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

a reply to: cooperton

It's as plain as day. You're just making it up as you go along. The article specifically says "self polymerization of DNA monomers". It doesn't get any clearer than that.

You don't understand the mechanics of the experiment. Simply put, you're not a scientist, have no clue as to what you're doing but you continue to post garbage.

The end.

a reply to: Phantom423

You can't hide behind your insults. The oligonucleotides they were studying are not monomer nucleotides. The fact they refer to sticky ends shows for certain that it is not nucleotide monomers they are referring to, because sticky ends require multiple nucleotides. You have to actually read the article.

There are no nucleotide monomers self-polymerizing in this study, if there were, they would have a Nobel prize. They are oligonucleotides polymerizing due to bio-engineered sticky ends.

You struck out again.

originally posted by: cooperton
a reply to: Phantom423

You can't hide behind your insults. The oligonucleotides they were studying are not monomer nucleotides. The fact they refer to sticky ends shows for certain that it is not nucleotide monomers they are referring to, because sticky ends require multiple nucleotides. You have to actually read the article.

There are no nucleotide monomers self-polymerizing in this study, if there were, they would have a Nobel prize. They are oligonucleotides polymerizing due to bio-engineered sticky ends.

You struck out again.

Bioengineering is a pretty fantastic claim and sadly the circumstantial analysis you provided isnt quite compelling enough to close the case. Is there a manufacturing label or any insignia that points to a cause? Generally a clever and sophisticated architect leaves a calling card.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: neoholographic

Okay well if you are done bragging, then maybe you can share your model of creation. And please don't say that god literally just talked humans into being a thing. There's actual math and a methodology behind all this god stuff right? Walk us through it so we can understand the exact mechanics of how intelligent design works.

Bragging?

It's called testimony and I said I didn't understand these things until I came to Christ and the Holy Spirit gave me the gift of understanding. So how can I brag when I start off saying I didn't understand any of this until I gave my life to Christ?

Next, this is just a silly question. You said:

Walk us through it so we can understand the exact mechanics of how intelligent design works.

This is how intelligent design works.



This tiny home is just an idea and the design to build this tiny home was designed by intelligence. When you look at the plans and the design, you can infer it's a product of an intelligent mind.

Just like atheist Richard Dawkins said, when you look at biology it has the appearence of design for a purpose.

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

Why does it have this appearence? Why can Dawkins recognize this appearence?

It's because he can't even deny the obvious.

So when you ask how does intelligent design work you're being intellecually dishonest. You know how intelligent design works just like Dawkins and we can see and infer design. Dawkins said design with a purpose.

There's a reason as to why his reason and logic saw design with a purpose when he saw biological systems. It's the same reason you can see the tiny house plan and see design with a purpose. As intelligent human beings we know what intelligent design looks like when we see it.

When we see separate parts evolve that are the right shape, size and come together at the right angles to carry out different tasks we can logically infer intelligent design.

When we see a encoding/decoding system where information is encoded on the sequence of a storage medium and information is also encoded to build machinery that decodes the encoded information just like a system set up by a human engineer, we can infer intelligent design.

When we see information encoded in the non coding regions of DNA that regulates the expression of the coding regions, we can infer intelligent design.

When whe a system that starts and stops at the beginning and the end of where the information is encoded, we can infer intelligent design.

When we see layered error correction like you see in Gmail or Microsoft Word, we can infer intelligent design.

The burden now lies with the atheist and materialist. If they're going to say my reason and logic is wrong when I infer design with a purpose as Dawkins said, they have provide evidence to make me throw out logic and reason when I see design with a purpose. If they say a random natural process can evolve parts separately that just happen to work together is possible then provide the evidence. If they say a random natural process can encode information on a storage medium and encode the information for the machinery to decode this information, then provide the evidence that this is possible.

So your question was a dishonest one. You know how intelligent design works just like Dawkins.

a reply to: neoholographic

I asked for a model of creationism and you gave me a blueprint for a house. I didn't ask for allegory or poetry, I said a literal walkthrough on the exact mechanics for creation. Do you not have this? I also asked for some form of manufacturing label or insignia in DNA by which to track down and meet the "architect" and no one can find that either. It's almost like this factory doesn't exist.

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: neoholographic

I asked for a model of creationism and you gave me a blueprint for a house. I didn't ask for allegory or poetry, I said a literal walkthrough on the exact mechanics for creation. Do you not have this? I also asked for some form of manufacturing label or insignia in DNA by which to track down and meet the "architect" and no one can find that either. It's almost like this factory doesn't exist.

LOL, now you want to move the goal poast.

You asked what are the mechanics of how intelligent design works. It was a dishonest question and I gave you the honest answer with backing from atheist Richard Dawkins.

I already told you what I believe. You want a Creationism vs. Evolution debate and I don't play that game.

I have faith that the Creator is God and He Created the worlds through the Word which is his Son Jesus Christ.

Scientifically, I see a intelligent design interpretation of evolution and a natural interpretation of evolution. I see no evidence that refutes the logical inference that biological systems were designed for a purpose.

Atheist and materialst act like we should just abandon logic and reason and blindly accept a natural interpretation of evolution because over a long period of time they say any illiogical thing can happen. That's just asinine.

I have laid out the evidence for my position throughout this thread so I won't repeat it.

My logical inference that biological systems were designed for a purpose is supported by the evidence and atheist Dawkins. Therefore there must be intelligent agency behind all of life and the universe. This can be universal consciousness or Panpsychism where consciousness and matter have a duality.

Scientist are starting to recognize this:

Minds Everywhere: 'Panpsychism' Takes Hold in Science

www.livescience.com...

Is the Universe Conscious?

Some of the world's most renowned scientists are questioning whether the cosmos has an inner life similar to our own.

www.nbcnews.com...

Does Consciousness Pervade the Universe?

www.scientificamerican.com...

Is Consciousness a Fundamental Quality of the Universe?

www.sci-news.com...

Like I said, if you have evidence that says I should abandon logic and reason which says that the logical inference to make when looking at biological systems is that it was designed for a purpose, then let's see you refute the evidence presented.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: TzarChasm
a reply to: neoholographic

I asked for a model of creationism and you gave me a blueprint for a house. I didn't ask for allegory or poetry, I said a literal walkthrough on the exact mechanics for creation. Do you not have this? I also asked for some form of manufacturing label or insignia in DNA by which to track down and meet the "architect" and no one can find that either. It's almost like this factory doesn't exist.

LOL, now you want to move the goal poast.

You asked what are the mechanics of how intelligent design works. It was a dishonest question and I gave you the honest answer with backing from atheist Richard Dawkins.

I already told you what I believe. You want a Creationism vs. Evolution debate and I don't play that game.

I have faith that the Creator is God and He Created the worlds through the Word which is his Son Jesus Christ.

Scientifically, I see a intelligent design interpretation of evolution and a natural interpretation of evolution. I see no evidence that refutes the logical inference that biological systems were designed for a purpose.

Atheist and materialst act like we should just abandon logic and reason and blindly accept a natural interpretation of evolution because over a long period of time they say any illiogical thing can happen. That's just asinine.

I have laid out the evidence for my position throughout this thread so I won't repeat it.

My logical inference that biological systems were designed for a purpose is supported by the evidence and atheist Dawkins. Therefore there must be intelligent agency behind all of life and the universe. This can be universal consciousness or Panpsychism where consciousness and matter have a duality.

Scientist are starting to recognize this:

Minds Everywhere: 'Panpsychism' Takes Hold in Science

www.livescience.com...

Is the Universe Conscious?

Some of the world's most renowned scientists are questioning whether the cosmos has an inner life similar to our own.

www.nbcnews.com...

Does Consciousness Pervade the Universe?

www.scientificamerican.com...

Is Consciousness a Fundamental Quality of the Universe?

www.sci-news.com...

Like I said, if you have evidence that says I should abandon logic and reason which says that the logical inference to make when looking at biological systems is that it was designed for a purpose, then let's see you refute the evidence presented.

Well, I would. But your god just isnt that important to me. I answered your question about the god of the gaps and frankly you still haven't refuted the expression. Good luck making that happen LOL.

a reply to: neoholographic

When we see a encoding/decoding system where information is encoded on the sequence of a storage medium and information is also encoded to build machinery that decodes the encoded information just like a system set up by a human engineer, we can infer intelligent design.

It is YOU who infers intelligence. That's YOUR logic. Which is fine. You're entitled to think whatever you want. However, you haven't made a case. A good case contains indisputable, provable evidence. You have none.

Neither you nor Cooperton can definitively demonstrate a super being initiating any code, design or structure. It's simply your logic at work.

On the other hand, in each case for the scientific evidence (think DNA monomer polymerization, and a dozen other topics), a peer-reviewed research article has been posted which refutes your position.

No doubt a house requires someone to build it. Why? Because it's a static, non-living object. The origin of life is not known and may never be known. Evolution, however, is not only known but has been indisputably proven in thousands of research articles. You have none.

In the end, the logic is that evolution is the biological strategy for change on this planet. Once and for all get it through your thick head that EVOLUTION IS ABOUT COMMON ANCESTRY. It's not about monkeys becoming men or dogs becoming cats. You and Cooperton give yourselves away when you repeatedly use the same references over and over thinking that if you say it enough, that it becomes true. It doesn't.

a reply to: Phantom423

The origin of life is not known and may never be known.

That makes evolution like a car without wheels which is a theory that can't move and is fundamentally useless, it has no real traction within honest science to ever move it forward, it can only sit there looking sad.




This is the statement that gets evolutionists off the scientific/biological/chemical hook so to speak.
With that one statement they get to dismiss everything coops and neo have posted in this thread.

There is a couple of phrases that come to mind seeing it finally typed out, intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Phantom423

The origin of life is not known and may never be known.

That makes evolution like a car without wheels which is a theory that can't move and is fundamentally useless, it has no real traction within honest science to ever move it forward, it can only sit there looking sad.

This is the statement that gets evolutionists off the scientific/biological/chemical hook so to speak.
With that one statement they get to dismiss everything coops and neo have posted in this thread.

There is a couple of phrases that come to mind seeing it finally typed out, intellectual dishonesty and cognitive dissonance.

We aren't ignoring anything, we just aren't impressed by so called revolutionary research that was supposed to settle the debate and yet again has failed to do so. And how is the creation hypothesis any different from what you just described?

Absolutism is the issue.

Science, evolution, etc. per se does not deny the existence of God or a Creator or a Unified Panpsychic Principle. (Whatever semantic argument you wish to make.)

Science simply says, and rightly so, that there's no evidence for the existence of a God. Here's why.

Science depends on an assumption or theory or first principle being falsifiable which merely means that there must exist a capacity for a statement, theory or hypothesis to be contradicted by evidence.

The existence of God, by definition, cannot be contradicted by evidence and therefore is not scientific.

Many things exist in the realm of our subjective experience that are not scientific.

Discussions like this fail because you're trying to drive a car by opening your refrigerator.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

As usual, you missed the point completely. Why am I not surprised.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Absolutism is the issue.

Science, evolution, etc. per se does not deny the existence of God or a Creator or a Unified Panpsychic Principle. (Whatever semantic argument you wish to make.)

Science simply says, and rightly so, that there's no evidence for the existence of a God. Here's why.

Science depends on an assumption or theory or first principle being falsifiable which merely means that there must exist a capacity for a statement, theory or hypothesis to be contradicted by evidence.

The existence of God, by definition, cannot be contradicted by evidence and therefore is not scientific.

Many things exist in the realm of our subjective experience that are not scientific.

Discussions like this fail because you're trying to drive a car by opening your refrigerator.

And that, in a nutshell, is the most realistic bottom line we can expect from this forum.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Absolutism is the issue.

Science, evolution, etc. per se does not deny the existence of God or a Creator or a Unified Panpsychic Principle. (Whatever semantic argument you wish to make.)

Science simply says, and rightly so, that there's no evidence for the existence of a God. Here's why.

Science depends on an assumption or theory or first principle being falsifiable which merely means that there must exist a capacity for a statement, theory or hypothesis to be contradicted by evidence.

The existence of God, by definition, cannot be contradicted by evidence and therefore is not scientific.

Many things exist in the realm of our subjective experience that are not scientific.

Discussions like this fail because you're trying to drive a car by opening your refrigerator.

Very nice statement.

I have stated my opinion about a god(s). If there is a god that's fine and if there isn't, it's okay too. That's because there's no evidence for either side of the argument. There's no evidence to take into a lab and no super being has ever shown up to confirm their existence. The entire argument is a moot point.

Accusations of atheism and materialism are used ad infinitum as a brick wall where one bangs their head to prove their point. It's willful ignorance and a rejection of scientific reasoning.

a reply to: Phantom423

no super being has ever shown up to confirm their existence

Jesus coming to the earth and raising the dead ?
Oh right you need to see it for yourself.....don't worry it's coming

Ezekiel 28:26

They will live there securely, build houses, and plant vineyards. They will live securely when I execute judgments against all their neighbors who treat them with contempt. Then they will know that I am Yahweh their God."

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: Phantom423

no super being has ever shown up to confirm their existence

Jesus coming to the earth and raising the dead ?
Oh right you need to see it for yourself.....don't worry it's coming

Ezekiel 28:26

They will live there securely, build houses, and plant vineyards. They will live securely when I execute judgments against all their neighbors who treat them with contempt. Then they will know that I am Yahweh their God."

How about something a little more appropriate for the 21st century? Or is that too much to expect from a god?

a reply to: Phantom423

It isn't just me making this inference, atheist Richard Dawkins mae it as well.

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

I guess he's the only honest atheist/materialist?

There's hasn't been a shred of evidence presented by you or anyone else to refute this logical inference. Your argument has been destroyed and you have been caught blindly posting abstracts you don't even understand, there's no need to waste any more metaphorical breathe responding.

a reply to: neoholographic

Who's Richard Dawkins and why should I care?

Biology is the natural science that studies life and living organisms, including their physical structure, chemical processes, molecular interactions, physiological mechanisms, development and evolution.

Despite the complexity of the science, there are certain unifying concepts that consolidate it into a single, coherent field. Biology recognizes the cell as the basic unit of life, genes as the basic unit of heredity, and evolution as the engine that propels the creation and extinction of species. Living organisms are open systems that survive by transforming energy and decreasing their local entropy[2] to maintain a stable and vital condition defined as homeostasis.[3]

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Phantom423

You said:

Who's Richard Dawkins and why should I care?

Now you're going to lie and say you don't know who Richard Dawkins is?

This simply shows your dishonesty. Dawkins is one of the leading proponents of evolution and atheism on the world stage and has been mentioned thousands of times on ATS and especially in this forum.

But Iike I said, you already showed your dishonesty so I'm not surprised that you're being dishonest again.

Until you answer this question, which you have dodged over and over again, I have no other response to you.

How did self assembly encode the sequence of a unique storage medium like DNA with information, encode the instructions to build the machinery to decode this information and encode non coding sequences with information that regulates the expression of coding regions?

Also, DON"T BLINDLY POST AN ABSTRACT. If you post an Abstract explain in your own words how the abstract relates to the thread. You have a habit of running to Google and then blindly posting an Abstract that has nothing to do with the thread.

a reply to: neoholographic

Also, DON"T BLINDLY POST AN ABSTRACT. If you post an Abstract explain in your own words how the abstract relates to the thread. You have a habit of running to Google and then blindly posting an Abstract that has nothing to do with the thread.

Why should I? You never do!

The evidence is in the articles. Peer reviewed research means something. Your posts and your faulty logic mean nothing. An intelligent person would read the articles and comment. A stupid person draws a conclusion without ever having read the article. You do this all the time. I have posted dozens of articles which justify or explain a particular issue. You don't. It's simply your opinion with no evidence. You'd be thrown out of court if you pulled a stunt like that with a judge.

Evidence means EVERYTHING. Hot air means nothing.