the shape of proteins requires an engineer

originally posted by: cooperton

You have more faith than many Christians I know

Thank you.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: quintessentone

Anyway, nobody knows God's plan including God giving us no predetermined direction for life...we are most definitely on some direction for humanity. Call it evolution, call it neo-evolution but it's there as evidenced by our observations and the threads here on ATS.

Species come and go, I'm sure we will too. That seems to be speeding up as we build ourselves in civilized fortresses. All fun and games now, but if SHTF we are all dead in like a month...lol Maybe back in the 1800s we could survive some catastrophe, but not so today, and even worst as we go along. I often wonder if the end to natural intelligence is AI as AI is not affected by all the things that would wipe us out including evolution.

We as humans are changing and people are in fear.

If God is the engineer then why the fear?

Because God is faith-based, and not physical.

See that's where we diverge in philosophies. Thoughts, beliefs, emotional memories, learned things we want to retain are then formed into a physical reality within our brains. How else can you recall a memory? Because it is a physical chemical thing in your brain reacting with your...what? consciousness? soul?

If God is the engineer then we should fear us for our tribal warring stupidity for veering off course.

But I am off topic. The subject of this thread is whether or not God engineered...to little a word...created...too little a word...imagined and made come to life - not quite there yet... passionately wanted us to be real so therefore created everything around us to accommodate our existence and our reality?

originally posted by: quintessentone

But I am off topic. The subject of this thread is whether or not God engineered...to little a word...created...too little a word...imagined and made come to life - not quite there yet... passionately wanted us to be real so therefore created everything around us to accommodate our existence and our reality?

The bigger question is how... How did we get here to where we are today? We can talk about the spark of life being intelligent design all day, but what about the rest as in the universe, life over billions of years, or is it 6000 years... I really feel we are still back in the time when we thought everything revolved around the Earth and not that the Earth was one of the unimaginable planets going around its sun. It took us from the center of the universe to the third rock from the sun in the outer backwaters of a galaxy of trillions.

We are still trying to be the focal point of the whole damn universe, and we are not...lol

originally posted by: Xtrozero

The bigger question is how... How did we get here to where we are today? We can talk about the spark of life being intelligent design all day, but what about the rest as in the universe, life over billions of years, or is it 6000 years... I really feel we are still back in the time when we thought everything revolved around the Earth and not that the Earth was one of the unimaginable planets going around its sun. It took us from the center of the universe to the third rock from the sun in the outer backwaters of a galaxy of trillions.

We are still trying to be the focal point of the whole damn universe, and we are not...lol

Relatively, every point in the universe is the center. Also literally... look up "the big bang happened everywhere at once". There's also "the axis of evil cosmology", which shows that the most distant visible radiation in the universe is symmetrically oriented around our solar system. They called it the 'axis of evil' because it discredited the secular beliefs of us being meaningless lol.



The more you look into things, the more fundamental and importance we conscious beings become. Especially the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics.

originally posted by: cooperton

The more you look into things, the more fundamental and importance we conscious beings become. Especially the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics.

Well, you have a tendency to look things up, and when you feel like you can pull out the God card you stop...lol So thank you for proving my point in my last post.

What you are talking about here is something we have very little information on except for initial readings that could have a ton of confounding variables and factors involved, but go ahead and keep trying.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

Well, you have a tendency to look things up, and when you feel like you can pull out the God card you stop...lol So thank you for proving my point in my last post.

What you are talking about here is something we have very little information on except for initial readings that could have a ton of confounding variables and factors involved, but go ahead and keep trying.

Copenhagen interpretation has been around for 100 years backed by empirical data on particle/wave behavior. Evolution on the other hand has no empirical support that it can happen and it offers no benefit to society, it merely justifies genocide and racism.

They're gonna continue to waste tax payer dollars desperately trying to prove this ontologically erroneous theory

originally posted by: cooperton

Copenhagen interpretation has been around for 100 years backed by empirical data on particle/wave behavior.

Even though Copenhagen's interpretation is the dominant interpretation of quantum theory there are a lot of issues with it as we have just scratched the surface so far. We might say the same with life too, but your idea of Darwinian evolution is now considered a good initial start that also had a ton of flaws. What we know today is orders of magnitude more than what we knew even 50 years ago.

In both cases, we are not just stopping at the pull of the God card...

a reply to: cooperton

its really pretty interesting

but isnt god or a creator an appeal to authority in itself ?

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: cooperton

its really pretty interesting

but isnt god or a creator an appeal to authority in itself ?

Life is intelligent and goes according to intelligent laws. It would be unintelligent to think intelligence came to be unintelligently.

Claiming an Intelligence made intelligent life and intelligent laws is not an appeal to authority.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

In both cases, we are not just stopping at the pull of the God card...

Im not saying that at all. I want to show that evolution is one of the greatest philosophical dead-ends in the history of human thought. This allows deeper discussion about our purpose and real empirical science

a reply to: sapien82

The appeal to authority fallacy is a type of informal fallacy that occurs when someone uses the authority, reputation, or expertise of a person or a source as the sole or primary reason to support their argument, without providing any other evidence or reasoning.

Source: LinkedIn (top result I got from google)

Not really applicable to the conclusion by induction that life (or proteins) is the product of creation, therefore requiring a minimum of at least 1 creator who knows what he/she is doing.

An appeal to authority fallacy is not merely a matter of bringing up an authority. It's not even a matter of quoting authorities in support of an argument that is based on inductive reasoning, that doesn't count as an appeal to authority fallacy either.

A classic example of an appeal to authority combined with propaganda, is the '95% of scientists can't be wrong'-meme used when promoting evolutionary philosophies shown in the video below at 2:06 (which is also an appeal to majority as he mentions). There are a bunch more 'tricks of the trade' (propaganda), so to speak, that he lists:

The video has some rough edges so that's why I don't use it a lot, but it's a nice summary of all the tricks being used to convince people that evolutionary philosophies and scientifically proven myths are "science", "scientific" or "facts".

Is Evolution a Fact? (Awake!—2006)

a reply to: cooperton

I understand

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


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

I guess it's going to be one of the unanswered questions of our species
I doubt we will ever find an answer. but I also think that not having an answer will drive us to ask more questions

it is crazy , almost as if "designed" this way to ensure that some form of intelligence arrives at this point
but for what reason and purpose.

its like a self fulfilling prophecy

I dont doubt the existence of a creator
because that would be extremely freaking cool
and a lot of things in the universe we find point to that

but we cant discount that things just happen by pure chance

what are the odds of a creator ?
maybe our universe was one of the lucky ones that got a creator
maybe there are others that didnt that are just boring and lifeless

always good to discuss and ponder

originally posted by: Phantom423

Molecular similaritiesprovide evidence for the shared ancestry of life. DNA sequence comparisons can show how different species are related.

originally posted by: cooperton

A designer would use similar code among their creation, so similar attributes among life does not prove that they emerged by evolution.

Sometimes, some of them will even admit that this whole 'similarity' argument doesn't work. Which is really the core of all their arguments, also when discussing the fossil record, 'homology' is a common theme in their discussion of the so-called evidence.

Fossils—Do They Prove Evolution? (Awake!—1983)

EVOLUTIONISTS offer a variety of arguments in favor of their theory. Most of the evidence they cite is from living organisms. They point to similarities in skeletal structure of different animals as proof that such animals are related, if not by direct descent, at least by descent from a common ancestor. They point out that in the early stages of development from the egg cell, the embryos of “higher” animals resemble those of “lower” ones. They analyze the blood plasma or the chemical structure of hemoglobin and on that basis classify different species as being close or more distant relatives.

They claim that such comparisons lead inevitably to the conclusion that all animals have a common ancestry. They say they cannot conceive of any other explanation. Of course, having first ruled out the possibility that all have the same Designer and Maker, they cannot accept that as an alternative explanation. But in the textbook Man and the Biological World the authors admit that such proof is not complete: “The existence of homologous resemblances, of parallelisms in embryonic development, and of graded degrees of chemical relationship between organisms does not in itself prove that evolution has occurred.”

For proof that evolution really did take place, they fall back on paleontology. As stated in Outlines of Historical Geology: “Although the comparative study of living animals and plants may give very convincing circumstantial evidence, fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms.”

A Look at the Fossil Record

Thus we are told to go to the fossil record for final, conclusive proof that evolution really did take place. You might imagine we would find a succession of fossils, for example, starting with shellfish, in which the hard shell gradually turns into a covering of scales, while part of it turns inside and grows into a backbone. At the same time, successive fossils would be developing a pair of eyes and a pair of gills at one end and a finny tail at the other. Finally, lo and behold, we would have a fish!

But a fish would not stay a fish. Coming on up in the geologic column of sediments, we would expect to find fish changing their fins into legs, with feet and toes growing out of them, and their gills into lungs. Higher up, we would no longer find their fossilized remains in old seabeds but buried in dry land deposits. And in other fish, their forefins would be changing into wings and their back ones into legs with claws. Their scales would change to feathers and they would grow a horny beak around their mouth. And, presto! the magic of evolution would have given us reptiles and birds. So we could line up intermediate forms exhibiting transitional features between every ancestral species and each type of their progeny.

Is that what we really find? Of course not! That would be an evolutionist’s dream. Darwin himself was the first to bemoan the extreme imperfection of the fossil record. But he was hopeful that time would supply the transitional forms between species​—missing links, they came to be called. These would vindicate his faith in the process of evolution by natural selection.

But these hopes have not been realized. What does the record actually show? Each new kind of plant or animal​—fern, shrub, tree, fish, reptile, insect, bird, or mammal—​appears suddenly in the geologic column. Beginning immediately above the lifeless sediments of the Azoic era, the Cambrian layer carries an abundance of fossil crustaceans and shellfish, in great variety, already fully developed. Plants with woody stems appear suddenly in the mid-Paleozoic. Fossil wood has not been found in lower strata but is abundant in all later ages. Large collections of insect fossils have been found in upper Paleozoic rocks, fully developed and in great diversity, but none have been found in earlier strata. Early in the Cenozoic era, modern types of mammals make a sudden appearance; there is no record of their evolution from earlier types.

This is the repeated testimony of the fossil record: Sudden appearance of new kinds of plants and animals​—no precursors. Does this not suggest, to the unprejudiced observer, the creation of these new kinds in successive ages, rather than continuous evolution?

Permanence of Species

Biologists have devised an elaborate system for classifying different species. Naturalists continue to find species that are different from those already classified, and those are fitted in between the others. Extinct species, represented by fossils, also have been assigned places in the classification. Different fossils continue to turn up that have to be put between others in the system. The evolutionists call these transitional species, a word that implies a temporary existence, during which it falls between an older species and a new one that is to appear. Even calling them transitional reveals a bias in logic. A neutral expression would be “intermediate” forms.

Much emphasis is put on the search for these “transitional” forms. As an example they point to the lungfish, which has gills for taking in oxygen when in water and also a bladder that serves as a lung for breathing when out of water. This is supposed to have marked a stage in evolution between fish and reptile. But there is a snag in the logic. The lungfish did not change into a reptile. It is still living today, the same fish that is found in the ancient fossils. Rather than a stage in evolution, is it not more reasonable to call it a separate creation, one that has not become extinct?

The fossil record gives another important kind of evidence that belies evolution. The process of evolution is described as “the constant change of living things.” But innumerable fossils are found in ancient strata that, like the lungfish, are identifiable with modern species. Imprints of leaves of oak, walnut, hickory, grape, magnolia, palm, and many other trees and shrubs, left on rocks of Mesozoic age and since, are not different from those leaves today. The millions of years, as estimated by geologists, since they first appeared have left them without any evolutionary change. Likewise, hundreds of insects left their mark in Mesozoic rocks. These imprints show them to have been quite similar to species of the same insects we have now. As the evolutionist puts it, “Insect evolution had been essentially completed by the end of the Mesozoic”​—the era in which they first appeared.

Can such fossil evidence honestly be claimed to support the theory that environmental pressures bring about a continual change in species and produce new ones? Or does it not rather give the strongest support to the principle that each species, once created, brings forth only its own kind? Yes, and it has continued to do so generation after generation throughout all the millenniums of time.

Evolutionists now admit that the fossil record does not support the theories they have long championed. “The pattern that we were told to find for the last 120 years does not exist,” a paleontologist told a conference of evolutionists in Chicago in 1980. The picture of small changes accumulating to form new species is false. Instead, “For millions of years species remain unchanged in the fossil record, and they then abruptly disappear, to be replaced by something that is substantially different but clearly related,” a Harvard professor of geology said. Individual species in the fossil record are characterized by stability, not by change.

So now a new school has emerged, describing evolution as following a course of “punctuated equilibrium.” They say a certain species goes along unchanged for millions of years, and then, in just a few thousand years, it quickly changes into a new species. They call it macroevolution. It happens so fast there is no chance to leave a fossil memento of the transition. However, an older school, which holds to microevolution, remains unconverted to the new doctrine.

All this controversy and floundering about among the evolutionists cannot help but leave the layman confused and more and more doubtful about whether evolution really occurred. To one who is not emotionally committed to the cause, this talk about macroevolution and punctuated equilibrium betrays some uneasy misgivings. Perhaps they fear that the congenital defects in the evolution theory may shortly prove lethal. Their effort to cover these up with grandiloquent gobbledygook falls only a little short of admitting that creation is the only answer.

Since the growing scientific evidence gives ever less support to evolution and more to creation, why is it that creation does not get more attention in the teaching of biology? How do evolutionists still manage to hold such tight screws on what is taught in science courses in public schools? Attempts to loosen their grip, even by laws enacted under religious pressure, have been thwarted in the courts.

These questions will be examined in the next issue, in the article entitled “Creationism​—Is It Scientific?”

Next article: Creationism—Is It Scientific?

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?

surely creation is a science of itself
how else would you create a universe or life?
wouldn't you need to as you say create a code, genetics, and then have it tested and tested until its right and works properly so surely you'd need to have some scientific underpinnings
like taking notes and testing theories

so god is really just a scientist who's lab is the entire universe
and "creationism" is really scientific and its "miraculous" like nature that appears like magic is really just extremely advanced scientific understanding of physics and biology that we do not possess at present
so appears like miracles and magic

as per Clarkes three laws

Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic

so technology is derived from scientific understanding of the universe
so god/creator is a scientist and creationism is scientific

surely?

I think it was the Japanese physicist Michio Kaku that said an advanced civilization who understands entropy
would seek to create a new universe to seed life into
so they would need something to create a new universe like a particle accelerator powerful enough to create a Big bang
creating another lifeboat universe
they would then seed life into this universe and escape the entropy death of the old universe
so maybe God or our creator is a really advanced ancient civilization that is of the highest order
that has the power to create new universes to seed life into in order to avoid entropy.

but even when we arrive at this conclusion
it still doesnt answer the question where it all began , who created that civilisation
its a never ending cycle of creator and created
the begetter of life.

Wouldnt surprise me if we did meet our creator and they said we spawned from pure chance


sadly it seems more like creationism evolutionism is more about "who is right" than finding the answers
and we will be stuck arguing for bragging rights rather than working together to find the answers
the people debating just want the accolade of being right rather than helping our species advance

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

There are many aspects of biology that are comparable to human-made inventions. Like the flagellum which far surpasses the efficiency of any human-made water propulsion motor. Or the mitochondrion which is essentially a hydrogen fuel cell generator.

who made god and where did god come from
it's a never-ending cycle of creator and creation

God is unbegotten, meaning God never needed to be created because God always existed. This is hard for our temporal brains to comprehend, but it resolves mostly all the 'coming into being' paradoxes.

Fact 1) something cannot come from nothing
Fact 2) something exists
Conclusion: therefore there was never nothing that existed

Since nothing was never a state of existence, then something always existed. This "something" that always existed is the eternal God and founder of the universe. the "Alpha-Omega"

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

Yeah this is why I believe an Intelligent Creator, God, is responsible for these intelligence systems which allow us to exist.

We have what is nearly a seamless response-time to this material interface that allows the expression of our souls.

I guess it's going to be one of the unanswered questions of our species
I doubt we will ever find an answer. but I also think that not having an answer will drive us to ask more questions

it is crazy , almost as if "designed" this way to ensure that some form of intelligence arrives at this point
but for what reason and purpose.

It does feel like we're on a need-to-know basis. I think the basis of the good news is that God exists and loves you, resemble Jesus and you will have a smooth transition into the conscious realms beyond this earth after your body dies. Even in this life we are promised to have life to the fullest, and I see that the more I resemble Christ. It isn't some holier than thou existence, but rather just being genuine and loving, then truth seems to find you. Words tend to befuddle the most profound theological depths, but we all have our own way of being taught by God. So long as we listen.

I dont doubt the existence of a creator
because that would be extremely freaking cool

Bro, He's our Dad.. it's literally the best possible outcome given our birthing into existence... that the founder of all has great and infinite plans for our consciousness.

what are the odds of a creator ?
maybe our universe was one of the lucky ones that got a creator
maybe there are others that didnt that are just boring and lifeless

always good to discuss and ponder

There's this theoretical dimension, that some have argued is the only other dimensionally plausible existence given our current physical laws, and it's a world where space is unidirectional time and time is 3D space. Everything moves faster than the speed of light, and therefore all information is transmitted in an instant. I made the case that this is the light, the heavenly realms: Tachyon Universe

a reply to: cooperton

it is pretty difficult to get your head around the idea of something eternal

I know god is all knowing
but does he know where is eternall self came from
like does god know his origin story

surely you'd be like how come I am eternal
why am I alone here
how have I existed forever
doesnt god say I am the beginning and the End the alpha and the omega

if I was god Id wonder where i came from and why i never had a mother or a father
I guess that is why god gave us that so we'd feel love even though we dont see god directly
we can still feel the love he created for us by giving us parents and family

still super interesting either way
but yes the longer I live the more I see that things appear as if they were created this way How exactly who knows
but it must be super cool if we ever find out the how why our creator made us etc

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.

originally posted by: sapien82
a reply to: cooperton

it is pretty difficult to get your head around the idea of something eternal

I know god is all knowing
but does he know where is eternall self came from
like does god know his origin story

surely you'd be like how come I am eternal
why am I alone here
how have I existed forever
doesnt god say I am the beginning and the End the alpha and the omega

if I was god Id wonder where i came from and why i never had a mother or a father
I guess that is why god gave us that so we'd feel love even though we dont see god directly
we can still feel the love he created for us by giving us parents and family

still super interesting either way
but yes the longer I live the more I see that things appear as if they were created this way How exactly who knows
but it must be super cool if we ever find out the how why our creator made us etc

Yeah us understanding eternality is like a 2D being understanding 3D. Depth just wouldn't really make sense. Given the nature of particles described by quantum physicists, it seems as though matter is a mental construct. Not to say it's not real, but rather it is fully integrated with consciousness and living beings. I suppose God's mind is able to generate real interactive matter just as easily as we can imagine things in our mind.

originally posted by: cooperton

Im not saying that at all. I want to show that evolution is one of the greatest philosophical dead-ends in the history of human thought. This allows deeper discussion about our purpose and real empirical science

Saying God did it is not empirical. You are extremely biased, so everything we have talked about over a long time now you write off as not a factor. I personally do not rule out intelligent design, but I see evolution to be workable in either direction with or without God.

and if a creator made a system that is designed to evolve ?

what about that possibility
like a creator can create something and then leave it to its own devices

without any further intervention , like a self-replicating machine
but essentially if the dna survives then it as a whole is also eternal

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.

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