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

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Snarl

Oh darn, and I was really hoping you would change your mind too. it's too bad I predicted your reaction.

The E. coli experiment was truly an extraordinary effort. I had high hopes for it.

Had to be about ten (maybe more ... maybe less ... memory's fading) years ago, a friend of mine takes me on a little road trip and introduces me to God Himself. Talk about being taken by surprise. He didn't say a word to me. Didn't tell me He was my Creator. Didn't tell me to be good. Didn't tell me He had guided the hand that wrote the Bible. He was just there. And, I was utterly overwhelmed.

That's pretty off-topic, but it might help. Maybe.

Doesn't help at all, it just sounds like you missed some pretty glaring opportunities to get real answers. And you didn't bring anything useful back to share with us.

Well, that was my 'first' encounter with him. And since you were Snarky with me, you'll have to look elsewhere on the boards to find what he shared with me.

They have to be snarky because they can't defend the illogical.

A natural interpretation of evolution is illogical. As Dawkins said:

Biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.

So the logical inference is that biological systems were designed. You have an encoding/decoding system that has layered error correction and stop and start codons. All hallmarks of design by intelligence.

a reply to: neoholographic

And P.S.: The existence of an error-correcting code itself is proof positive that there is no supernatural being at the switch. If there was, why would it design an imperfect system which requires a special code to correct the system in the first place. Makes absolutely zero sense.

Your "intelligent design" junk doesn't even fit with the laws of thermodynamics. A outside force waving a magic wand is putting energy INTO a system, energy presumably which is new to this universe. That alone blasts your hypothesis out the window. I won't even mention enthalpic/entropic considerations.

originally posted by: and14263
a reply to: TzarChasm

Nobody denied errors.

The point made was that error controls are in place.

Watch the videos and they explain exactly what the poster was discussing.



Actually, you know what? DON'T watch the videos. Don't watch them because it will make no difference to your approach to this thread.



EVERY SINGLE thread on this site gets hijacked by people like you who don't take the information in. He posted the videos to give you information AND YOU ARE NOT TAKING IT IN.

Forget it ATS. Just forget it.

Exactly, this is because a natural interpretation of evolution is used to support their atheism or blind materialism. So no matter how illogical it is, they have to blindly support it or their worldview would come crashing down.

a reply to: neoholographic

I assume their fear of losing this worldview stems from having no generally held and more convincing alternative. When you have to rely on experts to shape your reality it blinkers you, our thinking needs to expand collectively. Instead, I think the truth lies more in forming your opinions on objective perception and conscious awareness. Don’t see what you’ve been told to look at and how to define everything, explaining away this wonderful gift as some random event in a sea of mathematics is a machines thinking, controlled by men who create their own reality at your expense.

a reply to: Phantom423

You should research Deism.

There are many interpretations of God that do not invalidate our limited understanding of computable physics.

en.m.wikipedia.org...

All knowledge, all time, everything exists already and always. We can only discover the designs that already exist, you and everything you think is a product of the universe and that includes your thoughts. Unfortunately your ego gets in the way of that realisation, but that’s everyone’s problem, including my own. When you realise you’re part of the universe and so is every so called scientific creation it kind of makes our silly arguments insignificant.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: neoholographic

And P.S.: The existence of an error-correcting code itself is proof positive that there is no supernatural being at the switch. If there was, why would it design an imperfect system which requires a special code to correct the system in the first place.

If there was no free will then there would be no need for error correction. We would be perfect cogs in a perfect machine. But we were given free will. Our choices have consequence. excessive drug use, gluttony, laziness, and all other types of sin contribute to bodily discord.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Your "intelligent design" junk doesn't even fit with the laws of thermodynamics. A outside force waving a magic wand is putting energy INTO a system, energy presumably which is new to this universe. That alone blasts your hypothesis out the window. I won't even mention enthalpic/entropic considerations.

Your notion of God is very adolescent. The Laws of the universe were enacted by this Intelligent Being to uphold the Creation. These laws have not changed in the past known history. They act according to precise mathematical patterns, thereby signifying the work of an Intelligent Being.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: and14263

Exactly which post/link is irrelevant?

The ones that you thought were proving primary structure DNA polymerization, but were not. By continually posting irrelevant articles, you proved you didn't know what you were talking about. You did it multiple times too, even after I pointed out your error:

originally posted by: Phantom423

"Self-assembly of DNA—polymer complexes using template polymerization"

originally posted by: Phantom423

RNA Folding Pathways and the Self-Assembly of Ribosomes

^neither of these are regarding DNA monomers polymerizing. The fact that DNA monomers do not self-polymerize grants a HUGE hurdle for a non-intelligent process to surpass. It would be equivalent to a monkey writing all the Shakespearean epics.

a reply to: cooperton

^neither of these are regarding DNA monomers polymerizing. The fact that DNA monomers do not self-polymerize grants a HUGE hurdle for a non-intelligent process to surpass. It would be equivalent to a monkey writing all the Shakespearean epics.

Over 500 journals on evolutionary biology and 200,000 research articles say you're wrong. Do you have 500 journals and 200,000 articles that say you're right?

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Snarl

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: Snarl

Oh darn, and I was really hoping you would change your mind too. it's too bad I predicted your reaction.

The E. coli experiment was truly an extraordinary effort. I had high hopes for it.

Had to be about ten (maybe more ... maybe less ... memory's fading) years ago, a friend of mine takes me on a little road trip and introduces me to God Himself. Talk about being taken by surprise. He didn't say a word to me. Didn't tell me He was my Creator. Didn't tell me to be good. Didn't tell me He had guided the hand that wrote the Bible. He was just there. And, I was utterly overwhelmed.

That's pretty off-topic, but it might help. Maybe.

Doesn't help at all, it just sounds like you missed some pretty glaring opportunities to get real answers. And you didn't bring anything useful back to share with us.

Well, that was my 'first' encounter with him. And since you were Snarky with me, you'll have to look elsewhere on the boards to find what he shared with me.

Oh sure, being petty and acting like you are depriving me of some profound spiritual insight is a great technique for convincing me you met god. Way to go buddy.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

^neither of these are regarding DNA monomers polymerizing. The fact that DNA monomers do not self-polymerize grants a HUGE hurdle for a non-intelligent process to surpass. It would be equivalent to a monkey writing all the Shakespearean epics.

Over 500 journals on evolutionary biology and 200,000 research articles say you're wrong. Do you have 500 journals and 200,000 articles that say you're right?

Im still waiting for someone to post a theory of creationism to explain how intelligent design works and how they documented in such graphic detail the process that created life.

originally posted by: Phantom423

Over 500 journals on evolutionary biology and 200,000 research articles say you're wrong. Do you have 500 journals and 200,000 articles that say you're right?

The Nazi party also had popular appeal. By that logic - the appeal to majority - you are just as right as they are.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Over 500 journals on evolutionary biology and 200,000 research articles say you're wrong. Do you have 500 journals and 200,000 articles that say you're right?

The Nazi party also had popular appeal. By that logic - the appeal to majority - you are just as right as they are.

Nazism is a political ideology. Evolution is biology.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
Nazism is a political ideology. Evolution is biology.

ideology:
"a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy."

Considering that the ideology of 'survival of the fittest' has spread around our country like a cancer, and nihilism has tricked poor souls into thinking they're meaningless, I would have to disagree. Evolution is an atheology with horrific Stalinist propensities. Evolution is a belief system, lacking support from the observable realms of science, and therefore should not be considered biology.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

^neither of these are regarding DNA monomers polymerizing. The fact that DNA monomers do not self-polymerize grants a HUGE hurdle for a non-intelligent process to surpass. It would be equivalent to a monkey writing all the Shakespearean epics.

Over 500 journals on evolutionary biology and 200,000 research articles say you're wrong. Do you have 500 journals and 200,000 articles that say you're right?

These documents are perhaps valid in their domain and context.
None of them however are about how humans came to be what they are.

They most certainly do not prove that God does not exist.

It is unfortunate that some are conditioned not to see spirit.

Many who vehemently protest the existence of God, are in fact searching the hardest.
Seek and you will find.

a reply to: Phantom423

Atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method, you’re categorically stating you believe in disbelief.

“The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence,”

You’re denying a potentiality.

Is it possible that god does exist and if so is it probable he would be pretty intelligent comparatively to ourselves, able to pull off such a design?

I think the quest to the answer of that question is the very essence of this discussion and the most important one we should all ask.

a reply to: Grenade

Humans are self-repairing, upright and bi-pedal, able to reproduce joyfully with the help of a mate, have the perfect baby formula for our developing babies contain a genome that is 3.2 billion monomers long (3600x longer than all of the words of Shakespeare's writings combined), self-regulating via homeostatic mechanisms that allow us to adapt to various environments, self-aware, emotional to make things exciting, rational, capable of complex language, and so on and so on. Yet despite all this, we have an endless imagination which even includes the possibility to believe we are the result of a meaningless accident.

Only something intelligent can have a misled mind to think it is meaningless, whereas something unintelligent has no choice in the matter. Even rocks are meaningful, so how much more meaningful are the biological organisms that the rocks support!

a reply to: Grenade

I'm not an atheist.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Don't hold your breath.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: TzarChasm

Don't hold your breath.

Admit DNA monomers self-polymerizing has never been shown in a lab. It's ok to admit you're wrong, it shows that you have the potential to change in the face of new evidence.

a reply to: cooperton

Only something intelligent can have a misled mind to think it is meaningless, whereas something unintelligent has no choice in the matter. Even rocks are meaningful, so how much more meaningful are the biological organisms that the rocks support!

If your ID thing has meaning, it shouldn't need error-correcting for anything. Natural evolution has no opinion. It simply adapts and evolves according to a fitness algorithm which is self assembled into the system. When a sunflower turns towards the sun for photosynthesis, it doesn't require some unknown entity to trigger the process. It's inherent in the system. It's also a well elucidated process in physics (which, by the way, you don't understand).

Structure defines function and vice versa. If your ID thing was required for every function, it would have been detected by now. Instead, we have a myriad of opinions as to how the ID thing works with absolutely no detailed explanation or model. That's not much of a case.

The model for evolution is simple and straight forward. Life on this planet has a common ancestor. That's the beginning and end of the story. Get over it already.

originally posted by: Phantom423
Natural evolution has no opinion. It simply adapts and evolves according to a fitness algorithm which is self assembled into the system.

Algorithm implies intelligence. If evolution has no opinion, how did it generate creatures that do?

When a sunflower turns towards the sun for photosynthesis, it doesn't require some unknown entity to trigger the process. It's inherent in the system. It's also a well elucidated process in physics (which, by the way, you don't understand).

They act according to physical laws. These laws were also implemented by intelligence. Unless you also want to make the case that these intelligible laws somehow came to be from something unintelligent? It's honestly stupid. Evolution is literally a stupid theory that insists that all this came to be without intelligence.

The model for evolution is simple and straight forward. Life on this planet has a common ancestor. That's the beginning and end of the story. Get over it already.

My whole life I was led by empirical evidence. Once I learned enough about biology, I dropped the dead-weight evolutionary theory. Again going back to nucleotide monomers not being able to self-polymerize - that proves that nucleotide sequences could not have amalgamated by random chance to form early pre-cursor RNA code. Code requires a Coder, but you always find a way to avoid the obvious answer to maintain your unintelligent dogma.