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

a reply to: rom12345

Some interesting quotations from Dr. Lönnigs website about the “law of recurrent variation”:

All competent biologists acknowledge the limited nature of the variation breeders can produce, although they do not like to discuss it much when grinding the evolutionary ax.

William R. Fix

Needless to say, I did not succeed in producing a higher category in a single step; but it must be kept in mind that neither have the Neo-Darwinians ever built up as much as the semblance of a new species by recombination of micromutations. In such well-studied organisms as Drosophila, in which numerous visible and, incidentally, small invisible mutations have been recombined, never has even the first step in the direction of a new species been accomplished, not to mention higher categories.

Richard B. Goldschmidt

...

Mutations are merely hereditary fluctuations around a medium position…No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.

Pierre-Paul Grassé

(On evolutionary novelties by chance mutations: ) I have seen no evidence whatsoever that these changes can occur through the accumulation of gradual mutations.

Lynn Margulis

Mutations are a reality and while most of them are of no consequence or detrimental, one cannot deny that on occasion a beneficial mutation might occur [in relation to a certain environment, but usually not for a gene's function per se; Anmerkung von W.-E.L.; vgl. Diskussion]. However, to invoke strings of beneficial mutations that suffice to reshape one animal into the shape of another is not merely unreasonable, it is not science.

Christian Schwabe

Source: W.-E. Loennig: Gesetz der rekurrenten Variation

Most of the scientists quoted above are experienced in mutation research and/or evolutionary research. Some of them have had quite prestigious careers in those fields. For example, of Pierre-Paul Grassé, wikipedia says:

...was a French zoologist, author of over 300 publications...He occupied the Chair of Evolutionary Biology of the Faculty of Paris...

And of Lynn Margulis, it says:

...an American evolutionary theorist, biologist, science author, educator, and science popularizer, and was the primary modern proponent for the significance of symbiosis in evolution. Historian Jan Sapp has said that "Lynn Margulis's name is as synonymous with symbiosis as Charles Darwin's is with evolution." [whereislogic: they are referring to such things as what the Encyclopædia Britannica refers to as “The Endosymbiont Hypothesis”. Which I'll elaborate on further below.] ... In 2002, Discover magazine recognized Margulis as one of the 50 most important women in science.

Regarding the so-called “Endosymbiont Hypothesis”:

QUESTION 2: Is Any Form of Life Really Simple?

Your body is one of the most complex structures in the universe. It is made up of some 100 trillion tiny cells​—bone cells, blood cells, brain cells, to name a few.[7] In fact, there are more than 200 different types of cells in your body.[8]

Despite their amazing diversity in shape and function, your cells form an intricate, integrated network. The Internet, with its millions of computers and high-speed data cables, is clumsy in comparison. No human invention can compete with the technical brilliance evident in even the most basic of cells. How did the cells that make up the human body come into existence?

What do many scientists claim? All living cells fall into two major categories​—those with a nucleus and those without. Human, animal, and plant cells have a nucleus. Bacterial cells do not. Cells with a nucleus are called eukaryotic. Those without a nucleus are known as prokaryotic. Since prokaryotic cells are relatively less complex than eukaryotic cells, many believe that animal and plant cells must have evolved from bacterial cells.

In fact, many teach that for millions of years, some “simple” prokaryotic cells swallowed other cells but did not digest them. Instead, the theory goes, unintelligent “nature” figured out a way not only to make radical changes in the function of the ingested cells but also to keep the adapted cells inside of the “host” cell when it replicated.[9]*

*: No experimental evidence exists to show that such an event is [even] possible.

Let alone that it happened that way. Hence, the reason I added “even”, i.e. between brackets was mine.

The phrase “speculate neuroticly and endlessly” as used by the person in the video below, takes on a whole new dimension in light of the bolded reminder above (warning, not a particularly pleasant video, could use a bit more salt here and there instead of pepper):

The term "pathetic brains" later on in the video is also highly objectionable to me, quite misleading, distracting and uncalled for. Please ignore. He also somewhat messes up his quotation of 1 Tim 6:20.

Source 9 from before was: Encyclopædia Britannica, CD 2003, “Cell,” “The Mitochondrion and the Chloroplast,” subhead, “The Endosymbiont Hypothesis.”

a reply to: a325nt

Many Creationists also believe in the Big Bang, you don’t have to ascribe to a particular religion in order to see design within the universe. Personally modern physics actually solidified my belief in creation rather than debunking it.

Most of the science atheists base their argument upon was pioneered by deeply religious people.

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being. And if the fixed stars are the centres of other like systems, these, being formed by the like wise counsel, must be all subject to the dominion of One; especially since the light of the fixed stars is of the same nature with the light of the sun, and from every system light passes into all the other systems: and lest the systems of the fixed stars should, by their gravity, fall on each other mutually, he hath placed those systems at immense distances one from another.“ Sir Isaac Newton

a reply to: Grenade

It's interesting how none of these brilliant pioneers were able to provide actual substance in regard to supernatural or metaphysical studies. Newton derived his work on physics from the infamous apple tree but where is his dissertation on divine interference in earthly ecology? Where are his journals and research on the topic of god in physics and the hard evidence of supernatural agency?

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton
...
Please cite one textbook that says a dog turned into a cat or a monkey turned into a man. While you're at it, why don't you tell the truth about what evolutionary science really says: it says that life on this planet has a COMMON ANCESTOR.

Hmm, where have I heard that type of response before:

Gould ridicules believers in creation who argue that “God permits limited modification within created types, but that you can never change a cat into a dog.” He then asks: “Who ever said that you could, or that nature did?” Nevertheless, he believes in a much harder change. Cat to dog would at least be mammal to mammal, whereas Gould says “dinosaurs evolve into birds.”

Source: When a Fact Is Not a Fact (Awake!—1987)

And the claim described by you at the end there is even more vague and far-fetched. If investigated, one would find out that people who use that term "common ancestor" are usually thinking of some mysterious unspecified* unicellular prokaryotic bacteria (*: other than those kind of specifications). See my previous comment at the end about that, regarding "QUESTION 2: Is Any Form of Life Really Simple?" The notion "that life on this planet has a COMMON ANCESTOR" is just another unsupported assertion. In all fairness, fans and adherents of evolutionary philosophies (evolutionists) who rely on unsupported assertions effectively make the Darwinian theory their “God-of-the-gaps.”

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

You're the same fraud you've always been.

You don't seem to have progressed much from your standard programming and standard database of talking points, arguments and responses either. It wasn't a reasonable response in 1987 and neither has it improved an inch in that regards over the last 3 decades. It still works as a red herring though regarding the point about so-called "macroevolution" not having been proven nor supported by the evidence, the facts or our observations.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I guess you can simplify it down to the question of what sparked all space and time into existence from a point of infinite density.

Can physics answer that with any real certainty?

I see design all around me.

a reply to: TzarChasm

If you’d met god you wouldn’t question it, nor ask for proof, in his realm our science just can’t hope to explain anything.

Anyone with experience of dimethyltryptamine or the ‘toad’ will confirm.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Grenade

It's interesting how none of these brilliant pioneers were able to provide actual substance in regard to supernatural or metaphysical studies. Newton derived his work on physics from the infamous apple tree but where is his dissertation on divine interference in earthly ecology? Where are his journals and research on the topic of god in physics and the hard evidence of supernatural agency?

You wouldn't believe even if someone were raised from the dead. You hate God and you hate science. If you loved science I would show you the undeniable design of all things, and you would agree, thereby putting the 'logical' in 'biological'. But you hate science, and cling to a sinking-ship theory which involves your ancestors being a chain of mutated hominids. It's sad that a brain can be so deeply brain-washed. We have rigorously expressed why your theory is invalid and not possible. You cling on to evolutionary theory because you don't love God. Therefore you will remain without hope, and I pray that changes... if you were to open your heart to it you would begin to feel what we also have felt and know.

a reply to: TzarChasm

“Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors.“

originally posted by: neoholographic
There's nothing vague about what I'm saying.

Do you want me to ask you a 6th time?

All you are is vague.

Edit to add...
"I'm just frustrated that the claim you are using to dismiss evolution is perfectly consistent with evolution."

Once you answer that, I will apologise for calling you vague.
Due to the edit, this is technically the 7th time, and still no answer.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: TzarChasm
“Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors.“

That's brilliant and mostly true.
But the reason atheism has no professors is probably due to the fact that it has no facts.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: neoholographic
There's nothing vague about what I'm saying.

Do you want me to ask you a 6th time?

All you are is vague.

Edit to add...
"I'm just frustrated that the claim you are using to dismiss evolution is perfectly consistent with evolution."

Once you answer that, I will apologise for calling you vague.
Due to the edit, this is technically the 7th time, and still no answer.

Vague? You again with this same nonsense?

Asked and answered in the first post. If you don't like the answer that's your problem.

How is a information encoded in the sequence of a medium and then building the machinery to decode that sequence consistent with a natural interpretation of evolution?

Stop repeating this nonsense. If you just don't understand what's being said, I suggest you study more.

originally posted by: InTheLight
a reply to: neoholographic

Hey, you had me at insurmountable.

That's great

originally posted by: neoholographic
Asked and answered in the first post. If you don't like the answer that's your problem.

I didn't get an answer to dislike.

originally posted by: neoholographic
Asked and answered in the first post. If you don't like the answer that's your problem.

Did you actually think you answered?

That baffles me.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: neoholographic
Asked and answered in the first post. If you don't like the answer that's your problem.

Did you actually think you answered?

That baffles me.

This means nothing.

Yes, asked and answered. If you don't think it was answered then explain why it wasn't answered. You keep making these short meaningless post.

So what it baffles you. That means nothing unless you explain why it baffles you.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Grenade

It's interesting how none of these brilliant pioneers were able to provide actual substance in regard to supernatural or metaphysical studies. Newton derived his work on physics from the infamous apple tree but where is his dissertation on divine interference in earthly ecology? Where are his journals and research on the topic of god in physics and the hard evidence of supernatural agency?

You wouldn't believe even if someone were raised from the dead. You hate God and you hate science. If you loved science I would show you the undeniable design of all things, and you would agree, thereby putting the 'logical' in 'biological'. But you hate science, and cling to a sinking-ship theory which involves your ancestors being a chain of mutated hominids. It's sad that a brain can be so deeply brain-washed. We have rigorously expressed why your theory is invalid and not possible. You cling on to evolutionary theory because you don't love God. Therefore you will remain without hope, and I pray that changes... if you were to open your heart to it you would begin to feel what we also have felt and know.

I find it interesting that your post was entirely an attack on my character and failed to address any of the points I raised.

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: TzarChasm

“Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors.“

"Your friends sell you fast cars and life insurance and you shake their hand, I ask hard questions and you call me the enemy" - unknown

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: Grenade
a reply to: TzarChasm
“Opposition to godliness is atheism in profession and idolatry in practice. Atheism is so senseless and odious to mankind that it never had many professors.“

That's brilliant and mostly true.
But the reason atheism has no professors is probably due to the fact that it has no facts.

Atheism has one fact that I agree with, and that fact is creationism doesn't hold water as a theory.

Atheism seems a more hypothetical theory than theism to me.
I'm not sure it matters, what we believe.
Non Relative truth is something I associate with the term God.
The nature of God seems more important to grasp in human affairs, than in physics.
which is as far as we are concerned best left to science.

I don't think materialistic nihilism has any use.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
I find it interesting that your post was entirely an attack on my character and failed to address any of the points I raised.

The point was that it wouldn't matter how much proof you are given. You have your mind made up.

The mitochondrion resembles a hydrogen fuel cell, ATP synthase resembles an electrical rotor, flagellum resembles a motorized propeller, intestines resemble a semi-permeable osmotic membrane, and many of our bodily components transcend the limits of human invention. We are intelligently designed, whether you acknowledge it or not.