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

a reply to: neoholographic

I don't think you proved your point you just show you do not understand how probabilities work. There can always be restrictions to probabilities such as your dice example has nothing to do with the dice being made by intelligence. Nature itself sets restrictions on us all the time no intelligence is required.

But lets hit the heart of the matter you want to prove the existence of something because you believe its not possible any other way. For one this is very close-minded and thank god science doesn't work that way if it did we would still believe thunder was gods fighting.

you want to use sciences current inability to explain the origin of life as proof of god? But lets say your right god started evolution or little green aliens seeded life on our planet. Either way we will have to wonder what created them ??? And even if life on Earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies. In other words doesnt change a thing really we know evolution occurred from the earliest stages of life what we dont know is how it occurred in the first place saying god did it just kicks that can further down the road.

So god did it who created him where did he come from or aliens did it where did they come from?

Its funny you claim you need intelligence to produce intelligence but dont see the circular nature of your argument.

a reply to: neoholographic

So far you havent really said anything except "statistics show evolution is impossible" and then you followed that up with "statistics show a really smart space ghost created the universe" Please tell me you can do better than this because talking about particles being alive and thinking requires some extraordinary evidence and no, double slit experiments are no longer compelling.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: neoholographic

I don't think you proved your point you just show you do not understand how probabilities work. There can always be restrictions to probabilities such as your dice example has nothing to do with the dice being made by intelligence. Nature itself sets restrictions on us all the time no intelligence is required.

But lets hit the heart of the matter you want to prove the existence of something because you believe its not possible any other way. For one this is very close-minded and thank god science doesn't work that way if it did we would still believe thunder was gods fighting.

you want to use sciences current inability to explain the origin of life as proof of god? But lets say your right god started evolution or little green aliens seeded life on our planet. Either way we will have to wonder what created them ??? And even if life on Earth turned out to have a nonevolutionary origin evolution since then would be robustly confirmed by countless microevolutionary and macroevolutionary studies. In other words doesnt change a thing really we know evolution occurred from the earliest stages of life what we dont know is how it occurred in the first place saying god did it just kicks that can further down the road.

So god did it who created him where did he come from or aliens did it where did they come from?

Its funny you claim you need intelligence to produce intelligence but dont see the circular nature of your argument.

Oh no!

First you bring out the "given enough time anything can happen." Now it's the "little green men" nonsense. Are you going to go through the whole materialist for beginners handbook?

You then pull out another materialist trope.

You ask, who created God, That question is a silly one. It presupposes a god that I don't believe in. I'm supposed to answer a question about a materialist version of god that needs to be created like his creation.

God exists in all possible worlds so God doesn't need to be created. We exist in one local world and have a local experience. Again, you're asking who created god but it's a god defined by you that needs to be created. I don't know why people ask that silly question. It seems like every newbie materialist says these same things.

"with enough time anything can happen"

"little green men"

"who created god"

What's next?

"Can God create a boulder that's too heavy for him to lift?"

My point still stands:

A medium can't encode it's sequence with information and build the machinery to decode that sequence. This, along with other things, makes a natural interpretation of evolution a fantasy that belongs in middle earth with the Hobbit's.

a reply to: neoholographic

The problem is you make a statement about what's not possible not knowing if that is true. You can't prove something had to create life any more than I can prove it didn't. Until you can prove a medium cant encode its sequences without help you've got nothing and ironically to prove that you would need to prove the existence of God. Good luck with that whem mankind has been trying to do that for thousands of years.

originally posted by: neoholographic
My point still stands:

A medium can't encode it's sequence with information and build the machinery to decode that sequence.

Once again.
How in anyway does this violate evolution?

If anything it describes it.

originally posted by: dragonridr
Until you can prove a medium cant encode its sequences without help you've got nothing and ironically to prove that you would need to prove the existence of God.

Isn't it up to you to prove it is wrong?

No lifeform exists that we have observed, can encode its sequence.

The idea that one can is silly and goes against the very idea of evolution.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: neoholographic

The problem is you make a statement about what's not possible not knowing if that is true. You can't prove something had to create life any more than I can prove it didn't. Until you can prove a medium cant encode its sequences without help you've got nothing and ironically to prove that you would need to prove the existence of God. Good luck with that whem mankind has been trying to do that for thousands of years.

What??

You said:

Until you can prove a medium cant encode its sequences without help you've got nothing

This makes no sense. Why do I need to prove something that's not even possible. Proponents who say a medium can encode itself with information and build the machinery to to decode this information has to provide evidence. It's not my job to disprove something you can't even show is possible.

It's like saying, prove the moon isn't made of green cheese or prove that flying pink unicorns don't live in Arizona.

You're the one saying it's possible. Provide evidence that shows it's possible.

Just because you're a blind believer in a natural interpretation of evolution doesn't mean you're immune to providing evidence to support your position.

Why should I have to prove a medium can't encode it's sequence with information when you can't even provide evidence that shows it's a possibility?

originally posted by: neoholographic
You often hear this term thrown around by Darwinist and Atheist especially when they're losing a debate. They say it's just the God of the gaps because you're trying to provide an explanation where there's non even possible by materialism. These things aren't just gaps they're insurmountable gulfs.

The reason that you have gaps is because materialism isn't a possible explanation. You're basically saying materialism can't explain these things but we blindly believe in materialism therefore there's no other explanation. You're presuming that materialism will answer things it can't answer. You have blind belief.

Here's just a couple of examples:

The sequence of objects or symbols don't have any meaning unless intelligence gives it meaning. This symbol * and this symbol / isn't encoded with any information. When intelligence says the sequence */ and /* has start and stop functions for what we will call C comments, then intelligence has encoded these symbols with information.

Again, / and * don't encode their sequence with information that can be decoded any more than ACTG can in DNA.

The sequence has to be encoded with information by intelligence. How can anything evolve if the sequence isn't first given meaning by intelligence?

My intelligence can encode the sequence of a piece of typing paper with information. I can say if the paper is cut into 2 parts, call me on my cell. I can then say if the paper is cut into 4 parts, call me at work.

I have encoded information in the sequence of typing paper. An intelligence can decode this information or I can build a machine that can decode the information in the sequence.

What a natural interpretation of evolution is saying is that the medium used by intelligence encoded itself with information and then built the machinery to decode the information.

So the typing paper(medium) or DNA(medium) encoded it's own sequence with information. This is what materialist are saying! Of course there's gaps or should I say gulfs because materialism isn't even a logical or possible explanation.

The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

evo2.org...

Secondly, evolution is modular. You have all of these parts that evolve that just work togother in complex ways to carry out different tasks. Again, this isn't a gap, this is a gulf.

Why would materialism produce any parts that work together?

If I'm designing a modular home, I make design 30 parts that I carry to the home site that just fit together and work together because that's the way it was designed. These parts are designed to work together.

If you accept the fantasy that is a natural interpretation of evolution, then these parts evolve and voila! like magic they just work together.

You have molucular machines with 50 different parts that are the right size, shape and come together at the right angles to work together. If I build a machine for a factory, it has all the right parts that's the right shape, size and they come together at the right andles that fit because they were designed that way by intelligence.

Here's a paper from Nature:

Evolution thinks modular

Groups of interacting proteins define functional modules that govern a cell's activity. A new study suggests that specific interaction motifs and their constituents are highly conserved across species, identifying potential functional modules used in the evolutionary process.

www.nature.com...

Again, these are not gaps there gulfs that can't be explained by materialism.

It's simple savanna psychology or independent thought? The latter will always be the odd person out. You are not the odd person out, they are herd mentality.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: neoholographic

The problem is you make a statement about what's not possible not knowing if that is true. You can't prove something had to create life any more than I can prove it didn't. Until you can prove a medium cant encode its sequences without help you've got nothing and ironically to prove that you would need to prove the existence of God. Good luck with that whem mankind has been trying to do that for thousands of years.

What??

You said:

Until you can prove a medium cant encode its sequences without help you've got nothing

This makes no sense. Why do I need to prove something that's not even possible. Proponents who say a medium can encode itself with information and build the machinery to to decode this information has to provide evidence. It's not my job to disprove something you can't even show is possible.

That's true, the one with claims outside of established fact should have the burden of proof.

Evolution supports your view that a medium can't encode itself. That's why parents are needed.

originally posted by: InTheLight

originally posted by: neoholographic
You often hear this term thrown around by Darwinist and Atheist especially when they're losing a debate. They say it's just the God of the gaps because you're trying to provide an explanation where there's non even possible by materialism. These things aren't just gaps they're insurmountable gulfs.

The reason that you have gaps is because materialism isn't a possible explanation. You're basically saying materialism can't explain these things but we blindly believe in materialism therefore there's no other explanation. You're presuming that materialism will answer things it can't answer. You have blind belief.

Here's just a couple of examples:

The sequence of objects or symbols don't have any meaning unless intelligence gives it meaning. This symbol * and this symbol / isn't encoded with any information. When intelligence says the sequence */ and /* has start and stop functions for what we will call C comments, then intelligence has encoded these symbols with information.

Again, / and * don't encode their sequence with information that can be decoded any more than ACTG can in DNA.

The sequence has to be encoded with information by intelligence. How can anything evolve if the sequence isn't first given meaning by intelligence?

My intelligence can encode the sequence of a piece of typing paper with information. I can say if the paper is cut into 2 parts, call me on my cell. I can then say if the paper is cut into 4 parts, call me at work.

I have encoded information in the sequence of typing paper. An intelligence can decode this information or I can build a machine that can decode the information in the sequence.

What a natural interpretation of evolution is saying is that the medium used by intelligence encoded itself with information and then built the machinery to decode the information.

So the typing paper(medium) or DNA(medium) encoded it's own sequence with information. This is what materialist are saying! Of course there's gaps or should I say gulfs because materialism isn't even a logical or possible explanation.

The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

evo2.org...

Secondly, evolution is modular. You have all of these parts that evolve that just work togother in complex ways to carry out different tasks. Again, this isn't a gap, this is a gulf.

Why would materialism produce any parts that work together?

If I'm designing a modular home, I make design 30 parts that I carry to the home site that just fit together and work together because that's the way it was designed. These parts are designed to work together.

If you accept the fantasy that is a natural interpretation of evolution, then these parts evolve and voila! like magic they just work together.

You have molucular machines with 50 different parts that are the right size, shape and come together at the right angles to work together. If I build a machine for a factory, it has all the right parts that's the right shape, size and they come together at the right andles that fit because they were designed that way by intelligence.

Here's a paper from Nature:

Evolution thinks modular

Groups of interacting proteins define functional modules that govern a cell's activity. A new study suggests that specific interaction motifs and their constituents are highly conserved across species, identifying potential functional modules used in the evolutionary process.

www.nature.com...

Again, these are not gaps there gulfs that can't be explained by materialism.

It's simple savanna psychology or independent thought? The latter will always be the odd person out. You are not the odd person out, they are herd mentality.

Good point! This is so true!

a reply to: neoholographic

The sequence of objects or symbols don't have any meaning unless intelligence gives it meaning.

Do you know what you just said here? You said basically that humans created all within their heads. You are right it really doesn't have meaning outside of what we put to it. Its like the term life, no meaning in the universe, its a human created meaning.

We can also see bunnies in the clouds too...just saying,

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: neoholographic

The problem is you make a statement about what's not possible not knowing if that is true. You can't prove something had to create life any more than I can prove it didn't. Until you can prove a medium cant encode its sequences without help you've got nothing and ironically to prove that you would need to prove the existence of God. Good luck with that whem mankind has been trying to do that for thousands of years.

What??

You said:

Until you can prove a medium cant encode its sequences without help you've got nothing

This makes no sense. Why do I need to prove something that's not even possible. Proponents who say a medium can encode itself with information and build the machinery to to decode this information has to provide evidence. It's not my job to disprove something you can't even show is possible.

That's true, the one with claims outside of established fact should have the burden of proof.

Evolution supports your view that a medium can't encode itself. That's why parents are needed.

Exactly!

He was asking me to prove something can't happen that he hasn't even shown is possible.

A medium can't encode it's sequence with information and build the machinery to decode that information. We know intelligence can encode sequence wih information.

Also, all of these different parts evolve and they just randomley happen to work together to carry out a task? These parts are the right shape, size and come together at the right angles. How can anything random produce parts that just work together? If I design a modular home or a machine in a factory, the parts come together because they were designed by intelligence to come together.

A natural interpretation of evolution wants you to accept the fiction that parts just evolve separately and randomly and voila! they just happen to be the right size, shape and come together at the right angles to carry out a task.

It's pure nonsense.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: neoholographic
How is it possible that a medium can encode it's sequence with information and build the machinery to decode the information?

I don't think it is possible.
Isn't it sort of like asking if you can be your own father?

A medium cannot encode their own sequence. And a medium is the machinery to decode information so its a bit of a tautology perhaps.

But you are correct even if the phrase is essentially meaningless.

Which begs the question of who made the watchmaker, and who made the maker of the watchmaker, and who made...

There is a plan. The complex ecosystems of so many lifeforms existing here are not an accident...coincidental. This is an exercise of imagination...creating life forms God can play within be...including the human. This is a playground for experimentation. That is why it is coveted by its many Creators, those perfect systems protected and zealously fought over (prime real estate).

a reply to: neoholographic
The problem is you aren't linking your arguments very well. The suspiciously vague use of words like medium and encode don't really help.

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

But I think this will be the 4th or 5th time I've asked you to address that.

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: neoholographic
The problem is you aren't linking your arguments very well. The suspiciously vague use of words like medium and encode don't really help.

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

But I think this will be the 4th or 5th time I've asked you to address that.

Vague??

What's vague about encoding the sequence of a medium with information? That makes no sense. Here's more from Yockey.

The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

evo2.org...

Nothing vague.





Again, nothing vague!

We know what it means to encode the sequence of a medium with information. Our intelligence has built much of civilization this way. This is why we invest in codebreakers to try to decode messages encoded in the sequence of a medium.

There's nothing vague about what I'm saying.

So if you want to accept the fantasy that is a natural interpretation of evolution, you have to provide evidence that magic mediums exists that encode themselves with information, build the machinery to decode this information, randomly evolve parts that just work together, encoded non coding sequences of DNA with information that regulates the expression of coding regions and more.

It's a fantasy!

a reply to: dragonridr

Crap dragon, utter crap, that’s a guess and not science
You Pretend science is faith, why do you hate science dragon, why is science such a repulsive tool you turn it into faith?

a reply to: neoholographic

That's true, the one with claims outside of established fact should have the burden of proof.

Since you agree with him, why don't YOU prove your hypothesis. And that's what it is - a hypothesis - not a theory and not proven fact.

The fact of the matter is there is no hard evidence either for or against the existence of intelligent design. If there is an intelligent entity behind existence, your logic, or anyone's logic for that matter, doesn't mean a drip. And if you're an atheist, you don't have any evidence either, only your logic which is most likely faulty.

The whole discussion is a moot point without hard evidence. You've presented the same proposition dozens of times. Einstein said: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results."
You should think about that.

a reply to: neoholographic

I also recall that you consider yourself an expert in quantum mechanics. If that's the case, please explain this research:

Quantum Mechanics predicts evolutionary biology
Author links open overlay panelJ.S.Torday

Abstract

Nowhere are the shortcomings of conventional descriptive biology more evident than in the literature on Quantum Biology. In the on-going effort to apply Quantum Mechanics to evolutionary biology, merging Quantum Mechanics with the fundamentals of evolution as the First Principles of Physiology-namely negentropy, chemiosmosis and homeostasis-offers an authentic opportunity to understand how and why physics constitutes the basic principles of biology. Negentropy and chemiosmosis confer determinism on the unicell, whereas homeostasis constitutes Free Will because it offers a probabilistic range of physiologic set points. Similarly, on this basis several principles of Quantum Mechanics also apply directly to biology. The Pauli Exclusion Principle is both deterministic and probabilistic, whereas non-localization and the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle are both probabilistic, providing the long-sought after ontologic and causal continuum from physics to biology and evolution as the holistic integration recognized as consciousness for the first time.

www.sciencedirect.com...


Darwinian Evolution and Quantum Evolution are Complementary: A Perspective
Georges Nemer1
, Christina Bergqvist2
and Mazen Kurban1,2,3*

Abstract

Evolutionary biology has fascinated scientists since Charles Darwin who cornered the concept of natural selection
in the 19th century. Accordingly, organisms better adapted to their environment tend to survive and produce more
offspring; in other terms, randomly occurring mutations that render the organism more fit to survival will be carried on
and be transmitted to the offspring. Nearly a century later, science has seen the discovery of quantum mechanics, the
branch of mechanics that deals with subatomic particles. Along with it, came the theory of quantum evolution whereby
quantum effects can bias the process of mutation towards providing an advantage for organism survival. This is
consistent with looking at the biological system as being a product of chemical-physical reactions, such that chemical
structures arrange according to physical laws to form a replicative material referred to as the DNA. In this report, we
attempt to reconcile both theories, trying to demonstrate that they complement each other, hoping to fill the gaps in our
understandings of the versatility of the mutational status of the DNA as an essential mechanism of life compatibility.

www.longdom.org...

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: neoholographic
The problem is you aren't linking your arguments very well. The suspiciously vague use of words like medium and encode don't really help.

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

But I think this will be the 4th or 5th time I've asked you to address that.

Vague??

What's vague about encoding the sequence of a medium with information? That makes no sense. Here's more from Yockey.

The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey, the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)

evo2.org...

Nothing vague.

Again, nothing vague!

We know what it means to encode the sequence of a medium with information. Our intelligence has built much of civilization this way. This is why we invest in codebreakers to try to decode messages encoded in the sequence of a medium.

There's nothing vague about what I'm saying.

So if you want to accept the fantasy that is a natural interpretation of evolution, you have to provide evidence that magic mediums exists that encode themselves with information, build the machinery to decode this information, randomly evolve parts that just work together, encoded non coding sequences of DNA with information that regulates the expression of coding regions and more.

It's a fantasy!

No, I agree with khazreef. You aren't being specific about anything except how information theory works. The who and how and why is all speculation with no actual substance. You haven't demonstrated any identity or fingerprint behind this so called intelligent design so there's really nowhere to go with it.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: neoholographic

That's true, the one with claims outside of established fact should have the burden of proof.

Since you agree with him, why don't YOU prove your hypothesis. And that's what it is - a hypothesis - not a theory and not proven fact.

The fact of the matter is there is no hard evidence either for or against the existence of intelligent design. If there is an intelligent entity behind existence, your logic, or anyone's logic for that matter, doesn't mean a drip. And if you're an atheist, you don't have any evidence either, only your logic which is most likely faulty.

The whole discussion is a moot point without hard evidence. You've presented the same proposition dozens of times. Einstein said: "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results."
You should think about that.

Here comes Johnnycomelately providing no evidence just hyperbole.

A natural interpretation of evolution is a fantasy. It's not my job to prove a negative.

If you think a medium can encode it sequence with information and build the machinery to decode that information then you have to provide evidence that this is possible.

We see intelligence do this all of the time. This is how we build civilizations. Intelligence can encode the sequence of any medium with information as I've shown with the piece of typing paper.

You can't just say I believe in a natural interpretation of evolution but you don't have any evidence that it's possible.

Naturally, you can get a pretty design like a snowflake.

You can't get a snowflake that's encoded with information in it's sequence on how to build a snowman. It's also encoded with information on how to build the machinery to build a snowman, the parts of the machinery are just the right size, shape and come together at the right angles to carry out tasks to build the snowman and encoded with information that regulates how the snowman is expressed.

It's not my job to prove this can't happen through some random, natural process, if you believe it can happen then you have to provide evidence that it's possible not just hyperbole and your blind belief.