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

This is a false dilemma.

originally posted by: rom12345
This is a false dilemma.

How can something intelligent claim it came from something unintelligent? It's as if they want to be unintelligent.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: rom12345
This is a false dilemma.

How can something intelligent claim it came from something unintelligent? It's as if they want to be unintelligent.

It is the desire to be the sole arbiter, spoken of in the fall of man.

intelligence is a word humans use to describe their cleverness.

a reply to: cooperton

Algorithm implies intelligence. If evolution has no opinion, how did it generate creatures that do?

It does? When any organic molecule or structure self assembles, no outside intervention is required. By now you should have some understanding of how nature self assembles. There are literally hundreds of research articles with clear evidence for self assembly. What do you do in your spare time? Geeezzzzzzzzzzzzzz

a reply to: cooperton

It has been shown in the lab. I've uploaded links for years - you just don't read them. DNA is so efficient at polymerization that it's used in nanotechnology.

You simply do not understand what self polymerization is. You think it's just dump a bunch of nucleic acids in a pot and see if they turn into a DNA molecule. That's how ignorant you are of real science.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Oh sure, being petty and acting like you are depriving me of some profound spiritual insight is a great technique for convincing me you met god. Way to go buddy.

ppffffttt This is the thing, Brother: I can't keep you from meeting Him yourself. I am not deluded. I know He doesn't care if you 'believe' in Him or not. And ... I know if you do meet Him, that you'll know everything there is that you Need To Know.

I'd love to be there the first time. To see how you behaved. Some people freak right the eff out.

originally posted by: Phantom423

It does? When any organic molecule or structure self assembles, no outside intervention is required.

Wrong, anything that is capable of self-assembly does so according to mathematically predictable laws. laws must be implemented intelligently, otherwise it is not a law.

By now you should have some understanding of how nature self assembles.
There are literally hundreds of research articles with clear evidence for self assembly. What do you do in your spare time? Geeezzzzzzzzzzzzzz It has been shown in the lab. I've uploaded links for years - you just don't read them. DNA is so efficient at polymerization that it's used in nanotechnology.

You simply do not understand what self polymerization is. You think it's just dump a bunch of nucleic acids in a pot and see if they turn into a DNA molecule. That's how ignorant you are of real science.

so ironic, remember how you failed to realized that DNA monomers cannot self-polymerize? You still never admitted you were wrong. You can't see past your own arrogance. There is no data that shows that DNA monomers can self-polymerize. You do remember that none of the links you presented proved that right?

Intelligent thinkers can see past your charade. Adherents to the unintelligent theory of evolution may not.

a reply to: cooperton

Wrong again. There's no "law" for algorithms. An algorithm is a sequence of instructions. Geezz, you're ignorant.

And yes, self polymerization is a fact of life. You won't understand this article, but here it is anyway.

A Self-Activated Mechanism for Nucleic Acid Polymerization Catalyzed by DNA/RNA Polymerases

The enzymatic polymerization of DNA and RNA is the basis for genetic inheritance for all living organisms. It is catalyzed by the DNA/RNA polymerase (Pol) superfamily. Here, bioinformatics analysis reveals that the incoming nucleotide substrate always forms an H-bond between its 3′-OH and β-phosphate moieties upon formation of the Michaelis complex. This previously unrecognized H-bond implies a novel self-activated mechanism (SAM), which synergistically connects the in situ nucleophile formation with subsequent nucleotide addition and, importantly, nucleic acid translocation. Thus, SAM allows an elegant and efficient closed-loop sequence of chemical and physical steps for Pol catalysis. This is markedly different from previous mechanistic hypotheses. Our proposed mechanism is corroborated via ab initio QM/MM simulations on a specific Pol, the human DNA polymerase-η, an enzyme involved in repairing damaged DNA. The structural conservation of DNA and RNA Pols supports the possible extension of SAM to Pol enzymes from the three domains of life.

pubs.acs.org...

a reply to: cooperton


And when you say something is impossible, which you always do, how about explaining why it's impossible and how the results of laboratory experiments are wrong.

You haven't a clue what you're talking about. You don't know chemistry and you don't know physics. What's the chemistry of your mechanism? How does it work? Can you draw a model? Can you explain why millions of chemical bonds form all by themselves without the intervention of one of your ID things. You can't. You won't. End of story.

a reply to: cooperton

so ironic, remember how you failed to realized that DNA monomers cannot self-polymerize? You still never admitted you were wrong. You can't see past your own arrogance. There is no data that shows that DNA monomers can self-polymerize. You do remember that none of the links you presented proved that right?

Intelligent thinkers can see past your charade. Adherents to the unintelligent theory of evolution may not.

Controlling self‐assembly of DNA ‐polymer conjugates for applications in imaging and drug delivery

Abstract

Amphiphilic supramolecular structures such as micelles and vesicles can be formed through phase‐driven self‐assembly of monomer units having discrete hydrophilic and hydrophobic blocks. These structures show great promise for use in medical and biological applications, and incorporating DNA as the hydrophilic block of the amphiphilic monomers enables the creation of assemblies that also take advantage of the unique information storage and molecular recognition capabilities of DNA . Recently, significant advances have been made in the synthesis of DNA ‐polymer conjugates (DPCs ), controlling the morphology of DPC assemblies by altering monomer structure, and probing the effect of assembly on DNA stability and hybridization. Together, these investigations have laid the framework for using DPCs in drug delivery, cellular imaging, and other applications in materials science and chemistry. WIREs Nanomed Nanobiotechnol 2015, 7:282–297. doi: 10.1002/wnan.1309

a reply to: Phantom423
I pray science will reveal the majesty of creation for aeons to come.

a reply to: cooperton

Self-assembly of DNA—polymer complexes using template polymerization

The self-assembly of supramolecular complexes of nucleic acids and polymers is of relevance to several biological processes including viral and chromatin formation as well as gene therapy vector design. We now show that template polymerization facilitates condensation of DNA into particles that are

a reply to: cooperton

And I'll save you the trouble of responding because you do the same thing every time:

"Thank you for proving my point! You see I was right. You just proved that my ID alien thing did it because there's no other explanation! Natural evolution is impossible based on what you just posted. Polymerization is a joke. It doesn't happen! Thank you!"

I think you have all your replies prepped in a word doc so you can just cut and paste them. You're so clever!!

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Nazism is a political ideology. Evolution is biology.

ideology:
"a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy."

Considering that the ideology of 'survival of the fittest' has spread around our country like a cancer, and nihilism has tricked poor souls into thinking they're meaningless, I would have to disagree. Evolution is an atheology with horrific Stalinist propensities. Evolution is a belief system, lacking support from the observable realms of science, and therefore should not be considered biology.

Literally nothing you said after the first sentence is true. I have to assume at this point that there is no actual theory of creation and that the god of the gaps is an accurate expression. It's funny that so many diagrams of computer software and DNA polymers were provided but no one has a video recording of god or genuine angel hair or a stool sample from a demon or anything resembling substantial quantifiable evidence. We really need to better than circumstantial epistemology semantic wafffling and you can make reasons all day and all night but there's only one way to be right.

This all boils down to something simple, code, those that believe in intelligent design say we have somebody that did the coding.

Evolutionists say code came about essentially by total chance which defies everything we know about science and material design.

If you had an infinite number of monkeys during an infinite number of years on typewriters banging away on keys could they ever produce the book "War and Peace" ? The answer is no, time is not the issue getting this done. Intelligence at the very start is.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
This all boils down to something simple, code, those that believe in intelligent design say we have somebody that did the coding.

Evolutionists say code came about essentially by total chance which defies everything we know about science and material design.

You mean the .01% of all genetic patterns (code would imply someone deliberately writing a message and sending it with a particular outcome in mind) who survived out of the many quadrillions of life forms that went extinct since life first developed.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
This all boils down to something simple, code, those that believe in intelligent design say we have somebody that did the coding.

Evolutionists say code came about essentially by total chance which defies everything we know about science and material design.

If you had an infinite number of monkeys during an infinite number of years on typewriters banging away on keys could they ever produce the book "War and Peace" the answer is no, time is not the issue getting this done. Intelligence at the very start is.

The 3rd law of thermo dynamics, would make a sentient self sustaining catalytic reaction immensely improbable.

originally posted by: rom12345

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
This all boils down to something simple, code, those that believe in intelligent design say we have somebody that did the coding.

Evolutionists say code came about essentially by total chance which defies everything we know about science and material design.

If you had an infinite number of monkeys during an infinite number of years on typewriters banging away on keys could they ever produce the book "War and Peace" the answer is no, time is not the issue getting this done. Intelligence at the very start is.

The 3rd law of thermo dynamics, would make a sentient self sustaining catalytic reaction immensely improbable.

Immensely improbable means statistically challenging but not completely out of the question. And we are talking about 3 billion years.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: rom12345

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
This all boils down to something simple, code, those that believe in intelligent design say we have somebody that did the coding.

Evolutionists say code came about essentially by total chance which defies everything we know about science and material design.

If you had an infinite number of monkeys during an infinite number of years on typewriters banging away on keys could they ever produce the book "War and Peace" the answer is no, time is not the issue getting this done. Intelligence at the very start is.

The 3rd law of thermo dynamics, would make a sentient self sustaining catalytic reaction immensely improbable.

Immensely improbable means statistically challenging but not completely out of the question. And we are talking about 3 billion years.

What is the probability of God existing ?
Over what time frame would that tend toward 100% ?

originally posted by: rom12345

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: rom12345

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
This all boils down to something simple, code, those that believe in intelligent design say we have somebody that did the coding.

Evolutionists say code came about essentially by total chance which defies everything we know about science and material design.

If you had an infinite number of monkeys during an infinite number of years on typewriters banging away on keys could they ever produce the book "War and Peace" the answer is no, time is not the issue getting this done. Intelligence at the very start is.

The 3rd law of thermo dynamics, would make a sentient self sustaining catalytic reaction immensely improbable.

Immensely improbable means statistically challenging but not completely out of the question. And we are talking about 3 billion years.

What is the probability of God existing ?
Over what time frame would that tend toward 100% ?

You would have to coherently define this god creature and quantify its specific properties according to careful testing and recorded observation. Then you could begin to calculate its probability in relation to a given circumstance. Without that information all you can do is speculate outside the realm of realistic projection.