Is Precision in Nature Evidence of God or Evolution?

[Alter2Ego]

[font=Verdana]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 an accident aka a spontaneous event that happen by chance with no one guiding the outcome. Websters New Collegiate Dictionary defines an accident as:

"a nonessential event that happens by chance and has undesirable or unfortunate results"


Scientific evidence shows there is extreme precision in everything around us. This precision renders the evolution theory mere fiction, for precision leaves no room for error or for accidental events. Take, for example, the first discovered 60 elements on the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth. Some of these 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 Encyclopdia 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 DEBATE:
1. Were it not for the precise relationship among the 60 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 aka by accident? Or is this evidence for the existence an intelligent Designer/God who guided the outcome?

3. Evolution relies upon things happening by chance aka at random. If evolution were a fact, how does it account for the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth in which the first 60 discovered elements are so precise, and so interrelated with one another, that it has been assigned the word "LAW"? [/font]

[Alter2Ego]

Once you start to learn about the world of probabilities you'll discover that there are many things in this world that are precise and not precise. It is this balance that keeps our world from collapsing on itself. Observing the atomically, small world reveals the most precession, for if it was not, pieces of matter would just be floating randomly around us. Evolution, although a biological necessity, on the other hand does not always favor precision, for if it did, there would be no room to evolve and the concept of evolution would be dead. Although things have evolved due to specific events, areas and climate, if all of evolution favored precision, then the cornucopia of species presiding here on earth would not still be evolving, and we most certainly are.

If evolution, in its entirety, were to favor precision, what would be our precise purpose on this earth? To consume and populate more than we do now? To argue even more over who's fictitious entity is truth? Could you even identify our precise purpose in your world of no evolution, other than, (through a Christian world view) to just acknowledge God and please him by praise and indubitable reasoning? How does that world account for my purpose? Given that I don't even believe this God exists and question the nature of my world. I'm sorry but the precision of God/ID, certainly has not graced this world. Balance is the very essence of our physical world and with that being said, there is no room for a superlative, supernatural being.

[font=Verdana]ALTER2EGO -to- GNUMAN05:

Logic based upon the dismissal of evidence is flawed logic--which is what you're bringing to the table. For instance, the first 60 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 aka precision indicates an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER directed the outcome.

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

The Big Bang Theory is just that--a theory, and one that will never be proven as it amounts to nothing more than speculation aka personal opinions. Nobody can explain how this theory of expanding space is an explanation for the appearance of planets with their individual gravitational fields that prevents them from crashing into each other, and the fact that certain planets work to the advantage of earth.


Without intelligent direction, things would result by chance occurrences known as accidents. Websters New Collegiate Dictionary defines an accident as a "nonessential event that happens by chance and has undesirable or unfortunate results." As previously stated, the precision (which leaves no room for accidents) found in the world around us cries out to the existence of an intelligent, supernatural Designer or God. Things happening at random aka by accident cannot result in precision. Take, for example, the following.

Consider the earth's measurements and its location in our solar system. Earth is just the right size for our existence. If earth were slightly larger, its gravity would be stronger, with the result that hydrogen--a light gas--would not be able to escape the gravity of a bigger earth. The result? Earth's atmosphere would kill us because of the accumulation of hydrogen. On the other hand, if earth were slightly smaller, life-sustaining oxygen would escape and surface water would evaporate. In this case, we would also die.

Furthermore, the earth is at an ideal distance from the sun. Both astronomer John Barrow and mathematician Frank Tipler studied "the ratio of the Earth's radius and distance from the Sun" and concluded that human life would not exist "were this ratio slightly different from what it is observed to be." (Source: The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, by John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, copyright 1986, Oxford University Press)

In his book, Professor David L. Block wrote: "Calculations show that had the earth been situated only 5 percent closer to the sun, a runaway greenhouse effect [overheating of the earth] would have occurred about 4000 million years ago. If, on the other hand, the earth were placed only 1 percent further from the sun, runaway glaciation [huge sheets of ice covering much of the globe] would have occurred some 2000 million years ago." (Source: Our Universe: Accident Or Design? by David L. Block (1992)[/font]

[gnuman05]

Logic based upon the dismissal of evidence is flawed logic--which is what you're bringing to the table. For instance, the first 60 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 aka precision indicates an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER directed the outcome.

But thats your whole worldview. You put absolute faith in something with the dismissal of evidence. And when I mean evidence, I mean tested, refuted, then tested some more. Not literature said to be absolute evidence, because it just says it's evidence. The only source for which you attain your so called logic is from these ancient writings that are said to be divinely inspired. But sorry, let me address your rebuttal. Your comparison is so way off, it defies all logic, rendering your argument completely and utterly illogical. Evolution and the components that make of elements are to completely different fields of study. With that being said, the precision of particles in our world is a causation of a profound expansion over billions of years, the big bang. And yes, its a theory, but a theory that is supported by most of the entire scientific faculty, the same people who determined the periodic laws. It incorporates mathematics, physics, quantum mechanics, cosmology, electromagnetism, etc. Even the periodic laws are used to determine the primary elements of the big bang, specifically through nucleosynthesis.

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

I admire the complexity of the world everyday and I feel that what ever happens after the inevitable is just as, if not more complex. Take your own advise on this one alsoStop ignoring scientific facts.

The Big Bang Theory is just that--a theory, and one that will never be proven as it amounts to nothing more than speculation aka personal opinions. Nobody can explain how this theory of expanding space is an explanation for the appearance of planets with their individual gravitational fields that prevents them from crashing into each other, and the fact that certain planets work to the advantage of earth.

Personal opinions? Do you live in the 18th century? Take your advise again and do some real research. Namely, on the big bang theory.

Without intelligent direction, things would result by chance occurrences known as accidents. Websters New Collegiate Dictionary defines an accident as a "nonessential event that happens by chance and has undesirable or unfortunate results." As previously stated, the precision (which leaves no room for accidents) found in the world around us cries out to the existence of an intelligent, supernatural Designer or God. Things happening at random aka by accident cannot result in precision. Take, for example, the following.

Consider the earth's measurements and its location in our solar system. Earth is just the right size for our existence. If earth were slightly larger, its gravity would be stronger, with the result that hydrogen--a light gas--would not be able to escape the gravity of a bigger earth. The result? Earth's atmosphere would kill us because of the accumulation of hydrogen. On the other hand, if earth were slightly smaller, life-sustaining oxygen would escape and surface water would evaporate. In this case, we would also die.

Its funny how this creator with optimal precision tried to eradicate humanity with a flood and then from his lack of divine precision, impregnated a human woman with himself to later martyr himself, and relinquish use of our intrinsically sinful lives, which by the way, he also created. Yep, this precise creator seems like a much better candidate than a theory supported by the popular of the scientific community.

Furthermore, the earth is at an ideal distance from the sun. Both astronomer John Barrow and mathematician Frank Tipler studied "the ratio of the Earth's radius and distance from the Sun" and concluded that human life would not exist "were this ratio slightly different from what it is observed to be." (Source: The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, by John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, copyright 1986, Oxford University Press)

In his book, Professor David L. Block wrote: "Calculations show that had the earth been situated only 5 percent closer to the sun, a runaway greenhouse effect [overheating of the earth] would have occurred about 4000 million years ago. If, on the other hand, the earth were placed only 1 percent further from the sun, runaway glaciation [huge sheets of ice covering much of the globe] would have occurred some 2000 million years ago." (Source: Our Universe: Accident Or Design? by David L. Block (1992)

Look I dont need an 8th grade astronomy lesson here. I am keenly aware that the planet we so happen to populate is at a hospitable distance from our Sun. All of your vindications have perfect refutations using quantum physics, probability theory, string theory, astronomy etc. Now I cant completely discredit the possibility of design because that would discredit the theory of infinite probabilities, but I know with certainty that the designer you put all of your faith in, is nothing more than a collaboration of ancient writers who contributed their individual theories and myths.

[Artie]

The Big Bang Theory is just that--a theory, and one that will never be proven

I really don't know exactly how to treat your posts. On the one hand it appears that you genuinely believe what you write, on the other hand what you write is so devoid of logic and reason that it's hard to see how you can possibly believe what you write. For instance: You can't "prove" a theory. You can only supply enough evidence for a theory to say the theory is most likely true. The amount of scientific evidence we have that the Big Bang actually happened is so enormous that to say that it most likely didn't happen is completely unreasonable. The first person credited with the idea of the Big Bang was Georges Lematre, a Roman Catholic Priest.

as it amounts to nothing more than speculation aka personal opinions. Nobody can explain how this theory of expanding space is an explanation for the appearance of planets with their individual gravitational fields that prevents them from crashing into each other, and the fact that certain planets work to the advantage of earth.

It has been explained many times in many books. Either you haven't read any explanations, or you don't understand them. I suggest you start at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang if you are at all interested in actual knowledge.

As previously stated, the precision (which leaves no room for accidents) found in the world around us cries out to the existence of an intelligent, supernatural Designer or God. Things happening at random aka by accident cannot result in precision.

Have you heard of something known as physics? Physics explains why things don't happen by accident. Physics isn't crying out for the existence of a designer/creator. Only you are. The reason why some people are crying out for a designer and/or creator is explained by the field of neurotheology. But that is for another thread.

Consider the earth's measurements and its location in our solar system. Earth is just the right size for our existence. If earth were slightly larger, its gravity would be stronger, with the result that hydrogen--a light gas--would not be able to escape the gravity of a bigger earth. The result? Earth's atmosphere would kill us because of the accumulation of hydrogen. On the other hand, if earth were slightly smaller, life-sustaining oxygen would escape and surface water would evaporate. In this case, we would also die.

Furthermore, the earth is at an ideal distance from the sun.

Of course the Earth is marginally suitable for our existence. If it wasn't we wouldn't be here. Personally though, if I was to create a planet for a bidepal, airbreathing mammal why would I make the surface almost three-quarters water? It would appear that if a deity made this planet it was obviously made for aquatic life. The most interesting question of course is if this planet was made for us, who was Venus or Mercury or Saturn or Pluto or any of the untold number of planets orbiting up to a septillion stars made for?

[Goat]

Once you start to learn about the world of probabilities you'll discover that there are many things in this world that are precise and not precise. It is this balance that keeps our world from collapsing on itself. Observing the atomically, small world reveals the most precession, for if it was not, pieces of matter would just be floating randomly around us. Evolution, although a biological necessity, on the other hand does not always favor precision, for if it did, there would be no room to evolve and the concept of evolution would be dead. Although things have evolved due to specific events, areas and climate, if all of evolution favored precision, then the cornucopia of species presiding here on earth would not still be evolving, and we most certainly are.

If evolution, in its entirety, were to favor precision, what would be our precise purpose on this earth? To consume and populate more than we do now? To argue even more over who's fictitious entity is truth? Could you even identify our precise purpose in your world of no evolution, other than, (through a Christian world view) to just acknowledge God and please him by praise and indubitable reasoning? How does that world account for my purpose? Given that I don't even believe this God exists and question the nature of my world. I'm sorry but the precision of God/ID, certainly has not graced this world. Balance is the very essence of our physical world and with that being said, there is no room for a superlative, supernatural being.

[font=Verdana]ALTER2EGO -to- GNUMAN05:

Logic based upon the dismissal of evidence is flawed logic--which is what you're bringing to the table. For instance, the first 60 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 aka precision indicates an INTELLIGENT DESIGNER directed the outcome.

Really?? Please provide the evidence you ahve for that, not the word games, and the logical fallacy of 'argument from ignorance', but actual evidence. This seems to be the logical fallacy known as 'Argument from personal belief'.

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

THis also is the logical fallacy of 'argument from personal incredulity'. It seems to me that using so much logical fallacies makes taking about 'flawed logic' to be more than a tad ironic.

You are assuming that complexity can only exist if there is an 'intelligence' behind it? What can you do to show this is true? I can point to experiments that show this is false.

As a matter of fact, there is a whole area of study about this. Chaos theory touches on this .. http://www.andrews.edu/~henson/courses/Textbook/ch4.pdf

The Big Bang Theory is just that--a theory, and one that will never be proven as it amounts to nothing more than speculation aka personal opinions. Nobody can explain how this theory of expanding space is an explanation for the appearance of planets with their individual gravitational fields that prevents them from crashing into each other, and the fact that certain planets work to the advantage of earth.

Yes, yes it is 'Just a theory'... and here we have the logical fallacy of equivocation about what the layman's idea of a 'theory', and how the word is applied to a scientific theory. You are using it as if it is 'a speculation', while a scientific theory is much more rigorous than that. It has to be testable, falsifiable, and make predictions. In science, theory is as good as it gets, because a theory not only has evidence for ti, but it has explanatory powers. Your ignorance on a subject does not mean there isn't answers. It means that you have not been educated in those answers. The same theory that predicted that the universe would not be static, but either be expanding or contracting (it turned out to be expanding) also explained the behavior of gravity.

Also, by the way, it appears in the early part of the history of the solar system, interplanetary collisions were pretty common, and the planets we have left are the survivors.

Without intelligent direction, things would result by chance occurrences known as accidents. Websters New Collegiate Dictionary defines an accident as a "nonessential event that happens by chance and has undesirable or unfortunate results." As previously stated, the precision (which leaves no room for accidents) found in the world around us cries out to the existence of an intelligent, supernatural Designer or God. Things happening at random aka by accident cannot result in precision. Take, for example, the following.

Care to provide a way to show that this statement is true, rather than just the logical fallacy of personal incredulity combined with the logical fallacy of equivocation?

Consider the earth's measurements and its location in our solar system. Earth is just the right size for our existence. If earth were slightly larger, its gravity would be stronger, with the result that hydrogen--a light gas--would not be able to escape the gravity of a bigger earth. The result? Earth's atmosphere would kill us because of the accumulation of hydrogen. On the other hand, if earth were slightly smaller, life-sustaining oxygen would escape and surface water would evaporate. In this case, we would also die.

Ah yes, the 'isn't it amazing the hole we are in exactly fits us' argument of the puddle. Have you ever considered that we evolved to fit the environment, and not vise versa?

Furthermore, the earth is at an ideal distance from the sun. Both astronomer John Barrow and mathematician Frank Tipler studied "the ratio of the Earth's radius and distance from the Sun" and concluded that human life would not exist "were this ratio slightly different from what it is observed to be." (Source: The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, by John D. Barrow and Frank J. Tipler, copyright 1986, Oxford University Press)

So?? In the 100's of billions of planets out there, it is bound to be one that fits the right conditions, and therefore, life, and potentially intelligent life would develop on that. If we didn't have the right conditions, we would not have evolved.

You seem to think we are a goal, rather than the haphazard result of the conditions that existed. This is somewhat like shooting an arrow into the air, drawing a bulls eye around it after it fell, and then marveling at the enormous chance it landed right there. That is not very logical or reasonable.

[Alter2Ego]

[font=Verdana]ARTIE:

The Big Bang Theory is just that--a theory, and one that will never be proven.

I really don't know exactly how to treat your posts. On the one hand it appears that you genuinely believe what you write, on the other hand what you write is so devoid of logic and reason that it's hard to see how you can possibly believe what you write. For instance: You can't "prove" a theory. You can only supply enough evidence for a theory to say the theory is most likely true. The amount of scientific evidence we have that the Big Bang actually happened is so enormous that to say that it most likely didn't happen is completely unreasonable. The first person credited with the idea of the Big Bang was Georges Lematre, a Roman Catholic Priest.

ALTER2EGO:
Nothing I write is devoid of logic. When you made that assertion, you were expressing your personal opinion--and a bad one at that. I specifically phrased my statement about the Big Bang Theory as I did, to make a point: A theory is not FACT. And since the Big Bang theory can never be proven as fact, it will remain in the realm of Georges Lematre's personal delusion aka MYTH.

[center]********************[/center]
ARTIE:

As previously stated, the precision (which leaves no room for accidents) found in the world around us cries out to the existence of an intelligent, supernatural Designer or God. Things happening at random aka by accident cannot result in precision.

Have you heard of something known as physics? Physics explains why things don't happen by accident. Physics isn't crying out for the existence of a designer/creator. Only you are. The reason why some people are crying out for a designer and/or creator is explained by the field of neurotheology. But that is for another thread.

ALTER2EGO:
No amount of physics can explain why things in nature are so precise. Physics explains causes and effects in certain instances--which is a far cry from explaining the cause, the reason, for instance, why the first 60 elements on the Periodic Table of planet earth are ALL interrelated. Do you know what the mathematical chances are that just two of those elements could be related by accident? And we're not talking about just two elements, we're talking 60. To insist that all of the first 60 discovered elements on the Periodic Table are related to one another by chance aka at random aka by accident is to defy all logic and violate the numbers game used by mathematicians. I will provide the mathematical numbers for certain things happening by chance in a future post.

[center]********************[/center]
ARTIE:

Consider the earth's measurements and its location in our solar system. Earth is just the right size for our existence. If earth were slightly larger, its gravity would be stronger, with the result that hydrogen--a light gas--would not be able to escape the gravity of a bigger earth. The result? Earth's atmosphere would kill us because of the accumulation of hydrogen. On the other hand, if earth were slightly smaller, life-sustaining oxygen would escape and surface water would evaporate. In this case, we would also die. Furthermore, the earth is at an ideal distance from the sun.

Of course the Earth is marginally suitable for our existence. If it wasn't we wouldn't be here. Personally though, if I was to create a planet for a bidepal, airbreathing mammal why would I make the surface almost three-quarters water? It would appear that if a deity made this planet it was obviously made for aquatic life. The most interesting question of course is if this planet was made for us, who was Venus or Mercury or Saturn or Pluto or any of the untold number of planets orbiting up to a septillion stars made for?

ALTER2EGO:
Earth being the right size and the right distance from the sun is your idea of the earth being "marginally suitable for our existence"? In my very next post in this thread, I will provide examples of how precisely located earth is--in relationship to other planets--and how this works to the advantage of life on earth. That, in and of itself is evidence that an intelligent Designer/God guided the outcome, because it's a perfect and grand example of precision.[/font]

[Alter2Ego]

[font=Verdana]ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

There is extraordinary amount of proof of God's existence. Take, for example, the Sun. It is a star that is so huge that over 1,300,000 of our earth could fit inside it. At its core, the sun is about 27,000,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Every second, the sun emits energy equivalent to the explosion of hundreds of millions of nuclear bombs. Imagine what would happen to life on earth if the sun had not been placed at that distance. The sun emits healthful rays and deadly ones. But when the lethal rays strike earth's upper atmosphere, they cause ordinary oxygen to turn into ozone. The resulting ozone layer absorbs the sun's lethal rays and protects life on earth just like an umbrella.

Added to that is the fact that the earth rotates on its axis once a day, at the right speed, to produce moderate temperatures. Venus takes 243 days to rotate. If earth rotated too slowly, it would remain hot for too long in certain places and cold for too long in other places. The prolonged extremes in temperature would kill us.

Finally, although much of our Milky Way galaxy is evidently not designed to accommodate life, our solar system is situated in an ideal location. For example, Jupiter, which is more than 1,000 times the size of Earth, has a tremendous gravitational force that enables it to DEFLECT objects that speed through space TOWARDS EARTH. Add to that the Moon. Not only does the Moon beautify the sky and provide light at night, it also holds the earth at a constant, steady tilt. That tilt gives the earth its stable, predictable seasons. Could all of this precision--in which the slightest mistake or variation would have been deadly for life on earth--have happened without intelligent direction, in fact, by evolutionary ACCIDENTS?

Prior to the 17th century, none of the best scientific minds could explain what causes the earth to be positioned in a stable orbit. Then in 1687, Isaac Newton published his theory that gravitational forces are the explanation behind the earths stability. Without the Law of Gravity, planets would crash into each other as there would be no gravitational force to keep them within their orbits. (Each planet has a different gravitational pull, which keeps each of them within their own orbit and prevents them from crashing into each other.) Furthermore, no buildings or structures would remain standing without the forces of gravity. There could be no air flight (no birds or planes would fly) without gravity. Gravity is also the reason why humans can move around without fear of toppling off the earth into space.

Who provided the intelligent direction that can be seen in the laws of gravity and speed, so that the planets work to our advantage? As astrophysicist Alan Lightman commented: "[scientists] find it mysterious that the universe was CREATED in such a HIGHLY ORDERED condition." (Sources: (1) Is There A Creator Who Cares About You? pp. 22-23, 26-27; (2) Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. VI, p. 891-892, copyright 1998)


Little wonder then that God inspired Moses to write as follows:

"Where did you happen to be when I founded the earth? Tell me, if you do know understanding. Who set its measurements, in case you know, or who stretched out upon it the measuring line?" (Job 38:4-5)[/font]

[Alter2Ego]

DUPLICATE POST THAT SHOULD BE DELETED.

[Goat]

[font=Verdana]ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

There is extraordinary amount of proof of God's existence. Take, for example, the Sun. It is a star that is so huge that over 1,300,000 of our earth could fit inside it. At its core, the sun is about 27,000,000 degrees Fahrenheit. Every second, the sun emits energy equivalent to the explosion of hundreds of millions of nuclear bombs. Imagine what would happen to life on earth if the sun had not been placed at that distance. The sun emits healthful rays and deadly ones. But when the lethal rays strike earth's upper atmosphere, they cause ordinary oxygen to turn into ozone. The resulting ozone layer absorbs the sun's lethal rays and protects life on earth just like an umbrella.

Add to that, there are 80 billion galaxies in the observable universe, and each galaxy and a huge number of stars, with many many planets and moons that could potentially be in the 'Goldilocks' zone, well, that doesn't seem so unusual after all.

All in all, this turns out to be one logical fallacy known as 'argument from personal incredulity'.

So, no, your personal amazement is not evidence for God.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 15:

Nothing I write is devoid of logic.
...
A theory is not FACT. And since the Big Bang theory can never be proven as fact, it will remain in the realm of Georges Lematre's personal delusion aka MYTH.

Now let's hop over to the very next post...

:
There is extraordinary amount of proof of God's existence. Take, for example, the Sun. It is a star that is so huge that over 1,300,000 of our earth could fit inside it.

I will now contend you do not use logic as the word is defined.

Heading back then...

No amount of physics can explain why things in nature are so precise.

Firstly, that a field of study fails to explain something does not mean we should default to the god concept. Secondly, precise is a subjective term.

...
To insist that all of the first 60 discovered elements on the Periodic Table are related to one another by chance aka at random aka by accident is to defy all logic and violate the numbers game used by mathematicians.

Things act according to their properties.

I will provide the mathematical numbers for certain things happening by chance in a future post.

Notice here, the use of "chance". Where things act according to their properties, "chance" is a problematic solution. Also, the odds of something happening, where that something has happened, is 1 in 1.

Earth being the right size and the right distance from the sun is your idea of the earth being "marginally suitable for our existence"?
...

Evidence indicates we are adapted to living on a planet that happens to be where it is in relation to the sun. We are the water that makes the puddle in the hole in the ground.

[gnuman05]

Nothing I write is devoid of logic. When you made that assertion, you were expressing your personal opinion--and a bad one at that. I specifically phrased my statement about the Big Bang Theory as I did, to make a point: A theory is not FACT. And since the Big Bang theory can never be proven as fact, it will remain in the realm of Georges Lematre's personal delusion aka MYTH.

Artie made an accurate assertion. The huge difference that sets the big bang theory apart from the theory of a God, is that the big bang can and will be proven. There is scientific, testable evidence, rendering it as a theory. Evidence ranging from Hubbles LAW to observations of primordial elements. The theory of a God, however, relies on individual experiences, faith and untestable evidence, rendering the concept of God as myth. So if youre going to support periodic laws that were discovered through scientific tests, then your argument against the big bang which uses two scientific LAWs to support is devoid of logic of your own logic.

No amount of physics can explain why things in nature are so precise. Physics explains causes and effects in certain instances--which is a far cry from explaining the cause, the reason, for instance, why the first 60 elements on the Periodic Table of planet earth are ALL interrelated. Do you know what the mathematical chances are that just two of those elements could be related by accident? And we're not talking about just two elements, we're talking 60. To insist that all of the first 60 discovered elements on the Periodic Table are related to one another by chance aka at random aka by accident is to defy all logic and violate the numbers game used by mathematicians. I will provide the mathematical numbers for certain things happening by chance in a future post.

As I have stated countless times, research quantum physics and string theory. And the big bang accounts for precision you see in the elements of the periodic table, seeing that everything originated from one infinite, singular point.

So if God was so precise, then why didnt he endow his chosen people, the Jews, with mathematical genius? Why did he not convey one single message using mathematics?... Seeing that the universal language is math. There is not one shred of mathematical evidence listed in the bible. Instead God chose to use imprecise, primitive, methods to convey his message, rendering God imprecise being and making God irrelevant when dealing with your argument.