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

The bones of the issue with the OP is they're essentially demanding insta-answers & acting like everyone around them is obligated to be a full-time researcher with perma-filled wallets to pay for it.

The laziest thing I see in these debates is masking THAT with an attack on the opposite party instead of just accepting "Dunno yet, still much to research" for an answer.

And that's also why I mostly ignore diehard creationists -- they're the worst of the most impatient people. The definite NOWNOWNOW crowd there.

The notion that I took billions of years to get here, from slug, to monkey, to human makes it even more amazing.
It seems obvious to me that creative force of the universe is far more intelligent than we think.

Human intelligence is a subset of that intelligence.

a reply to: Nyiah

Nail hit on head.

a reply to: neoholographic

ok - blunt and to the point :

are you so stupid that you fail to actually understand the god of the gaps argument - or so dishonest - that your entire position is a lie ?

despite your rabid screechins - the god of the ggaps is simple

once a multidude of " thinggs " were attrubuted to ggod - by people [ some are even cited in the bible ] - but science explained some " things " as naturalistic .

thats it - the progress off science to explain thingg that were once attributed to ggod

screeching that " we cannot explain ............... in 2020 " - actualll demontstrates that the god of the gaps is a valid postulate ..

hint - what we cannot explain in 2020 - is less than what we could not explain in 1020 . and worse 1 thousand years ago - people had no concept of things that we can now explain

so - what is your position , it actual stupdity oor dishonest religious fooknuttery ?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: rom12345

As opposed to infallible?

He thinks he is trump now creating new words.

a reply to: ignorant_ape


Hes trolling everyone typically the creationist screams science doesn't know this its beyond science see god exists. a huge leap of faith don't ya think? Bottom line I can no more prove god doesn't exist than he can prove he she or it does.

By the way you see he also has zero interest in trying to learn what science does know.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: rom12345

As opposed to infallible?

He thinks he is trump now creating new words.

the ineffable infallibility of intelligence.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Perhaps it is, most of us just aren't listening. Maybe it's not a lack on the part of the Intelligence, perhaps it's a lack on our part?

Or, perhaps, that Intelligence is rather more hands-off than most believers want to think.

The OP and Cooperton are well known for their advocacy of scientific illiteracy. They use ignorance as a shield to force their view on the public.

Disregarding hard evidence is the chief characteristic of their campaign. But it's also the damning evidence of their downfall.
Every thread, including this one, that attempts to support their illogical conclusions ends the same way. And it's not a draw.
It's the fear that they will be exposed by the evidence. It's the fear that they'll have to stand up to their lack of data and laboratory evidence. It's the fear of being exposed.

The OP's convoluted posts are arguably the best examples of willful ignorance. Every post presents a view of nature which can't be quantified or verified by real science.

Time and again, science has shown that methodological naturalism can push back ignorance, finding increasingly detailed and informative answers to mysteries that once seemed impenetrable: the nature of light, the causes of disease, how the brain works. Evolution is doing the same with the riddle of how the living world took shape. Creationism, by any name, adds nothing of intellectual value to the effort. —J.R.

John Rennie, Scientific American

www.scientificamerican.com...

a reply to: ignorant_ape

You said:

are you so stupid that you fail to actually understand the god of the gaps argument - or so dishonest - that your entire position is a lie ?

This just shows how really ignorant you are. You can't argue for your position intelligently so you post rambling nonsense.

a reply to: Phantom423

LOL, you said:

The OP's convoluted posts are arguably the best examples of willful ignorance.

This is from a guy that can't articulate a position. You post abstracts that have nothing to do with the thread and then you can't explain why you posted it.

Who does something so asinine?

People usually paste an article or peer reviewed paper and then explain why they're posting it and how it relates to the thread.

You blindly post an abstract that you found on Google and then say go fish LOL. You're a joke.

I just think it's weird to prove apples exist by calculating the odds of one falling on your head. Or by explaining how there's a hidden message in the leaves and it HAS to be a sign.

a reply to: neoholographic

oh deer - you are the ATS member - ATTEMPTING to argue against the god of the gaps argument - without actually demonstrating any understanding of it

its very simple - and your inability // refusal to address it CORRECTLY is dammed disturbing

a reply to: Nyiah

its actually worse than that - the tactic is :

pick a question that 2020 science admits they cannot answer - and use that as thier " proof "

they ignore [ willfully ] all the answers that 2020 science can provide - that were unknown to 1820 science

meanwhile thier cult has provided zero new answers to anything

originally posted by: Phantom423
a reply to: cooperton

More garbage. Show one experiment where some intelligent being was required to construct a molecule - any molecule - BEFORE humans existed. There isn't any. Self assembly has occurred since the universe began.

Your faith is strong. DNA polymerization does not occur via self-assembly. End of story. Admit you're wrong or disappear again.

originally posted by: Puppylove

This is just me hypothesizing. We know that our brain can effect our immune system. The plecebo and nocebo effects are a thing. What if the same is true with our genetics? What if as outside pressures occur our mind subconciously puts pressure on our genetics to speed up the mutation process in our semen resulting in increased mutation during population stresses. Just one idea that I was able to pull out my ass in one minute of brainstorming.

You must've hit the subconscious records or something, because we are starting to find that exact thing - memory imprints getting passed on through subsequent generations. Unfortunately for Darwinists though, this is actually closer to Lamarckism than anything else. Lamarck insisted that, for example, a blacksmith will pass on their strength to their children. This idea was mocked for a long time because it is antithetical to Darwin's notion of a more gradual mutative process. But now epigenetic inheritance has shown that many of these traits that we have thought to be evolutionary mechanisms (i.e. antibiotic resistance) are actually just epigenetic inheritance

Source

This is not evolution because epigenetics works with altering the pre-existent genome, and does not involve hardwire changes. What's even more fascinating, these epigenetic alterations can be inherited by the subsequent generation.

a reply to: cooperton

DNA polymerization does not occur via self-assembly. End of story.

Self-assembly of DNA—polymer complexes using template polymerization

Abstract
The self-assembly of supramolecular complexes of nucleic acids and polymers is of relevance to several biological processes including viral and chromatin formation as well as gene therapy vector design. We now show that template polymerization facilitates condensation of DNA into particles that are

a reply to: cooperton

Supramolecular systems
Molecular self-assembly is a key concept in supramolecular chemistry.[6][7][8] This is because assembly of molecules in such systems is directed through noncovalent interactions (e.g., hydrogen bonding, metal coordination, hydrophobic forces, van der Waals forces, π-π interactions, and/or electrostatic) as well as electromagnetic interactions. Common examples include the formation of micelles, vesicles, liquid crystal phases, and Langmuir monolayers by surfactant molecules.[9] Further examples of supramolecular assemblies demonstrate that a variety of different shapes and sizes can be obtained using molecular self-assembly.[10]

Molecular self-assembly allows the construction of challenging molecular topologies. One example is Borromean rings, interlocking rings wherein removal of one ring unlocks each of the other rings. DNA has been used to prepare a molecular analog of Borromean rings.[11] More recently, a similar structure has been prepared using non-biological building blocks.[12]

Biological systems
Molecular self-assembly underlies the construction of biologic macromolecular assemblies in living organisms, and so is crucial to the function of cells. It is exhibited in the self-assembly of lipids to form the membrane,the formation of double helical DNA through hydrogen bonding of the individual strands, and the assembly of proteins to form quaternary structures. Molecular self-assembly of incorrectly folded proteins into insoluble amyloid fibers is responsible for infectious prion-related neurodegenerative diseases. Molecular self-assembly of nanoscale structures plays a role in the growth of the remarkable β-keratin lamellae/setae/spatulae structures used to give geckos the ability to climb walls and adhere to ceilings and rock overhangs.[13][14]

originally posted by: Phantom423

Self-assembly of DNA—polymer complexes using template polymerization

Abstract
The self-assembly of supramolecular complexes of nucleic acids and polymers is of relevance to several biological processes including viral and chromatin formation as well as gene therapy vector design.

You really have no idea what you're posting. It is referring to the self-assembly of supramolecular chains - these are quaternary structures which involve the spontaneous aggregation of components. This, just like the last time you thought you posted a gotcha, is not the spontaneous self-assembly of the polymer itself, it is showing the spontaneous self-assembly of the polymers with other polymers. Again, this involves tertiary and quaternary structure, not the primary structure DNA sequence.

originally posted by: Phantom423
the formation of double helical DNA through hydrogen bonding of the individual strands, and the assembly of proteins to form quaternary structures.

Hilarious you bolded this part because it proves everything I just said above regarding the difference between quaternary and primary structures. You blindly believe that we are descendants of mutant monkeys, and for some reason feel it necessary to blindly push this worthless theory on others who are willing to blindly believe it. You hate science. You love theoretical dogmatism.

By comparison it is scientifically far more probable that there is
intelligence that has reason for our creation/existence. Than to
believe the even more fantastic/absurd randomness to infinity
concurrences that had to align themselves perfectly thru out
the biological cosmological chemical geological and on and on
absolute miracle after miracle thru out this creation that makes
it all even possible just magically happened for no reason at all.

This is only indicative of preference not science by any means.
No intelligent adult scientist would ever try to tell people God
does not exist because he would know that's just pure stupidity.
I know most of you hope a creator doesn't exist all tho I don't
know why? But you are most likely just quacks if you try to
say he doesn't or convince others.

a reply to: cooperton