Why Does Biological, Organic Life Exist in a Universe that is Inorganic ?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

You also fail over and over to suggest evolutionary theory explains how life started and it does not.

That's not true, I refer to abiogenesis as the origin of life from non-life.

I see like 10 in that video that is pushing a very biased point, to say the least. What about the other 500,000? The bottom line is if science led in the direction of intelligent design then so be it, end of story, but that isn't what has happened. You are still pushing an unfalsifiable statement in saying if we do not know yet how something happened then it is 100% God as the ONLY answer...

If popular appeal is what you base your belief system on, then go ahead. No need to waste time debating science then.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Crackpot science again.

You know, all your confused and fearful responses are beginning to make sense now that I realized you believe you're pond scum progeny

originally posted by: cooperton

You think your ancestors were apes. Go back far enough and you believe your ancestors were unicellular organisms floating around in a gooey biomass. You literally believe you come from the scum of the earth lolol.

And you believe that there is a guy with a magic wand...lol All life on earth is related, and all life is also very imperfect. If God gave man his magic wand we would have done a better job. The human eye if it was a TV would be one with the power cord going right through the tube. Hell, even we mere mortals can come up with a better eye. Then you have the octopus that has a fantastic set of eyes that are like 100 times better than ours. Why didn't God give his chosen people better eyes? The big problem is if this was all God then we would expect it all to be perfect as that is what God can do, but when we talk about natural progression then perfection is impossible and we get "only good enough".

originally posted by: cooperton
If popular appeal is what you base your belief system on, then go ahead. No need to waste time debating science then.

Weak sauce answer. Unfalsifiable statements are not proof of anything...

The big problem is life is made up of non-life, so the issue you have is the actual term "life" that we humans invented an abstract term to explain complex chemical processes. The reality is there is no such thing as "life" in the universe, so to ask how did life come out of non-life is a nonsense question.

a reply to: cooperton

I realized you believe you're pond scum progeny

More crackpot science. Keep adding it on. Enhances your "reputation".

originally posted by: Phantom423

More crackpot science. Keep adding it on. Enhances your "reputation".

Your great-grandpa LUCA would be really upset if he realized you were unable to scientifically defend your cherished belief in your billion years of mutated lineage.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
and all life is also very imperfect. If God gave man his magic wand we would have done a better job.

lol at the arrogance... Go ahead, invent a better human then genius. And also find a way to take into consideration that the users of these vessels have free will and can choose to use them against the intent that you designed them for.

a reply to: cooperton

Your great-grandpa LUCA would be really upset if he realized you were unable to scientifically defend your cherished belief in your billion years of mutated lineage.

More crackpot science from the peanut gallery.

originally posted by: cooperton

Your great-grandpa LUCA would be really upset if he realized you were unable to scientifically defend your cherished belief in your billion years of mutated lineage.

Science is always evolving as more is known, unlike the frozen-in-time concept you call life.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TerraLiga

Define water please.

Liquid H2O. Need me to define what a woman is too?

originally posted by: TerraLiga The internet is the modern day circus of freaks.

Says the guy who believes he's the ancestor of mutated pond goo lol. So sophisticated.

Great, thanks. Now tell me where on Earth pure liquid H2O was pooled approx 4.2Bn years ago please.

a reply to: TerraLiga

Wait! Cooperton thinks the Earth is only 6,000 years old and the dinos were walking with humans! Asking about water 4.5 bn years ago will ruin his day!

originally posted by: Xtrozero
...
Why would science have an issue with intelligent design?

Science has no feelings, and can therefore not have any issues with anything. I could try to figure out what you actually meant with that, but I think it's your job to be more clear what it is you're actually saying. If you're referring to scientists, say scientists. If you're referring to only a portion of those called "scientists", you can make that clear as well. So that no one needs to get the impression that you're saying that all scientists have an issue with intelligent design, and then argue that point, only to have you then possibly explaining that that's not what you said or meant. What a waste of time that would be.

Science does not have an issue with intelligent design. And quite a few scientists also don't have any issue with it. Those who do, are often those who support evolutionary teachings. Those most vocal about it, often have a stake in promoting evolutionary philosophies under the marketinglabel "science".

So that would be an answer to the question: 'Why do some scientists have an issue with intelligent design?'

By providing motive. I can see a motive, I'm having a harder time when sifting through their arguments with seeing legitimate logical or scientific reasons for it. I find their argumentation to be very weak, deliberately misleading and on occasion, quite desperate (grasping at straws). I find their approach to be too propagandistic for my taste. As a result, I also don't trust them to be honest and clear about complicated subjects of biology and biochemistry. Or when presenting so-called "evidence" for their evolutionary philosophies. Time and time again, my experience with how they present these things (the subject, the details and the evidence), has taught me that they use all the tricks available to propagandists. These ones are some of the more notable ones (especially the first one, which is also used in combination with what is called "cooking"):

They sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others. They also distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths.

Source: see link in signature

Some researchers eliminate data that does not support what they want to prove (called cooking); ...

Source: Fraud in Science—Why It’s on the Increase (Awake!—1990)

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Science is always evolving as more is known

Look at phantom, they can't even discuss science without going into full reclusion mode. Resorting to changing the topic whenever they're at a loss of words or lack of knowledge. The evolution of knowledge is tough with types like that dragging down progress. It's a shame that dogma takes over what should be a pure empirical practice

unlike the frozen-in-time concept you call life.

By life frozen in time do you mean the inability to reverse time?

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: TerraLiga

Wait! Cooperton thinks the Earth is only 6,000 years old and the dinos were walking with humans! Asking about water 4.5 bn years ago will ruin his day!

Yes, I'm waiting for the reply "In the garden of Eden"

originally posted by: TerraLiga

Yes, I'm waiting for the reply "In the garden of Eden"

I'm waiting for your reply to any of the science. You, like phantom, go into hiding and insult mode whenever real science is brought up. You guys are blind believers. Progeny from the pond scum of the earth lolol.

originally posted by: whereislogic

Science has no feelings, and can therefore not have any issues with anything. I could try to figure out what you actually meant with that, but I think it's your job to be more clear what it is you're actually saying. If you're referring to scientists, say scientists. If you're referring to only a portion of those called "scientists", you can make that clear as well. So that no one needs to get the impression that you're saying that all scientists have an issue with intelligent design, and then argue that point, only to have you then possibly explaining that that's not what you said or meant. What a waste of time that would be.

Relax... You wasted a good amount of time not saying much of anything here. Creationists attack science in general and try to play some pseudoscience game suggesting 10,000 elephants popped into existence from nothing, as an example of their beliefs.

Science does not have an issue with intelligent design. And quite a few scientists also don't have any issue with it. Those who do, are often those who support evolutionary teachings. Those most vocal about it, often have a stake in promoting evolutionary philosophies under the marketinglabel "science".

Almost all scientists have issues when people's points are all based on unfalsifiable statements. The few that agree unfalsifiable statements are OK as proof are using their faith and not science.

By providing motive. I can see a motive, I'm having a harder time when sifting through their arguments with seeing legitimate logical or scientific reasons for it. I find their argumentation to be very weak, deliberately misleading, and on occasion, quite desperate (grasping at straws).

You and others completely ignore simple statements since they do not fit your God narrative and just fall back to the broken record of extremely limited points just because you all think they help your narrative and it just gets old.

I find their approach to be too propagandistic for my taste.

Holy crap! and anything dealing with intelligent design is not problematic? Many on your side still use Darwin as your example when what he did, though groundbreaking in the 1800s, had parts wrong. What we know today is like 3% of what Darwin did, but boy that is all many of you use over and over.

As a result, I also don't trust them to be honest and clear about complicated subjects of biology and biochemistry.

You don't trust 500,000 or more professionals? Go argue Cooperton's armchair science with them. Or just prove your point with a video of a dozen of so-called scientists that say God did it all.

Or when presenting so-called "evidence" for their evolutionary philosophies. Time and time again, my experience with how they present these things (the subject, the details and the evidence), has taught me that they use all the tricks available to propagandists. These ones are some of the more notable ones (especially the first one, which is also used in combination with what is called "cooking"):

Creationists do this but like on crack...

Just answer a simple question like... Did God provide the spark of life to get the ball rolling to allow evolution to do its thing or did he just pop all life into existence in its current form?

originally posted by: cooperton

By life frozen in time do you mean the inability to reverse time?

You need to provide some points here. I'm assuming you believe God popped all life into existence in its current form and will not change 1 million years from now. That is saying life is frozen in time.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
... Creationists attack science in general and try to play some pseudoscience game suggesting 10,000 elephants popped into existence from nothing, as an example of their beliefs.

I have not seen this supposed "attack" on science, that's how you see it when evolutionary philosophies or philosophical naturalism are challenged, which is not the same thing as science. I have not seen any young earth creationist suggesting that 10,000 elephants popped into existence from nothing. Why do you feel the need to change the argument before saying something about it? Do you even care that you're bringing up a straw man? Do you care that I'm not a young earth creationist?

God did not create everything from nothing.

You and others completely ignore simple statements since they do not fit your God narrative and just fall back to the broken record of extremely limited points just because you all think they help your narrative and it just gets old.

You seem to ignore all responses to the standard arguments you bring up. And then repeat the same questions/challenges and arguments as if you've never had a response or seen a response to it. The least you can do is skip ahead a little in the debate, acknowledge the (usual) response, and then respond to that. Saves some time repeating the same points for you to ignore as you return to the original argument or question. Case in point:

Just answer a simple question like... Did God provide the spark of life to get the ball rolling to allow evolution to do its thing or did he just pop all life into existence in its current form?

I already answered that question, you are ignoring the response and returning to your original question, with only 2 options to chose from, one of which is clearly meant derogatively and not described in a serious fashion. There's no popping into existence as if by magic (or all kinds of lifeforms at once, or in a couple of days for that matter) when talking about the act of creation or engineering over a period of millions of years, creating different categories of lifeforms at different stages.

Progeny from the pond scum of the earth lolol.

a reply to: cooperton

More crackpot science. I checked all my textbooks. To date, I haven't found "pond scum" in any of the indexes. You make it up then expect everyone to believe it. But they don't.

You're a crackpot and a fraud.

originally posted by: Phantom423

More crackpot science. I checked all my textbooks. To date, I haven't found "pond scum" in any of the indexes. You make it up then expect everyone to believe it. But they don't.

You're a crackpot and a fraud.

"primordial soup" is a kind way of saying 'pond scum'.

Still no comment on chirality from you.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

More crackpot science. I checked all my textbooks. To date, I haven't found "pond scum" in any of the indexes. You make it up then expect everyone to believe it. But they don't.

You're a crackpot and a fraud.

"primordial soup" is a kind way of saying 'pond scum'.

Still no comment on chirality from you.

More crackpot science. "Primordial soup" is a term used for the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis of 1929. You're 96 years behind the curve. Typical ignorance.

originally posted by: Phantom423

More crackpot science. "Primordial soup" is a term used for the Oparin-Haldane hypothesis of 1929. You're 96 years behind the curve. Typical ignorance.

Ahh yes another one of your moves, resort to nitpicking semantics when you can't debate the actual meat of the issue. Regardless, it is still believed by many biologists that life emerged from a primordial soup. So yeah I agree with you, that is crackpot science because there's no evidence that such a transition is possible.

Finally we agree: Life from a primordial soup is crackpot science