the shape of proteins requires an engineer

a reply to: Kreeate

You are free to post whatever you want of course, I'm not a mod. But I'd suggest you come at scientific threads with something a little more substantive than "I'm right, because it's obvious!" which is pretty much the essence of all your replies. While you seem to think the OP is nothing but religious drivel, there's a lot of science in it. If the science and the math are so simple, as you claim, explain what you think is wrong with his science and math, as MrInquisitive did.

On the other hand, if the discussion is over your head, which looks like the case here, maybe leave it to people who are more informed than you, or ask honest questions like dandandat is doing. There are very real problems that science cannot explain. That's not an attack on science, nor is it proof that God is real. Repeatedly crying "NO! SCIENCE EXPLAINS IT!" when that's not the case is not very constructive. Your posts in this thread practically border on spam, and detracted from the overall discussion which was quite good if you're open-minded enough to follow it.

originally posted by: MrInquisitive
a reply to: cooperton

I also want to say, @cooperton, that it is not every day that I log into ATS and learn something of a scientific nature -- maybe it is because I go to the political threads like a moth to the flame -- but I really learned something I was completely unawares of before reading your OP, your replies to me, and my follow-up research. Still not accepting your contention, given what else I have come upon, but you have motivated me to look more into the matter, and I can't dismiss your hypothesis out of hand.

And I'll be sure to check any other threads of yours I come upon.


Word out.

It was good having you, come back and share if you find any more interesting things regarding this topic.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: dandandat2

So you are suggesting that God could have created the universe wherein God allowed random chance to creat life; abiogenesis being the mechanism used? And that our current limited knowledge of the full workings of abiogenesis does not discount the Gods power to use it to creat life?

God could have suspended the laws of thermodynamics to allow these hurdles to be surpassed, but if God could do that why would he rely on random chance for the rest of it? To engineer 3,200,000,000 DNA units to form the genetic code to be able to provide the entire protein arsenal of the cell is like the most advanced computer coding ever done. To attribute it to random chance certainly makes this omniscient hyper-intelligence shake their head and smile

Just being devil's advocate here, if God did do this, then his motivations may simply be beyond our comprehension. I often make this point in discussions about aliens. People insist that "aliens wouldn't do xyz," which is just absurd reasoning. We often can't even understand the motivations of other members of our own species. What makes us think we can understand the motivations of aliens, or of a deity?

I'll offer a possible explanation though. If God chose to allow random chance to run the show, and if God is all-knowing, then it's only random chance to us, not to him. He would've known exactly how long it would've taken and, presumably, that was exactly his plan. It's possible he did it like this because he knew we were going to develop this thought process we call science, and he left us the mystery to solve the same way you give problem-solving toys to a child to enhance their intellectual development.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Kreeate

Wow, that's harsh. I still love you though. No hard feelings from my side.

Bro you came in like a wrecking ball and I reacted just as aggressively, but now peace is in the land of ATS. A good day.

I sure did. I stand by my belief of course, but I also accept that not everyone shares that belief.
Being called a "simpleton" by another member is kind of humorous though. I won't list my qualifications here as I may be identified from them.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Kreeate

You are free to post whatever you want of course, I'm not a mod. But I'd suggest you come at scientific threads with something a little more substantive than "I'm right, because it's obvious!" which is pretty much the essence of all your replies. While you seem to think the OP is nothing but religious drivel, there's a lot of science in it. If the science and the math are so simple, as you claim, explain what you think is wrong with his science and math, as MrInquisitive did.

On the other hand, if the discussion is over your head, which looks like the case here, maybe leave it to people who are more informed than you, or ask honest questions like dandandat is doing. There are very real problems that science cannot explain. That's not an attack on science, nor is it proof that God is real. Repeatedly crying "NO! SCIENCE EXPLAINS IT!" when that's not the case is not very constructive. Your posts in this thread practically border on spam, and detracted from the overall discussion which was quite good if you're open-minded enough to follow it.

Thank you for the concise and constructive criticism.
It is much appreciated. I will endeavor to improve the quality of my posts in future.

originally posted by: face23785

I'll offer a possible explanation though. If God chose to allow random chance to run the show, and if God is all-knowing, then it's only random chance to us, not to him. He would've known exactly how long it would've taken and, presumably, that was exactly his plan. It's possible he did it like this because he knew we were going to develop this thought process we call science, and he left us the mystery to solve the same way you give problem-solving toys to a child to enhance their intellectual development.

But diminishing it down to random chance would be putting our understanding of random chance on it. We probably don't even have a proper word for the method involved. My best guess would be that God condensed energy into matter in a way that caused it to manifest in a body/vessel that would be best for a Creator to explore and interact with their world - it would be the human body. "We were made in the resemblance of God". The world is our matrix, look at the conclusions of the copenhagen interpretation from the founders of quantum physics... Consciousness is fundamental.


I believe this high order of consciousness manifests on the material plane as a human body. Look at the story of the fallen angels... sounds absurd in light of the stuff they crammed in our heads at school, but this story is found in basically every major culture on earth. They are the Nephilim, the Annunaki, the Greek Titans/Olympians, etc. "gods" from the sky that came from extra-dimensional realms and they manifest on earth in human form. This would explain why alien sightings are often of human-formed bi-pedal beings... because it is the biological vessel that is best fit for these extra-dimensional beings to manifest in the material plane with. It is a quantum shift, pun intended, in scientific perception when we truly accept the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics:

a reply to: Kreeate


He means the type of person who bothers with comments like yours do not need to be need to even be thought about.

a reply to: cooperton

Obviously, yes, I had to put it in terms humans can understand. How could I do otherwise? I'm human.

originally posted by: infp1986
a reply to: Kreeate


He means the type of person who bothers with comments like yours do not need to be need to even be thought about.

Trivial things amuse me sometimes. Coops thread was interesting, but I have nothing to contribute. I was amused. I've moved on.
That is all.

originally posted by: Kreeate

Trivial things amuse me sometimes. Coops thread was interesting, but I have nothing to contribute. I was amused. I've moved on.
That is all.

What is your specialty? I'm wonder if you could share it in a way that would not reveal your identity.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: dandandat2

So you are suggesting that God could have created the universe wherein God allowed random chance to creat life; abiogenesis being the mechanism used? And that our current limited knowledge of the full workings of abiogenesis does not discount the Gods power to use it to creat life?

God could have suspended the laws of thermodynamics to allow these hurdles to be surpassed, but if God could do that why would he rely on random chance for the rest of it? To engineer 3,200,000,000 DNA units to form the genetic code to be able to provide the entire protein arsenal of the cell is like the most advanced computer coding ever done. To attribute it to random chance certainly makes this omniscient hyper-intelligence shake their head and smile

Why would God use random chance to creat life?

- for amusement.
- To see if it can be done.
- As a control group for other projects God is working on.
- So that God's ultimate creasion can sit in astonishment over the scientific discoveries that are hidden in the fabric of the universe.

I would never presume to understand why God does things; or that we in the 21st century already understand all of the wonders God has in store for us.... why do you?

originally posted by: dandandat2

Why would God use random chance to creat life?

- for amusement.
- To see if it can be done.
- As a control group for other projects God is working on.
- So that God's ultimate creasion can sit in astonishment over the scientific discoveries that are hidden in the fabric of the universe.

I would never presume to understand why God does things; or that we in the 21st century already understand all of the wonders God has in store for us.... why do you?

I don't already understand all of the wonders of God, but I am actively pursuing it and these are some of the conclusions I have come to. If someone wanted to program a computer they wouldn't leave it for a random letter generator to code it for them.

originally posted by: cooperton

They apparently found uracil and niacin in the samples. Contamination could be possible in a lab, but that'd be kinda crazy to have gotten an asteroid sample from space only to accidentally contaminate it once back on earth. Who knows. No research paper on it from what I can find

There are quite a few potential sources of contamination in sample-return space missions, some of which are unavoidable, others are not discovered yet as being sources of contamination, so therefore, also unavoidable (if you don't know how to avoid contaminating the samples because you don't know how they got contaminated the last time, then it's also unavoidable).

For example, one sample-return space mission was contaminated (with terrestrial amino acids) by the storage bags in which the samples were kept after collection. I somewhat doubt they fixed that issue.

originally posted by: whereislogic

There are quite a few potential sources of contamination in sample-return space missions, some of which are unavoidable, others are not discovered yet as being sources of contamination, so therefore, also unavoidable (if you don't know how to avoid contaminating the samples because you don't know how they got contaminated the last time, then it's also unavoidable).

For example, one sample-return space mission was contaminated (with terrestrial amino acids) by the storage bags in which the samples were kept after collection. I somewhat doubt they fixed that issue.

Yeah that's what I'm thinking too. Amino acids are even present in the air on earth:

www.researchgate.net...

originally posted by: MrInquisitive

Hello? Did you read my prior post? I was refuting the OP. I'm a believer in science and that fancy-schmancy evolution theory, but I know not a whit about evolutionary biochemistry.

A famous scientist whose methodology has been credited with the birth of modern science, once said:

"A man may imagine things that are false, but he can only understand things that are true, for if the things be false, the apprehension of them is not understanding." (Isaac Newton)

Do you understand what you refer to as "fancy-schmancy evolution theory"?

Since "faith" is a synonym for "belief", would the term "blind faith/belief" be appropiate for someone who believes in something they do not understand?

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Kreeate

Trivial things amuse me sometimes. Coops thread was interesting, but I have nothing to contribute. I was amused. I've moved on.
That is all.

What is your specialty? I'm wonder if you could share it in a way that would not reveal your identity.

I specialize in mechanical and electro-chemical design engineering. That's as far as I'm willing to divulge Coop.
Your thread is interesting indeed. As stated earlier, I will not engage here anymore. Happy to have discussions and debates in other threads.

originally posted by: SigmaXSquared

on one hand, if there is more life then show us where it is

on the other, perhaps safer for all worlds if that question remains unanswered

Life in general is out there and the earth is proof of that. Advanced life is a different story. I'm not sure if high intelligence is even a good trait and may actually be a bad one that kills itself off. Time and distance are two very large obstacles to overcome for life to travel away from its original point. This could mean there is other advanced life out there too, but we would never meet.

originally posted by: darkbake

The Fermi Paradox is bull# because we DO have evidence of thousands or more encounters with ET and UFOs but they don't "count." The only reason the Fermi Paradox exists is because the government wants to pretend it does.

What proof?

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: SigmaXSquared

on one hand, if there is more life then show us where it is

on the other, perhaps safer for all worlds if that question remains unanswered

Advanced life is a different story. I'm not sure if high intelligence is even a good trait and may actually be a bad one that kills itself off.

Advanced life, possibly, but we're too unpredictable to make a genuine scientific theory out of that.

Life, in general though, is thought to perhaps be its own demise. There's a legitimate scientific debate about that. Many scientists hold the "Gaia hypothesis," which is basically that life is inherently self-reinforcing, that it enhances the chances of its own survival. There's a competing hypothesis though, called the "Medea hypothesis," which says that life ultimately is self-sabotaging. There is some evidence of this in past mass extinctions that were caused by life itself, like the Great Oxygen Catastrophe. There's a great book on it called The Medea Hypothesis by biologist and paleontologist Peter Ward.

Some biologists predict the ultimate end of life on Earth will be caused by life using up all the available carbon a few hundred to a billion years in the future. You can't really talk about this right now though because it's against the climate change religion which basically treats carbon as a pollutant, even though it's essential to all life and without it we'd all be dead. Carbon levels are in fact currently at some of the lowest levels in the history of the planet, and life can survive at carbon levels many times what they are today, despite most of our youth and an increasing number of our politicians being convinced that if carbon levels go up much more it will "kill the planet."