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

a reply to: Phantom423

First, you didn't answer:

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.

Secondly, you lied again when you said:

Who's Richard Dawkins and why should I care?

You know who Richard Dawkins is. I suspect the majority of people who post in this forum know who he is. Especially people who have been posting on ATS for a good amount of time.

Third, you said this:

An intelligent person would read the articles and comment. A stupid person draws a conclusion without ever having read the article.

Wrong, an intelligent person posts an article and explains why they're posting the article and how that article relates to the thread.

A stupid person, blindly posts an abstract that they don't understand and then expects you to become Psychic and read the abstract and somehow divine your point instead of that person posting the article or abstract and explaining why they're posting it and why it's pertinent to the discussion.

a reply to: neoholographic

A stupid person, blindly posts an abstract that they don't understand and then expects you to become Psychic and read the abstract and somehow divine your point instead of that person posting the article or abstract and explaining why they're posting it and why it's pertinent to the discussion.

Your opinion once again. Peer-reviewed research articles mean something. You never post a credible article to support your position.

You're not a scientist. You've never been in a lab conducting actual research. The articles are self explanatory. If you don't like the results the researchers obtain, write them a letter.

Science is objective. It's not front-loaded with bs and personal opinions. If you can't read and understand the articles, which apparently you can't, then that's your problem.

a reply to: Phantom423

You said:

Peer-reviewed research articles mean something. You never post a credible article to support your position.

Can you get any more dishonest? First you lie about knowing who Dawkins is and now this.

First you say, research articles mean something. I agree when they pertain to the discussion and you don't post an abstract without explaing why you're posting it and how it pertains to the discussion. That's just asinine. I can post a research article on Quantum Computing and that article is important and means something but it wouldn't mean anything when it comes to the topic being discussed UNLESS I EXPLAIN WHY IT PERTAINS TO THE DISCUSSION.

You seem to have a glitch where you can't grasp something so simple. If you post an abstract to an article, explain why you're posting it and how it relates to the discussion. You just blindly post abstracts and say go fish!

You then said, I never post "credible" articles.

More dishonesty.

What you're saying is everything you post is credible but everything I post isn't. This is just more dishonesty.

I admit, the Abstracts you posts are credible but in most cases they have nothing to do with the thread. I suspect this is why you post them without explaining why you're posting them and why it's pertinent to the discussion.

a reply to: neoholographic

I admit, the Abstracts you posts are credible but in most cases they have nothing to do with the thread. I suspect this is why you post them without explaining why you're posting them and why it's pertinent to the discussion.

Once again, if you can't read the articles and figure out their relevance, that's your problem. If you don't understand the content, go to the references. That's why scientists use references - because PEER-REVIEWED RESEARCH MEANS SOMETHING. Good science stands on the shoulders of verified, peer-reviewed research.

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: neoholographic

I admit, the Abstracts you posts are credible but in most cases they have nothing to do with the thread. I suspect this is why you post them without explaining why you're posting them and why it's pertinent to the discussion.

Once again, if you can't read the articles and figure out their relevance, that's your problem. If you don't understand the content, go to the references. That's why scientists use references - because PEER-REVIEWED RESEARCH MEANS SOMETHING. Good science stands on the shoulders of verified, peer-reviewed research.

Again, you seem to have a glitch.

Everyone reading this understands what you're saying is devoid of common sense.

You're saying it's my job to read an article you blindly post and to figure out why you're posting the article in this particular discussion instead of you posting the article and explaining why it pertains to the discussion. Excuse me but:

THIS IS JUST ASININE!

I have never heard anything so absurd in my whole time debating on ATS.

I have been in many debates and evertime, the person I'm debating will post part of an article and explain why it pertains to the discussion.

Like I said, you have a glitch or you're just being a troll who blindly posts abstracts because you can't debate the issue.

a reply to: neoholographic

Believe what you want. The hard evidence has been posted. You don't understand it and that's not my problem.

The end.

a reply to: Phantom423

Are you an A.I. with a glitch that can't grasp basic common sense?

I've been on ATS since 2012 and I have NEVER debated someone that blindly posts articles and says go fish! You're saying that I have to figure out why you posted the article instead of you just explaining why you posted it and how it pertains to the discussion.

99% of the abstracts you post have nothing to do with the thread. You then have the 1% that also has nothing to do with the thread but was still destroyed by Cooperton. You still haven't answered the question:

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.

You can't answer without blindly posting abstracts that have nothing to do with the discussion.

a reply to: neoholographic

Outrageous, isn't it!!

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.

This is wrong.

You simply want a debate between Creationism and Evolution so you can debate supernatural vs natural. The materialist/atheist in this thread keep trying to move to a Creationism vs Evolution debate because they can't debate Intelligent Design.

Again, there's an intelligent design interpretation of evolution which uses reason and logic and there's a natural interpretation of evolution that abandons reason and logic and says the origin of life that evolved doesn't matter and says given enough time any illogical thing can happen.

We can quantify intelligence. This is different from the conscious me experience.

This is why we have artificial intelligence and what some researchers call dumb A.I. This would be a superintelligence but it isn't conscious.

We quantify intelligence with I.Q. test and say this person is intelligent or that person is a genius. We don't do this with consciousness. We don't say this person is having more of a conscious me experience than that person.

So, scientifically, intelligent design is falsifiable. We know what intelligent design is. We can infer design like Dawkins did in his book The Blind Watchmaker:

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

Dawkins is a true believer. He admits that biological systems look designed for a purpose like a watch. He just has a blind belief that this can happen through a blind, random process.

So, design with a purpose is the product of an intelligence.

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.

Intelligence can be defined in this simple way:

The faster you can make correlation in the data the more intelligent you are. This is why when you see questions in an IQ test most of them aren't about knowledge in any specific sense but how fast you can aquire knowledge when looking at a data set. Here's some sample questions:

Which number should come next in the pattern?

37, 34, 31, 28

Answer: 25, the numbers are decreasing by 3

Find the answer that best completes the analogy:

Book is to Reading as Fork is to:

a. drawing

b. writing

c. stirring

d. eating

Answer: d.

Find two words, one from each group, that are the closest in meaning:

Group A

talkative, job, ecstatic

Group B

angry, wind, loquacious

a. talkative and wind

b. job and angry

c. talkative and loquacious

d. ecstatic and angry

Answer: c. Talkative and Loquacious

examples.yourdictionary.com...

So others could have discovered what Einstein discovered, he was just better at finding correlations in the data. He was intelligent but he also used imagination which can't be quantified.

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.

I know my intelligence can encode the sequence of a medium with information and build the machinery to decode that sequence. If you're going to support a natural interpretation of evolution the burden is on you to explain how this is possible through a random, natural, blind process.

I can encode information on the sequence of a full/empty bottles of syrup.

I can say if the empty bottle is first and the full bottle is second going left to right, then I will be in my dark blue shirt. I can also say, if it's full/empty bottle from left to right then I'm wearing my white shirt.

I have just encoded information on bottles of syrup that can be decoded by another intelligence or I can build machinery to decode the information.

The medium doesn't create the information. The bottles of syrup know nothing about a dark blue or white shirt. They're just the medium used by intelligence to transmit information. DNA is an efficient storage medium.

If you support a natural interpretation of evolution, you have to explain how a random, natural proccess can go from non living matter to encoding information in the sequence of a storage medium and making correlations in the data.

a reply to: neoholographic

Neighbor, you have your argument reversed. God of the gaps is a tool used by theists, to try and gain a finger hold in an argument. Athiests only ever point out that an argument is relying on "god of the gaps"

Double post

originally posted by: neoholographic

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.

This is wrong.

You simply want a debate between Creationism and Evolution so you can debate supernatural vs natural. The materialist/atheist in this thread keep trying to move to a Creationism vs Evolution debate because they can't debate Intelligent Design.

Again, there's an intelligent design interpretation of evolution which uses reason and logic and there's a natural interpretation of evolution that abandons reason and logic and says the origin of life that evolved doesn't matter and says given enough time any illogical thing can happen.

We can quantify intelligence. This is different from the conscious me experience.

This is why we have artificial intelligence and what some researchers call dumb A.I. This would be a superintelligence but it isn't conscious.

We quantify intelligence with I.Q. test and say this person is intelligent or that person is a genius. We don't do this with consciousness. We don't say this person is having more of a conscious me experience than that person.

So, scientifically, intelligent design is falsifiable. We know what intelligent design is. We can infer design like Dawkins did in his book The Blind Watchmaker:

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

Dawkins is a true believer. He admits that biological systems look designed for a purpose like a watch. He just has a blind belief that this can happen through a blind, random process.

So, design with a purpose is the product of an intelligence.

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.

Intelligence can be defined in this simple way:

The faster you can make correlation in the data the more intelligent you are. This is why when you see questions in an IQ test most of them aren't about knowledge in any specific sense but how fast you can aquire knowledge when looking at a data set. Here's some sample questions:

Which number should come next in the pattern?

37, 34, 31, 28

Answer: 25, the numbers are decreasing by 3

Find the answer that best completes the analogy:

Book is to Reading as Fork is to:

a. drawing

b. writing

c. stirring

d. eating

Answer: d.

Find two words, one from each group, that are the closest in meaning:

Group A

talkative, job, ecstatic

Group B

angry, wind, loquacious

a. talkative and wind

b. job and angry

c. talkative and loquacious

d. ecstatic and angry

Answer: c. Talkative and Loquacious

examples.yourdictionary.com...

So others could have discovered what Einstein discovered, he was just better at finding correlations in the data. He was intelligent but he also used imagination which can't be quantified.

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.

I know my intelligence can encode the sequence of a medium with information and build the machinery to decode that sequence. If you're going to support a natural interpretation of evolution the burden is on you to explain how this is possible through a random, natural, blind process.

I can encode information on the sequence of a full/empty bottles of syrup.

I can say if the empty bottle is first and the full bottle is second going left to right, then I will be in my dark blue shirt. I can also say, if it's full/empty bottle from left to right then I'm wearing my white shirt.

I have just encoded information on bottles of syrup that can be decoded by another intelligence or I can build machinery to decode the information.

The medium doesn't create the information. The bottles of syrup know nothing about a dark blue or white shirt. They're just the medium used by intelligence to transmit information. DNA is an efficient storage medium.

If you support a natural interpretation of evolution, you have to explain how a random, natural proccess can go from non living matter to encoding information in the sequence of a storage medium and making correlations in the data.

Pal, that was the whole reason you started this thread and don't lie about that. You wanted this argument or you wouldn't have picked a fight in your title alone. Why are you so mad about it? Did you really think you could persuade us with just an anecdote about syrup bottles? You couldn't even answer my questions about the gaps in your god hypothesis but you want to make a "evolution is awful and stupid" thread.

The matter with “the God of the gaps” is that science is trumped by the argument which eludes to a creator aka God which is so far beyond their comprehension that their egos revert to childhood and begin to play I know you are but what am I?

originally posted by: Phantom423

Believe what you want. The hard evidence has been posted. You don't understand it and that's not my problem.

The end.

You have repeatedly demonstrated throughout this thread that you can't digest a research article.

There were no nucleotide monomers self-polymerizing in any of the articles you posted.



These are tertiary structure DNA chains. This is what they were polymerizing. They are not nucleotide monomers.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Phantom423

Believe what you want. The hard evidence has been posted. You don't understand it and that's not my problem.

The end.

You have repeatedly demonstrated throughout this thread that you can't digest a research article.

There were no nucleotide monomers self-polymerizing in any of the articles you posted.

These are tertiary structure DNA chains. This is what they were polymerizing. They are not nucleotide monomers.

And where in that diagram is God's fingerprint?

a reply to: cooperton

Excellent points!

He probably knows you're right but he's just being dishonest like he was when he said he doesn't know who Richard Dawkins is and he hasn't answered the questions that I have asked over and over again.

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.

He's lost if he can't blindly post abstracts.

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: cooperton

Excellent points!

He probably knows you're right but he's just being dishonest like he was when he said he doesn't know who Richard Dawkins is and he hasn't answered the questions that I have asked over and over again.

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.

He's lost if he can't blindly post abstracts.

How do you think it developed to work like that? Please be as specific as you can, I don't care if it's an essay as long as you can explain the whole process of how life happened. If you can show examples of cosmic influence actively happening in recent studies that would also be great.

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: cooperton

Excellent points!

He probably knows you're right but he's just being dishonest like he was when he said he doesn't know who Richard Dawkins is and he hasn't answered the questions that I have asked over and over again.

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.

He's lost if he can't blindly post abstracts.

How do you think it developed to work like that? Please be as specific as you can, I don't care if it's an essay as long as you can explain the whole process of how life happened. If you can show examples of cosmic influence actively happening in recent studies that would also be great.

Asked and answered.

You do this in every post. You ask the same questions, get answers then ask the same questions again. This is a 19 page thread full of information and I'm not going to repeat it again.

If you don't want to accept it then that's your choice.

You haven't brought any information or evidence to the table. It's just snarky remarks and the same questions. You just don't like the answers because you have a belief and no amount of evidence or information will change it.

So no, I'm not going to answer the same question for the umpteenth time. Me, Cooperton, Blue Jay and others have answered these questions and more.

originally posted by: neoholographic

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: cooperton

Excellent points!

He probably knows you're right but he's just being dishonest like he was when he said he doesn't know who Richard Dawkins is and he hasn't answered the questions that I have asked over and over again.

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.

He's lost if he can't blindly post abstracts.

How do you think it developed to work like that? Please be as specific as you can, I don't care if it's an essay as long as you can explain the whole process of how life happened. If you can show examples of cosmic influence actively happening in recent studies that would also be great.

Asked and answered.

You do this in every post. You ask the same questions, get answers then ask the same questions again. This is a 19 page thread full of information and I'm not going to repeat it again.

If you don't want to accept it then that's your choice.

You haven't brought any information or evidence to the table. It's just snarky remarks and the same questions. You just don't like the answers because you have a belief and no amount of evidence or information will change it.

So no, I'm not going to answer the same question for the umpteenth time. Me, Cooperton, Blue Jay and others have answered these questions and more.

It's not my fault none of you are very persuasive. It's probably because you don't have the answers I requested. And that's no surprise. If it weren't for the occasional pothole in theory of evolution as well as the yawning chasms in your "theory" of creation, this god creature would have been exposed as inefficient and irrelevant and been replaced by a more appropriate device engineered for contemporary culture. Perhaps it has already happened. Either way this thread has reached the same destination as so many others.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Either way this thread has reached the same destination as so many others.

Yes, but it's not a stalemate. It's a recognition by the Creationists that they can't answer serious technical questions about their position.

There are over 500 journals and 200,000 articles on evolutionary biology. Those articles include research into self-assembly and self-polymerization. But no matter which article is posted, the retort is the same: "It's not possible".

Peer-reviewed research means something. They have NONE, ZERO, NADA, НИЧЕГО, 没有, 何も, nicht viel, KITU