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

Life could not have come to be by random chance. In that presentation he talks about the ribosome coming to be through random chance...



Yet ribosomes are sequences of thousands of protein monomers. Thousands of accidents to happen to make an even bigger accident that's capable of protein translation. Even if this multitude of miracles did occur, a ribosome on its own can't polymerize proteins, it needs various other co-facters and co-enzymes to successfully make a protein chain.



Not to mention it needs the DNA template to read. Therefore, this theory is pure fantasy. You and the others blindly believing evolutionary theory is the only reason its still alive, because it has no substantial observable evidence to prove it is even remotely possible.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Life could not have come to be by random chance. In that presentation he talks about the ribosome coming to be through random chance...

Yet ribosomes are sequences of thousands of protein monomers. Thousands of accidents to happen to make an even bigger accident that's capable of protein translation. Even if this multitude of miracles did occur, a ribosome on its own can't polymerize proteins, it needs various other co-facters and co-enzymes to successfully make a protein chain.

Not to mention it needs the DNA template to read. Therefore, this theory is pure fantasy. You and the others blindly believing evolutionary theory is the only reason its still alive, because it has no substantial observable evidence to prove it is even remotely possible.

So do you know how it was done? Can you explain in specific terms how the universe was formed and how life was engineered?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

So do you know how it was done? Can you explain in specific terms how the universe was formed and how life was engineered?

In the words of Plato, it is better to admit you don't know, than to think you know and have it be wrong. The first step towards getting out of the materialist dark ages is to admit that the old theory is wrong. The more we learn about the intricacies of biology, the more necessary an Intelligent force becomes.

Biomimicry proves that these are useful intelligible systems. Oxidative phosphorylation in the mitochondrion, for example, is like a hydrogen fuel cell. Chloroplast is like a solar panel. ATP synthase is like an electrical rotor. A flagellum is like a boat motor. And so on and so on. These are intelligible constructs.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

So do you know how it was done? Can you explain in specific terms how the universe was formed and how life was engineered?

In the words of Plato, it is better to admit you don't know, than to think you know and have it be wrong. The first step towards getting out of the materialist dark ages is to admit that the old theory is wrong. The more we learn about the intricacies of biology, the more necessary an Intelligent force becomes.

But you just said you don't know and you followed that with a statement you admitted you can't back up. "I can't explain it without a god but I can't really explain the god part either" is how your post reads. God of the gaps indeed.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

But you just said you don't know and you followed that with a statement you admitted you can't back up. "I can't explain it without a god but I can't really explain the god part either" is how your post reads. God of the gaps indeed.

I never said I didnt know. I used Plato's example for evolutionary theorists. It is without a doubt necessary that an intelligent force caused biological life. The word 'logical' is even in biological.

Do solar panels come to be by random chance? Do hydrogen fuel cells come to be by chance? Do boat motors come to be by chance? Absolutely not. Evolution is not a plausible theory.

a reply to: cooperton

There is enough verified research to definitively say you are 100% wrong. Everything is impossible to you because you are intent on remaining in total ignorance. It plays well for you, but don't think that everyone else doesn't see right through you. You have NEVER proven a single statement you have made with verified laboratory data. You have none. You never will.

Science is about discovery and evidence. You've never made a discovery and you have no evidence for your opinions. Just a lot of hot air.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

There is enough verified research to definitively say you are 100% wrong.

You can't even post a relevant article. It shows you have no idea what the research says. Still waiting on your proof that DNA can polymerize on its own. Will you ever admit you were wrong?

You have NEVER proven a single statement you have made with verified laboratory data. You have none. You never will.

Extremely hyperbolic. At the top of this page I posted information about the ribosome that came about through decades of research into it. The entirety of the protein translation process is a well studied occurrence. And you don't even have to go back a page to see that I am referencing real science.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

But you just said you don't know and you followed that with a statement you admitted you can't back up. "I can't explain it without a god but I can't really explain the god part either" is how your post reads. God of the gaps indeed.

I never said I didnt know. I used Plato's example for evolutionary theorists. It is without a doubt necessary that an intelligent force caused biological life. The word 'logical' is even in biological.

Do solar panels come to be by random chance? Do hydrogen fuel cells come to be by chance? Do boat motors come to be by chance? Absolutely not. Evolution is not a plausible theory.

You also ignored a direct question for obvious reasons, because you DONT know. Hence the gaps, and the god therein.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

You also ignored a direct question for obvious reasons, because you DONT know. Hence the gaps, and the god therein.

It is an intelligible construct, without a doubt. As certain as I am that a clock needs a clock-maker, so also does the genetic code need a Coder. You guys can dance around the obvious conclusion all you want, but you're simply proving you hate science and God.

a reply to: cooperton

The articles aren't relevant to YOU because you don't understand them.

I'm not engaging in a food fight with you. Waste of time.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

The articles aren't relevant to YOU because you don't understand them.

You were trying to prove that DNA primary structures self-polymerize, but you could only find articles about tertiary and quaternary structures. You thought they were the same, but they are remarkably important distinctions. You have no clue what you're doing.

originally posted by: Phantom423

I'm not engaging in a food fight with you. Waste of time.

No you're leaving because you'd rather disappear than admit you're wrong.

a reply to: cooperton

Find 3 peer reviewed research papers that agree with you.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

Find 3 peer reviewed research papers that agree with you.

It's your duty to prove a positive. I can only prove a negative in the sense that there has been over 100 years trying to prove evolution and there is nothing to show for it.

If you can find even one research paper that shows DNA polymerizing through self-assembly then you may have a point. Otherwise admit you were wrong.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm

You also ignored a direct question for obvious reasons, because you DONT know. Hence the gaps, and the god therein.

It is an intelligible construct, without a doubt. As certain as I am that a clock needs a clock-maker, so also does the genetic code need a Coder. You guys can dance around the obvious conclusion all you want, but you're simply proving you hate science and God.

Saying that our genome is too sophisticated to be random is not an explanation of how and who/what. I think we all would like to see an in depth walkthrough on the mechanics of your theory, and hopefully on more than just genetics. After all there's a lot of gaps to cover.

a reply to: cooperton

You know you can't find a single paper to support your opinions. You lost this battle a long, long time ago.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

You know you can't find a single paper to support your opinions. You lost this battle a long, long time ago.

It's ironic because you spent the last 3 pages trying to post relevant evidence that DNA monomers can polymerize via self-assembly to no avail, and now you're lecturing me on finding relevant papers? Face your delusion phantom. Humble yourself. It's ok to admit you're wrong. I'm not sure why you're so hellbent on being the ancestor of a mutant ape.

a reply to: cooperton

And you've spent your entire life trying to convince everyone that you know what the hell you're talking about. And you don't.

Once again, upload 3 peer reviewed research papers that support your position. You can't. And you won't.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Once again, upload 3 peer reviewed research papers that support your position. You can't. And you won't.

Show me one example of a population of organisms that evolved. Just one. Empirical evidence to show that it is based in reality. Shouldn't be hard, they've been trying to prove it for over 150 years.

I'll save you time. There is none. Your theory is not science, it is faith. It is faith in hopelessness.

Once again, upload 3 peer reviewed research papers that support your position. You can't. And you won't.

There are no articles that even know how to test for DNA monomers self-polymerizing. I've looked for articles that prove the negative but no one has even found a way to really test it. Regardless, it is not my duty to prove a negative. You have to prove your claim. I wouldn't be so hard on you if you weren't demeaning people on pages prior. You were acting as if DNA self-assembly is oh so common, and happens all the time. But now you realize it doesn't. Now you realize you were in fact wrong, so now you're side-tracking. This happens every. single. time. Give it up. Stop lying to others, and more importantly, stop lying to your self.

a reply to: cooperton

Upload 3 peer reviewed research papers that support your position.

a reply to: cooperton

www.google.com...