Precision in Nature = Evidence of God

[lasher]

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.

No it isn't trolling. Not everyone is convinced by the evidence for evolution. And to desire someone be banned for expressing dissent from majority opinion is more than a little childish.

[MaximosJ]

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.

Uh... The laws were described by humans. It does not follow that the things described (the laws themselves) were created by humans. The laws themselves, the things described by humans, were in existence well before human beings. You seem to be suggesting that because human beings have described these laws, and human beings have (allegedly) only existed for about 6,000 years, therefore the laws themselves have only existed for 6,000 years, and so the elements of the Periodic Table could not have followed those laws. What comes after the "therefore" in the preceding sentence does not follow, however, and the inference involves a serious confusion between the laws themselves and the descriptions of the laws.

[chimburgandy]

No it isn't trolling. Not everyone is convinced by the evidence for evolution. And to desire someone be banned for expressing dissent from majority opinion is more than a little childish.

Again, whether someone is convinced by evolution is irrelevant. It is the same as saying you aren't convinced by water or the sun. It isn't a refutable, debatable point of contention. Saying "Evolution is real, it's obvious" isn't the same as saying "God is real, it's obvious." Between all the various methods scientists have used to determine that evolution is responsible for the continuing process of life there is no room for any credible or logical argument, only a complete nonacceptance of what is an objective part of our shared reality.

Also, "majority opinion" has no bearing here as it is not a shared opinion by a particular group based on any viewpoint about human nature or society or laws or beliefs. It is a group of professionals who have plotted our genes down to DNA and have established that all life on the planet is interconnected in some way. More importantly, we are descendents of primates, which can be proven to every non-believer one at a time if they bothered to look at the evidence or go look under a microscope or let someone who knows what they're talking about it explain it to them.

50 years ago we couldn't have made these definitive claims. Now we can, and the days of disputing evidence surely has to come to an end.

[lasher]

Again, whether someone is convinced by evolution is irrelevant. It is the same as saying you aren't convinced by water or the sun. It isn't a refutable, debatable point of contention. Saying "Evolution is real, it's obvious" isn't the same as saying "God is real, it's obvious." Between all the various methods scientists have used to determine that evolution is responsible for the continuing process of life there is no room for any credible or logical argument, only a complete nonacceptance of what is an objective part of our shared reality.

You are not the arbiter of truth chimbu. Others may disagree with what you presume to be irrefutable facts, and guess what, they still aren't trolling when they do so.

[Alter2Ego]

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.

ALTER2EGO -to- CHIMBURGANDY:
Scientifically proven by whom? By you--while you urge the moderators to ban me? So anybody that debunks evolution myth should be banned from this forum according to you. That reminds me of the Trinitarian moderators who banned me from their Christian websites because I debunked trinity and literal hellfire torment with the very same Bible they falsely claim teaches those dogmas.

Banning people simply because their viewpoint does not line up with your thinking is known as "religious intolerance." Now, don't get me wrong. I realize evolution theory is one of the religious doctrines for members of the Religion of Atheism. So I feel your pain. But debunk it I will.

Let me ask you this: Since when did Evolution THEORY make that great leap to scientific FACT, so much so, that you are now claiming it's the "scientifically proven process"? When? In your most recent dream?

Apparently, you don't realize there is a marked difference between scientific theory and scientific fact. I will be more than happy to explain the differences to you and quote secular sources when doing so, in case you are interested.

[chimburgandy]

You are not the arbiter of truth chimbu. Others may disagree with what you presume to be irrefutable facts, and guess what, they still aren't trolling when they do so.

You're of the belief that life can exist in a way that runs counter to demonstrable, objective truths because your faith and god dictate that it must be so. The problem is that there are things that we can know for sure, despite anyone's objection to them. I'm not for evolution because it is a better story than god or religions. If there was as much tangible proof for the progression of man and life on the planet for any other reason I would be inclined to believe it, if the science was sound.

Again, from a theistic point of view, a deity kick-starting life on earth and allowing it to progress through evolution and natural selection is not a concept lost on me and I don't begrudge anyone making that claim intellectually as no one can know for sure exactly what sprung life into action. Arguing against a process we can see everyday is absurd.

[sy2502]

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.

Oh boy, where to start?
Ok let's see, how about the double slit experiment? That's a fact, not a theory. Two slits, one electron at a time, and do we have your supposed precise behavior? No we don't. We get probability function behavior. Radioactive decay: does it behave precisely? No, it is random and probablistic.

Therefore your assertion that nature is precise contradicts observed facts. Not theories. FACTS.

/End of thread.

[chimburgandy]

ALTER2EGO -to- SY2502:
Scientifically proven by whom? By you--while you urge the moderators to ban me? So anybody that debunks evolution myth should be banned from this forum according to you. That reminds me of the Trinitarian moderators who banned me from their Christian websites because I debunked trinity and literal hellfire torment with the very same Bible they falsely claim teaches those dogmas.

Banning people simply because their viewpoint does not line up with your thinking is known as "religious intolerance." Now, don't get me wrong. I realize evolution theory is one of the religious doctrines for members of the Religion of Atheism. So I feel your pain. But debunk it I will.

Let me ask you this: Since when did Evolution THEORY make that great leap to scientific FACT, so much so, that you are now claiming it's the "scientifically proven process"? When? In your most recent dream?

Apparently, you don't realize there is a marked difference between scientific theory and scientific fact. I will be more than happy to explain the differences to you and quote secular sources when doing so, in case you are interested.

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

body of facts

repeatedly confirmed

observation and experiment


Any chance that you should be taken seriously from a scientific point of view has left the building, if you don't understand the gravity of the word "theory" in science.

[wings_unhinged]

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.

If that's your evidence, then submit it to the correct organizations. See it survive the onslaught of peer-review, and then become a celebrity overnight by proving ID to be true and "Evolutionism" false while winning the Nobel prize.

That would never happen though, because you're content with spreading scientific illiteracy over the Internetz in a bad effort to promote your religion...

[Alter2Ego]

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.

If that's your evidence, then submit it to the correct organizations. See it survive the onslaught of peer-review, and then become a celebrity overnight by proving ID to be true and "Evolutionism" false while winning the Nobel prize.

That would never happen though, because you're content with spreading scientific illiteracy over the Internetz in a bad effort to promote your religion...

ALTER2EGO -to- WINGS UNHINGED:
Let's be clear on this. Are you telling this forum that despite the fact the scientific community recognizes the precision among the elements on the Periodic Table of Elements--to the point they refer to it as "Periodic LAW"--that's not proof of intelligent design? In other words, the elements on the Periodic Table are the result of spontaneous, unguided events or accidental occurrences. Is that what you are saying?

[Alter2Ego]

A scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment."

body of facts

repeatedly confirmed

observation and experiment

Any chance that you should be taken seriously from a scientific point of view has left the building, if you don't understand the gravity of the word "theory" in science.

ALTER2EGO -to- CHIMBURGANDY:
I realize that's your personal opinion and the opinion of pro-evolutionists who use the above fallacious definition in their Internet blogs. It amounts to wishful thinking, because in reality, scientific theory is nothing more than educated guesses aka "a group of hypotheses that can be disproven." A scientific theory, like common layman's theory, is an attempt at explaining why something occurred. Prefacing it with the word "scientific" makes no difference. It is still nothing more than educated guesses. Furthermore, theories--including scientific theories--can be disproven when evidence is discovered that debunks the theory.

IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS

Definition of "Scientific Theory":
"A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it's an accepted hypothesis."
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemis.../lawtheory.htm



Definition of "Hypothesis":
"A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be disproven, but not proven to be true."
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemis.../lawtheory.htm



Definition of "Scientific Fact":
"An observation that has been confirmed repeatedly and is ACCEPTED AS TRUE (although its truth is never final)."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/scientific+fact

[TH3SHR3DD3R]

A2E, everyone is fully aware that scientific theories can be disproven. That's called being falsifiable. Its an important, but routine, part of science. This does not make creationism true, because creationism has no scientific basis.

[Maiar]

No it isn't trolling. Not everyone is convinced by the evidence for evolution. And to desire someone be banned for expressing dissent from majority opinion is more than a little childish.

where evolution is concerned its either blatant stupidity or wilful ignorance, neither should be tolerated.

[sy2502]

ALTER2EGO -to- WINGS UNHINGED:
Let's be clear on this. Are you telling this forum that despite the fact the scientific community recognizes the precision among the elements on the Periodic Table of Elements--to the point they refer to it as "Periodic LAW"--that's not proof of intelligent design? In other words, the elements on the Periodic Table are the result of spontaneous, unguided events or accidental occurrences. Is that what you are saying?

You are the one making the claim it proves intelligent design. It's your job to show that's the case. Just saying it does doesn't cut it.

[TH3SHR3DD3R]

A2E's entire premise is a rehashing of the weak anthropic principle. He employs numerous other logical fallacies, of course, but the premise in the OP is a rehashed weak anthropic principle.

It's like some people just don't bother to do their homework.

[chimburgandy]

You are the one making the claim it proves intelligent design. It's your job to show that's the case. Just saying it does doesn't cut it.

I love how obvious this point is, yet I am consistently amazed that it always falls on deaf ears.

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- WINGS UNHINGED:
Let's be clear on this. Are you telling this forum that despite the fact the scientific community recognizes the precision among the elements on the Periodic Table of Elements--to the point they refer to it as "Periodic LAW"--that's not proof of intelligent design? In other words, the elements on the Periodic Table are the result of spontaneous, unguided events or accidental occurrences. Is that what you are saying?

You are the one making the claim it proves intelligent design. It's your job to show that's the case. Just saying it does doesn't cut it.

ALTER2EGO -to- SY2502:
I presented evidence of precision in nature in my OP and cited credible scientific sources in the process. Just like wings-unhinged, you've presented nothing scientific as a rebuttal. Surely you don't think your skepticism is an effective rebuttal?

The scientific evidence says the elements on the Periodic Table are proof of intelligent design. That is, an intelligent being intervened and guided the outcome. For instance, since the discovery of the first 60 naturally occurring elements on the Periodic Table, even more have been discovered. The last time I checked, there were a total of 118 elements on the Periodic Table. Of that number, 92 are naturally occurring. But�get this�26 of the elements on the Periodic Table are man-made! Those 26 man-made elements are proof of intelligent design; they are proof that it required the intervention of intelligent beings (humans) who intervened and guided the outcome.


QUESTION #1 to SY2502: Do you get the significance of the latter statement: Since it clearly required the intervention of intelligent beings (in this case humans) to create the 26 man-made elements on the Periodic Table, what are the LOGICAL IMPLICATIONS regarding the 92 naturally occurring elements on the exact same Periodic Table?



I will watch for your reply.

[basejester]

No it isn't trolling. Not everyone is convinced by the evidence for evolution.

It's obvious that there's a very strong correlation between Christian literalists and people who find the evidence for evolution unconvincing. It's therefore obvious that this is not a scientific assessment.

[lasher]

It's obvious that there's a very strong correlation between Christian literalists and people who find the evidence for evolution unconvincing. It's therefore obvious that this is not a scientific assessment.

Posts being based on scientific assessment are not the standard that defines trolling. If my beliefs are outside of the mainstream, my presentation of them doesn't automatically qualify my post as trolling. This is the shame game played on many issues, and all it does is halt conversation. But maybe that's really the goal, sometimes.

[basejester]

Posts being based on scientific assessment are not the standard that defines trolling. If my beliefs are outside of the mainstream, my presentation of them doesn't automatically qualify my post as trolling. This is the shame game played on many issues, and all it does is halt conversation. But maybe that's really the goal, sometimes.

I agree that you are not trolling.

I do think it's disingenuous for you to imply that the evidence was insufficient, when in fact you aren't assessing the evidence. The amount of confirmation bias required to disbelieve evolution is staggering.

[lasher]

I agree that you are not trolling.

I do think it's disingenuous for you to imply that the evidence was insufficient, when in fact you aren't assessing the evidence. The amount of confirmation bias required to disbelieve evolution is staggering.

Oh I think there is plenty of evidence for evolution. I wasn't implying the evidence is insufficient. Only that some are not convinced by it. And the simple fact that they are unconvinced is not worthy of a trolling stamp.

[Tamorlane]

Oh I think there is plenty of evidence for evolution. I wasn't implying the evidence is insufficient. Only that some are not convinced by it. And the simple fact that they are unconvinced is not worthy of a trolling stamp.

Do you tend to believe in creation theory or the big bang? There is a difference here in billions of years....

[lasher]

Do you tend to believe in creation theory or the big bang? There is a difference hear in billions of years....

There is no dichotomy between believing in creation and believing in the big bang. So the answer to your question is yes.

The word creationism has been hijacked by YEC's unfortunately.

[Tamorlane]

There is no dichotomy between believing in creation and believing in the big bang. So the answer to your question is yes.

The word creationism has been hijacked by YEC's unfortunately.

I agree, but didn't you say that you are skeptical about abiogenesis (it is still a theory) implying that you have a tendency to believe in Adam and Eve than abiogenesis? Or do you not believe in Adam and Eve?

And if you do, or otherwise, wouldn't there be a historical date to Adam and Eve? I doubt this would be any further than 10,000 BCE, and the notion that we didn't evolve from a common ancestor with chimps/gorillas and other primates?

[lasher]

I agree, but didn't you say that you are skeptical about abiogenesis (it is still a theory) implying that you have a tendency to believe in Adam and Eve than abiogenesis? Or do you not believe in Adam and Eve?

And if you do, or otherwise, wouldn't there be a historical date to Adam and Eve? I doubt this would be any further than 10,000 BCE, and the notion that we didn't evolve from a common ancestor with chimps/gorillas and other primates?

Yes, I am skeptical of abiogenesis. That doesn't force me into believing in a literal Adam and Eve. And even if I did believe in a literal Adam and Eve I wouldn't be forced into claiming they were the first created life. I don't have one fixed idea in my head of how genesis went down and how it should be interpreted. Perhaps Adam and Eve were the first humans whom God breathed His Spirit into, gave souls, and brought them into a relationship with himself. Perhaps it's all allegorical and written as a polemic for the Hebrews to use against their neighboring caaninite religions, perhaps both.

[sy2502]

ALTER2EGO -to- SY2502:
I presented evidence of precision in nature in my OP and cited credible scientific sources in the process. Just like wings-unhinged, you've presented nothing scientific as a rebuttal. Surely you don't think your skepticism is an effective rebuttal?

You have stated many times you don't believe in science, that science is just a bunch of guess work that can be overthrown any moment. So your appeal to the very science you don't trust is pretty funny. Also I have mentioned to you how the foundamental theories of science, including Quantum Physics, but also General Relativity, Chaos theory, and even more importantly, Mathematica Logic with the Incompleteness Theorem, and Computability Theory with Turing's Halting Problem, show nature is as far from precise
as it comes. You have decided that science that supports your pet assumption is good science, and science that contradicts it is bad science. This is nothing better than sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "lalalallalalla".

The scientific evidence says the elements on the Periodic Table are proof of intelligent design.

No, it doesn't. YOU say it does.

Of that number, 92 are naturally occurring. But�get this�26 of the elements on the Periodic Table are man-made! Those 26 man-made elements are proof of intelligent design; they are proof that it required the intervention of intelligent beings (humans) who intervened and guided the outcome.

That's so ignorant is actually funny. Those elements don't REQUIRE to be ARTIFICIALLY made. They CAN be artificially made, but that doesn't mean they can't be find in nature. There are subatomic particles we generate in particle accelerators, that doesn't mean they don't exist anywhere else in nature. They require specific energies which are found in far and inhospitable places of the universe, like oh I don't know, the center of the sun. Being inconvenient for us to go find them there, we replicate those conditions on earth. Saying they REQUIRE human action to be created is just plain dumb. Sorry, I don't usually like to call out people's ignorance, but it would do you good to get even superficially acquainted with certain subjects before attempting to discuss them with others.

[Alter2Ego]

You have stated many times you don't believe in science, that science is just a bunch of guess work that can be overthrown any moment. So your appeal to the very science you don't trust is pretty funny. Also I have mentioned to you how the foundamental theories of science, including Quantum Physics, but also General Relativity, Chaos theory, and even more importantly, Mathematica Logic with the Incompleteness Theorem, and Computability Theory with Turing's Halting Problem, show nature is as far from precise

ALTER2EGO -to- SY2502:
Now you are deliberately lying. I have repeatedly stated--specifically to you, in this very thread--that I will accept science if it is accompanied by evidence. I realize you are desperate for a "win," but if you are going to start falsely attributing statements to me in order to attack my credibility and make yourself look good, you and I will not be dialoging much longer. Below are examples of me telling you three separate and distinct times on Page 4 of this thread that I accept legitimate science.


POST 100, PAGE 4, PARAGRAPH 1:

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.

POST 105, PAGE 4, PARAGRAPH 1:

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.

POST 120, PAGE 4:

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


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.

[sy2502]

ALTER2EGO -to- SY2502:
Now you are deliberately lying. I have repeatedly stated--specifically to you, in this very thread--that I will accept science if it is accompanied by evidence.

I have cited much legitimate science and math to you. Have you researched what I cited? Have you made any effort to understand it? No you have not. They contradict your statement therefore they aren't "legitimate". Pitiful.

I realize you are desperate for a "win,"

Win? Win what? What are we winning here? I didn't know there was some prize associated with this dismal thread.

you and I will not be dialoging much longer.

I will cry inconsolably if some internet stranger who went through all the trouble to open a terrible thread will then get in a huff and stop posting. Seriously, what are you, 10 years old?

[Alter2Ego]

For instance, since the discovery of the first 60 naturally occurring elements on the Periodic Table, even more have been discovered. The last time I checked, there were a total of 118 elements on the Periodic Table. Of that number, 92 are naturally occurring. But�get this�26 of the elements on the Periodic Table are man-made! Those 26 man-made elements are proof of intelligent design; they are proof that it required the intervention of intelligent beings (humans) who intervened and guided the outcome.

That's so ignorant is actually funny. Those elements don't REQUIRE to be ARTIFICIALLY made. They CAN be artificially made, but that doesn't mean they can't be find in nature. There are subatomic particles we generate in particle accelerators, that doesn't mean they don't exist anywhere else in nature. They require specific energies which are found in far and inhospitable places of the universe, like oh I don't know, the center of the sun. Being inconvenient for us to go find them there, we replicate those conditions on earth. Saying they REQUIRE human action to be created is just plain dumb. Sorry, I don't usually like to call out people's ignorance, but it would do you good to get even superficially acquainted with certain subjects before attempting to discuss them with others.

ALTER2EGO -to- SY2502:
The 26 man-made elements on the Periodic Table were never found in nature, but this conversation isn't even about that. I could care less if they are later found to occur naturally. That will not change the implication surrounding how those 26 man-made elements came into existence: by the direct intervention of intelligent beings who guided the outcome. That's what you are now attempting to dodge by taking the conversation elsewhere. Well, guess what: I won't even go there. Below are the points I want to drive home:

FACT #1: The 26 artificially made elements on the Periodic Table required the intervention of intelligent beings (humans).


FACT #2: Had it not been for the intervention of intelligent beings (humans), those 26 man-made elements on the Periodic Table would not be known to exist.


FACT #3: We know the 92 naturally occurring elements on the Periodic Table are not the creation of humans.


FACT #4: If it required intelligent intervention to produce the 26 man-made elements on the Periodic Table, the logical conclusion is that the 92 naturally occurring elements on the exact same Periodic Table required the intervention by an intelligent being who guided the outcome.


"For his [God's] invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world's creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable;" (Romans 1:20)



In case you didn't get it, let me spell it out for you:You've... been... debunked.

[Queequeg]

Mods please ban this troll, I don't care if they are legit or not, the practical difference between a stupid/igornant poster and a poster faining igorance/stupid is neligable. Should be band for simply making endless **** threads. As already point out in an previous thread all this person does is move from forum to forum posting benial fundy BS. People like this should be reported to their ISP's because they have no genuine intention to participate in the community only spoil it.