Is There Any Real Difference Between ID and God of the Gaps?

[rookiebatman]

I've been watching debates about origins, and the more I hear creationists argue against evolution, the more I feel like there is no meaningful difference between Intelligent Design and God of the Gaps. When creationists say they have evidence in favor of creationism, what they really mean is things that evolution can't explain. Their arguments are basically just, "this, this and this does conflict with evolution, but does not conflict with creation." They're really just saying that evolution doesn't have answers for everything, and offering that as positive evidence for creationism. But just because we don't have the answers now doesn't mean we never will. I was watching a debate from 1994 where the creationist pointed out that there weren't any examples of mutations causing information to be gained, but there are properly-cited examples of that on TalkOrigins.org from the years and decades after he said that. But if everybody had just been satisfied that God was the final answer, they never would have looked for any other answers, and thus never would've found that real data which was observable and knowable.

The way I interpret the oft-repeated quote that "we cannot allow a divine foot in the door" (often quoted as proof that evolutionists are closed-minded and dogmatic) is that science can't be "solved" by just saying "God did it," because once we accept that as the answer, we will stop looking for answers, even though the real answers might very well be out there for the finding. We'll never be able to observe the moment that life began, but there are a lot of other things that can be observed and tested, which we can only do if we humbly accept that we don't have all the answers (and excusing everything we don't know by saying "God did it" is claiming to know all the answers). I submit that the only "evidence" in favor of creation is really just offering examples of the widely-accepted fact that evolution doesn't have all the answers yet. And that's just God of the Gaps.

So, to put that into question/debate form, can creationists (or proponents of Intelligent Design, if you prefer) explain how supposed evidence in favor of creation/ID is anything more than just pointing out something that evolutionary theory does not have an explanation for yet?

If you can't draw any distinction, then why do you think, with all the things we've learned over the years in science, that now is a good time to just stop trying to get a constantly better understanding of things and just accept that God is the only possible answer for every single thing that we don't satisfactorily understand at this moment right now?

[Excubis]

Junk DNA?? You heard of ENCODE...

Yes I have and get quarterly updates.

"Publishing its initial findings in a set of 30 papers in Nature, Genome Biology, and Genome Research, ENCODE indicated that the biologically active portion of human DNA was considerably higher than any previous estimates. In an overview paper, ENCODE reported that its members could assign biochemical functions to over 80% of the genome."
Dimond, Patricia F., "What Junk DNA? Its an Operating System", Noncoding gene sequences control gene expression and influence disease processes; Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News, 8 August 2013.

Genetic difference between human and chimps is now at 4% yes not 1% oh boy.

"people arrogantly called parts of the human genome that don't code for protein 'junk DNA'....today junk DNA is where all the discoveries are happening and we know that junk DNA is crucial for gene regulation."
Craig Venter PhD (Genomics Pioneer NIH, Celera Genomics)

Dr. Francis Collins, Head of The Human Genome Project NIH, after years of calling it "Junk"...."genetic flotsam and jetsam" pulled a quick about face....

Was Dr. Susumo Ohno who coined the term but his ideas were always suspect and was coined by media and then fell into use. Due to the controversy he created majority of the public thought swayed to the junk DNA term. Correct term used in genetic is Noncoding DNA not junk DNA but is used in media releases so general public understand which part of DNA they are talking about.

"discoveries of the past decade, little known to most of the public, have completely overturned much of what used to be taught in high school biology. If you thought the DNA molecule comprised thousands of genes but far more 'junk DNA,' think again"
The Language of Life, pp. 5"6, 2010.

Correct in a way but text books in high school are updated roughly every 5 years. Also overturned is not right the majority of of Francis Collins book was in argument against ID. Although a Christian he has stated very publicly:
"It's also now been possible to compare our DNA with that of many other species. The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming. I would not necessarily wish that to be so, as a Bible-believing Christian. But it is so. It does not serve faith well to try to deny that." look for it quotable from many sources.

So lets remove these three lnc RNA's from your "Junk DNA" (Fendrr, Mdgt, Peril) what do you suppose happens?? Vapor Lock! Ya think they may have a "function"?
John L. Rinn ; assistant professor of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology at Harvard University and Medical School and Senior Associate Member of the Broad Institute (Table: lnc RNA Loci required for Life and Development)

"Our bioinformatic analyses of transcriptomic and proteomic data of normal white blood cell differentiation reveal IR as a physiological mechanism of gene expression control. IR regulates the expression of 86 functionally related genes, including those that determine the nuclear shape that is unique to granulocytes."
Justin J.-L. Wong et al; Orchestrated Intron Retention Regulates Normal Granulocyte Differentiation; Cell, Vol 154, Issue 3 p.583"595, 1 August 2013

How about the August 27 2014 publications from ENCODE and modEncode 3300 pages long. All science is progressive and sorry just like people in the bible Geneticists are human as well and sometimes present opinion and do not state it as such. So term of "junk DNA" has no standing in the actual field so any reference to it is a misnomer only. It easy very easy to be excited by one's life work and when writing books, papers, and/or interviews it is very easy to use improper words or miss step and present opinion as a tested hypothesis. Also much of the conclusion in the 2013 report have been vastly expanded and you cannot use 2-3 lines of a study to support what it says unless it is page note summary, but even then the entirety needs to be read and understood.

1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!

If it was chemically impossible it wouldn't be at all. Chemistry is a hard science, testable results and just because we don't understand the way it occurs does not make it impossible. Maybe Einstein shouldn't have tackled gravity cause Newton said it was god's hand. Also saying never is incorrect is a fallacy and needs to be replaced with never witnessed and will not occur without a catalyst for reaction to occur. It is the catalyst we have not figured out.

2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....?

I believe there is no software, chemicals bond and pair because they can not because they were told or ordered to do so. That is a belief, and you are welcome to believe that Atoms are told to do what they do, and yes I cannot disprove this but that does not make your belief right and should not be portrayed as such. i do not do this and this is all I ask from creationists.

Do you realize what you actually believe sir? From one of the Fathers of 20th Century evolution theory....

General Theory of Evolution, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.
Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960

So? There was a catalyst just not found yet. It was accepted by many man could not fly the old saying goes "If man was supposed to fly God would of gave him wings." which was said in regards to Wright brothers first flying machine. Please do not say science said flying was impossible same as travelling faster than sound no religious scientists(a person) said those things. Do we continue not to look for these solutions, every time a great free thinker does we find answers and yes more question but I hope we never have all the answers would be quite dull.

In Eukaryote's, transport of mRNA from the nucleus to the cytoplasm is coupled to splicing and does not occur until all the splicing is complete (and additional modifications, See below). How does mRNA enter the cytoplasm for translation during the evolution of the splicing mechanism? Magic?

A catalyst not yet found.

Moreover, How did Stupid Atoms "figure out" the need for the 5 Prime Cap on Pre-mRNA so that it wouldn't be degraded as soon as it was polymerized? Prokaryotes don't do this! Did the Stupid Atoms "Learn" it by trial and error? Then they must have "learned" that "we" (Stupid Atoms) have to protect the other end when it is finished with a 3 Prime "polyA Tail" so RNase's can't have a RNA dinner. Why put a "tail" on that end that is Chemically different from The Tri-phosphate Bridge (5 Prime Cap)? If these Specific "Caps and Tails" aren't added, (AND, the entire Splicing Process Completed, which would make Einstein Blush) ....mRNA cannot traverse the Gauntlet into the Cytoplasm---Ergo, No Protein-ee;....No Life-ee.

Without the 5 Prime Cap/polyA tail/ and Splicing.... which allows it to transverse the Nuclear Envelope, the "yet to be assembled" Ribosome (In the Cytoplasm)...is a Football Bat; Translation, will not occur without the 5 Prime Cap and polyA tail. (And where did you get the Ribosome, since it takes mRNA and the entire process above to make the Ribosome??). That's quite a fortuitous set of Mind Boggling sequence of events to get everything on the same page; Ergo...some serious Conflict Resolution Programming for Blind Stupid Atoms with two completely separate processes (about 50 sub-processes), that would make Einstein Blush, in two completely different locations. You think they can whip up a Western Omelet without any eggs? Maybe it was "evolution"? Maybe the "Magical" yet to be assembled Ribosome hung out for a billion years "in Soup"synthesizing "Functional Proteins" from Silicates until the request and approval were ratified? Who was the Arbitrator...Natural Selection?

I would ask if you actually understand the snips of data you posted here but you could just easily look up an answer without understanding. Also blind stupid atoms what are you talking about they do what they do, no intelligence needed we did not create bonding this occurs in nature all the time and different bonds need a different catalysts, some are heat, speed(momentum/inertia), and pressure. We did not know of this at one time and religious community said this was proof of gods hand but as predicted through progress of technology and some great thinkers they were discovered. Yes those are for elements but organisms (even the DNA) is made of elements, so we don't know by what type of catalyst is needed for this bonding to occur does not make it impossible. If you do go here and read not on pro creationists sites that only have tidbits of data http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ and see if you actually understand. I will be honest I don't for the most part I only try to stay up on SNP's in Y-DNA.


Now saying all that I need to state RNA precursors as per amino acid bonding which is needed for DNA is found not only on the Moon(fact) but in space dust as well. The Stardust mission collected dust from a coma of comet Wild 2 and has conclusively proven these building blocks of DNA are out there and not unique to Earth in any way. It was said at one time by creationists that because we hadn't found these in anything non terrestrial that life could not exist beyond Earth but guess what as technology grew we did. The latest of models(theories) for the origin of this bonding occurring are leaning to a more non terrestrial origin, perhaps even in the dust cloud that circled the Sun before Earth even formed and the catalyst was the Sun energy at close range, if RNA developed which is way tougher than DNA, RNA very well could have been apart of all planets in our solar system at one time. Yet proof maybe hard to find since so much time has elapsed and bonds would of degraded, who knows for sure but the trend is one day we will figure it out. For those who want http://www.genome.gov/27528022 which is ENCODE.

[Enoch2021]

Junk DNA?? You heard of ENCODE...

Yes I have and get quarterly updates.

You rock

Genetic difference between human and chimps is now at 4% yes not 1% oh boy.

Red Herring (Fallacy). And quite erroneous....

For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee."
Ebersberger, I. et al., Mapping human genetic ancestry, Molec. Biol. Evol. 24:2266"2276, 2007.

Down to 77% right quick. Sponges share 70% of the Human Genome including genes for nerves and muscles. What does similarity have to do with anything?

6 million years of separation, the difference in MSY gene content in chimpanzee and human is more comparable to the difference in autosomal gene content in chicken and human, at 310 million years of separation.
Hughes, J.F. et al., Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content, Nature 463: p. 538, 2010.

Francis Collins:

The evidence supporting the idea that all living things are descended from a common ancestor is truly overwhelming.

All "he" and "they" have is a dressed up Affirming The Consequent Fallacy. Post your "Scientific Evidence" and I'll show you.

So lets remove these three lnc RNA's from your "Junk DNA" (Fendrr, Mdgt, Peril) what do you suppose happens?? Vapor Lock! Ya think they may have a "function"?
John L. Rinn ; assistant professor of Stem Cell and Regenerative Biology at Harvard University and Medical School and Senior Associate Member of the Broad Institute (Table: lnc RNA Loci required for Life and Development)


How about the August 27 2014 publications from ENCODE and modEncode 3300 pages long. All science is progressive and sorry just like people in the bible Geneticists are human as well and sometimes present opinion and do not state it as such. So term of "junk DNA" has no standing in the actual field so any reference to it is a misnomer only. It easy very easy to be excited by one's life work and when writing books, papers, and/or interviews it is very easy to use improper words or miss step and present opinion as a tested hypothesis. Also much of the conclusion in the 2013 report have been vastly expanded and you cannot use 2-3 lines of a study to support what it says unless it is page note summary, but even then the entirety needs to be read and understood.

I'm sorry, is there an argument here for something?

1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!

If it was chemically impossible it wouldn't be at all. Chemistry is a hard science, testable results and just because we don't understand the way it occurs does not make it impossible.... Also saying never is incorrect is a fallacy and needs to be replaced with never witnessed and will not occur without a catalyst for reaction to occur. It is the catalyst we have not figured out.

Really? What Fallacy is that specifically?
No, you're missing the POINT. It's not what we don't know, it's what we DO KNOW...It's Physically and Chemically Impossible....

The DeltaG for Nucleosides wickering themselves together from bases and sugars is positive as is the Phosphorylation into Nucleotides along with 50 other CRUCIAL reactions from the "Building Blocks". Sunlight is a severe demonstrable antagonist to ALL of it (as it destroys Nucleic and Amino Acids). That's not even speaking to: Stereoisomerization, Hydrolysis/Brownian Motion, pH, and Cross Reactions from here to Christmas. I'd also like to see the precursors for those Bases (purines and pyrimidines) all "Natural" like within the constraints of 2LOT.

You're missing alot more than a catalyst sir.

Maybe Einstein shouldn't have tackled gravity cause Newton said it was god's hand.

general relativity, eh? I'll take that to the woodshed later. If I forget, remind me. Thanks

2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....?

I believe there is no software,..... That is a belief, and you are welcome to believe that Atoms are told to do what they do, and yes I cannot disprove this but that does not make your belief right and should not be portrayed as such. i do not do this and this is all I ask from creationists.

So No CODE---Software? If there is no "CODE", then you must not believe in DNA Translation? Are you an A-Translationist? Also, if there is no "CODE" can you please show where on DNA Proper....the instructions for or actual: Glucose 6 phosphate dehydrogenase ...?

Then of course, there's this....

"DNA is ACTUALLY the Software of Life... Chemically we wrote the Genome starting with 4 bottles of chemicals, LITERALLY going from the one's and zero's in the computer to writing the Four Letter Alphabet and shown in fact that it's TOTALLY INTERCHANGEABLE between the digital world and the biological world. We then wrote the entire 1.1 million Letters of the Genetic Code booted it up and gotta New CELL driven totally by the SOFTWARE.
So that's what we call Synthetic Life, we actually used living cells to boot it up but YOU CHANGE THE SOFTWARE AND YOU CHANGE THE SPECIES."
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)

"We are SOFTWARE Driven Machines like every other Biological Species on this Planet".
Craig Venter PhD Geneticist (NIH, Celera Genomics)

It appears you may need to consider, re-considering your position.

chemicals bond and pair because they can not because they were told or ordered to do so.

Say again, over? Are you suggesting that the Chemical Bonds are responsible?

Ed Lewis PhD Genetics, Nobel Laureate ....

"The Laws of Genetics have never depended upon knowing what genes are chemically and would hold true even if they were made of green cheese".

Roger Sperry PhD, Neurobiologist and Nobel Laureate...

"The meaning of the message will not be found in the physics and chemistry of the paper and ink"

Allow me to translate: The Message Transcends the Medium!! Stupid Atoms and Molecules don't create algorithms. Just like your computer hardware didn't write Windows 7. Searching for the message within the "Chemistry and/or Physics" of the molecule is Tantamount to searching for FINV function of Excel by examining the USB Port.

This is Tantamount to....viewing a Magnetic Board with the message: "Be back Later, Gone Fishing. The Instructions are on the table, have the Exponentially Functional Sequence Complex Space Shuttle built when I return. Have a nice day"; then concluding...
That the force between Magnets of the Letters and the Board is responsible for the Arrangement of those Letters and the Message thereof.

You signing up for this??

Do you realize what you actually believe sir? From one of the Fathers of 20th Century evolution theory....

General Theory of Evolution, defined by the evolutionist Kerkut as the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.
Kerkut, G.A., Implications of Evolution, Pergamon, Oxford, UK, p. 157, 1960


So? There was a catalyst just not found yet.

Argument to the Future (Fallacy). And see rebuttal to this fairytale catalyst above.

In Eukaryote's, transport of mRNA from the nucleus to the cytoplasm is coupled to splicing and does not occur until all the splicing is complete (and additional modifications, See below). How does mRNA enter the cytoplasm for translation during the evolution of the splicing mechanism? Magic?

A catalyst not yet found.

This appears to be your retort for just about everything. I'd say you need "a tad" bit more than a "Catalyst" here.

Also blind stupid atoms what are you talking about they do what they do, no intelligence needed we did not create bonding this occurs in nature all the time and different bonds....

So your position is, Ink/Paper/Glue Molecules can Author Books? (SEE: refutation above... Dr. Lewis, Dr. Sperry, ect)

If you do go here and read not on pro creationists sites that only have tidbits of data

Genetic Fallacy---"not pro creationists" and an Implied No True Scotsman (Fallacy).

Now saying all that I need to state RNA precursors as per amino acid bonding which is needed for DNA is found not only on the Moon(fact) but in space dust as well.

Sir, this is a train-wreck (to be kind). RNA precursors aren't Amino Acids and DNA is not made up of Amino Acids either.

Can you post these precursors that were found on the moon....? I'll give you all the precursors you want (save for Cytosine)....you still have a football bat, biochemically speaking.
It's tantamount to me asking you for the cause of the Aerojet Rocketdyne RS-25 (Space Shuttle Engine) and your answer is pointing to Iron and Copper Ores.

The latest of models(theories) for the origin of this bonding occurring are leaning to a more non terrestrial origin...

Define a Scientific Hypothesis....?
Define Scientific Theory.....?

perhaps even in the dust cloud that circled the Sun before Earth even formed

Begging The Question (Fallacy). You have Scientific Evidence of this? Go ahead....?

and the catalyst was the Sun energy at close range

Sunlight destroys Nucleic and Amino acids.

if RNA developed which is way tougher than DNA

"Way" tougher, eh? Please explain....?

regards

[Enoch2021]

[Replying to post 58 by Enoch2021]

This really just proves my point again. All you're doing is pointing out things that you believe evolution doesn't explain. There's no positive evidence for ID here, you're just pointing out supposed gaps in evolution and claiming that God fills them. That is precisely a God of the Gaps argument; there's really nothing more to it than that, no matter how wordy your posts are.

Sweeping Baseless Unsupported Assertions (Fallacy). What "Gaps"?

The basis of my argument is INFORMATION (CODE----Software) that is only ever ever ever Sourced by Intelligent Agency, without Exception.

You walk into a Restaurant pick up the menu and see "Roast Duck" and immediately infer Intelligent Design (or are you perplexed and often consider maybe the ink molecules or the menu itself formed the letters and the message thereof?) But then you see over 3 Billion Letter's of Algorithmic Cybernetic CODE in Human DNA and say... PURE RANDOMNESS, the Wind and Waves are Incredible!!

There are no "Gaps" save for the ones you Conjure.

regards

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 58 by Enoch2021]

This really just proves my point again. All you're doing is pointing out things that you believe evolution doesn't explain. There's no positive evidence for ID here, you're just pointing out supposed gaps in evolution and claiming that God fills them. That is precisely a God of the Gaps argument; there's really nothing more to it than that, no matter how wordy your posts are.

Sweeping Baseless Unsupported Assertions (Fallacy). What "Gaps"?

The basis of my argument is INFORMATION (CODE----Software) that is only ever ever ever Sourced by Intelligent Agency, without Exception.

You walk into a Restaurant pick up the menu and see "Roast Duck" and immediately infer Intelligent Design (or are you perplexed and often consider maybe the ink molecules or the menu itself formed the letters and the message thereof?) But then you see over 3 Billion Letter's of Algorithmic Cybernetic CODE in Human DNA and say... PURE RANDOMNESS, the Wind and Waves are Incredible!!

There are no "Gaps" save for the ones you Conjure.

regards

Do you really see no difference between a restaurant menu and the Earth?

[rookiebatman]

Sweeping Baseless Unsupported Assertions (Fallacy). What "Gaps"?

You tell me. You're the one who's claiming there are things that evolution can't or doesn't currently explain; those are "gaps." Just because science doesn't currently understand something doesn't mean that God must be the answer. That would be a Non Sequitor Fallacy (see, I can do it too).

You walk into a Restaurant pick up the menu and see "Roast Duck" and immediately infer Intelligent Design (or are you perplexed and often consider maybe the ink molecules or the menu itself formed the letters and the message thereof?) But then you see over 3 Billion Letter's of Algorithmic Cybernetic CODE in Human DNA and say... PURE RANDOMNESS, the Wind and Waves are Incredible!!

False Comparison (Fallacy). We can reasonably assume that the words on a page were written by humans because we've had firsthand observation of humans writing words on pages. We have not ever had firsthand observation of either God or natural processes creating life in some other universe, so it's not an apt analogy to compare something we know the origin of through firsthand observation with something we cannot observe.

Also, Straw Man (Fallacy). Evolutionists do not believe that the coding of human DNA came about through PURE RANDOMNESS, we believe (based on the evidence) that it was the result of factors like natural selection.

And, it's also a False Dichotomy (Fallacy) if you are implying that an Intelligent Designer or Pure Randomness are the only two options. Someone else here used the analogy of objects sinking into mud. The heavier objects are gonna sink further while the lightest objects rest at the top, thus giving the appearance that someone designed the layers in order of weight. In fact, it was neither an intelligent designer nor purely random; it was the result of natural processes.

There are no "Gaps" save for the ones you Conjure.

Then why are you spending so much time talking about them?

[Enoch2021]

Sweeping Baseless Unsupported Assertions (Fallacy). What "Gaps"?


You tell me. You're the one who's claiming there are things that evolution can't or doesn't currently explain; those are "gaps."

Strawman (Fallacy) that's not my argument

Just because science doesn't currently understand something doesn't mean that God must be the answer.

You're not Understanding, unless you can show (What we DO KNOW)...

1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!

2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....?

Then you have no other choice; either "Nature did it OR Intelligent Design....

George Wald Nobel Laureate Medicine and Physiology...

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. THERE IS NO THIRD POSITION. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. {Emphasis Mine}
Wald, G., The Origin of Life, Scientific American, 191 [2]: 45-46, 1954.

That would be a Non Sequitor Fallacy (see, I can do it too).

Well the difference is I can Cogently SUPPORT IT; whereas, you just post the phrase.

You walk into a Restaurant pick up the menu and see "Roast Duck" and immediately infer Intelligent Design (or are you perplexed and often consider maybe the ink molecules or the menu itself formed the letters and the message thereof?) But then you see over 3 Billion Letter's of Algorithmic Cybernetic CODE in Human DNA and say... PURE RANDOMNESS, the Wind and Waves are Incredible!!


False Comparison (Fallacy). We can reasonably assume that the words on a page were written by humans because we've had firsthand observation of humans writing words on pages. We have not ever had firsthand observation of either God or natural processes creating life in some other universe, so it's not an apt analogy to compare something we know the origin of through firsthand observation with something we cannot observe

.

It's NOT a False Comparison or a Fallacy; AS EVIDENCED BY, Information (CODE----Software), Language, Algorithmic Coding and Decoding Schemes. We OBSERVE these Attributes in ALL Living Cells.

Either GOD "Programmed" it or "Nature" did. Your Choice....?

Also, Straw Man (Fallacy). Evolutionists do not believe that the coding of human DNA came about through PURE RANDOMNESS, we believe (based on the evidence) that it was the result of factors like natural selection.

It's NOT a Fallacy and that's what evolutionists MUST believe (SEE: 2 choices above); AS EVIDENCED BY, Natural Selection is a "Concept" it's Immaterial...are you giving Intelligent Attributes to Inanimate Objects?

Natural Selection a "Concept" is responsible; is Tantamount to....

The "Race for Space" constructed the Apollo 11 Lunar Module.
"Freedom" developed the battle plans for the Revolutionary War.
The "Transition between Classical and Romantic Era's" Wrote Beethoven's 9th.

You also have BIG problems here...

Christian de Duve PhD Biochemistry (Nobel laureate)

Theories of Pre-biotic Natural Selection, "need information which implies they have to presuppose what is to be explained in the first place."

aka: Begging The Question (FALLACY)

"Prebiological natural selection is a contradiction of terms."
Theodosious Dobzhansky (Leading 20th Century evolutionary biologist)

and here...

William Provine Cornell University Professor evolutionary Biology.....

"Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing.Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty natural selection language, and the actions of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets."
Provine, W., The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, Re-issue 2001), pg. 199-200

You need a new "Conjecture".

And, it's also a False Dichotomy (Fallacy) if you are implying that an Intelligent Designer or Pure Randomness are the only two options.

It's NOT, as I've EVIDENCED above (SEE: Dr. Wald Nobel Laureate)

regards

[Danmark]

George Wald Nobel Laureate Medicine and Physiology...

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. THERE IS NO THIRD POSITION. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. {Emphasis Mine}
Wald, G., The Origin of Life, Scientific American, 191 [2]: 45-46, 1954.

More quote mining, and well known, plagiarized quote mining:

'"There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evolution."

The poster (or whoever he cribbed it from - one of the dangers of plagiarism is that someone else's mistakes transform into your mistakes without warning) got the reference wrong. If he had photocopies of the paper, that would not have happened. The correct citation is:

Wald, G. 1954. The Origin of Life. Scientific American August: 44-53.
....
I went to the library and found the [September 1958] article. The quote is a complete fabrication. What the article does say is:

The great idea emerges originally in the consciousness of the race as a vague intuition; and this is the form it keeps, rude and imposing, in myth, tradition and poetry. This is its core, its enduring aspect. In this form science finds it, clothes it with fact, analyses its content, develops its detail, rejects it, and finds it ever again. In achieving the scientific view, we do not ever wholly lose the intuitive, the mythological. Both have meaning for us, and neither is complete without the other. The Book of Genesis contains still our poem of the Creation; and when God questions Job out of the whirlwind, He questions us.

Let me cite an example. Throughout our history we have entertained two kinds of views of the origin of life: one that life was created supernaturally, the other that it arose "spontaneously" from nonliving material. In the 17th to 19th centuries those opinions provided the ground of a great and bitter controversy. There came a curious point, toward the end of the 18th century, when each side of the controversy was represented by a Roman Catholic priest. The principle opponent of the theory of the spontaneous generation was then the Abbe Lazzaro Spallanzani, an Italian priest; and its principal champion was John Turberville Needham, an English Jesuit.

Since the only alternative to some form of spontaneous generation is a belief in supernatural creation, and since the latter view seems firmly implanted in the Judeo-Christian theology, I wondered for a time how a priest could support the theory of spontaneous generation. Needham tells one plainly. The opening paragraphs of the Book of Genesis can in fact be reconciled with either view. In its first account of Creation, it says not quite that God made living things, but He commanded the earth and waters to produce them. The language used is: "let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life.... Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind." In the second version of creation the language is different and suggests a direct creative act: "And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air...." In both accounts man himself--and woman--are made by God's direct intervention. The myth itself therefore offers justification for either view. Needham took the position that the earth and waters, having once been ordered to bring forth life, remained ever after free to do so; and this is what we mean by spontaneous generation.

This great controversy ended in the mid-19th century with the experiments of Louis Pasteur, which seemed to dispose finally of the possibility of spontaneous generation. For almost a century afterward biologists proudly taught their students this history and the firm conclusion that spontaneous generation had been scientifically refuted and could not possibly occur. Does this mean that they accepted the alternative view, a supernatural creation of life? Not at all. They had no theory of the origin of life, and if pressed were likely to explain that questions involving such unique events as origins and endings have no place in science.

A few years ago, however, this question re-emerged in a new form. Conceding that spontaneous generation doe not occur on earth under present circumstances, it asks how, under circumstances that prevailed earlier upon this planet, spontaneous generation did occur and was the source of the earliest living organisms. Within the past 10 years this has gone from a remote and patchwork argument spun by a few venturesome persons--A. I. Oparin in Russia, J. B. S. Haldane in England--to a favored position, proclaimed with enthusiasm by many biologists.

Have I cited here a good instance of my thesis? I had said that in these great questions one finds two opposed views, each of which is periodically espoused by science. In my example I seem to have presented a supernatural and a naturalistic view, which were indeed opposed to each other, but only one of which was ever defended scientifically. In this case it would seem that science has vacillated, not between two theories, but between one theory and no theory.

That, however, is not the end of the matter. Our present concept of the origin of life leads to the position that, in a universe composed as ours is, life inevitably arises wherever conditions permit. We look upon life as part of the order of nature. It does not emerge immediately with the establishment of that order; long ages must pass before [page 100 | page 101] it appears. Yet given enough time, it is an inevitable consequence of that order. When speaking for myself, I do not tend to make sentences containing the word God; but what do those persons mean who make such sentences? They mean a great many different things; indeed I would be happy to know what they mean much better than I have yet been able to discover. I have asked as opportunity offered, and intend to go on asking. What I have learned is that many educated persons now tend to equate their concept of God with their concept of the order of nature. This is not a new idea; I think it is firmly grounded in the philosophy of Spinoza. When we as scientists say then that life originated inevitably as part of the order of our universe, we are using different words but do not necessary mean a different thing from what some others mean who say that God created life. It is not only in science that great ideas come to encompass their own negation. That is true in religion also; and man's concept of God changes as he changes.

I think that this extended quote shows that the "quote" is not even correct as a paraphrase. The quote reflects neither the words or the spirit of what Dr. Wald wrote.'

_ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/ ... rt1-4.html
[emphasis applied]

[rookiebatman]

You tell me. You're the one who's claiming there are things that evolution can't or doesn't currently explain; those are "gaps."

Strawman (Fallacy) that's not my argument

Self-contradiction (Fallacy). That is exactly the argument that you make directly below this statement...

You're not Understanding, unless you can show (What we DO KNOW)...

1. Functional DNA/RNA/Proteins NEVER spontaneously form "naturally", outside already existing cells, from Sugars, Bases, Phosphates, and Aminos, respectively.
It's Physically and Chemically IMPOSSIBLE.
That's just the Hardware!

2. How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software....?

These are two examples of you pointing out things that you don't believe evolution currently has an explanation for. That's God of the Gaps. (But just because you don't believe evolutionists have explanations doesn't mean they actually don't.)

Then you have no other choice; either "Nature did it OR Intelligent Design....

With this, I agree. The choice is between nature or intelligent design, NOT intelligent design or PURE RANDOMNESS, as you tried to suggest earlier.

George Wald Nobel Laureate Medicine and Physiology...

The reasonable view was to believe in spontaneous generation; the only alternative, to believe in a single, primary act of supernatural creation. THERE IS NO THIRD POSITION. Most modern biologists, having reviewed with satisfaction the downfall of the spontaneous generation hypothesis, yet unwilling to accept the alternative belief in special creation, are left with nothing. {Emphasis Mine}
Wald, G., The Origin of Life, Scientific American, 191 [2]: 45-46, 1954.

Ah, thank you for that. It's always so affirming to the evolutionist position to see another creationist example of Quote-Mining (fallacy). Wald went on to say this in the same article:

Our everyday concept of what is impossible, possible, or certain derives from our experience; the number of trials that may be encompassed within the space of a human lifetime, or at most within recorded human history. In this colloquial, practical sense I concede the spontaneous generation of life to be "impossible". It is impossible as we judge events in the scale of human experience.

That sounds like another point for creationism, right? Only if it's taken out of context. He finishes with this summation:

What we regard as impossible on the basis of human experience is meaningless here. Given so much time, the "impossible" becomes possible, the possible probable, and the probable virtually certain. One has only to wait; time itself performs the miracles.

But don't take my word for it; for all you know, I could be quote-mining too. A much fuller context can be seen here.
EDIT: Danmark beat me to it.

But it's also an Appeal to Authority (Fallacy). No one should believe in either creation or evolution purely on one person's word; one should believe that evolution is probably true because it is the theory which best fits the evidence and observation and scientific process and data that we currently have available.

That would be a Non Sequitor Fallacy (see, I can do it too).

Well the difference is I can Cogently SUPPORT IT; whereas, you just post the phrase.

Just the phrase, huh? Well, that's easy enough to fact-check. Here's the comment I made there; everything that's not "just the phrase" is in bold:

You tell me. You're the one who's claiming there are things that evolution can't or doesn't currently explain; those are "gaps." Just because science doesn't currently understand something doesn't mean that God must be the answer. That would be a Non Sequitor Fallacy (see, I can do it too).

Looks like a lot more than "just the phrase" to me. Can we call that a False Premise (Fallacy)?

It's NOT a False Comparison or a Fallacy; AS EVIDENCED BY, Information (CODE----Software), Language, Algorithmic Coding and Decoding Schemes. We OBSERVE these Attributes in ALL Living Cells.

Moving the Goalposts (Fallacy). Observing attributes in living cells is not the same as observing the cells being created by an intelligent designer, which is the only way the comparison with knowing a restaurant menu was the result of intelligent design would not be false.

Either GOD "Programmed" it or "Nature" did. Your Choice....?

Nature. NOT "pure randomness," as you tried to assert before.

It's NOT a Fallacy and that's what evolutionists MUST believe (SEE: 2 choices above); AS EVIDENCED BY, Natural Selection is a "Concept" it's Immaterial...are you giving Intelligent Attributes to Inanimate Objects?

Natural Selection a "Concept" is responsible; is Tantamount to....

The "Race for Space" constructed the Apollo 11 Lunar Module.
"Freedom" developed the battle plans for the Revolutionary War.
The "Transition between Classical and Romantic Era's" Wrote Beethoven's 9th.

All this portion really shows is how little you understand about evolution. Thus, it is once again a Straw Man (Fallacy), because all you're doing is insisting that evolutionists believe things they actually do not. Read up a little on what evolutionists ACTUALLY believe about natural selection, and then decide if you want to refute that.

Christian de Duve PhD Biochemistry (Nobel laureate)

Theories of Pre-biotic Natural Selection, "need information which implies they have to presuppose what is to be explained in the first place."

aka: Begging The Question (FALLACY)

Second Appeal to Authority (Fallacy), but it's also interesting that you didn't cite a source for this one. I sure can't find one, other than Stephen Meyer's Signature in the Cell, hardly an unbiased source. I tried to find his citation on Google Books, but the page which listed the source for that quote was not included in the preview. Feel free to post the source yourself so we can judge the quote in its proper context.

"Prebiological natural selection is a contradiction of terms."
Theodosious Dobzhansky (Leading 20th Century evolutionary biologist)

Third Appeal to Authority (Fallacy). Apparently this one also came from Signature in the Cell. In looking for the context of this, I came across someone else who had conducted the same search, and this is what he had to say:

So, I dug through a couple of these books and papers to see if I could find the original. According to one book (Dembskis) and one website, this is the original reference:

Dobzhansky, Theodosius G., Discussion of Synthesis of Nucleosides and Polynucleotides with Metaphoric Esters, by George Schramm, in Fox, S.W., ed., The Origins of Prebiological Systems and of Their Molecular Matrices, Proceedings of a Conference Conducted at Wakulla Springs, Florida, pp. 309"310, 27"30 October 1963, Academic Press, NY, 1965

When that goes into google, we get a bunch of creationist sites and unrelated material. I found out that the book itself does exist. There arent any ebooks available and none of my local libraries has it. So, theres absolutely no way to verify what Dobzhansky said.
But you know what? It doesnt matter. Dobzshansky said this in 1965. He died in 1975. Theres been a boat-load of research on OOL since then. The vast majority of OOL research has occurred in the last 20 years. Im assuming that Meyer couldnt reach Dobzhansky for a current comment.
But thats what Meyer thinks is a telling argument. A quote from a guy who died almost 40 years ago and the quote was 10 years before then. This is roughly like asking Custer why he didnt have helicopter support at The Little Bighorn.

http://www.skepticink.com/smilodonsretr ... e-part-iv/

Couldn't have said it better myself. If all you're gonna do is pull out-of-context quotes from Signature in the Cell, wouldn't it be simpler for you to just direct everybody to read that instead of acting like it's an original argument?

William Provine Cornell University Professor evolutionary Biology.....

"Natural selection does not act on anything, nor does it select (for or against), force, maximize, create, modify, shape, operate, drive, favor, maintain, push, or adjust. Natural selection does nothing.Having natural selection select is nifty because it excuses the necessity of talking about the actual causation of natural selection. Such talk was excusable for Charles Darwin, but inexcusable for evolutionists now. Creationists have discovered our empty natural selection language, and the actions of natural selection make huge, vulnerable targets."
Provine, W., The Origin of Theoretical Population Genetics (University of Chicago Press, Re-issue 2001), pg. 199-200

Ah, I love the smell of Quote-Mining (Fallacy) in the morning. Two sentences after he said "Natural selection does nothing" (in the space where you put those three dots), Provine went on to say, "Natural selection is the necessary outcome of discernible and often quantifiable causes" (emphasis added). Provine isn't arguing that natural selection doesn't exist or doesn't work, he is essentially arguing against the Straw Man (Fallacy) you set up in the very same post that you quote-mined him, that evolutionists MUST believe that Natural Selection is a concept with intelligent attributes. If you actually read these quotes you were mining, you'd probably have a much better understanding of what evolutionists actually believe.

You need a new "Conjecture".

Why should we adopt conjecture, when what we have now is based on so much evidence and observation?

And, it's also a False Dichotomy (Fallacy) if you are implying that an Intelligent Designer or Pure Randomness are the only two options.

It's NOT, as I've EVIDENCED above (SEE: Dr. Wald Nobel Laureate)

Even notwithstanding the Appeal to Authority (Fallacy), the only thing the Wald quote gave evidence for was that the choice was between a designer or nature, not a designer or pure randomness. I've already given an example/illustration of how order can be a product of natural processes without being purely random. So, if someone says the choice is between an intelligent designer and order, and you conclude that means the choice is between an intelligent designer and pure randomness, then that's another Non Sequitor (Fallacy).

So, let's count up your score. I count ten fallacies in the course of your post (though I probably missed a few), which was only 217 words, not counting all the quotes. That's one fallacy per 21.7 words.

[rookiebatman]

I think that this extended quote shows that the "quote" is not even correct as a paraphrase. The quote reflects neither the words or the spirit of what Dr. Wald wrote.'

_ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/ ... rt1-4.html

Now, in fairness, I thought the same thing at first looking at that page. But if you look further down, you'll see the quotation of a different article from 1958, in which the exact quote mined by Enoch did appear. So, no, it's not correct that the quote was inaccurate, but you're still right that the meaning of it is completely opposite of Enoch's point, when you see the actual context.

[Danmark]

I think that this extended quote shows that the "quote" is not even correct as a paraphrase. The quote reflects neither the words or the spirit of what Dr. Wald wrote.'

_ http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/ ... rt1-4.html

Now, in fairness, I thought the same thing at first looking at that page. But if you look further down, you'll see the quotation of a different article from 1958, in which the exact quote mined by Enoch did appear. So, no, it's not correct that the quote was inaccurate, but you're still right that the meaning of it is completely opposite of Enoch's point, when you see the actual context.

Yes, there is some confusion between the 1958 ref. and the 1954. I saw that. But until I have direct access to the originals, I don't want to comment.

But as you say, the essence of both quotes is completely different from what Enoch posted, and from what the YEC'r referred to on talkorigins posted. Both misrepresented what Wald wrote. You may note there is even a discrepancy in the way the 1954 article was referenced.

At any rate, what is going on is that Enoch and other YEC debaters here simply plug in quotes from YEC blogs; quotes that have already been dealt with by talkorigins and other sites.

The YEC approach to debate is the same as its approach to science: ignorance + misrepresentation = unfounded pride.