News2 mins ago
Who Was The Creator?
173 Answers
The God of Abraham is just one among many.
http://
Other ideas welcome.
http://
Other ideas welcome.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by naomi24. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Does he, though? The way the periodic table is laid out is, in part, a deliberate attempt to impose beauty on the order of the elements anyway. There were plenty of other ways it could have been laid out. Some, arguably, more sensible than Mendeleev's choice, or at least more reflective of the underlying nature.
But anyway, that such beauty can emerge naturally from natural laws is extremely relevant and is reflective of the fact that the stunning complexity of some systems often belies the simplicity of how they can be described. This simplicity at the heart of nature should be viewed as an/ the answer to any argument from design.
And for that matter, beauty is in part what we choose it to be. I don't think there is anything that could be called inherently or universally "beautiful". There can always be opinions, or different perspectives, and different definitions on what counts as beautiful. The Periodic Table as it exists today is far more a sign of what we think of -- and in particular what Mendeleev thought of -- as beautiful than it is a sign of some Intelligent Creator.
But anyway, that such beauty can emerge naturally from natural laws is extremely relevant and is reflective of the fact that the stunning complexity of some systems often belies the simplicity of how they can be described. This simplicity at the heart of nature should be viewed as an/ the answer to any argument from design.
And for that matter, beauty is in part what we choose it to be. I don't think there is anything that could be called inherently or universally "beautiful". There can always be opinions, or different perspectives, and different definitions on what counts as beautiful. The Periodic Table as it exists today is far more a sign of what we think of -- and in particular what Mendeleev thought of -- as beautiful than it is a sign of some Intelligent Creator.
Nope Khandro, you are WRONG and Jim's RIGHT.
Mendeleev did not Invent the Periodic Table, he Discovered it!
There is a crucial difference between invention and pure discovery.
We know that Dyson's invention of the bagless vacuum cleaner adds nothing to our knowledge of the natural universe as it was conceived by appplying basic earlier physical discoveries.
A discovery is not an invention of the mind but rather a realisation after detailed study of something special about our environment. In other words, the realisation (if it fits the subsequent tests to date) is a realisation of the way the universe works!
Medeleev's tablification represents a summary of the way atoms, via their atomic weight and electronic structure (valency if you like) behave.
It also, via the 2 latter parameters, shows up groups with similar but progressively linked changes in their chemico/physical properties.
In summary Dimitry Mendeleev illustratrated the beautiful universal nature of the properties of the elements from which we are made and allowed the prediction of as-yet unknown elements. The power of prediction is a strong case for the validity of a scientific theory.
Kindest regards,
SIQ.
P.S. Now where we on the Creator question?:).
Mendeleev did not Invent the Periodic Table, he Discovered it!
There is a crucial difference between invention and pure discovery.
We know that Dyson's invention of the bagless vacuum cleaner adds nothing to our knowledge of the natural universe as it was conceived by appplying basic earlier physical discoveries.
A discovery is not an invention of the mind but rather a realisation after detailed study of something special about our environment. In other words, the realisation (if it fits the subsequent tests to date) is a realisation of the way the universe works!
Medeleev's tablification represents a summary of the way atoms, via their atomic weight and electronic structure (valency if you like) behave.
It also, via the 2 latter parameters, shows up groups with similar but progressively linked changes in their chemico/physical properties.
In summary Dimitry Mendeleev illustratrated the beautiful universal nature of the properties of the elements from which we are made and allowed the prediction of as-yet unknown elements. The power of prediction is a strong case for the validity of a scientific theory.
Kindest regards,
SIQ.
P.S. Now where we on the Creator question?:).
Yup, although jim's right, my answer is better:). Interesting we both as scientists have used the word "beauty". As I said on earlier threads, if a scientific theory lacks beauty it's probably wrong.
Anyway, Khandro will disagree with both arguments or at least mine, because that's Khandro and me on AB - but that's why K's such fun.
SIQ.
Anyway, Khandro will disagree with both arguments or at least mine, because that's Khandro and me on AB - but that's why K's such fun.
SIQ.
My problem is that Khandro OBJECTS to jim's statement "the Periodic Table can be almost precisely defined and explained through natural laws".
Khandro sees the statement as worthless because it adds nothing to the underlying DESIGN which he believes we are discussing. But we are not discussing "design" as this needs a designer. We are discusssing laws which would exist without the existence of man or a super-designer. So if a man sees a pattern in the way nature moves (discovery) then he is simply describing nature's way, he is not supporting a design or designer.
However, I cannot dogmatically insist on my view versus others' reading of Khandro's text as that would be churlish.
It has to end now and if I am wrong then I apologise to Khandro and thank you Naomi for pointing out my apparent error.
So, in the absence of any support I surrender and apologise to all for my arrogance. That should save a long and needless spat amongst friends.
O.K. folks?
Sincerely,
SIQ.
Khandro sees the statement as worthless because it adds nothing to the underlying DESIGN which he believes we are discussing. But we are not discussing "design" as this needs a designer. We are discusssing laws which would exist without the existence of man or a super-designer. So if a man sees a pattern in the way nature moves (discovery) then he is simply describing nature's way, he is not supporting a design or designer.
However, I cannot dogmatically insist on my view versus others' reading of Khandro's text as that would be churlish.
It has to end now and if I am wrong then I apologise to Khandro and thank you Naomi for pointing out my apparent error.
So, in the absence of any support I surrender and apologise to all for my arrogance. That should save a long and needless spat amongst friends.
O.K. folks?
Sincerely,
SIQ.
jomifl; // It isn't called mendeleev's periodic table for nothing. It didn't exist before him.// Out of respect, you may wish to add his name as a preface, but it isn't actually called that, it's called "The periodic table of elements" and most certainly the relationship between elements existed before he discovered that pattern.
Motor cars didn't existed before Karl Benz invented one, - that was an invention; quite different.
Motor cars didn't existed before Karl Benz invented one, - that was an invention; quite different.
Dear Khandro,
You are right in explaining to jomifl that the Periodic Table (PT) was not purely due to Mendeleev alone (but he was the one who was the major discoverers within chemistry and physics via his PT). Despite having the advantage of more discovered elements (plus their atomic weight [physics] and electron number [chemistry]) he had the vision to detect nature's pattern.
He was preceeded by others, the most beautiful of which was the octave theory but this did not hold up completely.
You will understand my regret that the PT was not the purest of octave groups because of the "magic" of 8, linking e.g. music and maths.
However I stick on my refusal to accept that nature's rules are not designed and there was no great designer - unlike you perhaps, perhaps, perhaps ...
Kindest Regards,
SIQ.
You are right in explaining to jomifl that the Periodic Table (PT) was not purely due to Mendeleev alone (but he was the one who was the major discoverers within chemistry and physics via his PT). Despite having the advantage of more discovered elements (plus their atomic weight [physics] and electron number [chemistry]) he had the vision to detect nature's pattern.
He was preceeded by others, the most beautiful of which was the octave theory but this did not hold up completely.
You will understand my regret that the PT was not the purest of octave groups because of the "magic" of 8, linking e.g. music and maths.
However I stick on my refusal to accept that nature's rules are not designed and there was no great designer - unlike you perhaps, perhaps, perhaps ...
Kindest Regards,
SIQ.
http://
(Not sure what all that was about).
Love it when the scientists can’t agree – but among all the flowery language continue to refuse to confess that none of them know. :o)
(Not sure what all that was about).
Love it when the scientists can’t agree – but among all the flowery language continue to refuse to confess that none of them know. :o)
