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

originally posted by: TzarChasm

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.

Ok , what is the probability of intelligence not being an emergent property, but something inherent.

originally posted by: rom12345

originally posted by: TzarChasm

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.

Ok , what is the probability of intelligence not being an emergent property, but something inherent.

Define intelligence.

a reply to: Phantom423

Wow, you step in it with the same thing each time you debate. Here's the question I asked you about the unique storage medium DNA that's encoded with information, builds the machinery to decode this information and also non coding regions regulates the expression of coding regions.

How does self assembly encode/decode this information in the sequence of the storage medium DNA?

Here's a quote from an Abstract you posted but I doubt you read:

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 .

Let me repeat!

UNIQUE INFORMATION STORAGE OF DNA!

This is from your source on self assembly. I've been saying that self assembly has nothing to do with this thread but you trot it out in every thread you're in.

DNA is a storage medium. You encode information in it's ACTG sequence and encode information that builds the machinery to decode the encoded information.

Let me say that again because self assembly has nothing to do with this thread and he knows it. This is why you have avoided the question but you always blindly google then post Abstracts that you don't read. Again:

DNA is a storage medium. You encode information in it's ACTG sequence and encode information that builds the machinery to decode the encoded information.

The Abstract you blindly posted called DNA a UNIQUE INFORMATION STORAGE MEDIUM!

This goes to the heart of this thread.

DNA doesn't create information, it stores information. This information is encoded in the sequence of the medium.

Here's another example.

I can say if you walk into the house and see the white folding chair and the black chair in the kitchen, I will call you. If you walk into the house and see 2 black folding chairs then send me a text about the time the show starts.

My intelligence has just encoded the sequence of folding chairs with information. The folding chairs don't create the information encoded on it's sequence. The folding chairs don't know anything about a text or the time a show starts. This is information intelligence encodes in the sequence of a medium and it takes another human intelligence or a machine designed by intelligence to decode the information.

DNA is the same. It's an efficient storage medium. It doesn't create the information encoded on it's sequence. Self assembly has nothing to do with this.

So I will ask again:

How did self assembly encode the sequence of a unique storage medium like DNA with information, encode the instructions to build the machinery to decode this information and encode non coding sequences with information that regulates the expression of coding regions?

EDIT:

Also, DON"T BLINDLY POST AN ABSTRACT. If you post an Abstract explain in your own words how the abstract relates to the thread. You have a habit of running to Google and then blindly posting an Abstract that has nothing to do with the thread.

The stuff that science tries to figure out.

a reply to: neoholographic

Still not a clear indication of intelligent design. Perhaps it's just me but if I was intelligent and trying to communicate I would just say "hey it's me, here's a message" instead of devising a ridiculously elaborate encrypting process.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: neoholographic

Still not a clear indication of intelligent design. Perhaps it's just me but if I was intelligent and trying to communicate I would just say "hey it's me, here's a message" instead of devising a ridiculously elaborate encrypting process.

Yes, it's just you.

The fact that you didn't refute anything that was said with actual information but instead said what you would do like it has any meaning when it comes to the thread is just asinine.

Second only to Phantom when it comes to nonsense.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

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.

hahaha.... you need to stop trying to post relevant links. You consistently expose yourself as not knowing what you're talking about. The title alone would show any trained biologist that this is not self-assembly, because it is "Catalyzed by DNA/RNAPolymerases. Polymerase is the well-known necessary enzyme for nucleic acid monomer polymerization. Therefore it is not self-assembly. It is also a bioinformatic model, not even a real test hahaha.

You won't understand this article, but here it is anyway.

hahahaha oh the irony...

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 150 nm in diameter. Inclusion of a poly(ethylene glycol)-containing monomer prevents aggregation of these particles. The DNA within the particles remains biologically active and can express foreign genes in cells. The formation or breakage of covalent bonds has until now not been employed to compact DNA into artificial particles.

Ok at least for this one it doesn't give it away that you're wrong directly in the title, you have to get to the 4th word of the abstract to realize AGAIN that they are talking about quaternary and tertiary supramolecular complexes, which means amalgamations of DNA chains. It is the chains that are polymerizing into their tertiary and quaternary structure, not the monomers. So yet again, no, you have not found an article that shows that DNA monomers can self-polymerize their primary structure.

hahaha

I wouldn't be laughing so hard, but you and your arrogant and condescending tone deserve it. The fact that two people starred your post shows they also have a herd mentality, desperate for any proof that their theory has any basis whatsoever in reality.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: neoholographic

Still not a clear indication of intelligent design. Perhaps it's just me but if I was intelligent and trying to communicate I would just say "hey it's me, here's a message" instead of devising a ridiculously elaborate encrypting process.

Yes, it's just you.

The fact that you didn't refute anything that was said with actual information but instead said what you would do like it has any meaning when it comes to the thread is just asinine.

Second only to Phantom when it comes to nonsense.

If you don't like what we think then maybe stop posting threads asking stupid questions.

a reply to: neoholographic

More BS from the resident blowhard. You have no evidence, you have no model. It's just a lot of hot air as usual.

a reply to: cooperton

More of the same. BS 100%.

a reply to: TzarChasm

What if was intelligent and intentionally hiding?

Do spiders living in your house understand how it was built or who built it?

Or do they just detect the best temperature and location in order to catch flies?

originally posted by: cooperton
I wouldn't be laughing so hard

I replied to your PM.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: TzarChasm

What if was intelligent and intentionally hiding?

Do spiders living in your house understand how it was built or who built it?

Or do they just detect the best temperature and location in order to catch flies?

That's a rather ominous analogy. Spiders usually get squashed.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

More of the same. BS 100%.

Exactly - YOU are still resorting to the same BS time after time. How many times do you have to expose your own ignorance??? You realize now that the articles you posted were STILL not referring to self-polymerization of monomers. Not that I need an apology, but it is for your own good to admit you're wrong and apologize to me and the others who you have been condescending to, despite the fact you are absolutely wrong. Your charade is over. Don't hide behind a meme. Admit it: DNA monomers do not self-polymerize. This fact makes evolutionary theory even more of a fantasy than it already was.

Let's start a chant:

DNA monomers do not self-polymerize, so evolutionary theory is fantasy
DNA monomers do not self-polymerize, so evolutionary theory is fantasy
DNA monomers do not self-polymerize, so evolutionary theory is fantasy
DNA monomers do not self-polymerize, so evolutionary theory is fantasy
DNA monomers do not self-polymerize, so evolutionary theory is fantasy

It's like the sequel to 'we will rock you'. RIP Freddy Mercury.

a reply to: Phantom423

So your responses to highly technical scientific posts are not proper rebuttals, but mocking meme's, well good job.
The reactions of frustrated failure is always the same on almost any topic up for debate, it is a universally known reaction for people who just can't articulate their own defense of their ideological beliefs in a meaningful way.

Neo and Coops have blown up your core beliefs time after time with solid real science and this is what it has come to for you, pretty sad.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

More of the same. BS 100%.

Exactly - YOU are still resorting to the same BS time after time. How many times do you have to expose your own ignorance??? You realize now that the articles you posted were STILL not referring to self-polymerization of monomers. Not that I need an apology, but it is for your own good to admit you're wrong and apologize to me and the others who you have been condescending to, despite the fact you are absolutely wrong. Your charade is over. Don't hide behind a meme. Admit it: DNA monomers do not self-polymerize. This fact makes evolutionary theory even more of a fantasy than it already was.

Let's start a chant:

DNA monomers do not self-polymerize, so evolutionary theory is fantasy
DNA monomers do not self-polymerize, so evolutionary theory is fantasy
DNA monomers do not self-polymerize, so evolutionary theory is fantasy
DNA monomers do not self-polymerize, so evolutionary theory is fantasy
DNA monomers do not self-polymerize, so evolutionary theory is fantasy

It's like the sequel to 'we will rock you'. RIP Freddy Mercury.

Okay so I am still having difficulty connecting dots between "monomers do not self polymerize" and "evolution is a lie, god is the only answer". You didn't really explain how it was actually done since evolution clearly is off the mark. How does intelligent design produce such marvelous technology in our genome? Can you walk us through the process of doing god stuff and how that made people happen?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Okay so I am still having difficulty connecting dots between "monomers do not self polymerize" and "evolution is a lie, god is the only answer".

Because RNA/DNA monomers do not self-polymerize, there is remarkable difficulty in generating RNA/DNA chains via random chance. Nucleic acid (RNA/DNA) chains are necessary to code for protein production. If the DNA sequences cannot self-polymerize, then it shows that a highly orchestrated force must have been the original cause for these DNA sequences to conform into patterns that are 1,000,000 sequences long in the simplest prokaryote, to 3,200,000,0000 sequences long in the human being. Even the most rudimentary organism has a genome comprised of over 1,000,000 polymerized monomers... so if these monomers cannot self-polymerize, there must have been an intelligent force that organized it.

This Intelligent force is God of All, Designer of the Logos, and came manifest as Jesus Christ who insisted upon our birthright as children of this Most High Creator Being.

a reply to: cooperton

This is why people that don't want to believe in an intelligent creator don't want to have to deal with Abiogenesis either, the foundation of the entire concept is fatally flawed, and they know it.

Really, if the God of Gaps idea is the perceived weakness of the creation ideology; it is equal to Abiogenesis being the perceived weakness of the total concept of what is needed to even get Evolution going.

a reply to: cooperton

Phantom loses again. He knows you're right and he can't blindly copy and paste his way out of it.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: cooperton

This is why people that don't want to believe in an intelligent creator don't want to have to deal with Abiogenesis either, the foundation of the entire concept is fatally flawed, and they know it.

Really, if the God of Gaps idea is the perceived weakness of the creation ideology; it is equal to Abiogenesis being the perceived weakness of the total concept of what is needed to even get Evolution going.

Excellent point!!

This can't be stressed enough because people who accept a natural interpretation talk about the God of the gaps but the biggest gap or gulf is the origin of life.

They will often say evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life but this is just asinine. It's completely illogical.

How can you say something evolves naturally when you can't show the origin of life occured naturally?

How did these complex systems like encoding information in the sequence of a medium and then encoding instructions to build the machinery to decode this information naturally occur?

How did non coding regions get encoded with information that regulates the expression of coding regions?

I have to say this again becuse it's so illogical and irrational.

How can you say something evolves naturally when you can't show the origin of life occured naturally?

If the origin of life is due to intelligent design then it doesn't evolve naturally it evolves according to the intelligent design.

This point can't be stressed enough and I'm glad you made it.

This is why Dawkins said this:

Biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.

Of course this is the logical inference to make when looking at biological systems. When you see a encoding/decoding system of information encoded on a storage medium with layered error correction, it's logical to infer intelligent design and that would be reasoned and logical when looking at the available evidence.