Precision in Nature: Evidence of God or Accidents?

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

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 imprecision/inaccuracy/inexactness, which is always the result of an accident or a spontaneous event that happens by chance with no one guiding the outcome. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines an accident as:

"a nonessential event that happens by chance and has undesirable or unfortunate results." (Source: Websters New Collegiate Dictionary)



Notice that an accident, by definition, is something unplanned aka it "happened by chance." Notice the similarity of the definition for "spontaneous" (as in "spontaneous event").


DEFINITION OF "SPONTANEOUS":
"Spontaneous means unplanned or done on impulse."
http://www.yourdictionary.com/spontaneous




AGRUMENT #1 FOR AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR:

Scientific evidence shows there is extreme precision in everything around us in the natural world. This precision renders the evolution theory and Big Bang theory mere fiction, because both theories rely on accidents or spontaneous events. Precision leaves no room for error or for accidental events. Rather, precision requires deliberation.

Take, for example, the first 60 elements that were discovered on the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth. Some of those 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 DISCUSSION:
1. Were it not for the precise relationship among the first 60 discovered 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 and Big Bang theories both rely upon things happening by chance aka at random. If evolution or Big Bang were credible explanations for the existence of life on earth or the existence of millions of planets in the heavens, how do either theory 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 the Periodic Table has been assigned the word "LAW"?

[darin]

Those who refuse the idea of intelligent design believe, ulitmately, the universe and all of life happened via magic...or dumb luck.

[CSM]

Those who refuse the idea of intelligent design believe, ulitmately, the universe and all of life happened via magic...or dumb luck.

Extra-terrestials ..... you forgot the Ancient Aliens!

[jimnyc]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

This is a rather involved post, gonna need more coffee!! :)

Just wanted to say Welcome to DP! :salute:

[Alter2Ego]

This is a rather involved post, gonna need more coffee!! :)

Just wanted to say Welcome to DP! :salute:

Hello jimnyc:

Thank you for the welcome.

Just to let you know, I debate the same topics at other websites, because my desire is to discuss what I find to be compelling issues with as many as possible. So please do not regard this as SPAM. By definition, SPAM is the posting of something with no intention of responding to the objections of others. I always respond to intelligent objections.


Cheers!
Alter

[Drummond]

Hi, Alter2Ego .. may I also welcome you here.

I like your post !!

I used to be an atheist, many years ago (.. I used to be a number of things I no longer am, such as a believer in Socialism ... but then, I grew up .. !).

But not any more. And much of what you've questioned and raised for debate accounts for that change. The existence of the Universe as it is .. evident design, wherever you look, could surely NOT be, without some powerful intelligence having been at work to create it.

Scientists, these days, are questioning our understanding of the Big Bang as the starting-point of the Universe (at least, if a BBC programme I recently viewed is accurate). But sticking with the Big Bang idea ... this says that everything, all order, all physical laws, all existence, was CREATED from that initial 'bang'.

Has anyone EVER known any form of explosion that CREATES ordered existence ??? Explosions blast it apart !!

No. Design is everywhere, be it in a flower, in cellular structure, in physical laws, in the nature of matter, in the nature of cosmological entities and their dynamic inter-relations ..... the whole Universe screams 'I WAS INTELLIGENTLY CREATED' to anyone caring to perceive it.

[aboutime]

All of us HUMANS, have a unique power to believe whatever we choose to believe.

Therefore. I choose not to get into any discussion that places all parties in the same position at the end of the discussion, as they began the discussion.

I only know I have witnessed the births of two beautiful son's. And today, enjoy the beauty of SIX grand children. All of whom WE CALL BLESSINGS.

I base that on my belief in the UNSEEN, called FAITH.

Much like I believe an UNSEEN hand (of sorts) allowed me to survive TWO separate occasions where MY HEART, and BREATHING ceased.

I also have an UNSEEN Faith in whatever power the doctors who treated my CANCER, that allows me to be here today. Telling all of you how PRAYER actually DOES have meaning. Even for those who deny such power is possible because...they do not believe.

That is THEIR right, and option.

Either way. WE are all different individuals with different thoughts, and beliefs.

So. The discussion goes on. Either you believe in a GOD, or you believe We are all here by Accident.

WHO among us CAN PROVE IT?

[Alter2Ego]

Hi, Alter2Ego .. may I also welcome you here.

I like your post !!

I used to be an atheist, many years ago (.. I used to be a number of things I no longer am, such as a believer in Socialism ... but then, I grew up .. !).

But not any more. And much of what you've questioned and raised for debate accounts for that change. The existence of the Universe as it is .. evident design, wherever you look, could surely NOT be, without some powerful intelligence having been at work to create it.

Scientists, these days, are questioning our understanding of the Big Bang as the starting-point of the Universe (at least, if a BBC programme I recently viewed is accurate). But sticking with the Big Bang idea ... this says that everything, all order, all physical laws, all existence, was CREATED from that initial 'bang'.

Has anyone EVER known any form of explosion that CREATES ordered existence ??? Explosions blast it apart !!

No. Design is everywhere, be it in a flower, in cellular structure, in physical laws, in the nature of matter, in the nature of cosmological entities and their dynamic inter-relations ..... the whole Universe screams 'I WAS INTELLIGENTLY CREATED' to anyone caring to perceive it.

Hello Drummond:

Thank you for the welcome.

I am glad to hear that you have considered our fine-tuned universe and reached the conclusion that it must have required an intelligent designer. If you ever start feeling doubts again, be sure and raise your questions in this thread so that we can all reason on the matter.

Perhaps a skeptic will show up in this thread and present some good arguments that will result in a meaningful discussion.


Alter

[aboutime]

Hello Drummond:

Thank you for the welcome.

I am glad to hear that you have considered our fine-tuned universe and reached the conclusion that it must have required an intelligent designer. If you ever start feeling doubts again, be sure and raise your questions in this thread so that we can all reason on the matter.

Perhaps a skeptic will show up in this thread and present some good arguments that will result in a meaningful discussion.


Alter


Alter. Please know I meant no disrespect in my response to you here. Being rather old (much older than you). I have a tendency to be very opinionated...right from the start, on just about everything I find interesting in life.

I have no intention of arguing the pro's and con's of this topic, and would rather leave it to others who feel far more superior (or so they would like us to believe) than the rest of us.

Welcome to the forum. Enjoy your freedom to express your opinions through Free Speech. That angers many, much more than the topics here.

[Alter2Ego]

Alter. Please know I meant no disrespect in my response to you here. Being rather old (much older than you). I have a tendency to be very opinionated...right from the start, on just about everything I find interesting in life.

I have no intention of arguing the pro's and con's of this topic, and would rather leave it to others who feel far more superior (or so they would like us to believe) than the rest of us.

Welcome to the forum. Enjoy your freedom to express your opinions through Free Speech. That angers many, much more than the topics here.

Thank you for the welcome, Aboutime.

I can assure you that I did not take offense by your previous post. In fact, I was in the process of responding to you when the computer automatically logged me out. So I just logged back in. I will post that reply to you in a separate post.

And feel free to present your input anytime. You would be surprised at the wealth of information you could share, that you might not be aware of.

[Alter2Ego]

All of us HUMANS, have a unique power to believe whatever we choose to believe.

Therefore. I choose not to get into any discussion that places all parties in the same position at the end of the discussion, as they began the discussion.

I only know I have witnessed the births of two beautiful son's. And today, enjoy the beauty of SIX grand children. All of whom WE CALL BLESSINGS.

I base that on my belief in the UNSEEN, called FAITH.

Much like I believe an UNSEEN hand (of sorts) allowed me to survive TWO separate occasions where MY HEART, and BREATHING ceased.

I also have an UNSEEN Faith in whatever power the doctors who treated my CANCER, that allows me to be here today. Telling all of you how PRAYER actually DOES have meaning. Even for those who deny such power is possible because...they do not believe.

That is THEIR right, and option.

ALTER2EGO -to- ABOUTIME:

Let me assure you that the goal here is not to attack or ridicule those who do not agree with my OP (meaning atheists/skeptics) but to use reason and logic in the discussion of this topic.


Certainly, as humans, we have a right to reject the Creator or to accept his authority as Creator. But this, after all, is a debate forum where people with differing viewpoints get the chance to debate their differences. Nobody said we have to agree, but discuss we should.



Either way. WE are all different individuals with different thoughts, and beliefs.

So. The discussion goes on. Either you believe in a GOD, or you believe We are all here by Accident.

WHO among us CAN PROVE IT?

I believe I can prove the existence of God. I can prove it with arguments based upon logic and with scientific evidence.

Logic and the scientific evidence in support of intelligent design tells us precision cannot occur by accident or spontaneously.

[fj1200]

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 imprecision/inaccuracy/inexactness, which is always the result of an accident or a spontaneous event that happens by chance with no one guiding the outcome. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines an accident as:

"a nonessential event that happens by chance and has undesirable or unfortunate results." (Source: Websters New Collegiate Dictionary)

Notice that an accident, by definition, is something unplanned aka it "happened by chance." Notice the similarity of the definition for "spontaneous" (as in "spontaneous event").


DEFINITION OF "SPONTANEOUS":
"Spontaneous means unplanned or done on impulse."
http://www.yourdictionary.com/spontaneous




AGRUMENT #1 FOR AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR:

Scientific evidence shows there is extreme precision in everything around us in the natural world. This precision renders the evolution theory and Big Bang theory mere fiction, because both theories rely on accidents or spontaneous events. Precision leaves no room for error or for accidental events. Rather, precision requires deliberation.

Take, for example, the first 60 elements that were discovered on the Periodic Table of the Elements of planet earth. Some of those 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 DISCUSSION:
1. Were it not for the precise relationship among the first 60 discovered 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 and Big Bang theories both rely upon things happening by chance aka at random. If evolution or Big Bang were credible explanations for the existence of life on earth or the existence of millions of planets in the heavens, how do either theory 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 the Periodic Table has been assigned the word "LAW"?

Well, you certainly have put a lot into your argument but I think you've missed on two key premises, one being an incorrect definition. Precision does not imply accuracy. Those are two distinct words with two definitions; to wit:

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQe9oOEHaOxo60s6Z7T4bS7OKk9oVJQB YChYL3q_tN85D5gDALw

Therefore your "reverse of precision" statement is false. Based on the above evolution does not require precision, it requires accuracy but even that may be false. Accuracy can merely be the result of spontaneous accidents. A few billion accidents which met the test of the real world and the requirement of survival are that which give the illusion of accuracy; we just don't have record of failed accidents. That we have the existence of white polar bears doesn't necessarily require that it was "designed" from a black bear but merely shows that we may not have record of all the pink/mauve/purple/etc. accidents which didn't survive.

I also think you overstate that which has been assigned "Law" status:

Laws (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_law) differ from scientific theories (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory) in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. As such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling those already observed, and may be found false when extrapolated.

As to your questions:

1. Of course not, that is the very nature of what a Law is; making predictions based on the Law.
2. Sure it could have happened by coincidence. If you accept that everything is former stardust then elements may naturally line up in particular order.
3. The premise of your question is incorrect; see above.

Now if you, or I, want to credit the order of natural history to God or an "intelligent designer" then that is a completely different question.

BTW, welcome.

[aboutime]

ALTER2EGO -to- ABOUTIME:

Let me assure you that the goal here is not to attack or ridicule those who do not agree with my OP (meaning atheists/skeptics) but to use reason and logic in the discussion of this topic.


Certainly, as humans, we have a right to reject the Creator or to accept his authority as Creator. But this, after all, is a debate forum where people with differing viewpoints get the chance to debate their differences. Nobody said we have to agree, but discuss we should.




I believe I can prove the existence of God. I can prove it with arguments based upon logic and with scientific evidence.

Logic and the scientific evidence in support of intelligent design tells us precision cannot occur by accident or spontaneously.



Alter. Can't disagree with your paragraph above...at all. But we both know there are many who choose NOT to admit they believe, or have any faith in what we call "GOD".
Personally. I believe those who claim NOT to have any Faith, or who Do Not Believe...are merely lazy, or unwilling to use common sense in accepting the LAWS OF MAN...which we Christians call "THE TEN COMMANDMENTS".
By their denial in belief. They are convinced they have a "GET OUT OF JAIL FREE" card, and it permits them to break those laws...BECAUSE they don't believe. And feel no remorse, or moral personal responsibility.
As you may learn here. I have told others I would rather not discuss my Faith, or Belief in God. This is because I feel NO NEED to make excuses, or to explain my faith, or beliefs.
Rather simple really. Following at least HALF of the warnings my parents instilled in me many, many years ago about NEVER ARGUE about RELIGION or POLITICS.
So...POLITICS is my POISON.

[Alter2Ego]

Well, you certainly have put a lot into your argument but I think you've missed on two key premises, one being an incorrect definition. Precision does not imply accuracy. Those are two distinct words with two definitions; to wit:

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQe9oOEHaOxo60s6Z7T4bS7OKk9oVJQB YChYL3q_tN85D5gDALw

Therefore your "reverse of precision" statement is false. Based on the above evolution does not require precision, it requires accuracy but even that may be false. Accuracy can merely be the result of spontaneous accidents. A few billion accidents which met the test of the real world and the requirement of survival are that which give the illusion of accuracy; we just don't have record of failed accidents. That we have the existence of white polar bears doesn't necessarily require that it was "designed" from a black bear but merely shows that we may not have record of all the pink/mauve/purple/etc. accidents which didn't survive.

ALTER2EGO -to- FJ1200:

Those were not my definitions. In my OP I provided the dictionary from which I got the definition of "precision," as follows:

DEFINITION OF "PRECISION":
"the quality of being precise; exactness, accuracy"
(Source:Webster's New World College Dictionary)


Therefore, how can my reverse of precision statement be false? It has to be the exact opposite of precision: imprecision; inexactness, inaccuracy. But just in case you think Webster's Dictionary is the only one that gives that particular definition for the word "precision," notice how it is defined by a medical dictionary.


precision [pre-sizh´un]
1. the quality of being sharply or exactly defined.
2. in statistics, the extent to which a measurement procedure gives the same results each time it is repeated underidentical conditions

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/precision

[Alter2Ego]

Based on the above evolution does not require precision, it requires accuracy but even that may be false. Accuracy can merely be the result of spontaneous accidents. A few billion accidents which met the test of the real world and the requirement of survival are that which give the illusion of accuracy; we just don't have record of failed accidents. That we have the existence of white polar bears doesn't necessarily require that it was "designed" from a black bear but merely shows that we may not have record of all the pink/mauve/purple/etc. accidents which didn't survive.

ALTER2EGO -to- FJ1200:

Of course we do. The record of "failed accidents" is so constantly observed that humans even have a definition for it, as follows:


DEFINITION OF "ACCIDENT":
"a nonessential event that happens by chance and has undesirable or unfortunate results."(Source: Websters New Collegiate Dictionary)



I also think you overstate that which has been assigned "Law" status:

Are you serious? I used the elements on the Periodic Table as my argument for precision because the relationship of the elements to one another is referred to in the scientific world as Periodic Law. I did not just pick words because they sounded good. I presented a scientific argument in my OP. You are objecting to a scientific definition--"Periodic Law"--that has global acceptance.



PERIODIC LAW, in chemistry, law stating that many of the physical and chemical properties of the ELEMENTS tend to recur in a systematic manner with increasing atomic number. Progressing from the lightest to the heaviest atoms, certain properties of the elements approximate those of precursors at regular intervals of 2, 8, 18, and 32. For example, the 2d element (helium) is similar in its chemical behavior to the 10th (neon), as well as to the 18th (argon), the 36th (krypton), the 54th (xenon), and the 86th (radon). The chemical family called the halogens, composed of elements 9 (fluorine), 17 (chlorine), 35 (bromine), 53 (iodine), and 85 (astatine), is an extremely reactive family.

http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C04/C04Links/www.fwkc.com/encyclopedia/low/articles/p/p019000875f.html




As to your questions:

1. Of course not, that is the very nature of what a Law is; making predictions based on the Law.
2. Sure it could have happened by coincidence. If you accept that everything is former stardust then elements may naturally line up in particular order.
3. The premise of your question is incorrect; see above.

Now if you, or I, want to credit the order of natural history to God or an "intelligent designer" then that is a completely different question.

BTW, welcome.

Thank you for the welcome.

During the course of our debates--on any topic at this website--let us make a commitment to disagree without being disagreeable. Deal?


I will address your above Answers 1 through 3 at another time.

[fj1200]

Those were not my definitions. In my OP I provided the dictionary from which I got the definition of "precision," as follows:

DEFINITION OF "PRECISION":
"the quality of being precise; exactness, accuracy"
(Source:Webster's New World College Dictionary)

Therefore, how can my reverse of precision statement be false? It has to be the exact opposite of precision: imprecision; inexactness, inaccuracy. But just in case you think Webster's Dictionary is the only one that gives that particular definition for the word "precision," notice how it is defined by a medical dictionary.

precision [pre-sizh´un]
1. the quality of being sharply or exactly defined.
2. in statistics, the extent to which a measurement procedure gives the same results each time it is repeated under identical conditions

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/precision

I'm aware of your definitions provided but if you want to make a sciency argument you should use sciency definitions.


Accuracy and Precision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision)

In the fields of science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science), engineering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering), industry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industry), and statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics), the accuracy of a measurement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement) system is the degree of closeness of measurements of a quantity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantity) to that quantity's actual (true) value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(mathematics)).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision#cite_note-metrology_terms-1) The precision of a measurement system, related to reproducibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility) and repeatability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeatability), is the degree to which repeated measurements under unchanged conditions show the same results (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Result).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision#cite_note-metrology_terms-1)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision#cite_note-Taylor-2) Although the two words precision and accuracy can be synonymous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synonymous) in colloquial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloquial) use, they are deliberately contrasted in the context of the scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method).
...A measurement system can be accurate but not precise, precise but not accurate, neither, or both. For example, if an experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment) contains a systematic error (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_error), then increasing the sample size (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size) generally increases precision but does not improve accuracy. The result would be a consistent yet inaccurate string of results from the flawed experiment. Eliminating the systematic error improves accuracy but does not change precision.
A measurement system is considered valid if it is both accurate and precise.

Therefore if your precision definition is, shall we say, imprecise then you can't claim the reverse.

And FWIW, in choosing a doctor I'll inquire about precision AND accuracy. Precisely making an incision isn't as helpful as it sounds when the doctor is always exactly 3 inches to the right. And I wasn't challenging exactness, I was challenging accuracy; as shown they are two different things.

[fj1200]

Of course we do. The record of "failed accidents" is so constantly observed that humans even have a definition for it, as follows:

DEFINITION OF "ACCIDENT":
"a nonessential event that happens by chance and has undesirable or unfortunate results."(Source: Websters New Collegiate Dictionary)

Of course we have a definition for accident but your precision argument is that there are no "accidents" because of an intelligent designer; there are clearly accidents in nature it's just that in nature those accidents don't survive unless there is an advantage that results from the "accident."


Are you serious? I used the elements on the Periodic Table as my argument for precision because the relationship of the elements to one another is referred to in the scientific world as Periodic Law. I did not just pick words because they sounded good. I presented a scientific argument in my OP. You are objecting to a scientific definition--"Periodic Law"--that has global acceptance.


PERIODIC LAW, in chemistry, law stating that many of the physical and chemical properties of the ELEMENTS tend to recur in a systematic manner with increasing atomic number. ...

http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C04/C04Links/www.fwkc.com/encyclopedia/low/articles/p/p019000875f.html



I'm almost always serious. Besides, I'm not objecting to a scientific definition I'm stating that you rely too much on it for your argument and as your premise to question #3.


Thank you for the welcome.

During the course of our debates--on any topic at this website--let us make a commitment to disagree without being disagreeable. Deal?

I will address your above Answers 1 through 3 at another time.

Sure, I'm almost never disagreeable. :)

And my response in #2. I should not have used coincidence, chemistry and science are not the result of coincidence.

[Alter2Ego]

I'm aware of your definitions provided but if you want to make a sciency argument you should use sciency definitions.


Accuracy and Precision (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision)

In the fields of science (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science), engineering (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineering), industry (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Industry), and statistics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistics), the accuracy of a measurement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Measurement) system is the degree of closeness of measurements of a quantity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantity) to that quantity's actual (true) value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(mathematics)).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision#cite_note-metrology_terms-1) The precision of a measurement system, related to reproducibility (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproducibility) and repeatability (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repeatability), is the degree to which repeated measurements under unchanged conditions show the same results (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Result).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision#cite_note-metrology_terms-1)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_and_precision#cite_note-Taylor-2) Although the two words precision and accuracy can be synonymous (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synonymous) in colloquial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloquial) use, they are deliberately contrasted in the context of the scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method).
...A measurement system can be accurate but not precise, precise but not accurate, neither, or both. For example, if an experiment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experiment) contains asystematic error (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_error), then increasing the sample size (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sample_size) generally increases precision but does not improve accuracy. The result would be a consistent yet inaccurate string of results from the flawed experiment. Eliminating the systematic error improves accuracy but does not change precision.
A measurement system is considered valid if it is both accurate and precise.


ALTER2EGO -to- FJ1200:

But your definition is no improvement over mine, despite the fact you used a "scientific" definition. Notice the words that I bolded in red within your above definition, and then notice the words that are bolded in red within my definitions, copied below.



Those were not my definitions. In my OP I provided the dictionary from which I got the definition of "precision," as follows:

DEFINITION OF "PRECISION":
"the quality of being precise; exactness, accuracy"
(Source:Webster's New World College Dictionary)


precision [pre-sizh´un]
1. the quality of being sharply or exactly defined.
2. in statistics, the extent to which a measurement procedure gives the same results each time it is repeated under identical conditions

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/precision

[fj1200]

But your definition is no improvement over mine, despite the fact you used a "scientific" definition. Notice the words that I bolded in red within your above definition, and then notice the words that are bolded in red within my definitions, copied below.

Uh, yes it is an improvement because it is the actual definition of precision. When you highlighted "accuracy" within my link you were highlighting a word that was further defined and is not part of the definition of "precision."


... accuracy ... is the degree of closeness of measurements of a quantity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantity) to that quantity's actual (true) value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(mathematics)).

... precision ... is the degree to which repeated measurements under unchanged conditions show the same results (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Result).

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- FJ1200:

But your definition is no improvement over mine, despite the fact you used a "scientific" definition. Notice the words that I bolded in red within your above definition, and then notice the words that are bolded in red within my definitions, copied below.


Uh, yes it is an improvement because it is the actual definition of precision. When you highlighted "accuracy" within my link you were highlighting a word that was further defined and is not part of the definition of "precision."


... accuracy ... is the degree of closeness of measurements of a quantity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantity) to that quantity's actual (true) value (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(mathematics)).

... precision ... is the degree to which repeated measurements under unchanged conditions show the same results (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Result).


ALTER2EGO -to- FJ1200:

Nonsense. My definitions are as "actual" as yours. The only difference is that yours came from a "scientific" dictionary.


YOUR SOURCE'S DEFINITION OF "PRECISION":

... precision ... is the degree to which repeated measurements under unchanged conditions show the same results.


MY SOURCE'S DEFINITION OF "PRECISION":
"precision [pre-sizh´un]

1. the quality of being sharply or exactly defined.

2. in statistics, the extent to which a measurement procedure gives the same results each time it is repeated under identical conditions"
http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/precision


Both of our sources used the exact same language in their definition of "precision." I will demonstrate it by combining what your source said with what my source said. I will keep yours in blue and mine in red.


"precision ... is the degree/the extent to which repeated measurements/a measurement procedure . . . repeated under unchanged conditions/identical conditions show the same results/same results."


The next time I log in, I will address what you said at Answers 1, 2, and 3.

[aboutime]

Alter. As you can no-doubt see with 'fj'. There is no reason to further place yourself into any conversation, or argument with this member (fj).

His sole purpose here is to ECHO the liberal tactics of Hyperbole...disguised as Rhetorical, and Semantic extremes.
Anyone like fj who must always be the FINAL WORD on what a word, or phrase means. Is merely demonstrating how absolutely dishonest, and in need of attention to their miserable life they are.

Nothing You, or anyone else here on DP may happen to say to fj will ever be correct, or accepted at face value...UNLESS...you are holding every version of Dictionary ever printed, or published.
fj does not rest until everyone else is proven to be wrong...according to fj's standards of ignorance, and relentless stupidity...WHICH ALL OF US CAN SEE HERE.

[fj1200]

Nonsense. My definitions are as "actual" as yours. The only difference is that yours came from a "scientific" dictionary.

MY SOURCE'S DEFINITION OF "PRECISION":
2. in statistics, the extent to which a measurement procedure gives the same results each time it is repeated under identical conditions"


The next time I log in, I will address what you said at Answers 1, 2, and 3.

Now that you've left out accuracy we can move on. :)

I look forward to your future points.

[Alter2Ego]

Now that you've left out accuracy we can move on. :)

I look forward to your future points.

ALTER2EGO -to- FJ1200:

No, I did not leave out accuracy. I used your "scientific" definition of precision and compared it to my second definition of precision, and showed you where both of our sources used the exact same explanation as part of their definition. Below is the definition of precision from my OP that you object to.

DEFINITION OF "PRECISION":
"the quality of being precise; exactness, accuracy" (Source: Webster's New World College Dictionary)


What you seem not to understand is that the words "accuracy" and "precision" are synonyms. Words that are synonyms can either have the same meaning or they can be close in meaning. Notice how one source compares the two words.


"Accuracy and Precision:

Accuracy refers to the closeness of a measured value to a standard or known value. For example, if in lab you obtain a weight measurement of 3.2 kg for a given substance, but the actual or known weight is 10 kg, then your measurement is not accurate. In this case, your measurement is not close to the known value.

Precision refers to the closeness of two or more measurements to each other. Using the example above, if you weigh a given substance five times, and get 3.2 kg each time, then your measurement is very precise. Precision is independent of accuracy. You can be very precise but inaccurate, as described above. You can also be accurate but imprecise.

For example, if on average, your measurements for a given substance are close to the known value, but the measurements are far from each other, then you have accuracy without precision.

A good analogy for understanding accuracy and precision is to imagine a basketball player shooting baskets. If the player shoots with accuracy, his aim will always take the ball close to or into the basket. If the player shoots with precision, his aim will always take the ball to the same location which may or may not be close to the basket. A good player will be both accurate and precise by shooting the ball the same way each time and each time making it in the basket."
http://www.ncsu.edu/labwrite/Experimental%20Design/accuracyprecision.htm



Notice that the above source says the following:

1. You can be very precise but inaccurate
2. You can also be accurate but imprecise
3. You can be both accurate and precise


So whenever a dictionary includes the word "accurate" as part of its definition for the word precision, it is referring to the third option listed above, being "both accurate and precise." Below is Oxford Dictionary again using "accuracy" as a synonym for precision.




<header class="entryHeader" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: none; margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 25.600000381469727px;">"precision
Syllabification: pre·ci·sionPronunciation: (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/words/key-to-pronunciation-us)/priˈsiZHən
</header><section class="senseGroup" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-style: solid none none; border-top-width: 3px; border-top-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px; padding: 5px 0px 0px; position: relative;">NOUN



1The quality, condition, or fact of being exact and accurate:

SYNONYMS
1.1<h:span class="neutral" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">[</h:span>AS MODIFIER<h:span class="neutral" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">]</h:span> Marked by or adapted for accuracy and exactness: a precision instrument


</section>http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/precision



Tell you what, since you object to the inclusion of the synonym "accurate" or "accuracy" as part of the definition of PRECISION, I suggest you write to the publishers of Websters Dictionary and Oxford Dictionary and inform them of their error. After they correct the error and reprint all of their dictionaries with the correction, I will then cease to include the word "accurate" as part of the definition of precision.

[jimnyc]

My recommendation is to move on from a definition. Those reading can determine which definition they use and whether the arguments are sound. :)

[Alter2Ego]

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION:
1. Were it not for the precise relationship among the first 60 discovered 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?

As to your questions:

1. Of course not, that is the very nature of what a Law is; making predictions based on the Law.
ALTER2EGO -to- FJ1200:

So you admit that the precise relationship among the first 60 discovered elements aka Periodic Law made it possible for scientists to accurately predict the existence of missing elements. Good.




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?
2. Sure it could have happened by coincidence. If you accept that everything is former stardust then elements may naturally line up in particular order.
Now you are contradicting yourself. You admitted in Answer #1 that it was the law within the first 60 elements that enabled scientists to accurately predict which elements were missing. Now you are arguing that it was "coincidence". That amounts to 60 different accidents, one accident for each of the 60 elements that resulted in precision.

Just in case you want to argue semantics, as that appears to be your modus operandi, below is the definition of coincidence from two different sources. A "coincidence" is an accident aka something that was not planned and happened by chance.


Full Definition of COINCIDENCE

1: the act or condition of coinciding (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coinciding) : correspondence (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/correspondence)

2: the occurrence of events that happen at the same time by accident but seem to have some connection; also: any of these occurrences
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coincidence


coincidence

<figure class="right" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1em 1em; clear: both; font-family: 'Open Sans', 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 16px; float: right !important;">http://cf.ydcdn.net/1.0.1.20/images/websters.jpg (http://websters.yourdictionary.com/)</figure>noun


the fact or condition of coinciding
an accidental and remarkable occurrence of events or ideas at the same time, suggesting but lacking a causal relationship




http://www.yourdictionary.com/coincidence



Since we are discussing 60 different elements that are interrelated, then your claim that their relationship to one another is "coincidence" amounts to 60 different accidental events (one accidental event for each of the 60 elements).




3. Evolution and Big Bang theories both rely upon things happening by chance aka at random. If evolution or Big Bang were credible explanations for the existence of life on earth or the existence of millions of planets in the heavens, how do either theory 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 the Periodic Table has been assigned the word "LAW"?

3. The premise of your question is incorrect; see above.

Nothing that you stated above is helpful to your argument.

[fj1200]

Notice that the above source says the following:

1. You can be very precise but inaccurate
2. You can also be accurate but imprecise
3. You can be both accurate and precise

...

Tell you what, since you object to the inclusion of the synonym "accurate" or "accuracy" as part of the definition of PRECISION...

They are not synonyms scientifically speaking as you acknowledge above. :)

[fj1200]

So you admit that the precise relationship among the first 60 discovered elements aka Periodic Law made it possible for scientists to accurately predict the existence of missing elements. Good.

Um, yeah. That's the definition of a scientific law. But even then a scientific law extends as far as the law is valid. The laws of Ohm, Newton, Hooke, etc. are valid under certain conditions for example.


Now you are contradicting yourself. You admitted in Answer #1 that it was the law within the first 60 elements that enabled scientists to accurately predict which elements were missing. Now you are arguing that it was "coincidence". That amounts to 60 different accidents, one accident for each of the 60 elements that resulted in precision.

Just in case you want to argue semantics, as that appears to be your modus operandi, below is the definition of coincidence from two different sources. A "coincidence" is an accident aka something that was not planned and happened by chance.


...

Since we are discussing 60 different elements that are interrelated, then your claim that their relationship to one another is "coincidence" amounts to 60 different accidental events (one accidental event for each of the 60 elements).

Actually I already stated that I should not have used coincidence in post #17. You are assigning to precision that which could also be assigned to spontaneous order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_order). I can argue that spontaneous order is more prevalent in the natural world than precision.

And no, I don't want to argue semantics, I want to use words with correct, contextual definitions. :)


Nothing that you stated above is helpful to your argument.

What's my argument again? ;) It's not my argument that is at question here, it's yours and your unproven posit below.


AGRUMENT #1 FOR AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR:

Scientific evidence shows there is extreme precision in everything around us in the natural world. This precision renders the evolution theory and Big Bang theory mere fiction, because both theories rely on accidents or spontaneous events. Precision leaves no room for error or for accidental events. Rather, precision requires deliberation.

[Alter2Ego]

What you seem not to understand is that the words "accuracy" and "precision" are synonyms. Words that are synonyms can either have the same meaning or they can be close in meaning. Notice how one source compares the two words.




So whenever a dictionary includes the word "accurate" as part of its definition for the word precision, it is referring to the third option listed above, being "both accurate and precise." Below is Oxford Dictionary again using "accuracy" as a synonym for precision.




<header class="entryHeader" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: none; margin: 0px 0px 20px; padding: 0px; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 25.600000381469727px;">"precision
Syllabification: pre·ci·sionPronunciation: (http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/words/key-to-pronunciation-us)/priˈsiZHən
</header><section class="senseGroup" style="box-sizing: border-box; border-style: solid none none; border-top-width: 3px; border-top-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); margin: 0px; padding: 5px 0px 0px; position: relative;">NOUN



1The quality, condition, or fact of being exact and accurate:

SYNONYMS
1.1<h:span class="neutral" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">[</h:span>AS MODIFIER<h:span class="neutral" style="box-sizing: border-box; border: none; margin: 0px; padding: 0px;">]</h:span> Marked by or adapted for accuracy and exactness: a precision instrument


</section>http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/precision



They are not synonyms scientifically speaking as you acknowledge above. :)
ALTER2EGO -to- FJ1200:

You are deliberately misrepresenting what I clearly stated at Post 23 by claiming that I said the exact opposite. In my experience from debating at numerous websites, whenever people start quibbling over word meanings, and/or twisting what other people say, it is because they realize they have no legitimate rebuttal to present in the debate.

I clearly stated at Post 23, Paragraph 3, that the words "precise" and "accurate" are synonyms. Look above at the word bolded in red within the Oxford Dictionary definition. It says "accuracy" is a synonym of the word precision.


Your problem is that you think the word "science" automatically means truth and that therefore, if something is not defined from a scientific dictionary, then it is not correct.


Now, go ahead and post something else about the "scientific" meaning of precision, and then wait for a response from me. None will be forthcoming.

[fj1200]

No, I just think a scientific argument requires a scientific definition. Nevertheless, moving on it's my experience when people are so wedded to their premise and refuse debate it's because their argument has trouble standing up to the rigors of debate.

[Alter2Ego]

Alter. As you can no-doubt see with 'fj'. There is no reason to further place yourself into any conversation, or argument with this member (fj).

His sole purpose here is to ECHO the liberal tactics of Hyperbole...disguised as Rhetorical, and Semantic extremes.
Anyone like fj who must always be the FINAL WORD on what a word, or phrase means. Is merely demonstrating how absolutely dishonest, and in need of attention to their miserable life they are.

Nothing You, or anyone else here on DP may happen to say to fj will ever be correct, or accepted at face value...UNLESS...you are holding every version of Dictionary ever printed, or published.
fj does not rest until everyone else is proven to be wrong...according to fj's standards of ignorance, and relentless stupidity...WHICH ALL OF US CAN SEE HERE.

You know, Aboutime, I am starting to see the light. Your above comments are hysterical, by the way.


Alter

[Alter2Ego]

Now you are contradicting yourself. You admitted in Answer #1 that it was the law within the first 60 elements that enabled scientists to accurately predict which elements were missing. Now you are arguing that it was "coincidence". That amounts to 60 different accidents, one accident for each of the 60 elements that resulted in precision.

Just in case you want to argue semantics, as that appears to be your modus operandi, below is the definition of coincidence from two different sources. A "coincidence" is an accident aka something that was not planned and happened by chance.


Full Definition of COINCIDENCE

1: the act or condition of coinciding (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coinciding) : correspondence (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/correspondence)

2: the occurrence of events that happen at the same time by accident but seem to have some connection; also: any of these occurrences
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/coincidence


coincidence

<figure class="right" style="box-sizing: border-box; margin: 0px 0px 1em 1em; clear: both; font-family: 'Open Sans', 'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 16px; line-height: 16px; float: right !important;">http://cf.ydcdn.net/1.0.1.20/images/websters.jpg (http://websters.yourdictionary.com/)</figure>noun


the fact or condition of coinciding
an accidental and remarkable occurrence of events or ideas at the same time, suggesting but lacking a causal relationship




http://www.yourdictionary.com/coincidence



Since we are discussing 60 different elements that are interrelated, then your claim that their relationship to one another is "coincidence" amounts to 60 different accidental events (one accidental event for each of the 60 elements).

Actually I already stated that I should not have used coincidence in post #17. You are assigning to precision that which could also be assigned to spontaneous order (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spontaneous_order). I can argue that spontaneous order is more prevalent in the natural world than precision.

ALTER2EGO -to- FJ1200:

You said nothing of the sort at Post 17. Your are back-pedaling from the use of the word "coincidence" because you now realize that it refers to an accidental occurrence. In turn, an accidental occurrence is defined as an event that causes disorder. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines an accident as:

"a nonessential event that happens by chance and has undesirable or unfortunate results." (Source: Websters New Collegiate Dictionary)


Furthermore, there is no such thing as "spontaneous order". The word "spontaneous" refers to unplanned occurrences, meaning the end result was not intended.

DEFINITION OF "SPONTANEOUS":
"Spontaneous means unplanned or done on impulse."
http://www.yourdictionary.com/spontaneous


Since you are making the claim that 60 different elements became interrelated without planning aka spontaneously, you need to prove this is possible. And the only way to prove it is by presenting examples of it occurring among human creations.

[fj1200]

You know, Aboutime, I am starting to see the light. Your above comments are hysterical, by the way.

You might have actually gotten a definition correct. :poke:


hysterical (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hysteria): of, pertaining to, or characterized by hysteria (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hysteria).


hysteria (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hysteria): an uncontrollable outburst of emotion or fear (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fear), often characterized by irrationality...

[Noir]

The 'precision' of nature is neither evidence one way or the other.

Whether the universe was derived from a god or a non-god origin, the question can only be asked if the precision exists. Meaning the question answers itself.

As for any discussion beyond that, gods create tautologies, and are certainly less likely that non-god origins. That is only to speak for desist possibilities, not theist ones.

[fj1200]

You said nothing of the sort at Post 17. Your are back-pedaling from the use of the word "coincidence" because you now realize that it refers to an accidental occurrence. In turn, an accidental occurrence is defined as an event that causes disorder.
...
Furthermore, there is no such thing as "spontaneous order". The word "spontaneous" refers to unplanned occurrences, meaning the end result was not intended.

Actually I did...

And my response in #2. I should not have used coincidence, chemistry and science are not the result of coincidence.
... but not that you'll care because you'll just create whatever you need to in order to satisfy your argument. I should not have used it because it is incomplete in explanation of the process. You'll do better to work on your argument than impose your shortcomings on me. :)

And yes, there is such a thing as spontaneous order, you cannot disprove that posit. Besides, you have already staked your claim in the premise that there is a designer and you use words and definitions that have your conclusion baked in. Therefore you must reject any theory or idea that something was unplanned or not intended. Once you take out your requirement that the end result was "intended" by a designer and look for an explanation to what is observed then see where that leads you.


Since you are making the claim that 60 different elements became interrelated without planning aka spontaneously, you need to prove this is possible. And the only way to prove it is by presenting examples of it occurring among human creations.

Actually it is still incumbent upon you to prove your argument that only a designer is the reason for precision in nature. A new challenge will be for your precision argument to explain the existence of isotopes. C14 is not exactly precise. Nevertheless, economics is my proof of spontaneous order. Every day billions of individuals make independent decision that result in ever increasing efficiencies and complexities without the requirement that a "designer" guide their every decision.

[fj1200]

The 'precision' of nature is neither evidence one way or the other.

Actually it is evidence that God exists but not proof. The only "proof" that exists is one that resides in faith.

[Alter2Ego]

ALTER2EGO -to- EVERYONE:

AGRUMENT #2 FOR AN INTELLIGENT CREATOR:

Earth Is The Right Size
Not only is earth the right size, its location in our solar system is beneficial for life on earth. 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 accumulation of hydrogen would kill all of us. At the opposite extreme, if earth were slightly smaller, life-sustaining oxygen would escape and surface water would evaporate. In this case, we would die from dehydration.