the shape of proteins requires an engineer

originally posted by: sapien82
and if a creator made a system that is designed to evolve ?

what about that possibility

That has been my point for many years now that evolution just explains how something works, it doesn't get into the spark of life or God. I have said many times that if life is intelligent design then there still is a question as to how did he do it. If the answer is he just waved his hands and poofed all life into existence in its current form then that isn't science, though some here think it is.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

No one despises Cooper. There are no emotional aspects to all this.

Have you seen phantom's posts lol?

If you dug a little deeper past his posts and the sites he gets his information from you might see he really doesn't know as much as you think he does. Faith isn't science, and science doesn't stop, so it isn't like anyone is just stopping at some point other than your all side.

I get my information from peer-reviewed journal articles or databases that are based off scientific research. I posted two in the original post, and many more throughout the thread. This is why you guys don't know what to do a lot of the time.. because you're supposed to listen to peer-review, yet I use peer-review against the theory. Many known facts of science refute the possibility of abiogenesis, but they are conveniently ignored by the scientism priesthood. It's just a matter of digging up those known facts. They want you to believe the science is settled on evolution and abiogenesis, but in order to do so they have to be sure not to broadcast certain facts.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
I have been watching Cooperton's posts and threads for a few years, this guy really knows his stuff, and backs it all up with real science.

This is why the evolutionists despise him so much, they can't fight science, all they can do is present their "theoretical" science to counter.
So it's real science verses tainted science, embraced theories nothing more.
If only their cognitive dissonance could be punted for 90 seconds after reading the OP they would allow themselves to have an epiphany.

Much appreciated, thanks for the support

originally posted by: Kreeate
a reply to: cooperton

Oh goody!

Another skewed and misinterpreted perception of actual science. Your constant attempts at trying to justify the existence of your creator is amusing. You never cease to provide giggles at our office. Good going and keep the comedy coming!

I can see you all scoffing now with your upturned noses.......what a fun group!

Smarter and better than everyone else too, which is cool.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

That has been my point for many years now that evolution just explains how something works, it doesn't get into the spark of life or God. I have said many times that if life is intelligent design then there still is a question as to how did he do it. If the answer is he just waved his hands and poofed all life into existence in its current form then that isn't science, though some here think it is.

But science shows abiogenesis and evolution do not happen. Still not a single instance of either have been shown to be possible in a lab. I mentioned many of the reasons for this in my posts, and how it is thermodynamically impossible. It would be unscientific to keep pushing an unfounded theory that does not benefit humanity in any way. All that evolution has offered the human psyche has been the justification of genocide, greed, and elitism.

a reply to: Xtrozero

but as I said earlier if the creator did waved his hand then it must be an advanced technology that we do not understand so it appears as magic as per arthur c clarkes 3 laws
A creator would have to be scientific to create something this complex
or unless actual magic exists in the fantasy sense

a reply to: cooperton

have the laws of thermodynamics remained constant or have they changed ever
what if the laws were different at some point in time is there anyway to prove that they have or havent
I mean laws are that they dont change over time and remain constant based on the fact we observe it as such
but it is still possible that they one day could suddenly change right ?

so is it possible that thermodynamics existed differently at some point in the universe that allowed for this "impossible" physical/chemical interaction to take place

originally posted by: sapien82

Life goes according to intelligent laws well from a human perspective yes, but we have nothing really to compare it with

who made god and where did god come from
it's a never-ending cycle of creator and creation
so saying that intelligent life came from an intelligent creator could be another fallacy that just because intelligence exists it therefore has to come from intelligence
that one inevitably will lead to the other.
humans seem to stand on the shoulders of giants with our collected knowledge
so what if intelligence is a slow build up the same and that it started from nothing and over aeons worked its way to this. I guess its just more probability

"intelligent laws" is something Cooper just made up to convince people there is more to it all. The bigger problem is God becomes a chicken or egg scenario in then who made God?

Terms like "intelligence" and "life" are human constructs we invented to describe aspects around us. These terms are meaningless to the actual universe.

they say that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so the fact that chemistry and physics have very strict laws of themselves so that life itself can thrive is pretty freaking miraculous I mean what are the chances of the laws of physics being the way they are that allows all the atoms to form molecules and for chemistry to work the way it does that brings life to what would be a lifeless universe seems like a pretty big coincidence right

The problem is we could be dealing with an unlimited number of universes with an unlimited number of rules and laws. Some might last for a millisecond and others might go on for billions of years. This would mean there is no chance associated with us. Creationalist always says the chance humans are here is statistically impossible or mathematically like 10^[-50]. The problem with that is they are looking from the present to the past and I agree in that way if you are picking a life form first, but if you looked from the past forward and life just goes where it goes then us being here has zero probabilities about it as it would be some kind of life 100% and we just happen to be one.

The same can be done with our universe in it got to be some kind of rules and laws and ours just happens to be as it is out of an endless number of possibilities. It's like me asking you to pick a number between 1 and a zillion and I guessed it, that is the view of the creationist. I on the other hand just say pick a number between 1 and a zillion and that will be the correct number...

originally posted by: cooperton

Have you seen phantom's posts lol?

Ok you got me there... lol

originally posted by: sapien82

but as I said earlier if the creator did waved his hand then it must be an advanced technology that we do not understand so it appears as magic as per arthur c clarkes 3 laws
A creator would have to be scientific to create something this complex
or unless actual magic exists in the fantasy sense

All of this is called a non-falsifiable hypothesis, so there is zero science in it though some claim their faith is based on science.

The whole God thing gets really murky too in you have this entity that just goes around making universes and popping life where they may, but then plays around with that life in the form of set morals they need to follow to go to his holy place in the end.

The other part that gets really murky is that this universe and all in it was created just for man and isn't very old at all though God made it look billions of years old. Also, it will end rather quickly too once humans depart in any way, so it is just a petri dish to watch humans for a few 1000 years and then BAM! all gone. What does God do next and what did he do before since he is infinite? That existence makes me kind of sad...lol

In any case it all goes down some crazy rabbit holes, and none look very good.

dbl post

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: cooperton

have the laws of thermodynamics remained constant or have they changed ever
what if the laws were different at some point in time is there anyway to prove that they have or havent
I mean laws are that they dont change over time and remain constant based on the fact we observe it as such
but it is still possible that they one day could suddenly change right ?

so is it possible that thermodynamics existed differently at some point in the universe that allowed for this "impossible" physical/chemical interaction to take place

If a Being can alter physical law then they're probably more capable of engineering a cell than letting random chance have its go under a temporary change of physics. Especially because a change in thermodynamics would be tough for a living system, it would literally have to have been a brief moment where laws were changed and things were permitted to come into existence from higher to lower entropy, and then quickly switched back to our contemporary laws we measure today so that the organisms wouldn't become malignant.

What I mean by become malignant is that if the evolutionist's wishes were true, and, for example, protein monomers could polymerize in water without being facilitated by a ribosome, then you would get malignant worthless blobs of hazardous protein chunks throughout all of nature and inside all living organisms. Life would be impossible if the thermodynamics necessary for life to randomly come from non-living organic matter were true. This is the paradox that I believe an intelligent designer solves.

If this Intelligent designer is above our limitations of time and space, and also eternal, then it is no problem for this Being to create whatever it pleases. Think of how evolution insists that billions of years of time can create this world. Now imagine that times infinity, and you get eternity. This eternity is the power that this Being we call God is working with. Not that it does work by the passing of time, because the Being is above the restrictions of time, and therefore possesses eternity.

Any law requires something intelligent to implement it. The US constitution didn't emerge by random chance, nor could it. How much more would these immutable physical laws which constitute all matter require an intelligence to implement them.

originally posted by: cooperton
Still not a single instance of either have been shown to be possible in a lab.

You still have this lab thing stuck in your head as the primary point in your argument. Put humans in a lab for 1.5 million years with all the conditions they would have in nature and then get back to me. The earth is also a lab, but it is not what you want to use. BTW Black Holes do not exist until you can create one in a lab, right?

a reply to: cooperton

Many known facts of science refute the possibility of abiogenesis, but they are conveniently ignored the the scientism priesthood. It's just a matter of digging up those known facts. They want you to believe the science is settled on evolution and abiogenesis, but in order to do so they have to be sure not to broadcast certain facts.

Yeah their faith in abiogenesis without the correct science is problematic for the collective dogma, it's foundational.
It's why they are so desperate to separate the two ideologies that are obviously linked.
It' like a car with no wheels it's not going anywhere, and will be forever stuck in place.

The car = Evolution



The missing wheels = abiogenesis

originally posted by: Xtrozero

All of this is called a non-falsifiable hypothesis, so there is zero science in it though some claim their faith is based on science.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
You still have this lab thing stuck in your head as the primary point in your argument. Put humans in a lab for 1.5 million years with all the conditions they would have in nature and then get back to me. The earth is also a lab, but it is not what you want to use.

Well that is how evolution has remained for so long. Evolutionists have hidden behind the plea that you need millions of years to exhibit the evolutionary origin of species. Since no lab can do a million year long experiment, it remained unfalsifiable. Until the long term evolution experiment, which passed 73,000 generations of E. Coli. I know you're sick of me referring to this, but it truly is the closest thing we have to a falsification of evolutionary theory, meaning an experiment that proves evolution does not happen. 73,000 generations in humans is approximately 1.5 million years. So if 73,000 generations can't turn E. Coli into another prokaryote, then it's pretty safe to say that 1.5 million years couldn't begin to evolve a hominid. Again, it's hard to prove a negative, but this is as close as it gets.

BTW Black Holes do not exist until you can create one in a lab, right?

Black holes have physical mathematicals backing to show they are possible. They have also been empirically imaged, although further proof is necessary to confirm it. Abiogenesis on the other hand defies thermodynamics.

originally posted by: cooperton

Any law requires something intelligent to implement it. The US constitution didn't emerge by random chance, nor could it. How much more would these immutable physical laws which constitute all matter require an intelligence to implement them.

When we say rules and laws we are just describing how the universe functions within limited boundaries. Like water freezing at 32 degrees, did God pick that or is it just some fundamental aspect of water in that at some temperature it would freeze and 32 just happens to be it? We can also look at gravity as in if it was slightly off then the universe would be much different and we would not be here. We could say that God made gravity just right, so that explains there is a God, or we could say gravity is what it is and the universe evolved as it is within that boundary.

originally posted by: cooperton
Abiogenesis on the other hand defies thermodynamics.

Well if that is how you feel, then solve it and not just say God waved his hands. What was the makeup of the early universe, we do not know, but it was different than today.

You keep suggesting abiogenesis defiles the second law of thermodynamics and then you just stop and drop the mic walking away, but the second law applies to closed systems. The system we are talking about is not closed; as you said yourself we added energy to it from outside the system via a variation in the temperature of the system. That energy is used to perform work on it, and that work goes into changing the entropy content of the system.

We can go around and around here, but in the end, you are wrong...

originally posted by: cooperton
Until the long term evolution experiment, which passed 73,000 generations of E. Coli.

Why do you assume bacteria would work the same as other life when it actually works completely different? As I said before because it is different what if the needed number in a dish is like 1 trillion generations where 73,000 would work with humans? You are not wanting to apply any reasoning here and just get stuck on some meaningless number.

Evolution as I said, is not some hard set event that all life acts the same. You could have something like bacteria that could be the same for a billion years, for example. This doesn't mean humans will be the same 1 billion years from now, and we know life has been much different over the years, or God is just faking us out with faked time tables to look like billions of years.

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: whereislogic

creationism is it scientific

well if there is a creator for sure he'd need to be scientific in their approach right?

If you read the article you'd have a better understanding what is referred to with the term "creationism", and will be better equipped to respond to the title/question raised in that article. The term "creationism" does not apply to everyone who believes that the universe and life were created (by God). For example, I am not an adherent of creationism (the main teachings of which are laid out in the article), yet I still believe the universe and life are the products of creation (by the God described in the Bible). Cooperton is an adherent of creationism, our main point of disagreement would be the age of the earth, but also in connection with that, whether or not "the geologic strata with their fossils resulted from a single worldwide Flood" (quoting from the article below, I'll bold the relevant part).

Ah well, might as well quote the article now:

Creationism​—Is It Scientific?

THE controversy between those who expound an evolutionary origin for man and those who hold to the Biblical origin by creation has not ceased to simmer or boil for over a hundred years now. Last year it boiled up again in a federal court trial in Little Rock, Arkansas. The point at issue was a state law requiring that “creation science” be taught in the public schools along with evolution. The law was held to be unconstitutional, and the decision was widely hailed as a victory for evolution.

Scientists, theologians of various denominations, schoolteachers and the American Civil Liberties Union joined hands in assailing the law. It was defended by other scientists, theologians, schoolteachers and the state attorney general. The trial and the ensuing decision were widely publicized in the news media, attracting international attention.

The claims and counterclaims by witnesses ranged from established facts to absurd opinions. It is understandable that the average person might be left confused as to what the outcome means. Did the judge’s decision mean that evolution is now a fact? That the human race is millions of years old? That the Bible is wrong? That we should no longer teach children that God created man?

Before drawing any such conclusions, let us look into the issues involved. What is this “creation science” that was on trial? Is it scientifically based, or, as its detractors assert, is it a facade for sectarian religious dogma?

What Is Creation Science?

Supporters of creationism wrote a definition that was incorporated in the Arkansas law and inserted in the judicial opinion. It includes the scientific evidence that there are limits to the changes within the kinds of living things that were originally created, and that mutations and natural selection do not suffice to change one species into another. It also asserts that the earth and everything that lives on it are the result of a recent act of creation, and that all the geologic strata with their fossils resulted from a single worldwide Flood.

The framers of the law were careful to omit any reference to God or the Bible, in order to avoid constitutional bars against teaching religion in the schools. However, their writings and the testimony given at Little Rock revealed that the creation and the Flood referred to are those described in the Bible book of Genesis. Furthermore, although the time of creation was not spelled out in the law, they acknowledged that “recent” means perhaps 6,000, in any case not more than 10,000, years ago. [whereislogic: which is why I often refer to it as young earth creationism, but there really is only 1 type of creationism, only 1 set of beliefs that was introduced under the term "creationism".]

Evolution’s Faults Shielded

Unfortunately for the creationists, their efforts in the trial to expose the weak points of evolution were frustrated. Such shortcomings have long been apparent to open-minded students. We mention them only briefly here.

The evidence from experiments on mutations was not emphasized in the trial. Overwhelmingly, the results of such research are that mutations lead only to degeneration of the genetic pattern, producing defective specimens. They do not create new organs or new functions. They never lead to new species. The facts are contrary to the evolution theory and support the corollary principle of creation, stated in Genesis, that every kind of plant or animal can produce only its own kind. But this strong argument was neglected.

Furthermore, the geological record does not contain the continuous gradation of fossils from one species to another, which Darwin’s theory would require. Rather, it shows that new species appear suddenly, in the sedimentary column, without any connection to older forms. Even the evolutionists are currently embroiled in arguments about a new theory, called punctuated equilibrium, which admits that the long search for missing links has failed.

The sudden appearance of new species is really strong evidence for creation and against evolution. But it was not a factor in the trial. Why did the creationists not use it to advantage? They could not because they do not associate different geologic strata with different epochs of creation, but profess that they were all formed at the same time, when Noah’s Flood subsided. Being fettered by this non-Biblical doctrine, the creationists could use the fossil evidence only to tear down evolution. But they were reminded that it was not evolution that was on trial; it was creationism.

Creationism’s Faults Exposed

It was this aspect of the creationists’ thesis, tied to their doctrine of recent creation, that got the spotlight in the trial and in the news about it. Their teaching that the earth and even the universe are less than 10,000 years old contradicts all the findings of modern science. They are so far out of step that they invite ridicule from scientists.

Geologists can point to their measurements of geologic processes that extend far beyond that narrow time frame. Ocean sediments have accumulated over far more than 10,000 years. The time to build mountains and wear them down is measured in millions of years. For continents to drift apart and form oceans takes hundreds of millions of years. To say that all of this goes back only 10,000 years is simply absurd in the eyes of geologists.

Astronomers are equally outraged. They are accustomed to think not only of planetary cycles that take days or years but also of long aeons of time for stars and galaxies to form. They deal with such vast distances that even light, traveling at 186,000 miles (300,000 km) a second, takes billions of years to reach their telescopes. They estimate the distance to the Magellanic Clouds in the southern skies, our nearest neighboring galaxy, to be over 100,000 light-years. If this were created only 10,000 years ago, as the creationists hold, we would still be waiting 90,000 years for the first glimmer of light from it to reach us. In the northern hemisphere, on a dark night good eyes can make out the Andromeda nebula, the light of which takes 1,500,000 years to reach us. Obviously it must have been there longer than that. No wonder the American Astronomical Society went on record in January with a resolution applauding the Arkansas decision.

Physicists also protest that it is impossible to squeeze their studies into a time span of a mere 10,000 years. They point to radioactive elements like uranium and thorium that have lives measured in billions of years. The accumulation of distinctive isotopes of lead, which are the end products of radioactive decay, shows that some of the oldest rocks in the earth’s crust must have lain undisturbed for as much as 3 or 4 billion years. And their interpretation of the red-shifted light from distant galaxies, out at the edge of the visible universe, sets its beginning from 10 to 20 billion years ago.

[continued in next comment]

a reply to: sapien82

...

Is This Science?

How can creationists reconcile such evidence with their dogma that everything started just a few thousand years ago? When God created the rocks with uranium in them, did he also put in the right amount of the special isotopes of lead that would make them look a billion years old? When he made the Andromeda galaxy, did he also fill the path to the earth with light waves, all along its 10 thousand million billion (10,000,000,000,000,000,000) miles, so we would not have to wait to see it in the sky? Would the God of truth purposely insert such illusions in his creation just to deceive us?

Such reasoning reminds one of the story told of the little old Fundamentalist lady who was being shown through the Dinosaur National Monument in Utah. She did not believe the park ranger’s speech about the huge reptiles that had once lived there and whose fossilized bones she was seeing. She offered another explanation for them: “The Lord put them there to fool you.”

Speaking of dinosaurs, where do they fit into the creationists’ scheme of things? In their view, human beings and dinosaurs and every other kind of animal, extinct or extant, lived on earth at the same time before the Flood. They were all swept away together in a grand mélange by the Floodwaters. How, then, do they account for the orderly sequence of fossils in sedimentary rocks, starting with simple forms of life in the lower strata and followed by increasingly diverse and complex creatures in higher strata? They can only offer a set of implausible and contradictory theories as to how all kinds of plants and animals could have been sorted out of the potpourri of carcasses and laid down in separate layers.

Trying to defend their arbitrary structure of “creation science” with such weak, strained hypotheses, they were soundly rebutted by the scientists’ testimony at Little Rock. They were left without any credible claim to being scientific.

Creationism Discredited

The best-known scientist who testified for the creationists was Chandra Wickramasinghe, who was brought from Wales to appear at the trial. He and the British astronomer Fred Hoyle have advanced an unorthodox theory that rejects the doctrine that life evolved on earth. They say that life started in outer space and fell to earth on comets or meteorites. He testified that the complexity of genetic patterns makes it impossible for them to have formed by chance. So, he concludes, they must have been designed by an intelligent Creator. But his testimony boomeranged on the creationists when he said that no rational scientist could believe the earth is less than a million years old.

Based on the testimony given, both by the challengers and the defenders of the law, the judge could hardly do otherwise than find that creationism is not scientific. It was clearly exposed that its proponents do not arrive at conclusions by the scientific method of gathering all the evidence and then fitting it to a hypothesis. Instead, they start with a fixed sectarian interpretation of Genesis and seek evidence to support that. Contrary evidence they try to ignore, or, when they cannot, they invent unlikely explanations for the evident conflict with hard facts. The Arkansas law was an ill-advised effort to get their views of creation into the public-school curriculum.

Then does the failure of creationism mean that creation is only a fiction? Does it mean that the Bible is not true, or does it mean, rather, that a narrow, misguided interpretation of the Bible is wrong? We shall discuss the difference between creation and creationism in the next issue of Awake! in an article entitled “Evolution, Creation, or Creationism​—Which Do You Believe?”

Next article: Evolution, Creation, or Creationism​—Which Do You Believe?

It's important to understand the differences when responding to a title question like that.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
You keep suggesting abiogenesis defiles the second law of thermodynamics and then you just stop and drop the mic walking away, but the second law applies to closed systems.

I was referring to the thermodynamics of protein monomer polymerization being a non-spontaneous reaction in water. This means that according to Thermodynamics, synthesizing protein or DNA monomers in water is equivalent to lighting a match underwater.