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

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Read the paper. Get an organic chemistry book. You don't have a clue.

Get the hook.

You're a clown. There is no self-polymerization of nucleotides in that article. That's like your 9th strike trying to post something relevant. Evolution is a lie, and you're a liar... fits perfect.

originally posted by: cooperton
... You're tough to communicate with because you're not good with biology. ...

He's doing it on purpose cooperton. He understands more than he's letting on. He's just toying with you. He's deliberately saying things like:

100% wrong again. You just can't admit that you don't know what you're talking about.

He's just playing along with the spin (capitalizing on the ambiguity of language) from the article he was quoting from.

Remember:

This is the title of the article:

Self-assembly and Polymerization of DNA Monomers ...

Holy peer reviewed Scripture has spoken. Must be true then and not spin and a play on words and how one chooses to describe something?

Cute chemical engineering project though, must have taken quite a bit of intelligence to set it up for those type of reactions, appropiately or misleadingly described or not. Too bad it has no relevance to what would happen in an actual prebiotic natural environment (a realistic one that considers the evidence from geology regarding oxygen, UV radiation, and the issue with hydrolysis in a watery environment such as in the postulated “deep-sea hydrothermal vents” scenario, often used in connection to the “RNA world hypothesis”).

In 1953 Stanley Miller passed an electric spark through an “atmosphere” of hydrogen, methane, ammonia and water vapor. Miller assumed that earth’s primitive atmosphere was similar to the one in his experimental flask. Why? Because, as he and a co-worker later said: “The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing [no free oxygen in the atmosphere] conditions.”[1] Yet other evolutionists theorize that oxygen was present, because as the narrator puts it in this documentary, “as deep as we dig, we find oxidized rocks.” The dilemma this creates for evolution is expressed by Hitching: “With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have got started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays.”(2)

How likely is it that the amino acids thought to have formed in the atmosphere would drift down and form an “organic soup” in the oceans? Not likely at all. The same energy that would split the simple compounds in the atmosphere would even more quickly decompose any complex amino acids that formed. Interestingly, in his experiment of passing an electric spark through an “atmosphere,” Miller saved the four amino acids he got only because he removed them from the area of the spark. Had he left them there, the spark would have decomposed them.

However, if it is assumed that amino acids somehow reached the oceans and were protected from the destructive ultraviolet radiation in the atmosphere, what then? Hitching explained: “Beneath the surface of the water there would not be enough energy to activate further chemical reactions; water in any case inhibits the growth of more complex molecules.”(2)

So once amino acids are in the water, they must get out of it if they are to form larger molecules and evolve toward becoming proteins useful for the formation of life. But once they get out of the water, they are in the destructive ultraviolet light again! “In other words,” Hitching says, “the theoretical chances of getting through even this first and relatively easy stage [getting amino acids] in the evolution of life are forbidding.”(2) Lol, the understatement of understatements, grasping at straws to give the false impression that “forbidding” still allows for clinging to his belief that it's possible, just give it enough time. Impossible is the only appropiate word, and even that doesn't quite emphasize how far-fetched it is to believe it is merely “forbidding”, but possible anyway.

Although it commonly is asserted that life spontaneously arose in the oceans, bodies of water simply are not conducive to the necessary chemistry. Chemist Richard Dickerson explains: “It is therefore hard to see how polymerization [linking together smaller molecules to form bigger ones] could have proceeded in the aqueous environment of the primitive ocean, since the presence of water favors depolymerization [breaking up big molecules into simpler ones] rather than polymerization.”⁠(3) Which is what I was referring to when I mentioned the issue with hydrolysis, you got the same issue with depolymerization of nucleic acid polymers. Biochemist George Wald agrees with this view, stating: “Spontaneous dissolution is much more probable, and hence proceeds much more rapidly, than spontaneous synthesis.” This means there would be no accumulation of organic soup! Wald believes this to be “the most stubborn problem that confronts us [evolutionists].”⁠(4)

1. The Origins of Life on the Earth, by Stanley L. Miller and Leslie E. Orgel, 1974, p. 33.

2. The Neck of the Giraffe, p. 65.

3. Scientific American, “Chemical Evolution and the Origin of Life,” by Richard E. Dickerson, September 1978, p. 75.

4. Scientific American, “The Origin of Life,” by George Wald, August 1954, pp. 49, 50.

Nothing has changed about the chemistry you know... (before the usual tricks are used concerning supposedly 'outdated' information or the standard ad hominems concerning Francis Hitching who is merely pointing out the same facts of chemistry that I pointed out as well; discrediting him, as RationalWiki does, won't change the facts).

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Phantom423

The origin of life is not known and may never be known.

That makes evolution like a car without wheels which is a theory that can't move and is fundamentally useless, it has no real traction within honest science to ever move it forward, it can only sit there looking sad.

I'd say the situation is even more sad. Since there's nothing under the hood (mutations acted upon by natural selection do not cause so-called "macroevolution"; so that car is definitely not going anywhere but look pretty on the outside to those who don't look under the hood).

The behaviour of evolutionists to conveniently overlook their past failures, talk past the past in general in relation to well established facts of chemistry and physics and how they present obstacles to their evolutionary philosophies, claims and assertions that can never be overcome with 'more research', could be likened to missing mirrors as well in the car scenario.

'Neurotic endless speculation of impossible or extremely far-fetched ideas and scenarios/models'-behaviour = missing steering wheel and accompanying components

Fossil record showing the exact opposite of what evolutionary myths claim, but matching the Genesis account of Creation quite nicely (if some details are not overlooked) = missing bodywork

The seats are still there though, gotta have a place to sit for all the fans on the evolutionary bandwagon, but when it rains, you'll get wet with the rest of 'm. It makes the seats a bit raggedy over time as well. Cause that's what usually happens over time, 2nd law of thermodynamics. Unless you do something about it, maybe they have some punctuated equilibrium leather available somewhere to reupholster the seats.

edit previous comment: oh it's "she"? OK. "She" then.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

That's because you can't understand what you're reading. Get a 101 level organic chemistry book and start there.
End of message.

originally posted by: cooperton

Which will show you that nucleotide monomer polymerization is an endergonic (non-spontaneous) reaction. You can't be condescending towards people's intelligence when you are remarkably ignorant of your own mistakes. I am pressing you consistently hoping to extract some hint of objectivity.

There's a reason she didn't respond to your mention of a catalyst, and it isn't ignorance as to what your issue was with that. It's the same reason why she didn't respond to the issue you had with the article entitled "Self-assembly and Polymerization of DNA Monomers ...". There too, a generic response in the style, 'you're wrong, you don't understand the science', 'go read an organic chemistry book', 'the science is on my side', 'I'm a scientist, you're not', etc. But no specific response to what you were talking about, actively avoiding the subject. Cause it just shows that that article title gives a deliberate false impression as to what the research was actually about.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: Grenade

I am Jewish, but don't particularly care for religious rituals. If there's a god that's fine with me. If there isn't, it's okay too. Until there's evidence either way, I simply don't care.

Herein lies the problem with materialism. You can never know the truth about anything so you stay stuck in Plato's cave. What a miserable existence.

You can only know truth through conscious experience.

You can say it rained today. This isn't objective truth. The rain can be caused by some underlying physics and that underlying physics can be cause by some other underlying physics and it's turtles all the way down.

So the only thing that I can say is true is that I had a conscious experience of rain today.

Our observable universe can be created by a universal mind that builds worlds and universes like we build civilizations. That Walmart has no objective existence or Fort Knox has no objective existence. These things started as an idea in an intelligent mind who brought that idea into existence.

I can see someone shot and killed but it's not objective truth that they died.

Maybe quantum immortality is right and he didn't die in all possible worlds. He might be waking up from a coma in one of these worlds.

All I can say is I had a conscious experience where he was shot and killed.

So, you sum up the materialist dilemma perfectly. You said:

If there's a god that's fine with me. If there isn't, it's okay too. Until there's evidence either way, I simply don't care.

Bah Humbug!

The only truth is conscious experience. It's the only way to know God.

Consciousness creates and experiences this is truth. Materialism leads nowhere and leaves you saying:

Bah Humbug, I don't care!

I see you making a lot of "materialist" claims (I also feel like materialist is slang for heathen and believe we are better than that language) and it would seem to me that your beliefs are based on this caricature of a bitter cynical scientist. I've never met an atheist or agnostic who was so self defeating about life as what you described.

a reply to: whereislogic

Exactly. Well said. It is only a matter of time until this sinking ship of a theory gets dispelled from rational thinking. I wonder if phantom can't rationally digest what's being said, is blinded by her erroneous dogmatism, realizes she is wrong but would never admit it, or a mixture of all of those options.


a reply to: TzarChasm

That bold part that you quoted is actually phantom saying that haha

a reply to: cooperton

I'm aware, I was responding to the non bolded text. I'm also aware that ad hominem tactics are a sign of poor critical thinking skills, and further aware that so far no one has provided a creation theory that doesn't lean heavily on gaps in our investigative methods and technology.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

I'm aware, I was responding to the non bolded text. I'm also aware that ad hominem tactics are a sign of poor critical thinking skills, and further aware that so far no one has provided a creation theory that doesn't lean heavily on gaps in our investigative methods and technology.

Sure, we'll get working on how the world was created soon enough. It is clear looking at particle physics that we are mostly an electromagnetic phenomenon - given that 'matter' is 99.9% empty space and the property of resistance to passibility that matter exhibits is attributable to electric repulsion from electron clouds.

Regardless, it is a great leap realizing that evolution theory is incorrect, so we may look towards more comprehensive theories that unites physics with biology. The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics clearly states that we the conscious observer have a profound effect on the physical world. This demonstrates The necessity of Logos or consciousness in the workings of the universe. Wheeler's delayed choice experiment further proved this to be so beyond a reasonable doubt. This will also help us begin to relate quantum theory to biology as well, in a very exciting field known as quantum biology.

The material-reductionist dark ages of science are coming to an end.

a reply to: neoholographic

There is a word for that.......Obtuse

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

I'm aware, I was responding to the non bolded text. I'm also aware that ad hominem tactics are a sign of poor critical thinking skills, and further aware that so far no one has provided a creation theory that doesn't lean heavily on gaps in our investigative methods and technology.

Sure, we'll get working on how the world was created soon enough. It is clear looking at particle physics that we are mostly an electromagnetic phenomenon - given that 'matter' is 99.9% empty space and the property of resistance to passibility that matter exhibits is attributable to electric repulsion from electron clouds.

Regardless, it is a great leap realizing that evolution theory is incorrect, so we may look towards more comprehensive theories that unites physics with biology. The Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics clearly states that we the conscious observer have a profound effect on the physical world. This demonstrates The necessity of Logos or consciousness in the workings of the universe. Wheeler's delayed choice experiment further proved this to be so beyond a reasonable doubt. This will also help us begin to relate quantum theory to biology as well, in a very exciting field known as quantum biology.

The material-reductionist dark ages of science are coming to an end.

So you don't actually have a theory of creation. Big surprise.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

So you don't actually have a theory of creation. Big surprise.

You don't understand things of the 3rd dimension, how could you understand things of the higher dimensions? (John 3:12)

All things came from the Primordial Mind we call God. God was never born because God always existed. From this always-present objective Truth came all things. The Copenhagen interpretation demonstrates the necessity of this Primordial Consciousness for the wave function collapse of physical systems. The ordered meticulous universe around us is a constant reminder of the Intelligent implementation of all things.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

So you don't actually have a theory of creation. Big surprise.

You don't understand things of the 3rd dimension, how could you understand things of the higher dimensions? (John 3:12)

All things came from the Primordial Mind we call God. God was never born because God always existed. From this always-present objective Truth came all things. The Copenhagen interpretation demonstrates the necessity of this Primordial Consciousness for the wave function collapse of physical systems. The ordered meticulous universe around us is a constant reminder of the Intelligent implementation of all things.

You live in the exact same dimensions I do, unless you have a X-Men mutation of some kind that can access 4th and 5th dimensional planes. Please elaborate on the Copenhagen interpretation and how that plays into your theory of creation. Be as specific as you can.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Please elaborate on the Copenhagen interpretation and how that plays into your theory of creation. Be as specific as you can.

The Copenhagen Interpretation insists that physical systems do not have definitive properties until they are measured. This shows that we the observer play a fundamental role in the workings of the physical world. This indicates that the physical world caters to consciousness. The Primordial Consciousness, known as God, implemented this physical world according to Reason (Logos) and various physical laws that uphold all matter. Because matter is subject to consciousness as per the Copenhagen interpretation, we can no longer even consider that matter somehow managed to make consciousness.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Please elaborate on the Copenhagen interpretation and how that plays into your theory of creation. Be as specific as you can.

The Copenhagen Interpretation insists that physical systems do not have definitive properties until they are measured. This shows that we the observer play a fundamental role in the workings of the physical world. This indicates that the physical world caters to consciousness. The Primordial Consciousness, known as God, implemented this physical world according to Reason (Logos) and various physical laws that uphold all matter. Because matter is subject to consciousness as per the Copenhagen interpretation, we can no longer even consider that matter somehow managed to make consciousness.

But do you see the problem using an epistemology argument for an ontological topic?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Please elaborate on the Copenhagen interpretation and how that plays into your theory of creation. Be as specific as you can.

The Copenhagen Interpretation insists that physical systems do not have definitive properties until they are measured. This shows that we the observer play a fundamental role in the workings of the physical world. This indicates that the physical world caters to consciousness. The Primordial Consciousness, known as God, implemented this physical world according to Reason (Logos) and various physical laws that uphold all matter. Because matter is subject to consciousness as per the Copenhagen interpretation, we can no longer even consider that matter somehow managed to make consciousness.

But do you see the problem using an epistemology argument for an ontological topic?

I think your question might have given Cooperton a dizzy spell and a headache!

originally posted by: Phantom423

I think your question might have given Cooperton a dizzy spell and a headache!

Welcome back! can you admit DNA nucleotide monomers do not self-polymerize?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

But do you see the problem using an epistemology argument for an ontological topic?

Logos is both Knowledge and the Being that perpetuates on that Knowledge. It is both epistemological and ontological.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

I think your question might have given Cooperton a dizzy spell and a headache!

Welcome back! can you admit DNA nucleotide monomers do not self-polymerize?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

But do you see the problem using an epistemology argument for an ontological topic?

Logos is both Knowledge and the Being that perpetuates on that Knowledge. It is both epistemological and ontological.

Epistemology is the feasibility of knowledge, ontology is the practicality of it. The first one is about how information can be reliably derived and the second one is how we can understand it to correctly predict a particular set of behaviors, in my opinion you kinda suc- ahem, are way out of practice in both areas. I suppose you don't have a diagram or map of where to find this logos thing? A being has a form and substance so we will need to see that.

a reply to: cooperton

Self-assembly and Polymerization of DNA Monomers with Controllable Size and Stimuli-Responsive Property for Targeted Gene Regulation Therapy.

The title is self explanatory. You're the only idiot who can't understand it. Why not write them a letter - like you didn't the last time around??

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Self-assembly and Polymerization of DNA Monomers with Controllable Size and Stimuli-Responsive Property for Targeted Gene Regulation Therapy.

The title is self explanatory. You're the only idiot who can't understand it. Why not write them a letter - like you didn't the last time around??

Haha like that will ever happen! Ive provided email addresses for multiple paper authors and not once has anyone written to them to tell them how wrong they were and why their paper is incorrect. Id love to see the responses but after years of the same thing there's no use.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

Epistemology is the feasibility of knowledge, ontology is the practicality of it. The first one is about how information can be reliably derived and the second one is how we can understand it to correctly predict a particular set of behaviors, in my opinion you kinda suc- ahem, are way out of practice in both areas. I suppose you don't have a diagram or map of where to find this logos thing? A being has a form and substance so we will need to see that.

Your argument is erroneous at best. What's even your point? The logical answer is that logic was involved with the formation of biologic life. To think otherwise is illogical. 'logic' is a derivation of "Logos".

originally posted by: Phantom423

The title is self explanatory. You're the only idiot who can't understand it. Why not write them a letter - like you didn't the last time around??

Phantom, show me any part of that paper that discusses nucleotide monomers polymerizing. 'monomer' is a confusing vernacular for an untrained scientist. Let me explain. A monomer can be referring to any building block of a polymerized unit. Even a macromolecule can be considered a monomer that joins to other macromolecules to form a larger chain. The initial dilemma, which was presented many pages ago, was whether or not nucleotide monomers (that which forms the primary structure of DNA) could self-assemble. The answer is a clear no. The paper you keep misrepresenting is explaining how tertiary monomers (not primary monomers) can self-assemble once they bioengineer sticky ends to their terminals. So not only are they not dealing with nucleotide monomers, they are also bioengineering catalytic ends so that they self-assemble, which by definition still isn't self assembly if it requries bioengineering. Regardless, they are not working with nucleotide monomers (adenine, guanine, cytosine, thymine), they are dealing with nucleotide polymers, and calling them monomers. Yet again, here is a picture proving they are not dealing with nucleotide monomers, but instead tertiary "monomers":



Please, show this thread chain to any of your capable associates, and they will understand what I am saying. Because clearly you are blinded by your biases, or simply incapable of comprehending actual biological papers. This would explain why you always send people to 'go-fish' through articles, it is because you have no idea what they are saying

hahaha.


a reply to: peter vlar

hahaha the fact that you're supporting his ignorance shows you also have no idea what is going on.

I hate to be rude, but you guys deserve it. You're peddling an ignorant theory that deserves to die.