up?

ALTER2EGO -to- SY2502:
You are getting it twisted. I respect true science (meaning it is backed up by evidence) and will use it in my arguments. I do not regard science fiction or speculations/opinions by scientists as true science.

Your attitude seems to be that any tripe that comes out of the scientific community is to be accepted as fact. That's your choice. But you're in no position to criticize me for using my God-given intelligence to discriminate between science fact and fiction.

If I have you pegged right, you impress me as being an "all or nothing" type of person where science is concerned. It appears that you expect me to accept any and everything that is dreamed up by people in the scientific community, or else I should go to the opposite extreme and reject everything they say--including legitimate scientific facts. Where did you get the idea that the "all or nothing" ideology should apply to me?

If you want to believe the planets and the entire universe popped out of nowhere by itself because another imperfect human calling him/herself a scientist said it happened that way--without them presenting evidence to prove it--then go ahead and believe it. Meanwhile, I will continue to discriminate between science fact and fiction. Do you mind?

[wings_unhinged]

[color=darkblue]ALTER2EGO -to- SY2502:
You are getting it twisted. I respect true science (meaning it is backed up by evidence) and will use it in my arguments. I do not regard science fiction or speculations/opinions by scientists as true science.

Yet you're here to promote creationism. Something that has no evidence to support it.

[GregariousWolf]

But you're in no position to criticize me for using my God-given intelligence to discriminate between science fact and fiction.

Yes we are. We're in a fine position to criticize your ability to tell truth from falsehood. In fact, I believe your grasp of reality is tenuous at best. Have fun storming the castle.

[Indivdude]

ALTER2EGO -to- INDIVDUDE:
Big Bang theory, according to you, has always been used to explain the expansion of the universe. "Always," you said. The reality is that the idea began in 1916 when Albert Einstein developed his General Theory of Relativity, and then Einstein's idea was later linked up with the Cosmological Principle. It was not until 1929 that Edwin Hubble made Big Bang theory part of formal scientific thinking.

Since when did 1916 and 1929 equate to "always"?


BTW: Big Bang theory is nothing more than the expansion of space. It cannot explain where the billions of planets came from.


QUESTION #1 to INDIVDUDE: If the billions of planets are the result of accidents or spontaneous events--meaning they created themselves--how do you explain the fact that all of the planets have different fields of gravity that keep them within their own orbits so that they don't crash into each other? Was that by accident, or design?

Because when I said always I meant forever not when it was fomulated (/sarcasm). Maximos is correct on how I meant always. I'm not sure how you got your interpretation of always from what I said.

I'm glad you understand that the big bang explains the expansion of the universe not its beginning.

As for your question, gravity explains it easily. Gravity affects objects based on mass and so forth. This is why our system is together with many others in the milky way then when our galaxy eventually collides with another one, those planets will become wrecking balls. So it's not perfect anyway. Planets will smash into each other eventually. They'll just be from other galaxies as those galaxies collide.

Now if you want to say god made the laws of physics and laws of nature and so forth, you are welcome to do so. However you do so with no proof and no more proof that someone that will argue that Zeus did so. It's possible but it's unprovable.

[MaximosJ]

[color=darkblue]ALTER2EGO -to- MAXIMOS J:
If someone says they "always" do a certain thing, then the thing they always do is specific to themselves and obviously is not with reference to the beginning of time since the person obviously has not existed since the beginning of time. So what's your point in even using that as an argument? On the other hand, if someone says something outside themselves always happens and the exterior event does not always happen, it means the person is exaggerating--which is a form of lying.

The last sentence here is just wrong, at least as you are applying it to Indivdude's claim. Here's another example. I am not the president of the United States. The president of the United States is always elected by the people (via the electoral college). <--That sentence is true even though the president of the United States (either an individual person or the office) has not existed since the beginning of time, and even though the president of the United States is something outside of myself. When I say that the president of the United States is always elected by the people, what I mean is that, as long as the president of the United States exists or has existed, he has been and will be elected by the people. That is exactly the same thing that Indivdude meant when he said, "It [the big bang theory] is and has always been an explanation of the expansion of the universe after it began" -- he meant that, as long as it exists or has existed, it has been used this way. This should be fairly obvious to anyone who is familiar with the use of "always" in the English language.

Why did I bring this up? Well, partly because you are behaving like a pompous jerk in a number of your posts here, and partly because the way that you misinterpreted Indivdude by seizing on the word "always" and then trying to use it against him to make some sort of "clever" retort was just ridiculous and unfair, so it needed to be called out.

I gave Indivdude the history of Big Bang theory, showing it has not been around for even 100 years. In case you didn't realize it, scientists have existed and studied the heavens for more than 3,000 years.

I'm just quoting this as another example of your pomposity. Yes, we are all quite aware that scientists have existed and studied the heavens for more than 3,000 years. Presumably, all of us in this dialog have completed the equivalent of an elementary school education. There is no need to be so condescending.

Frankly, I don't know why you are even harping on what I commented to Indivdude when he made the exaggerated claim about Big Bang theory. I immediately moved on to something else during my conversation with him by asking him about the billions of planets in the heavens. Is it possible you didn't notice that?

Harping? I made one post about it. This is yet another example of your condescending manner of discussion in this thread. Furthermore, he did not make an exaggerated claim at all, as I just explained above. It was obvious what he meant, and his way of putting it is a standard usage of "always" in English. (Here's another example, in case you aren't getting it. It is always cold in Antarctica (I'm using this example because there is a clear example of this way of phrasing things in standard English here: http://www.arl.noaa.gov/faq_c3.php). In saying that, I obviously don't mean that Antarctica has existed since the beginning of time, and it would be ridiculous for you to retort, "Ah, but Antarctica only began to exist (and be cold) within the last 4.5 billion years or so, late in the history of the universe. Since when is that 'always?'")

I did notice the other part of what you said, but I focused on the part above because I had grown tired of the way you were conducting yourself, and felt that it needed some correcting. I could address the other part of what you said, too, but it had some obvious mistakes that I was sure others would already notice and address -- e.g., you mistakenly equated the view that the planets arose as a result of spontaneous events with the view that the planets "created themselves."

[sy2502]

ALTER2EGO -to- SY2502:
You are getting it twisted. I respect true science (meaning it is backed up by evidence) and will use it in my arguments. I do not regard science fiction or speculations/opinions by scientists as true science.

Your attitude seems to be that any tripe that comes out of the scientific community is to be accepted as fact. That's your choice. But you're in no position to criticize me for using my God-given intelligence to discriminate between science fact and fiction.

If I have you pegged right, you impress me as being an "all or nothing" type of person where science is concerned. It appears that you expect me to accept any and everything that is dreamed up by people in the scientific community, or else I should go to the opposite extreme and reject everything they say--including legitimate scientific facts. Where did you get the idea that the "all or nothing" ideology should apply to me?

If you want to believe the planets and the entire universe popped out of nowhere by itself because another imperfect human calling him/herself a scientist said it happened that way--without them presenting evidence to prove it--then go ahead and believe it. Meanwhile, I will continue to discriminate between science fact and fiction. Do you mind?

First of all, I'd like to hear your qualifications for determining what's true science and what isn't.

Nevertheless, in your opening post, you mentioned specifically the periodic table of elements. In case you didn't know, elements are the way they are because they follow the laws of Quantum Physics and Quantum Field Theory. It so happens that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is a fundamental principle of the same exact science YOU invoked. In fact it is easily derived from the very same exact laws that govern why elements are the way they are, the same YOU invoked in your opening post. So it is disingenuous of you to say THE VERY SAME SCIENCE is reliable when you use it, and unreliable when I use it.

So I will ask you again, is the validity of science dependent on whether it agrees with your beliefs or not?

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- SY2502:
You are getting it twisted. I respect true science (meaning it is backed up by evidence) and will use it in my arguments. I do not regard science fiction or speculations/opinions by scientists as true science.

Yet you're here to promote creationism. Something that has no evidence to support it.

ALTER2EGO -to- WINGS UNHINGED:
I provided evidence of intelligent design in my opening post by directing attention to the Periodic Table of the Elements and the fact that the first 60 discovered elements are so precise and so interrelated that scientists were able to accurately predict the characteristics of elements that were missing from the Table. It's not my problem that you've chosen to ignore that, and it's not my problem that you have chosen to believe the elements on the Periodic Table are interrelated by accident. Never mind that the definition of "accident" indicates that could not be the case.

Meanwhile, evolutionists have no problem believing in macroevolution myth and Big Bang theory--neither of which is backed up by scientific evidence. Both theories are based upon speculations and nothing else besides.

[MaximosJ]

[color=darkblue]ALTER2EGO -to- WINGS UNHINGED:Never mind that the definition of "accident" indicates that could not be the case.

You never responded to my earlier post about this, so I'll ask it again: "would you accept this definition of "accident?" -- lack of intention or necessity: chance."

[Tamorlane]

ALTER2EGO -to- WINGS UNHINGED:
I provided evidence of intelligent design in my opening post by directing attention to the Periodic Table of the Elements and the fact that the first 60 discovered elements are so precise and so interrelated that scientists were able to accurately predict the characteristics of elements that were missing from the Table. It's not my problem that you've chosen to ignore that, and it's not my problem that you have chosen to believe the elements on the Periodic Table are interrelated by accident. Never mind that the definition of "accident" indicates that could not be the case.

Meanwhile, evolutionists have no problem believing in macroevolution myth and Big Bang theory--neither of which is backed up by scientific evidence. Both theories are based upon speculations and nothing else besides.

Brian Greene: Why is our universe fine-tuned for life?

[chlaxman]

ALTER2EGO -to- WINGS UNHINGED:
I provided evidence of intelligent design in my opening post by directing attention to the Periodic Table of the Elements and the fact that the first 60 discovered elements are so precise and so interrelated that scientists were able to accurately predict the characteristics of elements that were missing from the Table. It's not my problem that you've chosen to ignore that, and it's not my problem that you have chosen to believe the elements on the Periodic Table are interrelated by accident. Never mind that the definition of "accident" indicates that could not be the case.

Meanwhile, evolutionists have no problem believing in macroevolution myth and Big Bang theory--neither of which is backed up by scientific evidence. Both theories are based upon speculations and nothing else besides.

The atoms of the periodic table behave the way they do because of their properties, not due to design or "accident". A carbon atom could not behave like a hydrogen atom. The alkali metals have similar properties because they all have their outermost electron in the s-orbital, readily lose an electron to form a cation, etc. Same with all the other elements with similarities.

And you need to stop using the term accident because the word implies there being an intention or goal. Nothing in science is an accident (except mistakes in experiments and such). The terms you should be using are chance and probability.

[sy2502]

The atoms of the periodic table behave the way they do because of their properties, not due to design or "accident". A carbon atom could not behave like a hydrogen atom. The alkali metals have similar properties because they all have their outermost electron in the s-orbital, readily lose an electron to form a cation, etc. Same with all the other elements with similarities.

And you need to stop using the term accident because the word implies there being an intention or goal. Nothing in science is an accident (except mistakes in experiments and such). The terms you should be using are chance and probability.

Exactly this. What OP calls a mind blowing example of precision is just how subatomic particles come together. Is OP amazed that protons can come in groups of 1, 2, 3, .... and that we call those groups "atomic nuclei"? What's so mind blowing about that? OP when you are on the freeway there are cars around you with 1 occupant, 2, 3, 4, ... Do you find car occupancy an amazing example of divine precision too? Is the amazing part the fact there aren't cars with 2 and a quarter occupants (at least, we all hope there aren't )? Or that car occupancy doesn't just come in odd numbers, or just in even numbers, or just prime numbers? The reason for it is entirely mundane. If you find it amazing, you are easily amused.

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- SY2502:
You are getting it twisted. I respect true science (meaning it is backed up by evidence) and will use it in my arguments. I do not regard science fiction or speculations/opinions by scientists as true science.

First of all, I'd like to hear your qualifications for determining what's true science and what isn't.

Nevertheless, in your opening post, you mentioned specifically the periodic table of elements. In case you didn't know, elements are the way they are because they follow the laws of Quantum Physics and Quantum Field Theory. It so happens that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is a fundamental principle of the same exact science YOU invoked. In fact it is easily derived from the very same exact laws that govern why elements are the way they are, the same YOU invoked in your opening post. So it is disingenuous of you to say THE VERY SAME SCIENCE is reliable when you use it, and unreliable when I use it.

So I will ask you again, is the validity of science dependent on whether it agrees with your beliefs or not?

ALTER2EGO -to- SY2502:
I elaborated on that at least two different times when I informed you that if there is no evidence to prove something, it amounts to science fiction. You even quoted me saying the same thing in this your latest reply. Why are you coming back with the same wash, rinse and repeat? If you ask me that question again, don't expect a response.

[chimburgandy]

ALTER2EGO -to- WINGS UNHINGED:

Meanwhile, evolutionists have no problem believing in macroevolution myth and Big Bang theory--neither of which is backed up by scientific evidence. Both theories are based upon speculations and nothing else besides.

With Sargamatha finally banned I wouldn't be opposed to everyone who keeps making threads constantly trying to debunk or denounce evolution be banned as well. I know it sounds like a petty and broad reason to be rustled, but arguing against evolution as anathema to god which in their minds somehow proves god, is tantamount to bringing gravity, water, fish, planets, or medicine in evolutions place. What other reaction are people going to have if someone were to say "Gravity isn't real, therefore GOD!" People are going to react exactly how they have. Up in arms trying desperately to educate dangerously uninformed theists about their planet, met only with ignorance.

Evolution is the scientifically proven process for development and continued existence of all species on the planet. There is no debate. There is no controversy.

Intelligent theists accept that evolution is demonstrably true and try to work their god into the parameters set by what we know about evolution and the fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, give or take a few million years.

If you want to make some physics inspired argument for god, fine. No one knows how life began on the planet, and we can argue about it forever. But trying to disprove evolution, a scientific fact that no professional scientists anywhere since it's discovery have been able to do, is the most atrocious way to get your viewpoint considered by anyone.

You don't get to deny facts. That's all there is to it.

[lasher]

With Sargamatha finally banned I wouldn't be opposed to everyone who keeps making threads constantly trying to debunk or denounce evolution be banned as well. I know it sounds like a petty and broad reason to be rustled, but arguing against evolution as anathema to god which in their minds somehow proves god, is tantamount to bringing gravity, water, fish, planets, or medicine in evolutions place. What other reaction are people going to have if someone were to say "Gravity isn't real, therefore GOD!" People are going to react exactly how they have. Up in arms trying desperately to educate dangerously uninformed theists about their planet, met only with ignorance.

Evolution is the scientifically proven process for development and continued existence of all species on the planet. There is no debate. There is no controversy.

Intelligent theists accept that evolution is demonstrably true and try to work their god into the parameters set by what we know about evolution and the fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, give or take a few million years.

If you want to make some physics inspired argument for god, fine. No one knows how life began on the planet, and we can argue about it forever. But trying to disprove evolution, a scientific fact that no professional scientists anywhere since it's discovery have been able to do, is the most atrocious way to get your viewpoint considered by anyone.

You don't get to deny facts. That's all there is to it.

oh yes, ban words and ideas you don't like. That's never gone wrong before.

And he was banned for making a bicycle thread.

[chimburgandy]

oh yes, ban words and ideas you don't like. That's never gone wrong before.

And he was banned for making a bicycle thread.

How many discussions have boiled down to evolution as "just" a theory = god, both sides accomplishing nothing. Not once in this thread has the OP presented a case against evolution other than it's less likely to be true than what his claim is and we're foolish to believe it.

It's trolling, plain and simple. If I wanted to tell you water doesn't exist, it's god that keeps our bodies full of some unknown substance, and I said this in multiple threads under many aliases, wouldn't you get sick of hearing it and peg me as someone stirring up trouble? Water exists, you can point me in the direction of water and you can say how water was put on the planet by god if you want. If I continually expressed my disbelief of water because of a lack of knowledge about my own physiology or the earth, my viewpoint wouldn't be tolerated and I'd be gone.

There is as much evidence against evolution as there is against water existing. To bring it up as an unbelievable notion, to try to give the notion of god credibility, is trolling to the highest degree.

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- SY2502:
You are getting it twisted. I respect true science (meaning it is backed up by evidence) and will use it in my arguments. I do not regard science fiction or speculations/opinions by scientists as true science.

First of all, I'd like to hear your qualifications for determining what's true science and what isn't.

Nevertheless, in your opening post, you mentioned specifically the periodic table of elements. In case you didn't know, elements are the way they are because they follow the laws of Quantum Physics and Quantum Field Theory. It so happens that Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle is a fundamental principle of the same exact science YOU invoked. In fact it is easily derived from the very same exact laws that govern why elements are the way they are, the same YOU invoked in your opening post. So it is disingenuous of you to say THE VERY SAME SCIENCE is reliable when you use it, and unreliable when I use it.

So I will ask you again, is the validity of science dependent on whether it agrees with your beliefs or not?

ALTER2EGO -to- SY2502:
It seems you don't realize the laws of Quantum Physics and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle were decided upon by humans and that the elements on the Periodic Table existed since creation. It's a moot point for you to say the elements follow a law created by humans, since humans have only been in existence about 6,000 years. So to correct you, the laws of Quantum Physics and Quantum Field Theory and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle were defined by humans to describe the behavior of the elements on the Periodic Table, not the other way around.