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

a reply to: cooperton

My point was that your theory is entirely epistemology and what we need is ontology like a trail to follow that leads to an explicit solution. A puddle is not evidence that someone carefully sculpted a hole and filled it with water on purpose. Even if you are a microbe who made a life and a family in that muddy hole. What makes you so upset about evolution that it deserves to be eradicated?

a reply to: TzarChasm

What makes you so upset about evolution that it deserves to be eradicated?

He’s a YEC (young earth creationist). If he accepts evolution, he has to then reject his YEC religion. They’re about as clever as flat earthers.

He probably believes rain is gods tears and snow is gods dandruff.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

My point was that your theory is entirely epistemology and what we need is ontology like a trail to follow that leads to an explicit solution.

I beg that you are of unbiased mind right now... That is exactly what the path of Christ represents. The Trail of Truth that leads to liberation.

There are experiences that have convinced me with out a shadow of a doubt, that the theory of evolution if correct to a point, how ever these experiences are entirely not material. The simple fact that they present with the intricate mathematical structure way beyond my mathematical ability, and far exceeding my imagination make be certain that the nature of biology is only partially material.
There is not proof in trying to explain.
It has to be experienced 1st hand. And even then, the insights are only vaguely representable with words.
I used to be an agnostic, but only subjective 1st hand experiences could have convinced me otherwise.

My faith is not a theoretical or even philosophical argument.
It is an overwhelming realization, that what we are grasping at in this regard, far exceeds our expectations or ability to comprehend.
Also that IT is indeed a consciences.

From this point to an understanding of the Trinity, is a one that can be rationally argued. But still the explanation is a sliver of what IT is.

a reply to: cooperton

You've got the wrong paper! That illustration is NOT in that paper. Why am I not surprised??

a reply to: peter vlar

As I have often said, there are over 500 peer-reviewed journals and over 200,000 research papers in evolutionary biology.
Creationists have ZERO.

That's really all we need to know about "them".

Creationists have never had a workable hypothesis much less a theory. Their responses are always DOA (dead on arrival).

Nice to hear from you BTW.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: peter vlar

As I have often said, there are over 500 peer-reviewed journals and over 200,000 research papers in evolutionary biology.
Creationists have ZERO.

That's really all we need to know about "them".

Creationists have never had a workable hypothesis much less a theory. Their responses are always DOA (dead on arrival).

Nice to hear from you BTW.

They have many volumes of books on the nature of man and his spirit.
These volumes have been the basis of modern civilization.
People of science should not confuse science with what is not in it's domain.
I think music is the only languages that comes close expressing the offset symmetry of the 'harmonic' creation.
Maths and science are good for the logical part of the human mind, but at a level, they fail to explain the ineffable.

Science can only reveal truth that all ready exists, I imagine it will continue for a few more billion years and with each new discovery be more and more amazed.

a reply to: cooperton



Jesus said, "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32).

If you were a follower of Jesus, you would acknowledge the fact that there are over 500 peer-reviewed journals and over 200,000 research papers in evolutionary biology. Your fraudulent cult has NONE.

What would Jesus say about that? Remember, Jesus was born a Jew and died a Jew. Our race is noted for some very sharp intellects, particularly in the sciences. I am quite certain he was one of them.

Wikipedia states that “as of 2017, Nobel Prizes have been awarded to 902 individuals, of whom 203 or 22.5% were Jews, although the total Jewish population comprises less than 0.2% of the world’s population. This means the percentage of Jewish Nobel laureates is at least 112.5 times or 11,250% above average.”

I'm also quite sure that he would agree that the preponderance of evidence rests with biological evolution. Jesus would not approve of you taking his name in vain and misappropriating his teachings to advance your cult.

a reply to: rom12345

I don't have a clue what you mean. That said, if the gist is that science shouldn't delve into the unknown, tell that to your doctor the next time you need a treatment for something. After all, the scientific research that produced modern medicine was accomplished because it was an unknown at the time. It took thousands of hard working scientists to delve into the unknown to find the answers that you get when you go to the doctor. And they continue to work.

This is just a reminder of what science is: the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment.

You might want to ponder on that a little.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton



Jesus said, "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32).

If you were a follower of Jesus, you would acknowledge the fact that there are over 500 journals and over 200,000 research papers in evolutionary biology. Your fraudulent cult has NONE.

What would Jesus say about that? Remember, Jesus was born a Jew and died a Jew. Our race is noted for some very sharp intellects, particularly in the sciences. I am quite certain he was one of them.

Wikipedia states that “as of 2017, Nobel Prizes have been awarded to 902 individuals, of whom 203 or 22.5% were Jews, although the total Jewish population comprises less than 0.2% of the world’s population. This means the percentage of Jewish Nobel laureates is at least 112.5 times or 11,250% above average.”

I'm also quite sure that he would agree that the preponderance of evidence rests with biological evolution. Jesus would not approve of you taking his name in vain and misappropriating his teachings to advance your cult.

Like it or not. Jesus is a key component of human evolution.
The type that can allow us to flourish or fail as as civilization.
I believe it is all about having higher purpose, good intentions and truthful words.
The more science I understand, the better the mental framework to understand the nature of God.
I find the book of Genesis fascinating to consider as how the cosmos came to be
I would recommend people read the books, they have great depth and indeed have revelations.
In that Adam was sculpted from clay, I find an apt analogy for evolution.
I find many of these.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: cooperton

My point was that your theory is entirely epistemology and what we need is ontology like a trail to follow that leads to an explicit solution.

I beg that you are of unbiased mind right now... That is exactly what the path of Christ represents. The Trail of Truth that leads to liberation.

I was talking about analyzing a manufacturing logo or chemical compound to deduce a physical location where a substance or entity can be approached in a practical fashion, not a figurative philosophical guide to idealism.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton



Jesus said, "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" (John 8:32).

If you were a follower of Jesus, you would acknowledge the fact that there are over 500 peer-reviewed journals and over 200,000 research papers in evolutionary biology. Your fraudulent cult has NONE.

What would Jesus say about that?

"Woe to you, teachers of the law... you hypocrites! You shut the kingdom of heaven in men's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to."

You are a hypocrite because you claim to love science, yet when objective truth is shown to you, you reject it because of your prejudice. You prevent people from entering into the true reality outside the cave by telling them they are descendants of mutants, and not of God. Neither will you enter because you are so caught up in a dead-end theory. Heaven is not strictly a post-mortem phenomenon.. people are compelled to search and find it while they are alive.

Again, none of those research papers has an example of a population of organisms evolving.

You've got the wrong paper! That illustration is NOT in that paper. Why am I not surprised??

haha yes it was.. scheme 1 of this paper

You're trying to avoid admitting that nucleotide monomers do not self-polymerize. This fact shows how much of a compounding impossibility it would have been to random generate early genetic code through random chance. Obviously the genetic code needed an Intelligent Coder.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

I was talking about analyzing a manufacturing logo or chemical compound to deduce a physical location where a substance or entity can be approached in a practical fashion, not a figurative philosophical guide to idealism.

No you were asking for an ontological answer which I gave. Ontological means in regard to the nature of being. Jesus was the ontological archetype - he came and showed us the true nature of being, and insisted we follow his philosophy.

a reply to: cooperton

Proof positive that you can't read:



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


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

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Proof positive that you can't read:



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

How many times do I have to explain it? Either refute my explanation with empirical proofs or admit I am right:

Nanohydrogels are not nucleotide monomers, they are polymer aggregates. This is shown very quickly in the abstract of the above paper when they refer to them as Y-shaped... nucleotides are not Y-shaped... they are obviously referring to a tertiary structure. Also the mentioning of sticky ends further enforces this conclusion because sticky ends require a DNA polymer to have the typical 4 nucleotide dangling end to act as a self-catalytic.

Remember, you are looking for primary structure nucleotide self-polymerization. This paper by no means fits that description. And again, their reference to a "monomer" is referring to a tertiary DNA polymer as a monomer unit that gets self-catalyzed via its sticky ends. There is no nucleotide primary structure self-polymerization, which is what is needed for abiogenesis to have any possibility.

a reply to: cooperton

You have the wrong paper. Read the titles.


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


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

a reply to: cooperton

yet when objective truth is shown to you, you reject it because of your prejudice.

I don't recall you ever posting "objective truth". Care to give an example??

originally posted by: TerryDon79
a reply to: TzarChasm

What makes you so upset about evolution that it deserves to be eradicated?

He’s a YEC (young earth creationist). If he accepts evolution, he has to then reject his YEC religion. They’re about as clever as flat earthers.

He probably believes rain is gods tears and snow is gods dandruff.

Hold on, I don't think he is a YEC, but let him confirm or deny this.
For myself, the science of how long it takes and how fast light travels from stars in other galaxies to earth rules it out 100%.
This isn't about faith but pure science that is factual that is 100% understood not some conjecture.
For example the blue super giant Icarus is billions of light years from earth, the light emitting from that star just reaching earth that we can see, left many billions of years ago.

Again this by itself alone rules out YEC as a theory no better than evolutionary abiogenesis. They are both equally wrong, science must support your beliefs where it is known.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

You have the wrong paper. Read the titles.


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


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

Neither use nucleotide monomers. just admit it. Stop wasting both of our time

a reply to: cooperton

You're wrong. Did you access the paper? Did you read it?

a reply to: cooperton

As usual, reading comprehension isnt your strong suit. The only comment I made was regarding your unwillingness to take the authors of larricular papers or books to task regarding your claims of incredulousness. A specific example that comes to mind was your rants regarding H. Naked where I gave.you every possible way to contact Dr. Lee Berger at the University of Wittwatersand. You can easily contact Dr. John Hawkes, who also worled on H. Naked, on his blog or his email at the University of Wisconsin. You never once took the Authors to task and demanded that I provide every detail of a dig site I didn't work on. For someone who rants and raves as much as you do, you seem to be lacking a spine when it comes to calling out those who actually did the work or study in question but claim victory on a message board while not having the facts straight. For someone who doesnt seem lime a complete dolt, you're not actually interested in the science as much as you are your anti evolutionary tales of caution because were leading young minds away from your version of god.