What's wrong with the God of the gaps that Darwinist like to say when losing a debate

originally posted by: ManFromEurope
The presence of a code does not imply that there is a creator.

Especially with such a faultprone code like DNA. Of course, nature has found ways to remove faulty parts of the DNA, because otherwise the elimination rate of fetuses would be devastating, but if you look at the DNA like a computer scientist, you see a lack of basic error-correcting code that would make a second-year student blush in their own software.

Assembler is a not very forgiving language, errors can combine to complete chaos and without obvious causes.

There is a cause why assemblercoding is a niche today. It is a low-level coding language.

And DNA is a low-level code itself. Nothing is obvious. Bad designer!

It does have error correction. If it didn't, DNA would be overrun with errors and we wouldn't be here. It has things like mismatch repair, proofreading and more.







In the first video he talks about how DNA has layers of error correction like they have in Google email or Microsoft Word LOL!

I have to laugh because you're just making my point stronger.

a reply to: midnightstar

Unfortunately it’s difficult to take the opinions of someone seriously when they are unable to construct a coherent or legible sentence.

Maybe believing in a universe being designed makes me an idiot, what’s your excuse?

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: midnightstar

Unfortunately it’s difficult to take the opinions of someone seriously when they are unable to construct a coherent or legible sentence.

Maybe believing in a universe being designed makes me an idiot, what’s your excuse?

Wut?

LOL

a reply to: Snarl

I would attempt semantic reductionism but where’s the fun in that?

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: neoholographic

It's still a very long jump from what you are describing to what you might call a god. Determining an architect is different from telling us who and how, in explicit detail.

What?

It's not a jump at all.

So you can't answer the question then. Just tell us your theory of creationism and provide as much evidence and visual aid necessary to explain exactly how it works.

a reply to: cooperton

and many of our bodily components transcend the limits of human invention.

This is your take on everything - it's impossible. If you were living in the 18th century, you would say that airplanes, nuclear powered ships and flushing toilets were impossible. In the 21st century we'll go to Mars, uncover the secrets of consciousness and quantum mechanics and evolve faster than ever before. Yet you, in your limited capacity, can't see beyond the end of your nose. It's a good thing you're really not a scientist working in a lab because everyone in the lab would need Prozac.

Your theme song:

originally posted by: Phantom423
Yet you, in your limited capacity, can't see beyond the end of your nose. It's a good thing you're really not a scientist working in a lab because everyone in the lab would need Prozac.

I guess you've lost the argument. You've got nothing left but, "Attack the opponent."

Happens every time with you Darwinists.

Show us the science ... repeat the science. If you can't ... you fail.

a reply to: Phantom423

The perception of the advancement of technology is not equatable to the perception of life going from nothing to biological humans. Many of the things we saw in Star Trek are now things we use. Intelligence can do that, that's what separates us from monkeys, their tech is is still sticks and stones like thousands of years ago and it will never grow beyond that. The technology humans have progressively imagined and built shows a high level of intelligence to solve the most complex problems. That is biological code, and code has a designer.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

life going from nothing to biological humans.

Can you please find one textbook or research paper that says that life came from nothing. Thanks.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: midnightstar

pubs.usgs.gov...
700 Known species of dinosaurs . the poster wants gaps 700 species out of 150 MILLION years .
There would have been millions of different dinosaurs .
Pick any point the last ice age while many animals that were around then are still around now 10 s of 1000 S went extinct of thous we know of 100 s as well . and that was only 25,000 to a 100,000 years back .

Say what you want earth science is the study of earth and animals and how they evolved and iwill be a ongoing prosses as we learn more and more .

The bolded part deserves emphasis because earth science will speak for itself. So if we were to start finding soft tissue in dinosaur remains consistently, as well as carbon-dating them to less than 40,000 years old, this would remarkably change our view of history, correct? Because that is exactly what scientists have found. There are also countless depictions of dinosaurs from our ancestors, indicating that humans definitely lived contemporary with dinosaurs:

Dinosaurs are less than 40,000 years old

Sure. Think of birds. Think evolution. That's how it works. Thanks for explaining how evolution works.

a reply to: Snarl

There are over 500 journals on evolutionary biology and over 200,000 research papers describing various aspects of evolution.
Your post suggests a level of ignorance and denial consistent with Creationists. Credibility = zero.

a reply to: Phantom423

Your approach to this debate is incredible.

You are clearly not reading the links provided and you are not reading the links you are posting.

It took me over an hour to get through these 12 pages and half of that hour was researching your links, which you didn't explain and from what I eventually understand, where discussing a different topic.

I respect your enthusiasm and I'm sure you're great fun in the pub, but please for the love of [insert preferred belief] just go over the thread again with an open mind.

a reply to: and14263

Exactly which post/link is irrelevant?

a reply to: Phantom423

The links you posted to explain the process of self polymerizing.

At first I thought you had made a good point.

But the OP is correct, the links were not relative to the primary structures of DNA and instead referred to tertiary and quaternary structures, so are therefore not relevant to the point the OP was making.

But you didn't address this, even though it was highlighted to you by two other posters.


Look, I'm not clever enough to understand all this, but I am clever enough to see a member avoiding questions or muddying the water... Or whatever you did. You posted links that to me looked like they explained the situation but upon further research they totally didn't..... and you didn;t address your shortfall.

It was either purposely misleading or you didn't understand what you posted. The former is just ridiculous and if you did that then you're a [expletive], but I don't think anyone would be purposely misleading on such a topic. So by default, in my opinion, you made a mistake. Which is cool... but it might be worth admitting it for congruence.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Snarl

There are over 500 journals on evolutionary biology and over 200,000 research papers describing various aspects of evolution.
Your post suggests a level of ignorance and denial consistent with Creationists. Credibility = zero.

Of those 500 journals and 200,000 (failed) research papers ... can you kindly help an ignorant/no credibility cretin like me ... and point to the one with repeatable findings.

originally posted by: Snarl
Of those 500 journals and 200,000 (failed) research papers ... can you kindly help an ignorant/no credibility cretin like me ... and point to the one with repeatable findings.

That's about typical ... up and disappears like a fart in the wind. Evolutionists are so damned predictable.

Everyone of them has bought into a new-fangled and failed religion. The religion of lower-cased "s" science.

It's also interesting how these genetic mechanisms which apparently demonstrate intelligent design are based strictly on human studies. Does this polymer effect apply across the animal kingdom or are we just special?

a reply to: Snarl


What does "failed" mean. That jpg is from 2018. Currently, there are over 200,000 research papers. And yes, repeatable experiments.

You're obviously not a scientist and have no idea how publications work.

a reply to: and14263


Give me the links.