| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 23 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 52:02:43 |
| Calls: | 583 |
| Files: | 1,139 |
| Messages: | 111,529 |
From this recent EN article: https://evolutionnews.org/2025/07/new-article-from-james-tour-undermines-a-pillar-of-origin-of-life-theories/
'In comparison to a proteinrCOs half-life, the rate of polypeptide chain elongation under prebiotic conditions is very long. Yang et al. (2025) identify numerous barriers to sustained polypeptide growth, including
the formation of non-peptide linkages and cyclic structures, stringent environmental requirements, and unfavorable thermodynamics. Their
analysis establishes that the rate of growth must be far smaller than
one added amino acid per chain per day."
"Even assuming one addition each day, synthesizing a protein of 200
amino acids would require over six months. However, the growing chain
would almost certainly degrade in a much shorter time span. The
challenge is even greater for RNA, which has a significantly shorter half-life and encounters additional chemical and structural hurdles
during formation."
Paper here: https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010
No doubt this paper will be critiqued and disputed, but it is I think an example of the ongoing scrutiny and developing fundamental challenges to OoL. My prediction is these will continue to emerge, weakening
materialistic abiogenesis and strengthening ID's core claim.
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 15:44:28 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
From this recent EN article:
https://evolutionnews.org/2025/07/new-article-from-james-tour-undermines-a-pillar-of-origin-of-life-theories/
'In comparison to a proteinrCOs half-life, the rate of polypeptide chain
elongation under prebiotic conditions is very long. Yang et al. (2025)
identify numerous barriers to sustained polypeptide growth, including
the formation of non-peptide linkages and cyclic structures, stringent
environmental requirements, and unfavorable thermodynamics. Their
analysis establishes that the rate of growth must be far smaller than
one added amino acid per chain per day."
"Even assuming one addition each day, synthesizing a protein of 200
amino acids would require over six months. However, the growing chain
would almost certainly degrade in a much shorter time span. The
challenge is even greater for RNA, which has a significantly shorter
half-life and encounters additional chemical and structural hurdles
during formation."
Paper here: https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010
No doubt this paper will be critiqued and disputed, but it is I think an
example of the ongoing scrutiny and developing fundamental challenges to
OoL. My prediction is these will continue to emerge, weakening
materialistic abiogenesis and strengthening ID's core claim.
ID has no science; it doesn't explain anything. It's classic God of the
Gaps. But you've been told before. PS get a better news source.
From this recent EN article: https://evolutionnews.org/2025/07/new- article-from-james-tour-undermines-a-pillar-of-origin-of-life-theories/
'In comparison to a proteinrCOs half-life, the rate of polypeptide chain elongation under prebiotic conditions is very long. Yang et al. (2025) identify numerous barriers to sustained polypeptide growth, including
the formation of non-peptide linkages and cyclic structures, stringent environmental requirements, and unfavorable thermodynamics. Their
analysis establishes that the rate of growth must be far smaller than
one added amino acid per chain per day."
"Even assuming one addition each day, synthesizing a protein of 200
amino acids would require over six months. However, the growing chain
would almost certainly degrade in a much shorter time span. The
challenge is even greater for RNA, which has a significantly shorter half-life and encounters additional chemical and structural hurdles
during formation."
Paper here: https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010
No doubt this paper will be critiqued and disputed, but it is I think an example of the ongoing scrutiny and developing fundamental challenges to OoL. My prediction is these will continue to emerge, weakening
materialistic abiogenesis and strengthening ID's core claim.
On 2025-07-17 08:56:37 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John said:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 15:44:28 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
From this recent EN article:
https://evolutionnews.org/2025/07/new-article-from-james-tour-
undermines-a-pillar-of-origin-of-life-theories/
'In comparison to a protein|ore4raos half-life, the rate of polypeptide chain
elongation under prebiotic conditions is very long. Yang et al. (2025)
identify numerous barriers to sustained polypeptide growth, including
the formation of non-peptide linkages and cyclic structures, stringent
environmental requirements, and unfavorable thermodynamics. Their
analysis establishes that the rate of growth must be far smaller than
one added amino acid per chain per day."
"Even assuming one addition each day, synthesizing a protein of 200
amino acids would require over six months. However, the growing chain
would almost certainly degrade in a much shorter time span. The
challenge is even greater for RNA, which has a significantly shorter
half-life and encounters additional chemical and structural hurdles
during formation."
Paper here: https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010
No doubt this paper will be critiqued and disputed, but it is I think an >>> example of the ongoing scrutiny and developing fundamental challenges to >>> OoL. My prediction is these will continue to emerge, weakening
materialistic abiogenesis and strengthening ID's core claim.
ID has no science; it doesn't explain anything. It's classic God of the
Gaps.-a But you've been told before. PS get a better news source.
And people interested in serious science don't look for it in Evolution News.
From this recent EN article:
https://evolutionnews.org/2025/07/new-article-from-james-tour-undermines-a-pillar-of-origin-of-life-theories/
'In comparison to a proteinrCOs half-life, the rate of polypeptide chain >elongation under prebiotic conditions is very long. Yang et al. (2025) >identify numerous barriers to sustained polypeptide growth, including
the formation of non-peptide linkages and cyclic structures, stringent >environmental requirements, and unfavorable thermodynamics. Their
analysis establishes that the rate of growth must be far smaller than
one added amino acid per chain per day."
"Even assuming one addition each day, synthesizing a protein of 200
amino acids would require over six months. However, the growing chain
would almost certainly degrade in a much shorter time span. The
challenge is even greater for RNA, which has a significantly shorter >half-life and encounters additional chemical and structural hurdles
during formation."
Paper here: https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010
No doubt this paper will be critiqued and disputed, but it is I think an >example of the ongoing scrutiny and developing fundamental challenges to >OoL. My prediction is these will continue to emerge, weakening
materialistic abiogenesis and strengthening ID's core claim.
From this recent EN article: https://evolutionnews.org/2025/07/new- article-from-james-tour-undermines-a-pillar-of-origin-of-life-theories/
'In comparison to a proteinrCOs half-life, the rate of polypeptide chain elongation under prebiotic conditions is very long. Yang et al. (2025) identify numerous barriers to sustained polypeptide growth, including
the formation of non-peptide linkages and cyclic structures, stringent environmental requirements, and unfavorable thermodynamics. Their
analysis establishes that the rate of growth must be far smaller than
one added amino acid per chain per day."
"Even assuming one addition each day, synthesizing a protein of 200
amino acids would require over six months. However, the growing chain
would almost certainly degrade in a much shorter time span. The
challenge is even greater for RNA, which has a significantly shorter half-life and encounters additional chemical and structural hurdles
during formation."
Paper here: https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010
No doubt this paper will be critiqued and disputed, but it is I think an example of the ongoing scrutiny and developing fundamental challenges to OoL. My prediction is these will continue to emerge, weakening
materialistic abiogenesis and strengthening ID's core claim.
On 2025-07-17 08:56:37 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John said:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 15:44:28 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
From this recent EN article:
https://evolutionnews.org/2025/07/new-article-from-james-tour-
undermines-a-pillar-of-origin-of-life-theories/
'In comparison to a protein|ore4raos half-life, the rate of polypeptide chain
elongation under prebiotic conditions is very long. Yang et al. (2025)
identify numerous barriers to sustained polypeptide growth, including
the formation of non-peptide linkages and cyclic structures, stringent
environmental requirements, and unfavorable thermodynamics. Their
analysis establishes that the rate of growth must be far smaller than
one added amino acid per chain per day."
"Even assuming one addition each day, synthesizing a protein of 200
amino acids would require over six months. However, the growing chain
would almost certainly degrade in a much shorter time span. The
challenge is even greater for RNA, which has a significantly shorter
half-life and encounters additional chemical and structural hurdles
during formation."
Paper here: https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010
No doubt this paper will be critiqued and disputed, but it is I think an >>> example of the ongoing scrutiny and developing fundamental challenges to >>> OoL. My prediction is these will continue to emerge, weakening
materialistic abiogenesis and strengthening ID's core claim.
ID has no science; it doesn't explain anything. It's classic God of the
Gaps.-a But you've been told before. PS get a better news source.
And people interested in serious science don't look for it in Evolution News.
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 15:44:28 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
From this recent EN article:
https://evolutionnews.org/2025/07/new-article-from-james-tour-undermines-a-pillar-of-origin-of-life-theories/
'In comparison to a proteinrCOs half-life, the rate of polypeptide chain
elongation under prebiotic conditions is very long. Yang et al. (2025)
identify numerous barriers to sustained polypeptide growth, including
the formation of non-peptide linkages and cyclic structures, stringent
environmental requirements, and unfavorable thermodynamics. Their
analysis establishes that the rate of growth must be far smaller than
one added amino acid per chain per day."
"Even assuming one addition each day, synthesizing a protein of 200
amino acids would require over six months. However, the growing chain
would almost certainly degrade in a much shorter time span. The
challenge is even greater for RNA, which has a significantly shorter
half-life and encounters additional chemical and structural hurdles
during formation."
Paper here: https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010
No doubt this paper will be critiqued and disputed, but it is I think an
example of the ongoing scrutiny and developing fundamental challenges to
OoL. My prediction is these will continue to emerge, weakening
materialistic abiogenesis and strengthening ID's core claim.
You have clearly still not grasped the principle that you cannot
insist that *must have been* the butler who killed her ladyship simply because you have shown it is very unlikely that his lordship did it.
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 15:44:28 +1000
MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
From this recent EN article:
https://evolutionnews.org/2025/07/new-article-from-james-tour-undermines-a-pillar-of-origin-of-life-theories/
'In comparison to a proteinrCOs half-life, the rate of polypeptide chain
elongation under prebiotic conditions is very long. Yang et al. (2025)
identify numerous barriers to sustained polypeptide growth, including
the formation of non-peptide linkages and cyclic structures, stringent
environmental requirements, and unfavorable thermodynamics. Their
analysis establishes that the rate of growth must be far smaller than
one added amino acid per chain per day."
"Even assuming one addition each day, synthesizing a protein of 200
amino acids would require over six months. However, the growing chain
would almost certainly degrade in a much shorter time span. The
challenge is even greater for RNA, which has a significantly shorter
half-life and encounters additional chemical and structural hurdles
during formation."
Paper here: https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010
No doubt this paper will be critiqued and disputed, but it is I think an
example of the ongoing scrutiny and developing fundamental challenges to
OoL. My prediction is these will continue to emerge, weakening
materialistic abiogenesis and strengthening ID's core claim.
ID has no science; it doesn't explain anything. It's classic God of the
Gaps. But you've been told before. PS get a better news source.
From this recent EN article: https://evolutionnews.org/2025/07/new- article-from-james-tour-undermines-a-pillar-of-origin-of-life-theories/
'In comparison to a proteinrCOs half-life, the rate of polypeptide chain elongation under prebiotic conditions is very long. Yang et al. (2025) identify numerous barriers to sustained polypeptide growth, including
the formation of non-peptide linkages and cyclic structures, stringent environmental requirements, and unfavorable thermodynamics. Their
analysis establishes that the rate of growth must be far smaller than
one added amino acid per chain per day."
"Even assuming one addition each day, synthesizing a protein of 200
amino acids would require over six months. However, the growing chain
would almost certainly degrade in a much shorter time span. The
challenge is even greater for RNA, which has a significantly shorter half-life and encounters additional chemical and structural hurdles
during formation."
Paper here: https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010
No doubt this paper will be critiqued and disputed, but it is I think an example of the ongoing scrutiny and developing fundamental challenges to OoL. My prediction is these will continue to emerge, weakening
materialistic abiogenesis and strengthening ID's core claim.
From this recent EN article:
https://evolutionnews.org/2025/07/new-article-from-james-tour-undermines-a-pillar-of-origin-of-life-theories/
'In comparison to a proteinAs half-life, the rate of polypeptide chain >elongation under prebiotic conditions is very long. Yang et al. (2025) >identify numerous barriers to sustained polypeptide growth, including
the formation of non-peptide linkages and cyclic structures, stringent >environmental requirements, and unfavorable thermodynamics. Their
analysis establishes that the rate of growth must be far smaller than
one added amino acid per chain per day."
"Even assuming one addition each day, synthesizing a protein of 200
amino acids would require over six months. However, the growing chain
would almost certainly degrade in a much shorter time span. The
challenge is even greater for RNA, which has a significantly shorter >half-life and encounters additional chemical and structural hurdles
during formation."
Paper here: https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010
No doubt this paper will be critiqued and disputed, but it is I think an >example of the ongoing scrutiny and developing fundamental challenges to >OoL. My prediction is these will continue to emerge, weakening
materialistic abiogenesis and strengthening ID's core claim.
On 7/17/2025 12:44 AM, MarkE wrote:
-aFrom this recent EN article: https://evolutionnews.org/2025/07/new-It is only an example of the continuation of Biblical creationist's
article-from-james-tour-undermines-a-pillar-of-origin-of-life-theories/
'In comparison to a proteinrCOs half-life, the rate of polypeptide chain
elongation under prebiotic conditions is very long. Yang et al. (2025)
identify numerous barriers to sustained polypeptide growth, including
the formation of non-peptide linkages and cyclic structures, stringent
environmental requirements, and unfavorable thermodynamics. Their
analysis establishes that the rate of growth must be far smaller than
one added amino acid per chain per day."
"Even assuming one addition each day, synthesizing a protein of 200
amino acids would require over six months. However, the growing chain
would almost certainly degrade in a much shorter time span. The
challenge is even greater for RNA, which has a significantly shorter
half-life and encounters additional chemical and structural hurdles
during formation."
Paper here: https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010
No doubt this paper will be critiqued and disputed, but it is I think
an example of the ongoing scrutiny and developing fundamental
challenges to OoL. My prediction is these will continue to emerge,
weakening materialistic abiogenesis and strengthening ID's core claim.
denial of the fact that nature is not Biblical.
Tour really doesn't care if some god was responsible for making these initial polymers (if they ever needed to exist because no one knows what
the first molecular self replicators were).-a That god is not the god described in the Bible.-a Like you, he only wants to deny reality.
Has anyone proposed that the origin of life depends on condensation polymerization in solution?
replicators were made of.-a The RNA world would have come after there
were simple molecular self replicators.-a Everything that I recall has
been looking for catalytic surfaces that could be mineral or part
mineral to make macromolecules.-a I do not think that anyone ever wanted
to depend on amino acids or nucleotides combining in solution.-a Yes, the reaction will spontaneously occur, but no one was depending on it to
happen to form long polymers.-a If the long polymers were self
replicators they would have the catalytic ability to make more long polymers.-a They would not be subject to the Tour's time limit, and if
the first ploymers were formed by the catalytic activity of clay or
other mineral surfaces they would not be subject to Tour's time limit.
Google definition of catalysis:
Catalysis is the process of increasing the rate of a chemical reaction
by adding a substance called a catalyst, which itself is not consumed in
the reaction. Catalysts work by providing an alternative reaction
pathway with a lower activation energy, making it easier for the
reaction to proceed. Catalysis is crucial in many industrial processes,
as well as in biological systems like the human body.
Tour knows that there never was any ID creation science, and he knows
that what he is doing is not support for his religious beliefs.-a It is
only denial for the sake of denial.
You do owe, at least, me the explanation that I requested after
answering all your denial posts.
REPOST:
MarkE, you likely owe everyone a straight forward statement on how you intend to integrate the god that would have been responsible for setting chirality into the initial lifeforms over 3 billion years ago into your Biblical beliefs.-a Such a god would not be the god described in the
Bible, so what good would filling that gap with a god do for you?-a Gap denial was all that the ID perps ever had, and the only thing that creationists like Tour can continue with.-a Isn't it senseless to keep
doing that at this time?-a Tour even admits that he has known that ID has always been a scam, and that he doesn't know how to do any ID science,
so there obviously had never been any ID science to sell to creationist rubes.
Most of the other IDiots quit supporting the gap denial because they had their faces rubbed in the fact that the god that filled the Top Six gaps
is not the Biblical god that they want to worship.-a Bill would rather
lie about never supporting the creationist ID scam rather than deal with
the Top Six in a straight forward and honest manner.-a Bill is the IDiot that once claimed that he knew some real ID scientists, that had the
real ID science, but he wouldn't tell us who they were, nor what ID
science they had.-a Kalk quit supporting the ID scam, admitted that he wasn't hindu and claimed that he was going to concentrate on other
aspects of his religious beliefs.-a Pagano just quit posting.-a The Top
Six did not support his geocentric Biblical universe, and Pagano even claimed that the ID perps were wrong about the best evidence supporting
the ID creationist scam before he quit posting.
I have been straight up with all my answers in this issue, so you should come clean and state just what you intend to accomplish with your
continued efforts with god-of-the-gaps denial when the god that fills
those gaps is not the god described in the Bible.
END REPOST:
Ron Okimoto
On 7/16/2025 10:44 PM, MarkE wrote:
-aFrom this recent EN article: https://evolutionnews.org/2025/07/new-
article-from-james-tour-undermines-a-pillar-of-origin-of-life-theories/
'In comparison to a proteinrCOs half-life, the rate of polypeptide chain
elongation under prebiotic conditions is very long. Yang et al. (2025)
identify numerous barriers to sustained polypeptide growth, including
the formation of non-peptide linkages and cyclic structures, stringent
environmental requirements, and unfavorable thermodynamics. Their
analysis establishes that the rate of growth must be far smaller than
one added amino acid per chain per day."
"Even assuming one addition each day, synthesizing a protein of 200
amino acids would require over six months. However, the growing chain
would almost certainly degrade in a much shorter time span. The
challenge is even greater for RNA, which has a significantly shorter
half-life and encounters additional chemical and structural hurdles
during formation."
Paper here: https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010
No doubt this paper will be critiqued and disputed, but it is I think
an example of the ongoing scrutiny and developing fundamental
challenges to OoL. My prediction is these will continue to emerge,
weakening materialistic abiogenesis and strengthening ID's core claim.
Note that the replies to your post offer no refutation of any of the
points of the paper, Just name-calling and genetic fallacies.
On 17/07/2025 06:44, MarkE wrote:
-aFrom this recent EN article: https://evolutionnews.org/2025/07/new-
article-from-james-tour-undermines-a-pillar-of-origin-of-life-theories/
'In comparison to a proteinrCOs half-life, the rate of polypeptide chain
elongation under prebiotic conditions is very long. Yang et al. (2025)
identify numerous barriers to sustained polypeptide growth, including
the formation of non-peptide linkages and cyclic structures, stringent
environmental requirements, and unfavorable thermodynamics. Their
analysis establishes that the rate of growth must be far smaller than
one added amino acid per chain per day."
"Even assuming one addition each day, synthesizing a protein of 200
amino acids would require over six months. However, the growing chain
would almost certainly degrade in a much shorter time span. The
challenge is even greater for RNA, which has a significantly shorter
half-life and encounters additional chemical and structural hurdles
during formation."
Paper here: https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010
No doubt this paper will be critiqued and disputed, but it is I think
an example of the ongoing scrutiny and developing fundamental
challenges to OoL. My prediction is these will continue to emerge,
weakening materialistic abiogenesis and strengthening ID's core claim.
Given that it is widely believed that proteins were a late addition to
the biological repertoire why do you accept the claim that this is a challenge to spontaneous abiogenesis?
On 7/17/2025 11:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 15:44:28 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
From this recent EN article:
https://evolutionnews.org/2025/07/new-article-from-james-tour-undermines-a-pillar-of-origin-of-life-theories/
'In comparison to a proteinrCOs half-life, the rate of polypeptide chain >>> elongation under prebiotic conditions is very long. Yang et al. (2025)
identify numerous barriers to sustained polypeptide growth, including
the formation of non-peptide linkages and cyclic structures, stringent
environmental requirements, and unfavorable thermodynamics. Their
analysis establishes that the rate of growth must be far smaller than
one added amino acid per chain per day."
"Even assuming one addition each day, synthesizing a protein of 200
amino acids would require over six months. However, the growing chain
would almost certainly degrade in a much shorter time span. The
challenge is even greater for RNA, which has a significantly shorter
half-life and encounters additional chemical and structural hurdles
during formation."
Paper here: https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010
No doubt this paper will be critiqued and disputed, but it is I think an >>> example of the ongoing scrutiny and developing fundamental challenges to >>> OoL. My prediction is these will continue to emerge, weakening
materialistic abiogenesis and strengthening ID's core claim.
You have clearly still not grasped the principle that you cannot
insist that *must have been* the butler who killed her ladyship simply
because you have shown it is very unlikely that his lordship did it.
Nature simultaneously destroys what it (allegedly) creates. And it
destroys it faster than it (allegedly) creates it.
On 18/07/2025 5:25 am, Kalkidas wrote:
On 7/16/2025 10:44 PM, MarkE wrote:
-aFrom this recent EN article: https://evolutionnews.org/2025/07/new-
article-from-james-tour-undermines-a-pillar-of-origin-of-life-theories/
'In comparison to a proteinrCOs half-life, the rate of polypeptide chain >>> elongation under prebiotic conditions is very long. Yang et al. (2025)
identify numerous barriers to sustained polypeptide growth, including
the formation of non-peptide linkages and cyclic structures, stringent
environmental requirements, and unfavorable thermodynamics. Their
analysis establishes that the rate of growth must be far smaller than
one added amino acid per chain per day."
"Even assuming one addition each day, synthesizing a protein of 200
amino acids would require over six months. However, the growing chain
would almost certainly degrade in a much shorter time span. The
challenge is even greater for RNA, which has a significantly shorter
half-life and encounters additional chemical and structural hurdles
during formation."
Paper here: https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010
No doubt this paper will be critiqued and disputed, but it is I think
an example of the ongoing scrutiny and developing fundamental
challenges to OoL. My prediction is these will continue to emerge,
weakening materialistic abiogenesis and strengthening ID's core claim.
Note that the replies to your post offer no refutation of any of the
points of the paper, Just name-calling and genetic fallacies.
Noted; not unusual. Pity - Athel could add some content to this discussion.
On 18/07/2025 12:48 am, RonO wrote:
On 7/17/2025 12:44 AM, MarkE wrote:
-aFrom this recent EN article: https://evolutionnews.org/2025/07/new-It is only an example of the continuation of Biblical creationist's
article-from-james-tour-undermines-a-pillar-of-origin-of-life-theories/
'In comparison to a proteinrCOs half-life, the rate of polypeptide
chain elongation under prebiotic conditions is very long. Yang et al.
(2025) identify numerous barriers to sustained polypeptide growth,
including the formation of non-peptide linkages and cyclic
structures, stringent environmental requirements, and unfavorable
thermodynamics. Their analysis establishes that the rate of growth
must be far smaller than one added amino acid per chain per day."
"Even assuming one addition each day, synthesizing a protein of 200
amino acids would require over six months. However, the growing chain
would almost certainly degrade in a much shorter time span. The
challenge is even greater for RNA, which has a significantly shorter
half-life and encounters additional chemical and structural hurdles
during formation."
Paper here: https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010
No doubt this paper will be critiqued and disputed, but it is I think
an example of the ongoing scrutiny and developing fundamental
challenges to OoL. My prediction is these will continue to emerge,
weakening materialistic abiogenesis and strengthening ID's core claim.
denial of the fact that nature is not Biblical.
Tour really doesn't care if some god was responsible for making these
initial polymers (if they ever needed to exist because no one knows
what the first molecular self replicators were).-a That god is not the
god described in the Bible.-a Like you, he only wants to deny reality.
Has anyone proposed that the origin of life depends on condensation
polymerization in solution?
Yes. You know...primordial soup, warm little pond, early ocean,
hydrothermal vents, etc?
RNA likely wasn't what the first self
replicators were made of.-a The RNA world would have come after there
were simple molecular self replicators.-a Everything that I recall has
been looking for catalytic surfaces that could be mineral or part
mineral to make macromolecules.-a I do not think that anyone ever
wanted to depend on amino acids or nucleotides combining in solution.
Yes, the reaction will spontaneously occur, but no one was depending
on it to happen to form long polymers.-a If the long polymers were self
replicators they would have the catalytic ability to make more long
polymers.-a They would not be subject to the Tour's time limit, and if
the first ploymers were formed by the catalytic activity of clay or
other mineral surfaces they would not be subject to Tour's time limit.
Google definition of catalysis:
Catalysis is the process of increasing the rate of a chemical reaction
by adding a substance called a catalyst, which itself is not consumed
in the reaction. Catalysts work by providing an alternative reaction
pathway with a lower activation energy, making it easier for the
reaction to proceed. Catalysis is crucial in many industrial
processes, as well as in biological systems like the human body.
Tour knows that there never was any ID creation science, and he knows
that what he is doing is not support for his religious beliefs.-a It is
only denial for the sake of denial.
You do owe, at least, me the explanation that I requested after
answering all your denial posts.
I do appreciate your consistent engagement, and would like to be as
upfront as I can, so here you are:
REPOST:
MarkE, you likely owe everyone a straight forward statement on how you
intend to integrate the god that would have been responsible for
setting chirality into the initial lifeforms over 3 billion years ago
into your Biblical beliefs.-a Such a god would not be the god described
in the Bible, so what good would filling that gap with a god do for
you?-a Gap denial was all that the ID perps ever had, and the only
thing that creationists like Tour can continue with.-a Isn't it
senseless to keep doing that at this time?-a Tour even admits that he
has known that ID has always been a scam, and that he doesn't know how
to do any ID science, so there obviously had never been any ID science
to sell to creationist rubes.
Most of the other IDiots quit supporting the gap denial because they
had their faces rubbed in the fact that the god that filled the Top
Six gaps is not the Biblical god that they want to worship.-a Bill
would rather lie about never supporting the creationist ID scam rather
than deal with the Top Six in a straight forward and honest manner.
Bill is the IDiot that once claimed that he knew some real ID
scientists, that had the real ID science, but he wouldn't tell us who
they were, nor what ID science they had.-a Kalk quit supporting the ID
scam, admitted that he wasn't hindu and claimed that he was going to
concentrate on other aspects of his religious beliefs.-a Pagano just
quit posting.-a The Top Six did not support his geocentric Biblical
universe, and Pagano even claimed that the ID perps were wrong about
the best evidence supporting the ID creationist scam before he quit
posting.
I have been straight up with all my answers in this issue, so you
should come clean and state just what you intend to accomplish with
your continued efforts with god-of-the-gaps denial when the god that
fills those gaps is not the god described in the Bible.
END REPOST:
Ron Okimoto
If the number of phenomena that are not satisfactorily explained by
natural process is steadily diminishing over time, then appeal to these
as evidence for a creator could rightly be called an appeal to the god- of-the-gaps. My contention, which I've stated here on several occasions, e.g. https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/Q0H4U47iYgk/
m/2fprGczIBwAJ is that evidence and reasoning such as the cited Tour
paper support the thesis of a God-of-the-growing-gulfs.
Other examples include:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03461-4 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11084-014-9379-0 https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-7-23
Etc etc.
Two things I should make clear:
1. In this context, I'm not attempting to fit this into any particular biblical interpretation. My purpose here is to explore the scientific support for a God-of-the-growing-gulfs hypothesis. The identity and
action of that God is a separate topic altogether (though one I'm happy
to discuss).
2. Though I refer to ID and EN, I don't fully endorse either, though am
at least partially in agreement (e.g. Casey Luskin's recent articles on
junk DNA may be overreaching, and EN has a right-wing stance that I
don't support).
On 18/07/2025 8:16 am, Ernest Major wrote:
On 17/07/2025 06:44, MarkE wrote:
-aFrom this recent EN article: https://evolutionnews.org/2025/07/new-
article-from-james-tour-undermines-a-pillar-of-origin-of-life-theories/
'In comparison to a proteinrCOs half-life, the rate of polypeptide
chain elongation under prebiotic conditions is very long. Yang et al.
(2025) identify numerous barriers to sustained polypeptide growth,
including the formation of non-peptide linkages and cyclic
structures, stringent environmental requirements, and unfavorable
thermodynamics. Their analysis establishes that the rate of growth
must be far smaller than one added amino acid per chain per day."
"Even assuming one addition each day, synthesizing a protein of 200
amino acids would require over six months. However, the growing chain
would almost certainly degrade in a much shorter time span. The
challenge is even greater for RNA, which has a significantly shorter
half-life and encounters additional chemical and structural hurdles
during formation."
Paper here: https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010
No doubt this paper will be critiqued and disputed, but it is I think
an example of the ongoing scrutiny and developing fundamental
challenges to OoL. My prediction is these will continue to emerge,
weakening materialistic abiogenesis and strengthening ID's core claim.
Given that it is widely believed that proteins were a late addition to
the biological repertoire why do you accept the claim that this is a
challenge to spontaneous abiogenesis?
RNA.
OoL needs an information-bearing molecule from the beginning, i.e. to support supposed chemical evolution. This molecule needs to be self- replicating and probably self-catalising.
What alternatives are there to RNA?
"For a typical protein, the discovery time in one liter of water would
be on the order of 10,000 years ([1], [2]), which is over 100,000 times longer than most protein half-lives. The situation is even worse for RNA since it has a much shorter half-life."
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/nphys3149
[2] https://www.pnas.org/doi/epdf/10.1073/pnas.90.9.3835
On 7/17/2025 11:25 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 18/07/2025 12:48 am, RonO wrote:
On 7/17/2025 12:44 AM, MarkE wrote:
-aFrom this recent EN article: https://evolutionnews.org/2025/07/new- >>>> article-from-james-tour-undermines-a-pillar-of-origin-of-life-theories/ >>>>It is only an example of the continuation of Biblical creationist's
'In comparison to a proteinrCOs half-life, the rate of polypeptide
chain elongation under prebiotic conditions is very long. Yang et
al. (2025) identify numerous barriers to sustained polypeptide
growth, including the formation of non-peptide linkages and cyclic
structures, stringent environmental requirements, and unfavorable
thermodynamics. Their analysis establishes that the rate of growth
must be far smaller than one added amino acid per chain per day."
"Even assuming one addition each day, synthesizing a protein of 200
amino acids would require over six months. However, the growing
chain would almost certainly degrade in a much shorter time span.
The challenge is even greater for RNA, which has a significantly
shorter half-life and encounters additional chemical and structural
hurdles during formation."
Paper here: https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010
No doubt this paper will be critiqued and disputed, but it is I
think an example of the ongoing scrutiny and developing fundamental
challenges to OoL. My prediction is these will continue to emerge,
weakening materialistic abiogenesis and strengthening ID's core claim. >>>>
denial of the fact that nature is not Biblical.
Tour really doesn't care if some god was responsible for making these
initial polymers (if they ever needed to exist because no one knows
what the first molecular self replicators were).-a That god is not the
god described in the Bible.-a Like you, he only wants to deny reality.
Has anyone proposed that the origin of life depends on condensation
polymerization in solution?
Yes. You know...primordial soup, warm little pond, early ocean,
hydrothermal vents, etc?
You should read the Yang et al., 2025 review article that the ID perps
cite in the scam article that you link to.
They go over the alternatives that are not subject to the slow polymerization.-a So the ID perp knew about the alternatives before they wrote the bogus article, and only cite Yang et al. 2025 for the expected time of polymerization in solution when Yang extensively reviews the
mineral catalyst option and notes the experimental sucesses. Essentially they were quote mining, and Yang obviously was talking about the options where the reaction is facilitated.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00239-025-10237-9
Really, they cite an article noting that the time limit doesn't exist because there are catalytic options.
RNA likely wasn't what the first self
replicators were made of.-a The RNA world would have come after there
were simple molecular self replicators.-a Everything that I recall has
been looking for catalytic surfaces that could be mineral or part
mineral to make macromolecules.-a I do not think that anyone ever
wanted to depend on amino acids or nucleotides combining in solution.
Yes, the reaction will spontaneously occur, but no one was depending
on it to happen to form long polymers.-a If the long polymers were
self replicators they would have the catalytic ability to make more
long polymers.-a They would not be subject to the Tour's time limit,
and if the first ploymers were formed by the catalytic activity of
clay or other mineral surfaces they would not be subject to Tour's
time limit.
Google definition of catalysis:
Catalysis is the process of increasing the rate of a chemical
reaction by adding a substance called a catalyst, which itself is not
consumed in the reaction. Catalysts work by providing an alternative
reaction pathway with a lower activation energy, making it easier for
the reaction to proceed. Catalysis is crucial in many industrial
processes, as well as in biological systems like the human body.
Tour knows that there never was any ID creation science, and he knows
that what he is doing is not support for his religious beliefs.-a It
is only denial for the sake of denial.
You do owe, at least, me the explanation that I requested after
answering all your denial posts.
I do appreciate your consistent engagement, and would like to be as
upfront as I can, so here you are:
REPOST:
MarkE, you likely owe everyone a straight forward statement on how
you intend to integrate the god that would have been responsible for
setting chirality into the initial lifeforms over 3 billion years ago
into your Biblical beliefs.-a Such a god would not be the god
described in the Bible, so what good would filling that gap with a
god do for you?-a Gap denial was all that the ID perps ever had, and
the only thing that creationists like Tour can continue with.-a Isn't
it senseless to keep doing that at this time?-a Tour even admits that
he has known that ID has always been a scam, and that he doesn't know
how to do any ID science, so there obviously had never been any ID
science to sell to creationist rubes.
Most of the other IDiots quit supporting the gap denial because they
had their faces rubbed in the fact that the god that filled the Top
Six gaps is not the Biblical god that they want to worship.-a Bill
would rather lie about never supporting the creationist ID scam
rather than deal with the Top Six in a straight forward and honest
manner. Bill is the IDiot that once claimed that he knew some real ID
scientists, that had the real ID science, but he wouldn't tell us who
they were, nor what ID science they had.-a Kalk quit supporting the ID
scam, admitted that he wasn't hindu and claimed that he was going to
concentrate on other aspects of his religious beliefs.-a Pagano just
quit posting.-a The Top Six did not support his geocentric Biblical
universe, and Pagano even claimed that the ID perps were wrong about
the best evidence supporting the ID creationist scam before he quit
posting.
I have been straight up with all my answers in this issue, so you
should come clean and state just what you intend to accomplish with
your continued efforts with god-of-the-gaps denial when the god that
fills those gaps is not the god described in the Bible.
END REPOST:
Ron Okimoto
If the number of phenomena that are not satisfactorily explained by
natural process is steadily diminishing over time, then appeal to
these as evidence for a creator could rightly be called an appeal to
the god- of-the-gaps. My contention, which I've stated here on several
occasions, e.g. https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/
Q0H4U47iYgk/ m/2fprGczIBwAJ is that evidence and reasoning such as the
cited Tour paper support the thesis of a God-of-the-growing-gulfs.
God of the gaps is just god of the gaps, and it has a 100% failure rate
upon filling those gaps.-a The gaps are diminishing and you know it.-a How many god did it claims have already been debunked?-a They can't be
verified directly, and they have to be nullified by figuring out what is really happening.
The Hebrew cosmology was adopted from cosmologies that were circulating among their neighbors who had been civilized for a longer period of
time.-a God was supposed to have created a flat earth with a firmament
above that held the heavenly bodies.-a This god was claimed to open the firmament to let the rain fall through, but we have since figured out
the water cycle.-a The earth created by this god is not flat, but roughly spherical in shape.-a There is no firmament.-a Kepler was about the last
one messing with the option with his crystal spheres before he figured
out eliptical orbits.-a This god did not create a geocentric universe
just a few thousand years ago, but the known universe is the result of
the Big Bang over 13 billion years ago.-a The sun and moon were not
created on the fourth day or period of time (the day after land plants
were created).-a The sun and moon were the result of the creation of our solar system out of dead star material that it had taken over 8 billion years of stellar deaths to create the elements that our solar system was made of.-a The earth formed around 4.5 billion years ago.-a Land plants
were created long after sea creatures were created instead of the
Biblical order.-a Not only that, but the crop plants mentioned in the
Bible, as being the first life created on the planet, were not created
until after dinos were walking around.-a Humans were not created just a
few thousand years ago, but their lineage has a long and extensive pedigree.-a The first terrestrial vertebrates evolved over 350 million
years ago.
Just the gaps covered by the Biblical 7 day creation resulted in gap reduction.-a The Greeks were estimating the circumference of the earth by physical measurements a couple of centuries before Christ was born.-a The Bible was already known to be wrong about the creation before the start
of Christianity.
The god-of-the-gaps stupidity has been bogus since before Christ was
born.-a God-did-it claims have a 100% failure rate upon verification of
what is really the case.
The fact remains that the god that fills the origin of life gap is not
the Biblical god.-a The Biblical claims about the creation of life have already been falsified.
It doesn't matter if you claim that the gap is getting wider when that obviously has never been the case.-a Just recall how you had to run from
the realization that what had already been discovered about what is
around the gap just made the Biblical claims less believable.
Other examples include:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03461-4
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11084-014-9379-0
https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-7-23
Etc etc.
None of these deal with how you have to be in denial of the god that
fills the gap.-a It would not be the god described in the Bible.-a Ray called the god of this universe a false god.-a The god responsible for billions of years of the evolution of life on earth is not the god
described in the Bible.-a The god that is responsible for the origin of
life on earth is the god that played with microorganisms for over 2
billion years before evolving the first multicellular sea creatures and plants.-a The estimate is that our bilateral multicellular ancestors
evolved around 575 million years ago.-a This is around 3 billion years
after the initial evidence of microbial life on earth.-a You claim that
the origin of life gap is getting wider, but you know that interms of
your Biblical beliefs the gap had been narrowed to excluding the
Biblical god over a century ago.-a No amount of perceived subsequent widening will ever change what you should have been able to determine
long ago.
Two things I should make clear:
1. In this context, I'm not attempting to fit this into any particular
biblical interpretation. My purpose here is to explore the scientific
support for a God-of-the-growing-gulfs hypothesis. The identity and
action of that God is a separate topic altogether (though one I'm
happy to discuss).
You are lying to yourself in order to maintain the denial.-a Denial is
all you have to support your Biblical beliefs.-a Your purpose, that you
are obviously lying about, is to maintain enough denial so that you can continue to lie to yourself about how your Biblical beliefs do not match
up with reality.
The identity of the god has probably never been a separate topic for any creationist that has supported the dishonest ID creationist scam.-a After the Bait and switch started to go down there were no honest, competent
and informed creationist IDiots in existence.-a They were all involved to support their Biblical beliefs, and were only supporting the denial, or
they were too stupid and ignorant to understand what they were doing.
This is the reality that you live in.-a Just ask Kalk and see if he can
be honest about why he was an IDiot for so long.-a Once Kalk understood
that he had never wanted any ID science to be accomplished he quit being
an IDiot, and claimed that he was going to put his efforts into other aspects of his religious beliefs.
You don't want to fill the origin of life gap with any god because it
would not be the Biblical god.-a You already understand that, but can't
give up on the denial.-a Denial will never support your religious beliefs.
2. Though I refer to ID and EN, I don't fully endorse either, though
am at least partially in agreement (e.g. Casey Luskin's recent
articles on junk DNA may be overreaching, and EN has a right-wing
stance that I don't support).
The ID scam is just a scam.-a You are into the scam, and not interested
in accomplishing any science.-a Just lying about your motivation for indulging in the denial should be a wake up call for you.-a The ID perps have claimed the same thing about ID, but you know that they are lying.
They have pretty much all admitted to be Biblical creationists.-a YEC ID perps like Nelson have never been interested in accomplishing any valid
ID science because it would just be more science for YEC to deny. Nelson
is the ID perp who admitted that there wasn't any ID science before
their loss in Dover.-a He would not have joined up to support the Wedge
if the other ID perps had really had any valid ID science.-a What would a YEC like Nelson do if Meyer was ever able to demonstrate that some god diddle farted around with multicellular animals multiple times during a
25 million year period over half a billion years ago?-a The majority of support for the ID scam still comes from YEC.-a The ID perps never wanted
to accomplish any valid ID science because they would have lost their
major religious support base.-a Even old earth IDiots like Reason to
Believe have given up on supporting the ID scam because the ID science
would not support their literal old earth Biblical creation model.
Lying to yourself about why you are doing what you are doing should end.
-aYou need to face what your denial means for your religious beliefs.
The origin of life denial can never support your religious beliefs.
Because no matter how the origin of life occurred on this planet it
would mean that the Bible is wrong about the creation.-a Denying
something when it only means that you can't believe everything in the
Bible is a stupid way to lie to yourself about reality.-a At some point a sane person has to agree with Saint Augustine in his advice over a
thousand years ago.-a You can't use the Bible to deny things that you can figure out for yourself about nature.-a Augustine knew that some literal interpretations of the Bible could not be supported by what nature
actually was.-a You know that he is correct because the earth is not
flat, we do not live in a geocentric universe, there is no firmament
above the earth that needs to be opened to let the rain fall through,
and life has existed and evolved on this planet for billions of years.
The 6 day creation described in the Bible is wrong.-a It never happened
that way.-a There is nothing that you can do about that.-a Continuing gap denial will never change the fact that the Bible is just wrong.-a The
Bible has been known to be wrong about some aspects of nature before
Christ was born, and the list just kept growing as we come to understand more and more about what nature actually is.
You need to accept reality, and deal with the fact that the Bible cannot
be used as a science textbook.-a It is a religious text and you should
start using it as such.
Ron Okimoto
On 19/07/2025 12:45 am, RonO wrote:
On 7/17/2025 11:25 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 18/07/2025 12:48 am, RonO wrote:
On 7/17/2025 12:44 AM, MarkE wrote:
-aFrom this recent EN article: https://evolutionnews.org/2025/07/It is only an example of the continuation of Biblical creationist's
new- article-from-james-tour-undermines-a-pillar-of-origin-of-life- >>>>> theories/
'In comparison to a proteinrCOs half-life, the rate of polypeptide
chain elongation under prebiotic conditions is very long. Yang et
al. (2025) identify numerous barriers to sustained polypeptide
growth, including the formation of non-peptide linkages and cyclic
structures, stringent environmental requirements, and unfavorable
thermodynamics. Their analysis establishes that the rate of growth
must be far smaller than one added amino acid per chain per day."
"Even assuming one addition each day, synthesizing a protein of 200 >>>>> amino acids would require over six months. However, the growing
chain would almost certainly degrade in a much shorter time span.
The challenge is even greater for RNA, which has a significantly
shorter half-life and encounters additional chemical and structural >>>>> hurdles during formation."
Paper here: https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010
No doubt this paper will be critiqued and disputed, but it is I
think an example of the ongoing scrutiny and developing fundamental >>>>> challenges to OoL. My prediction is these will continue to emerge,
weakening materialistic abiogenesis and strengthening ID's core claim. >>>>>
denial of the fact that nature is not Biblical.
Tour really doesn't care if some god was responsible for making
these initial polymers (if they ever needed to exist because no one
knows what the first molecular self replicators were).-a That god is
not the god described in the Bible.-a Like you, he only wants to deny >>>> reality.
Has anyone proposed that the origin of life depends on condensation
polymerization in solution?
Yes. You know...primordial soup, warm little pond, early ocean,
hydrothermal vents, etc?
You should read the Yang et al., 2025 review article that the ID perps
cite in the scam article that you link to.
They go over the alternatives that are not subject to the slow
polymerization.-a So the ID perp knew about the alternatives before
they wrote the bogus article, and only cite Yang et al. 2025 for the
expected time of polymerization in solution when Yang extensively
reviews the mineral catalyst option and notes the experimental
sucesses. Essentially they were quote mining, and Yang obviously was
talking about the options where the reaction is facilitated.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00239-025-10237-9
Really, they cite an article noting that the time limit doesn't exist
because there are catalytic options.
RNA likely wasn't what the first self
replicators were made of.-a The RNA world would have come after there >>>> were simple molecular self replicators.-a Everything that I recall
has been looking for catalytic surfaces that could be mineral or
part mineral to make macromolecules.-a I do not think that anyone
ever wanted to depend on amino acids or nucleotides combining in
solution. Yes, the reaction will spontaneously occur, but no one was
depending on it to happen to form long polymers.-a If the long
polymers were self replicators they would have the catalytic ability
to make more long polymers.-a They would not be subject to the Tour's >>>> time limit, and if the first ploymers were formed by the catalytic
activity of clay or other mineral surfaces they would not be subject
to Tour's time limit.
Google definition of catalysis:
Catalysis is the process of increasing the rate of a chemical
reaction by adding a substance called a catalyst, which itself is
not consumed in the reaction. Catalysts work by providing an
alternative reaction pathway with a lower activation energy, making
it easier for the reaction to proceed. Catalysis is crucial in many
industrial processes, as well as in biological systems like the
human body.
Tour knows that there never was any ID creation science, and he
knows that what he is doing is not support for his religious
beliefs.-a It is only denial for the sake of denial.
You do owe, at least, me the explanation that I requested after
answering all your denial posts.
I do appreciate your consistent engagement, and would like to be as
upfront as I can, so here you are:
REPOST:
MarkE, you likely owe everyone a straight forward statement on how
you intend to integrate the god that would have been responsible for
setting chirality into the initial lifeforms over 3 billion years
ago into your Biblical beliefs.-a Such a god would not be the god
described in the Bible, so what good would filling that gap with a
god do for you?-a Gap denial was all that the ID perps ever had, and
the only thing that creationists like Tour can continue with.-a Isn't >>>> it senseless to keep doing that at this time?-a Tour even admits that >>>> he has known that ID has always been a scam, and that he doesn't
know how to do any ID science, so there obviously had never been any
ID science to sell to creationist rubes.
Most of the other IDiots quit supporting the gap denial because they
had their faces rubbed in the fact that the god that filled the Top
Six gaps is not the Biblical god that they want to worship.-a Bill
would rather lie about never supporting the creationist ID scam
rather than deal with the Top Six in a straight forward and honest
manner. Bill is the IDiot that once claimed that he knew some real
ID scientists, that had the real ID science, but he wouldn't tell us
who they were, nor what ID science they had.-a Kalk quit supporting
the ID scam, admitted that he wasn't hindu and claimed that he was
going to concentrate on other aspects of his religious beliefs.
Pagano just quit posting.-a The Top Six did not support his
geocentric Biblical universe, and Pagano even claimed that the ID
perps were wrong about the best evidence supporting the ID
creationist scam before he quit posting.
I have been straight up with all my answers in this issue, so you
should come clean and state just what you intend to accomplish with
your continued efforts with god-of-the-gaps denial when the god that
fills those gaps is not the god described in the Bible.
END REPOST:
Ron Okimoto
If the number of phenomena that are not satisfactorily explained by
natural process is steadily diminishing over time, then appeal to
these as evidence for a creator could rightly be called an appeal to
the god- of-the-gaps. My contention, which I've stated here on
several occasions, e.g. https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/
Q0H4U47iYgk/ m/2fprGczIBwAJ is that evidence and reasoning such as
the cited Tour paper support the thesis of a God-of-the-growing-gulfs.
God of the gaps is just god of the gaps, and it has a 100% failure
rate upon filling those gaps.-a The gaps are diminishing and you know
it.-a How many god did it claims have already been debunked?-a They
can't be verified directly, and they have to be nullified by figuring
out what is really happening.
The Hebrew cosmology was adopted from cosmologies that were
circulating among their neighbors who had been civilized for a longer
period of time.-a God was supposed to have created a flat earth with a
firmament above that held the heavenly bodies.-a This god was claimed
to open the firmament to let the rain fall through, but we have since
figured out the water cycle.-a The earth created by this god is not
flat, but roughly spherical in shape.-a There is no firmament.-a Kepler
was about the last one messing with the option with his crystal
spheres before he figured out eliptical orbits.-a This god did not
create a geocentric universe just a few thousand years ago, but the
known universe is the result of the Big Bang over 13 billion years
ago.-a The sun and moon were not created on the fourth day or period of
time (the day after land plants were created).-a The sun and moon were
the result of the creation of our solar system out of dead star
material that it had taken over 8 billion years of stellar deaths to
create the elements that our solar system was made of.-a The earth
formed around 4.5 billion years ago.-a Land plants were created long
after sea creatures were created instead of the Biblical order.-a Not
only that, but the crop plants mentioned in the Bible, as being the
first life created on the planet, were not created until after dinos
were walking around.-a Humans were not created just a few thousand
years ago, but their lineage has a long and extensive pedigree.-a The
first terrestrial vertebrates evolved over 350 million years ago.
Just the gaps covered by the Biblical 7 day creation resulted in gap
reduction.-a The Greeks were estimating the circumference of the earth
by physical measurements a couple of centuries before Christ was
born.-a The Bible was already known to be wrong about the creation
before the start of Christianity.
The god-of-the-gaps stupidity has been bogus since before Christ was
born.-a God-did-it claims have a 100% failure rate upon verification of
what is really the case.
The fact remains that the god that fills the origin of life gap is not
the Biblical god.-a The Biblical claims about the creation of life have
already been falsified.
It doesn't matter if you claim that the gap is getting wider when that
obviously has never been the case.-a Just recall how you had to run
from the realization that what had already been discovered about what
is around the gap just made the Biblical claims less believable.
Other examples include:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03461-4
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11084-014-9379-0
https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-7-23
Etc etc.
None of these deal with how you have to be in denial of the god that
fills the gap.-a It would not be the god described in the Bible.-a Ray
called the god of this universe a false god.-a The god responsible for
billions of years of the evolution of life on earth is not the god
described in the Bible.-a The god that is responsible for the origin of
life on earth is the god that played with microorganisms for over 2
billion years before evolving the first multicellular sea creatures
and plants.-a The estimate is that our bilateral multicellular
ancestors evolved around 575 million years ago.-a This is around 3
billion years after the initial evidence of microbial life on earth.
You claim that the origin of life gap is getting wider, but you know
that interms of your Biblical beliefs the gap had been narrowed to
excluding the Biblical god over a century ago.-a No amount of perceived
subsequent widening will ever change what you should have been able to
determine long ago.
Two things I should make clear:
1. In this context, I'm not attempting to fit this into any
particular biblical interpretation. My purpose here is to explore the
scientific support for a God-of-the-growing-gulfs hypothesis. The
identity and action of that God is a separate topic altogether
(though one I'm happy to discuss).
You are lying to yourself in order to maintain the denial.-a Denial is
all you have to support your Biblical beliefs.-a Your purpose, that you
are obviously lying about, is to maintain enough denial so that you
can continue to lie to yourself about how your Biblical beliefs do not
match up with reality.
The identity of the god has probably never been a separate topic for
any creationist that has supported the dishonest ID creationist scam.
After the Bait and switch started to go down there were no honest,
competent and informed creationist IDiots in existence.-a They were all
involved to support their Biblical beliefs, and were only supporting
the denial, or they were too stupid and ignorant to understand what
they were doing.
This is the reality that you live in.-a Just ask Kalk and see if he can
be honest about why he was an IDiot for so long.-a Once Kalk understood
that he had never wanted any ID science to be accomplished he quit
being an IDiot, and claimed that he was going to put his efforts into
other aspects of his religious beliefs.
You don't want to fill the origin of life gap with any god because it
would not be the Biblical god.-a You already understand that, but can't
give up on the denial.-a Denial will never support your religious beliefs. >>
2. Though I refer to ID and EN, I don't fully endorse either, though
am at least partially in agreement (e.g. Casey Luskin's recent
articles on junk DNA may be overreaching, and EN has a right-wing
stance that I don't support).
The ID scam is just a scam.-a You are into the scam, and not interested
in accomplishing any science.-a Just lying about your motivation for
indulging in the denial should be a wake up call for you.-a The ID
perps have claimed the same thing about ID, but you know that they are
lying. They have pretty much all admitted to be Biblical
creationists.-a YEC ID perps like Nelson have never been interested in
accomplishing any valid ID science because it would just be more
science for YEC to deny. Nelson is the ID perp who admitted that there
wasn't any ID science before their loss in Dover.-a He would not have
joined up to support the Wedge if the other ID perps had really had
any valid ID science.-a What would a YEC like Nelson do if Meyer was
ever able to demonstrate that some god diddle farted around with
multicellular animals multiple times during a 25 million year period
over half a billion years ago?-a The majority of support for the ID
scam still comes from YEC.-a The ID perps never wanted to accomplish
any valid ID science because they would have lost their major
religious support base.-a Even old earth IDiots like Reason to Believe
have given up on supporting the ID scam because the ID science would
not support their literal old earth Biblical creation model.
Lying to yourself about why you are doing what you are doing should
end. -a-aYou need to face what your denial means for your religious
beliefs. The origin of life denial can never support your religious
beliefs. Because no matter how the origin of life occurred on this
planet it would mean that the Bible is wrong about the creation.
Denying something when it only means that you can't believe everything
in the Bible is a stupid way to lie to yourself about reality.-a At
some point a sane person has to agree with Saint Augustine in his
advice over a thousand years ago.-a You can't use the Bible to deny
things that you can figure out for yourself about nature.-a Augustine
knew that some literal interpretations of the Bible could not be
supported by what nature actually was.-a You know that he is correct
because the earth is not flat, we do not live in a geocentric
universe, there is no firmament above the earth that needs to be
opened to let the rain fall through, and life has existed and evolved
on this planet for billions of years. The 6 day creation described in
the Bible is wrong.-a It never happened that way.-a There is nothing
that you can do about that.-a Continuing gap denial will never change
the fact that the Bible is just wrong.-a The Bible has been known to be
wrong about some aspects of nature before Christ was born, and the
list just kept growing as we come to understand more and more about
what nature actually is.
You need to accept reality, and deal with the fact that the Bible
cannot be used as a science textbook.-a It is a religious text and you
should start using it as such.
Ron Okimoto
Ron, you accuse Tour, myself and ID proponents generally of denial,
lying and propagating a scam. That narrative is a convenient cop-out for you. It's also tiresome, false, and ironically, idiotic.
It seems even the possibility that God created in an overtly
supernatural way, one that cannot be harmonised with naturalism,
triggers in you a deep fear or insecurity.
Sure, disagree strenuously with interpretation of the science, but the diatribes are only shooting yourself in the foot.
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 12:46:47 -0700, Kalkidas <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
On 7/17/2025 11:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 15:44:28 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
From this recent EN article:
https://evolutionnews.org/2025/07/new-article-from-james-tour-undermines-a-pillar-of-origin-of-life-theories/
'In comparison to a proteinrCOs half-life, the rate of polypeptide chain >>>> elongation under prebiotic conditions is very long. Yang et al. (2025) >>>> identify numerous barriers to sustained polypeptide growth, including
the formation of non-peptide linkages and cyclic structures, stringent >>>> environmental requirements, and unfavorable thermodynamics. Their
analysis establishes that the rate of growth must be far smaller than
one added amino acid per chain per day."
"Even assuming one addition each day, synthesizing a protein of 200
amino acids would require over six months. However, the growing chain
would almost certainly degrade in a much shorter time span. The
challenge is even greater for RNA, which has a significantly shorter
half-life and encounters additional chemical and structural hurdles
during formation."
Paper here: https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010
No doubt this paper will be critiqued and disputed, but it is I think an >>>> example of the ongoing scrutiny and developing fundamental challenges to >>>> OoL. My prediction is these will continue to emerge, weakening
materialistic abiogenesis and strengthening ID's core claim.
You have clearly still not grasped the principle that you cannot
insist that *must have been* the butler who killed her ladyship simply
because you have shown it is very unlikely that his lordship did it.
Nature simultaneously destroys what it (allegedly) creates. And it
destroys it faster than it (allegedly) creates it.
If true then that means that the Intelligent Designer gets it wrong
more often than he gets it right.
On 7/17/2025 3:53 AM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
On 2025-07-17 08:56:37 +0000, Kerr-Mudd, John said:The evolutionnews.org article merely summarizes a peer-reviewed
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 15:44:28 +1000 MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
From this recent EN article:ID has no science; it doesn't explain anything. It's classic God of
https://evolutionnews.org/2025/07/new-article-from-james-tour-
undermines-a-pillar-of-origin-of-life-theories/
'In comparison to a protein|ore4raos half-life, the rate of polypeptide >>>> chain elongation under prebiotic conditions is very long. Yang et al.
(2025) identify numerous barriers to sustained polypeptide growth,
including the formation of non-peptide linkages and cyclic
structures, stringent environmental requirements, and unfavorable
thermodynamics. Their analysis establishes that the rate of growth
must be far smaller than one added amino acid per chain per day."
"Even assuming one addition each day, synthesizing a protein of 200
amino acids would require over six months. However, the growing chain
would almost certainly degrade in a much shorter time span. The
challenge is even greater for RNA, which has a significantly shorter
half-life and encounters additional chemical and structural hurdles
during formation."
Paper here: https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010
No doubt this paper will be critiqued and disputed, but it is I think
an example of the ongoing scrutiny and developing fundamental
challenges to OoL. My prediction is these will continue to emerge,
weakening materialistic abiogenesis and strengthening ID's core
claim.
the Gaps.-a But you've been told before. PS get a better news source.
And people interested in serious science don't look for it in Evolution
News.
scientific paper, for which the link is given.
On 7/17/2025 11:37 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 12:46:47 -0700, Kalkidas <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
On 7/17/2025 11:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 15:44:28 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
From this recent EN article:
https://evolutionnews.org/2025/07/new-article-from-james-tour-undermines-a-pillar-of-origin-of-life-theories/
'In comparison to a proteinrCOs half-life, the rate of polypeptide chain >>>>> elongation under prebiotic conditions is very long. Yang et al. (2025) >>>>> identify numerous barriers to sustained polypeptide growth, including >>>>> the formation of non-peptide linkages and cyclic structures, stringent >>>>> environmental requirements, and unfavorable thermodynamics. Their
analysis establishes that the rate of growth must be far smaller than >>>>> one added amino acid per chain per day."
"Even assuming one addition each day, synthesizing a protein of 200
amino acids would require over six months. However, the growing chain >>>>> would almost certainly degrade in a much shorter time span. The
challenge is even greater for RNA, which has a significantly shorter >>>>> half-life and encounters additional chemical and structural hurdles
during formation."
Paper here: https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010
No doubt this paper will be critiqued and disputed, but it is I think an >>>>> example of the ongoing scrutiny and developing fundamental challenges to >>>>> OoL. My prediction is these will continue to emerge, weakening
materialistic abiogenesis and strengthening ID's core claim.
You have clearly still not grasped the principle that you cannot
insist that *must have been* the butler who killed her ladyship simply >>>> because you have shown it is very unlikely that his lordship did it.
Nature simultaneously destroys what it (allegedly) creates. And it
destroys it faster than it (allegedly) creates it.
If true then that means that the Intelligent Designer gets it wrong
more often than he gets it right.
What's "wrong" about it?
Do you think this universe was created to be
some kind of amusement park?
On Sat, 19 Jul 2025 11:38:07 -0700, Kalkidas <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
On 7/17/2025 11:37 PM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 12:46:47 -0700, Kalkidas <eat@joes.pub> wrote:
On 7/17/2025 11:23 AM, Martin Harran wrote:
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 15:44:28 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>
From this recent EN article:
https://evolutionnews.org/2025/07/new-article-from-james-tour-undermines-a-pillar-of-origin-of-life-theories/
'In comparison to a proteinrCOs half-life, the rate of polypeptide chain >>>>>> elongation under prebiotic conditions is very long. Yang et al. (2025) >>>>>> identify numerous barriers to sustained polypeptide growth, including >>>>>> the formation of non-peptide linkages and cyclic structures, stringent >>>>>> environmental requirements, and unfavorable thermodynamics. Their
analysis establishes that the rate of growth must be far smaller than >>>>>> one added amino acid per chain per day."
"Even assuming one addition each day, synthesizing a protein of 200 >>>>>> amino acids would require over six months. However, the growing chain >>>>>> would almost certainly degrade in a much shorter time span. The
challenge is even greater for RNA, which has a significantly shorter >>>>>> half-life and encounters additional chemical and structural hurdles >>>>>> during formation."
Paper here: https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010 >>>>>>
No doubt this paper will be critiqued and disputed, but it is I think an >>>>>> example of the ongoing scrutiny and developing fundamental challenges to >>>>>> OoL. My prediction is these will continue to emerge, weakening
materialistic abiogenesis and strengthening ID's core claim.
You have clearly still not grasped the principle that you cannot
insist that *must have been* the butler who killed her ladyship simply >>>>> because you have shown it is very unlikely that his lordship did it. >>>>>
Nature simultaneously destroys what it (allegedly) creates. And it
destroys it faster than it (allegedly) creates it.
If true then that means that the Intelligent Designer gets it wrong
more often than he gets it right.
What's "wrong" about it?
Most of his designs didn't stand up to nature (according to you).
Do you think this universe was created to be
some kind of amusement park?
No, why would you think that?
On 7/19/2025 7:04 AM, MarkE wrote:
On 19/07/2025 12:45 am, RonO wrote:
On 7/17/2025 11:25 PM, MarkE wrote:
On 18/07/2025 12:48 am, RonO wrote:
On 7/17/2025 12:44 AM, MarkE wrote:
-aFrom this recent EN article: https://evolutionnews.org/2025/07/ >>>>>> new- article-from-james-tour-undermines-a-pillar-of-origin-of-It is only an example of the continuation of Biblical creationist's >>>>> denial of the fact that nature is not Biblical.
life- theories/
'In comparison to a proteinrCOs half-life, the rate of polypeptide >>>>>> chain elongation under prebiotic conditions is very long. Yang et >>>>>> al. (2025) identify numerous barriers to sustained polypeptide
growth, including the formation of non-peptide linkages and cyclic >>>>>> structures, stringent environmental requirements, and unfavorable >>>>>> thermodynamics. Their analysis establishes that the rate of growth >>>>>> must be far smaller than one added amino acid per chain per day."
"Even assuming one addition each day, synthesizing a protein of
200 amino acids would require over six months. However, the
growing chain would almost certainly degrade in a much shorter
time span. The challenge is even greater for RNA, which has a
significantly shorter half-life and encounters additional chemical >>>>>> and structural hurdles during formation."
Paper here: https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010 >>>>>>
No doubt this paper will be critiqued and disputed, but it is I
think an example of the ongoing scrutiny and developing
fundamental challenges to OoL. My prediction is these will
continue to emerge, weakening materialistic abiogenesis and
strengthening ID's core claim.
Tour really doesn't care if some god was responsible for making
these initial polymers (if they ever needed to exist because no one >>>>> knows what the first molecular self replicators were).-a That god is >>>>> not the god described in the Bible.-a Like you, he only wants to
deny reality.
Has anyone proposed that the origin of life depends on condensation >>>>> polymerization in solution?
Yes. You know...primordial soup, warm little pond, early ocean,
hydrothermal vents, etc?
You should read the Yang et al., 2025 review article that the ID
perps cite in the scam article that you link to.
They go over the alternatives that are not subject to the slow
polymerization.-a So the ID perp knew about the alternatives before
they wrote the bogus article, and only cite Yang et al. 2025 for the
expected time of polymerization in solution when Yang extensively
reviews the mineral catalyst option and notes the experimental
sucesses. Essentially they were quote mining, and Yang obviously was
talking about the options where the reaction is facilitated.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00239-025-10237-9
Really, they cite an article noting that the time limit doesn't exist
because there are catalytic options.
RNA likely wasn't what the first self
replicators were made of.-a The RNA world would have come after
there were simple molecular self replicators.-a Everything that I
recall has been looking for catalytic surfaces that could be
mineral or part mineral to make macromolecules.-a I do not think
that anyone ever wanted to depend on amino acids or nucleotides
combining in solution. Yes, the reaction will spontaneously occur,
but no one was depending on it to happen to form long polymers.-a If >>>>> the long polymers were self replicators they would have the
catalytic ability to make more long polymers.-a They would not be
subject to the Tour's time limit, and if the first ploymers were
formed by the catalytic activity of clay or other mineral surfaces
they would not be subject to Tour's time limit.
Google definition of catalysis:
Catalysis is the process of increasing the rate of a chemical
reaction by adding a substance called a catalyst, which itself is
not consumed in the reaction. Catalysts work by providing an
alternative reaction pathway with a lower activation energy, making >>>>> it easier for the reaction to proceed. Catalysis is crucial in many >>>>> industrial processes, as well as in biological systems like the
human body.
Tour knows that there never was any ID creation science, and he
knows that what he is doing is not support for his religious
beliefs.-a It is only denial for the sake of denial.
You do owe, at least, me the explanation that I requested after
answering all your denial posts.
I do appreciate your consistent engagement, and would like to be as
upfront as I can, so here you are:
REPOST:
MarkE, you likely owe everyone a straight forward statement on how
you intend to integrate the god that would have been responsible
for setting chirality into the initial lifeforms over 3 billion
years ago into your Biblical beliefs.-a Such a god would not be the >>>>> god described in the Bible, so what good would filling that gap
with a god do for you?-a Gap denial was all that the ID perps ever
had, and the only thing that creationists like Tour can continue
with.-a Isn't it senseless to keep doing that at this time?-a Tour
even admits that he has known that ID has always been a scam, and
that he doesn't know how to do any ID science, so there obviously
had never been any ID science to sell to creationist rubes.
Most of the other IDiots quit supporting the gap denial because
they had their faces rubbed in the fact that the god that filled
the Top Six gaps is not the Biblical god that they want to
worship.-a Bill would rather lie about never supporting the
creationist ID scam rather than deal with the Top Six in a straight >>>>> forward and honest manner. Bill is the IDiot that once claimed that >>>>> he knew some real ID scientists, that had the real ID science, but
he wouldn't tell us who they were, nor what ID science they had.
Kalk quit supporting the ID scam, admitted that he wasn't hindu and >>>>> claimed that he was going to concentrate on other aspects of his
religious beliefs. Pagano just quit posting.-a The Top Six did not
support his geocentric Biblical universe, and Pagano even claimed
that the ID perps were wrong about the best evidence supporting the >>>>> ID creationist scam before he quit posting.
I have been straight up with all my answers in this issue, so you
should come clean and state just what you intend to accomplish with >>>>> your continued efforts with god-of-the-gaps denial when the god
that fills those gaps is not the god described in the Bible.
END REPOST:
Ron Okimoto
If the number of phenomena that are not satisfactorily explained by
natural process is steadily diminishing over time, then appeal to
these as evidence for a creator could rightly be called an appeal to
the god- of-the-gaps. My contention, which I've stated here on
several occasions, e.g. https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/
Q0H4U47iYgk/ m/2fprGczIBwAJ is that evidence and reasoning such as
the cited Tour paper support the thesis of a God-of-the-growing-gulfs.
God of the gaps is just god of the gaps, and it has a 100% failure
rate upon filling those gaps.-a The gaps are diminishing and you know
it.-a How many god did it claims have already been debunked?-a They
can't be verified directly, and they have to be nullified by figuring
out what is really happening.
The Hebrew cosmology was adopted from cosmologies that were
circulating among their neighbors who had been civilized for a longer
period of time.-a God was supposed to have created a flat earth with a
firmament above that held the heavenly bodies.-a This god was claimed
to open the firmament to let the rain fall through, but we have since
figured out the water cycle.-a The earth created by this god is not
flat, but roughly spherical in shape.-a There is no firmament.-a Kepler >>> was about the last one messing with the option with his crystal
spheres before he figured out eliptical orbits.-a This god did not
create a geocentric universe just a few thousand years ago, but the
known universe is the result of the Big Bang over 13 billion years
ago.-a The sun and moon were not created on the fourth day or period
of time (the day after land plants were created).-a The sun and moon
were the result of the creation of our solar system out of dead star
material that it had taken over 8 billion years of stellar deaths to
create the elements that our solar system was made of.-a The earth
formed around 4.5 billion years ago.-a Land plants were created long
after sea creatures were created instead of the Biblical order.-a Not
only that, but the crop plants mentioned in the Bible, as being the
first life created on the planet, were not created until after dinos
were walking around.-a Humans were not created just a few thousand
years ago, but their lineage has a long and extensive pedigree.-a The
first terrestrial vertebrates evolved over 350 million years ago.
Just the gaps covered by the Biblical 7 day creation resulted in gap
reduction.-a The Greeks were estimating the circumference of the earth
by physical measurements a couple of centuries before Christ was
born.-a The Bible was already known to be wrong about the creation
before the start of Christianity.
The god-of-the-gaps stupidity has been bogus since before Christ was
born.-a God-did-it claims have a 100% failure rate upon verification
of what is really the case.
The fact remains that the god that fills the origin of life gap is
not the Biblical god.-a The Biblical claims about the creation of life
have already been falsified.
It doesn't matter if you claim that the gap is getting wider when
that obviously has never been the case.-a Just recall how you had to
run from the realization that what had already been discovered about
what is around the gap just made the Biblical claims less believable.
Other examples include:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-03461-4
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11084-014-9379-0
https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1745-6150-7-23 >>>>
Etc etc.
None of these deal with how you have to be in denial of the god that
fills the gap.-a It would not be the god described in the Bible.-a Ray
called the god of this universe a false god.-a The god responsible for
billions of years of the evolution of life on earth is not the god
described in the Bible.-a The god that is responsible for the origin
of life on earth is the god that played with microorganisms for over
2 billion years before evolving the first multicellular sea creatures
and plants.-a The estimate is that our bilateral multicellular
ancestors evolved around 575 million years ago.-a This is around 3
billion years after the initial evidence of microbial life on earth.
You claim that the origin of life gap is getting wider, but you know
that interms of your Biblical beliefs the gap had been narrowed to
excluding the Biblical god over a century ago.-a No amount of
perceived subsequent widening will ever change what you should have
been able to determine long ago.
Two things I should make clear:
1. In this context, I'm not attempting to fit this into any
particular biblical interpretation. My purpose here is to explore
the scientific support for a God-of-the-growing-gulfs hypothesis.
The identity and action of that God is a separate topic altogether
(though one I'm happy to discuss).
You are lying to yourself in order to maintain the denial.-a Denial is
all you have to support your Biblical beliefs.-a Your purpose, that
you are obviously lying about, is to maintain enough denial so that
you can continue to lie to yourself about how your Biblical beliefs
do not match up with reality.
The identity of the god has probably never been a separate topic for
any creationist that has supported the dishonest ID creationist scam.
After the Bait and switch started to go down there were no honest,
competent and informed creationist IDiots in existence.-a They were
all involved to support their Biblical beliefs, and were only
supporting the denial, or they were too stupid and ignorant to
understand what they were doing.
This is the reality that you live in.-a Just ask Kalk and see if he
can be honest about why he was an IDiot for so long.-a Once Kalk
understood that he had never wanted any ID science to be accomplished
he quit being an IDiot, and claimed that he was going to put his
efforts into other aspects of his religious beliefs.
You don't want to fill the origin of life gap with any god because it
would not be the Biblical god.-a You already understand that, but
can't give up on the denial.-a Denial will never support your
religious beliefs.
2. Though I refer to ID and EN, I don't fully endorse either, though
am at least partially in agreement (e.g. Casey Luskin's recent
articles on junk DNA may be overreaching, and EN has a right-wing
stance that I don't support).
The ID scam is just a scam.-a You are into the scam, and not
interested in accomplishing any science.-a Just lying about your
motivation for indulging in the denial should be a wake up call for
you.-a The ID perps have claimed the same thing about ID, but you know
that they are lying. They have pretty much all admitted to be
Biblical creationists.-a YEC ID perps like Nelson have never been
interested in accomplishing any valid ID science because it would
just be more science for YEC to deny. Nelson is the ID perp who
admitted that there wasn't any ID science before their loss in
Dover.-a He would not have joined up to support the Wedge if the other
ID perps had really had any valid ID science.-a What would a YEC like
Nelson do if Meyer was ever able to demonstrate that some god diddle
farted around with multicellular animals multiple times during a 25
million year period over half a billion years ago?-a The majority of
support for the ID scam still comes from YEC.-a The ID perps never
wanted to accomplish any valid ID science because they would have
lost their major religious support base.-a Even old earth IDiots like
Reason to Believe have given up on supporting the ID scam because the
ID science would not support their literal old earth Biblical
creation model.
Lying to yourself about why you are doing what you are doing should
end. -a-aYou need to face what your denial means for your religious
beliefs. The origin of life denial can never support your religious
beliefs. Because no matter how the origin of life occurred on this
planet it would mean that the Bible is wrong about the creation.
Denying something when it only means that you can't believe
everything in the Bible is a stupid way to lie to yourself about
reality.-a At some point a sane person has to agree with Saint
Augustine in his advice over a thousand years ago.-a You can't use the
Bible to deny things that you can figure out for yourself about
nature.-a Augustine knew that some literal interpretations of the
Bible could not be supported by what nature actually was.-a You know
that he is correct because the earth is not flat, we do not live in a
geocentric universe, there is no firmament above the earth that needs
to be opened to let the rain fall through, and life has existed and
evolved on this planet for billions of years. The 6 day creation
described in the Bible is wrong.-a It never happened that way.-a There
is nothing that you can do about that.-a Continuing gap denial will
never change the fact that the Bible is just wrong.-a The Bible has
been known to be wrong about some aspects of nature before Christ was
born, and the list just kept growing as we come to understand more
and more about what nature actually is.
You need to accept reality, and deal with the fact that the Bible
cannot be used as a science textbook.-a It is a religious text and you
should start using it as such.
Ron Okimoto
Ron, you accuse Tour, myself and ID proponents generally of denial,
lying and propagating a scam. That narrative is a convenient cop-out
for you. It's also tiresome, false, and ironically, idiotic.
I do not accuse, I state it as an absolute fact.-a Once the bait and
switch started there were no honest, competent and informed IDiots in existence.-a Every creationist that understood the situation continued to
be IDiots for dishonest religious reasons.-a Like you they all understood that the ID science had never existed.-a IDiots like Tour even admitted
that ID had always been a scam, but he still supported the gap denial.
Why keep lying about the situation.-a The other TO IDiots quit when they
had their faces rubbed in the fact that there wasn't any ID science that they wanted to see accomplished.-a They had all supported the ID scam for the dishonest denial.-a It just allows creationists like you to lie to themselves about reality.-a You are demonstrating that right now.-a Look
at Bill.-a He had to retreat to pretty much total denial in his claims
that reality doesn't exist.-a He can't cope with the fact that nature is
not Biblical.
It seems even the possibility that God created in an overtly
supernatural way, one that cannot be harmonised with naturalism,
triggers in you a deep fear or insecurity.
You seem to be lying about me, when I do not care how God created everything.-a However it was done, is how it was done.-a Denying what you don't want to believe is just stupid when there is no reason for the denial.-a You already know that the Bible can't be used as a science textbook.-a You already know that God did not do what is described in the Bible.-a The description has to be metaphorical, but how distant from reality is the metaphor?-a Absolutely no one knows.-a Behe and Denton understand that you can't use the Bible as a science text book, but they just fall on their faces with stupid claims because they still need to believe that the denial is needed.-a Behe has to make bogus claims that
he has no intention of verifying about IC systems, and Denton minimizes
the denial by retreating to the Big Bang, and he doesn't care about
anything after that.-a None of them really want to know how it all
happened because it doesn't matter because what was written in the Bible
has already been falsified in terms of the creation.-a What happened is
not Biblical, and will never support their Biblical beliefs.-a They only
use the denial as the only means to keep believing that there is some rational support for their irrational beliefs.-a Honest creationists do
not need the denial.-a If you do not understand that your religious
beliefs are irrational, you are not competent enough to understand how dishonest what you are doing actually is.
Sure, disagree strenuously with interpretation of the science, but the
diatribes are only shooting yourself in the foot.
I disagree with the ID bait and switch scam that has been perpetrated
for decades and misrepresenting the science the way that the ID perps
have always done.
Why lie about someone else.-a What does it mean when you never explained
how you were going to fit your god into the gap that you were creating
with your continued denial?-a The god that fills your gap is not the god described in the Bible, so why run from explaining how bogus the denial actually is in terms of supporting your religious beliefs.-a Anyone that
can fill your gaps with their god does not need the denial because that
god is not Biblical and could have filled the gap in anyway imaginable (Denton just claims it all unfolded after his god created the initial conditions).-a Instead of the denial, all you really need to do is try to figure out how such a god did it.-a You can't do that by denial.-a The Supreme court was correct in admonishing creationist denial.-a Just
because we do not currently understand something about nature is not
support for your religious beliefs.-a Just think about the gaps that have already been filled and the religious beliefs that have had to be
abandoned in the face of reality, or maintained by dishonest denial.
Pagano was a geocentric anti-evolution old earth Biblical creationist IDiot.-a That should tell you how bogus IDiotic denial stupidity has
always been.
Ron Okimoto
On Thu, 17 Jul 2025 15:44:28 +1000, MarkE <me22over7@gmail.com> wrote:
From this recent EN article:
https://evolutionnews.org/2025/07/new-article-from-james-tour-undermines-a-pillar-of-origin-of-life-theories/
'In comparison to a proteinrCOs half-life, the rate of polypeptide chain
elongation under prebiotic conditions is very long. Yang et al. (2025)
identify numerous barriers to sustained polypeptide growth, including
the formation of non-peptide linkages and cyclic structures, stringent
environmental requirements, and unfavorable thermodynamics. Their
analysis establishes that the rate of growth must be far smaller than
one added amino acid per chain per day."
"Even assuming one addition each day, synthesizing a protein of 200
amino acids would require over six months. However, the growing chain
would almost certainly degrade in a much shorter time span. The
challenge is even greater for RNA, which has a significantly shorter
half-life and encounters additional chemical and structural hurdles
during formation."
Paper here: https://sciendo.com/article/10.2478/biocosmos-2025-0010
No doubt this paper will be critiqued and disputed, but it is I think an
example of the ongoing scrutiny and developing fundamental challenges to
OoL. My prediction is these will continue to emerge, weakening
materialistic abiogenesis and strengthening ID's core claim.
You have clearly still not grasped the principle that you cannot
insist that *must have been* the butler who killed her ladyship simply because you have shown it is very unlikely that his lordship did it.