God of the Gaps (well then, how did...")

[ding]

The ID'iot creationers are so predictable. Invariably, their anti-science agenda is straight out of the Disco'tute, one or more of the creation ministries or Disco'tute controlled sites such as Evolution News.

The ID'iot creationers don't seem to understand that as soon as they use ID'iot creationer slogans such as “Darwinists” , "Darwinism'', etc.,(ID'iot creationer terms for modern biologists), they literally announce their allegiance to the religious extremists.

Good thing I'm not one of them, right?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

understand that scientist are acknowledging the shortfalls of Darwinian theory.

Unfortunately, you seem to have no idea what that actually means.

HINT: you would still fail a 7th grade quiz on evolution

 

[Seymour Flops]

Unfortunately, you seem to have no idea what that actually means.

HINT: you would still fail a 7th grade quiz on evolution

It means what it says, unless you have evidence otherwise.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It means what it says, unless you have evidence otherwise.

Haha, as I was saying....

Thanks for the assist, as always.

 

[abu afak]

It means what it says, unless you have evidence otherwise.

And now we await Evidence for God/S, Creationism, ID, the designER/god. Any evidence at all.​

Evidence of common descent - Wikipedia​

• 1 Evidence from comparative physiology and biochemistry
  • 1.1 Genetics
  • 1.2 Specific examples from comparative physiology and biochemistry
• 2 Evidence from comparative anatomy
  • 2.1 Atavisms
  • 2.2 Evolutionary developmental biology and embryonic development
  • 2.3 Homologous structures and divergent (adaptive) evolution
  • 2.4 Nested hierarchies and classification
  • 2.5 Vestigial structures
  • 2.6 Specific examples from comparative anatomy
• 3 Evidence from paleontology
  • 3.1 Fossil record
  • 3.2 Limitations
  • 3.3 Specific examples from paleontology
• 4 Evidence from biogeography
  • 4.1 Continental distribution
  • 4.2 Island biogeography
  • 4.3 Ring species
  • 4.4 Specific examples from biogeography
• 5 Evidence from selection
  • 5.1 Artificial selection and experimental evolution
  • 5.2 Invertebrates
  • 5.3 Microbes
  • 5.4 Plants and fungi
  • 5.5 Vertebrates
• 6 Evidence from speciation
  • 6.1 Fossils
  • 6.2 Invertebrates
  • 6.3 Plants
  • 6.4 Vertebrates
• 7 Evidence from coloration
  • 7.1 Mimicry and aposematism
  • 7.2 Camouflage
• 8 Evidence from behavior
• 9 Evidence from mathematical modeling and simulation
• 10 See also
• 11 References
• 12 Sources
• 13 External links

And now we await Evidence for GodS, Creationism, ID, the designER/god .. any evidence at all.

`

 

[abu afak]

A false premise is a false premise and truth is truth regardless of how much you disagree. Simply provide the scientific experiment that proves that life evolved on earth from dead matter. Until then.......you are promoting nothing but dogmatic philosophy that exists only in one place "BETWEEN YOUR EARS".

Did you not comprehend the paragraph you provided as a fact? "...............MIGHT SIMPLY BE......."

Might: As defined by Webster's Collegiate Dictionary: Used to denote a possibility. Anything can be possible until its proven that its not. This article is based upon one person's opinionated "imagination". Science does not confirm truth and or facts via the use of "could have", "suggests", Might provide.....etc.., Science is the quest for general truths and generally accepted facts as verified through the scientific method of Observable, Reproducible, Testable, evidences that always produces consistency regardless of the number of times the experiment is preformed. Applied Science either verifies or falsifies.

FYI: Every experiment that attempts to produce life from dead has historically been falsified via the scientific method of experimentation. If not...............SHOW us this life that has been produced from non living matter in any historical experiment. On the other hand Applied Science has never falsified the Creation Model presented in the Holy Bible.....in fact Louis Pasteur confirmed that life can only be reproduced from pre-existing life within the same species, just as the bible states, "......each after its own kind......." -- Genesis 1:24

I am sure you will disagree when you have been proven to be a "LIAR". I once knew a smart ass that once admitted they were wrong......but turns out they were not wrong.........they simply made a mistake.

Wikipedia God of the gaps - Wikipedia.

The term God-of-the-gaps fallacy can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​

​

*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​

*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​

​

One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​

​

God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​

​

God of the gaps - RationalWiki

God of the gaps​

(or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know Yet" as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​

​

The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an ad hoc Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​

​

also @BackAgain​

​

`​

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

This is where your "miracle" nonsense belongs, jehanne1431

 

[abu afak]

[......]​

Illustrating God-of-the-Gaps​

The familiar story of Isaac Newton and Pierre Simon de Laplace is a classic example of the God-of-the-gaps argument. Newton devised a mathematical equation for the force of gravity that he used to explain and predict the motions of planets with outstanding accuracy. With pencil and paper, the orbit of the planets around the sun could be calculated with great precision. But planets also have gravitational interactions with each other, not just with the sun. For example, when the Earth passes Mars in its orbit around the sun, there is a small but significant gravitational interaction between Mars and Earth. Because these tiny interplanetary interactions occur often — several times per year in many cases — Newton suspected that these gravitational perturbations would accumulate and slowly disrupt the magnificent order of the solar system. To counteract these and other disruptive forces, Newton suggested that God must necessarily intervene occasionally to tune up the solar system and restore the order. ...
[......]
In both of these examples — one related to the ongoing motion of the planets and the other related to the origin of the motions — Newton is employing textbook God-of-the-gaps reasoning. Scientific theories are proposed to explain as much as possible, and then God is brought in to cover any remaining unexplained gaps in the explanation.

We now know that Newton was wrong on both counts. The gravitational perturbations that planets experience are largely balanced to average out to near zero over time. The net result is that the planetary motions are extremely stable; they do not deteriorate over time. And it was a straightforward application of Newton’s theory that revealed this. Newton simply had not done all the calculations to see if his intuition was right. The same was true for the orderly motion of the planets. Newton had no concept of how solar systems could form on their own or what the planetary motions would be like in naturally forming systems. Astronomy simply had not developed to this point. In the decades after Newton, astronomers discovered that solar systems form naturally from large clouds of rotating matter.....
[......]

Are Gaps in Scientific Knowledge Evidence for God? - BioLogos

The God of the Bible is much more than a god of the gaps. God is always at work in the natural world, in the gaps as well as the areas that science can explain.

biologos.org

`

`

 

[abu afak]

Unfortunately, you seem to have no idea what that actually means.

HINT: you would still fail a 7th grade quiz on evolution

Flops and ding are clueless.
`

 

[abu afak]

This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"
And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.

If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'

1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki

God of the gaps​

​

(or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know Yet" as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​

​

The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an ad hoc Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​

2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument

The term God-of-the-gaps fallacy can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​

​

*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​

*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​

​

One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​

​

God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​

There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
`

Why is the proposition that the universe was created, such a huge difficulty for you? The idea is more attractive intellectually than the alternative. If a directed, intentional, intelligent "will" did not cause the universe to exist, then what else could?

WE DON'T KNOW.... YET.
Just like we didn't when WE created gods for thousands of other things we didn't understand .... Yet.
Most now gone.

.

 

[ding]

WE DON'T KNOW.... YET.

Of course we do. The CMB is literally the proverbial smoking gun. How else do you believe it got there?

 

[ding]

Flops and ding are clueless.
`

I've forgotten more science than you or FFI combined ever knew.

It's hilarious listening to you two try to discuss scientific matters and principles.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

WE DON'T KNOW.... YET.
Just like we didn't when WE created gods for thousands of other things we didn't understand .... Yet.
Most now gone.

That's illogical. A material explanation for the material universe is self contradictory, no scientific explanation is possible because scientific processes cannot operate unless material exists.

No amount of elapsed time can change that, so "yet" has no relevance here. Science deals only with how an existing physical system changes over time, science is all about changes taking place in already existing systems - go and check the definitions for yourself.

Look at the most fundamental equations in physics - they express relationships between things that already exist.

Unless something already exists then change is not possible, science is not possible.

 

[BackAgain]

This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"
And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.

If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'

1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki

God of the gaps​

​

(or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know Yet" as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​

​

The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an ad hoc Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​

2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument

The term God-of-the-gaps fallacy can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:​

​

*There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.​

*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​

​

One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​

​

God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​

There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
`

Very trite OP.

There was another poseur who used to post here who thought himself very clever for blathering endlessly about the “god of the gaps.”

And citation to “wiki” is massive evidence of how brainless the argument is.

While it is, of course, true that claiming that “the” answer “must be” God is not a necessarily valid conclusion, it is also a fallacy to say that “science” doesn’t know “yet” is proof that “God” is not the answer.

Science may never know. Indeed, it is very unlikely that the cosmological question can ever be definitively answered.

If we believe that “just before the beginning” there was no matter and no energy and no “space” in which to put matter or energy, then the question is fairly raised: where did all that stuff (including time itself) come from?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I've forgotten more science than you or FFI combined ever knew.

Words are wind.

Show us your published science.

You have none?

Then your words are also shit.

I don't make the rules.

 

[ding]

Words are wind.

Show us your published science.

You have none?

Then your words are also shit.

I don't make the rules.

I've been published twice, dummy. You?

 

[ChemEngineer]

The scientific and intellectual pretensions of the godless left have been discussed and taken apart for decades, in books, in speeches, in videos.

Professor John Lennox is as persuasive in asserting Nature's God as Richard Dawkins is unpersuasive and hateful to boot.

One of Lennox' many videos is on a link at one of my websites.
It is Irrational Atheism

Lennox' video is near the bottom of the first page.

This website is so named to attract atheists, like flies to sweets.

Proof There Is No God (Wink, Nudge)

proof-there-is-no-god.blogspot.com

_______________________________

 

[Grumblenuts]

Unless something already exists then change is not possible, science is not possible.

Indeed. No god of the gaps could exist until humans invented some to explain everything they couldn't explain otherwise. No fallen tree could exist in a forest unless some human was around to hear its fall. I happen to have a spare bridge for sale CHEAP! Hurry before the price changes due to scientific aspects beyond my control.

 

[BackAgain]

Words are wind.

Show us your published science.

You have none?

Then your words are also shit.

I don't make the rules.

You just make shit up.

 

[abu afak]

Very trite OP.

If 'trite" it's only because I made it so.
Most here (certainly including you) had never heard the term.

There was another poseur who used to post here who thought himself very clever for blathering endlessly about the “god of the gaps.”

You goofy lying POS this thread is 7 Yeas old, more than 4 Years Before you Joined!! LOL.
It was bumped the month after you Joined (Oct 2021) and many times before and since.

While it is, of course, true that claiming that “the” answer “must be” God is not a necessarily valid conclusion, it is also a fallacy to say that “science” doesn’t know “yet” is proof that “God” is not the answer.

I did NOT say there is "Proof that god is not the answer."
Just again, we don't know Yet.
You are too stupid and Deceptive to debate me.

`