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?

[Enoch2021]

From Post 72:

Why? Because it will collapse your World View?

Because it's a weak inference.

Ipse dixit, eh? Ok go ahead...

1. If there is no "CODE", then you must not believe in DNA Translation? Are you an A-Translationist?

2. If there is no "CODE" can you please show where on DNA Proper....the instructions for or actual: Glucose 6 phosphate dehydrogenase ...?

My world view merely changes, or shall we say evolves, if a sentient entity can be shown to have "coded" DNA.

To which Darwin Version... #1265, #1374, other?

Your analogy is bereft of any knowledge of DNA or any of it's attributes, Whatsoever. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic.

I stand by my analogy, insofar as analogies are meant to "say the same thing in a new way".

Yes, of a Brick's "CODE" when it lands on your foot and it's relation to Algorithmic Cybernetic Coding and Decoding Schemes. I see the connection "clearly".

It's Called the Genetic CODE it's Software.

I respect your disagreement, though find your arguments less than compelling.

Disagreement? We're not talking about who's favorite color or ice cream is the best!! You're saying the Genetic CODE is not a "CODE" lol...it's mind numbing.

Please, what is DNA and list a couple attributes...?

I'd like to add that I respect my take on all this may be wrong, lest folks think I'm trying to be arrogant in my own beliefs.

That the Genetic CODE is not CODE? Yea, I think you're "a little" wrong....but I'm just spit-balling.

If there is no "CODE", then you must not believe in DNA Translation?

I believe in the application of useful terms.

Like This??...

"Translation is the final step on the way from DNA to protein. It is the synthesis of proteins directed by a mRNA template. The information contained in the nucleotide sequence of the mRNA is read as three letter words (triplets), called codons. Each word stands for one amino acid.

During translation amino acids are linked together to form a polypeptide chain which will later be folded into a protein. The translation is dependent on many components, of which two are extra important. First of all; the ribosome which is the cellular factory responsible for the protein synthesis. It consists of two different subunits, one small and one large and is built up from rRNA and proteins. Inside the ribosome the amino acids are linked together into a chain through multiple biochemical reactions.

The second component is the tRNA, a specialised RNA molecule that carries an amino acid at one end and has a triplet of nucleotides, an anticodon, at the other end. The anticodon of a tRNA molecule can basepair, i.e form chemical bonds, with the mRNA's three letter codon.Thus the tRNA acts as the translator between mRNA and protein by bringing the specific amino acid coded for by the mRNA codon."
http://www.nobelprize.org/educational/m ... ation.html

So go ahead and keep "Whistlin Past the Graveyard".

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 ...?


"Instructions" is another useful term, when we consider that things act according to their properties.

Nice Side-Step. So Ink Molecules can Author War and Peace?

You're using a "CODE" ----and Software (They're Mutually Inclusive) right now. It's called the English Language, it's Semiotic.


Where that code is clearly the product of humans attempting to communicate with one another using useful terms to get ideas across.

DNA doesn't care about the English language, best I can tell.

Same with DNA (SEE: "Translation" above). I never said DNA was the English Language (Strawman Fallacy).

Go to Germany and tell someone you have a "gift" for them.... and watch them run to the nearest Polizei Station or Konk you over the head...it means "POISON"


Having lived in then West Germany for three years, and troddin' a good bit of it, my experience is that the German people recognize my Southern accent, even as I sprechen to 'em, such as they can't stop laughing long enough to feel threatened by me.

So? I lived there for 6 Years; that and $2.99 will get me a Cup of Coffee. Caveat: I do have about 30lbs of The Wall...whatever that's going for...probably not much.

Does DNA speak English, or does it speak German? Does it read in either language?

Nope, it has it's Own Language....The Genetic CODE:

There's no Physical/Chemical link between Nucleobases and Amino Acids, it's Semiotic.

Holding strictly to your notion, we then tell how nucleobases and amino acids don't react with one another. This changes nothing in regards to the chemicals that do react with one another.

Say Again, over? Please explain what tRNA's mission is (Briefly)...? Did you know that the Bond that holds the appropriate Amino Acid to the opposite end of the tRNA anticodon has a half life of .5 seconds? (lol). There's an Initiation Factor ("FUNCTIONAL" Protein), along with aminoacyl tRNA synthetase (Another "FUNCTIONAL" Protein), that protects that Bond (From Water---Hydrolysis) in transit and @ the rRNA for Translation. Without these "Functional" Proteins....you got Bupkis, a Big Fat Football Bat.

Question: How did you get "Functional" Proteins when it takes the process above (along with ~ 300 other processes) to get "Functional" Proteins?

Is it like the Space Shuttle giving Birth to the Space Shuttle Assembly Plant?

Please.....?

Physics and chemistry do not explain Physics and chemistry do not explain how the appropriate aminoacyl tRNA synthetase joins a specific amino acid only to a tRNA with the correct anticodon on its opposite end. It's a Pre-Arranged and agreed upon Convention.

Still doesn't change the fact that stuff that reacts with other stuff, that's what it does

.

So "Stuff Reacts...with other Stuff" is your answer? Is that from talk origins? (lol)

and (SEE above Discussion, tRNA ect)

It's CODES for literally thousands of Hyper-Nanotech Machines and Robots (Kinesin, ATP Synthase, Cilia, Opsins, ect)....and the Regulatory Framework of the entire Cell. It's Functional Specific Complexity is Unrivaled in the known Universe.


It reacts to "literally thousands..."

This is why I think it's unfortunate that some scientists'd use lay terms for such - where an attempt to educate often creates confusion.

Like "Stuff Reacts"?

Lets try a practical example: Paul Revere, the; One if by Land and 2 if by Sea....ahhh, "CODE".

A conceptual device.

You've Pinpointed it.

Chemicals act according to their properties. There's no getting around that fact.

So the Ink Molecules up to their old Authoring Books tricks again, eh? Or Paul Revere's Lights constructing messages.

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"

Whatcha think of that synopsis?

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".


There's DNA in cheese, if only as a byproduct of the bacteria used in its production.

Yes, that's what he said.

DNA is composed of chemicals.

Which Ones.....?

Chemicals act according to their properties.

This is fact, whether it upsets Mr. Lewis or not.

Yes, he's just a Nobel Laureate Geneticist..what does he know.

I can accept (with many reservations), the use of the term "code" as intellectual shorthand under some settings, however, I think its use is too often misunderstood as meaning "some sentient entity wrote that code, and he don't like how you carry on".

Well go ahead "a Whistlin Past The Graveyard".

Define "a priori" adherence's to preposterous ludicrousness?

regards

[Danmark]

From Post 72:

Why? Because it will collapse your World View?

Because it's a weak inference.

Ipse dixit, eh? Ok go ahead...

You're kidding? Right? So far your arguments have consisted of only two techniques:
1. Quote Mining
2. The ipse dixit fallacy:
Ipse dixit, Latin for "he, himself, said it", is a term used to identify and describe a sort of arbitrary dogmatic statement, which the speaker expects the listener to accept as valid.[1]
The fallacy of defending a proposition by baldly asserting that it is "just how it is" distorts the argument by opting out of it entirely: the claimant declares an issue to be intrinsic, and not changeable.

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 80:

1. If there is no "CODE", then you must not believe in DNA Translation? Are you an A-Translationist?

As I've stated numerous times now, the use of the term "code" is a bit of intellectual short hand.

We observe chemicals reacting, and we use useful terms to explain those interactions.

2. If there is no "CODE" can you please show where on DNA Proper....the instructions for or actual: Glucose 6 phosphate dehydrogenase ...?

There are no "instructions". There are chemicals that act according to their properties.

My world view merely changes, or shall we say evolves, if a sentient entity can be shown to have "coded" DNA.

To which Darwin Version... #1265, #1374, other?

Whichever version would become the current one, where the latest version of our understanding applies.

Which version of the Bible are you on?

Yes, of a Brick's "CODE" when it lands on your foot and it's relation to Algorithmic Cybernetic Coding and Decoding Schemes. I see the connection "clearly".

I dare say that if you saw the connection so clearly, you wouldn't keep carrying on about it.

My point remains, the use of the term "code" is to help illuminate, and not as you seem to imply some sentient entity sitting somewhere dictating this or that chemical reacts in this or that way.

Disagreement? We're not talking about who's favorite color or ice cream is the best!! You're saying the Genetic CODE is not a "CODE" lol...it's mind numbing.

Now we're getting to the root cause of your misunderstanding.

Please, what is DNA and list a couple attributes...?

Deoxyribonucleic acid; found in all forms of life, open to copy discrepencies.

"Translation is the final step on the way from DNA to protein. It is the synthesis of proteins directed by a mRNA template. The information contained in the nucleotide sequence of the mRNA is read as three letter words (triplets), called codons. Each word stands for one amino acid.

Useful terms like that, yes.

DNA is not sentient, it can't read "code", it can only act according to its properties.

So go ahead and keep "Whistlin Past the Graveyard".

I'm just trying to help you, or others understand that scientists use useful terms in explaining things.

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 ...?

"Instructions" is another useful term, when we consider that things act according to their properties.

Nice Side-Step. So Ink Molecules can Author War and Peace?

I'm trying to help you, and others understand that when one misunderstands why scientists may use useful terms that it may cause confusion among those less knowledgeable on a given subject.

As we have here, your confusing stuff we know is produced by sentient beings - books - with your misunderstanding of the notions scientists are trying to get at.

Same with DNA (SEE: "Translation" above). I never said DNA was the English Language (Strawman Fallacy).

Then I propose the analogy is fallacious.

We know humans use language as a "code", we have nothing but your swearing up and down to show there's a sentient entity behind the production or function of DNA.


Here's the major flaw in your argument. Sentience is the product of a physical brain, and can't be shown otherwise. So then, this sentient entity of yours would have to create a physical brain before it ever could create the physical.

Did you know that the Bond that holds the appropriate Amino Acid to the opposite end of the tRNA anticodon has a half life of .5 seconds? (lol).

So we say when them chemicals get together, it don't take 'em long to say "bye" to one another. Nothing here refutes my position that chemicals act according to their properties.

There's an Initiation Factor ("FUNCTIONAL" Protein), along with aminoacyl tRNA synthetase (Another "FUNCTIONAL" Protein), that protects that Bond (From Water---Hydrolysis) in transit and @ the rRNA for Translation. Without these "Functional" Proteins....you got Bupkis, a Big Fat Football Bat.

Yet here we are. I sense an argument from incredulity.

Nope, it has it's Own Language....The Genetic CODE:

No, that's the language scientists use to describe the observed reactions of the various chemicals.

There's no Physical/Chemical link between Nucleobases and Amino Acids, it's Semiotic.

Holding strictly to your notion, we then tell how nucleobases and amino acids don't react with one another. This changes nothing in regards to the chemicals that do react with one another.

Say Again, over? Please explain what tRNA's mission is (Briefly)...?

tRNA doesn't have a "mission", other'n perhaps to be all tRNAy.

This is another great example of the problem of useful terms interpreted by those who don't understand the need for those terms. We build a certain "anthropogenic library" of terms so that notions can be understood. Here, "mission" is one of those terms that we're a bit haughty to apply to tRNA. Does tRNA wake up in the morning thinking, "Welp, down to the old salt mines so I can feed young'ns"? No, it simply is. It simply exists. That it reacts with other chemicals is merely a "bonus".

As I said, if a chemical doesn't react with another chemical, there we go. If it does react with another chemical, there we go.

Question: How did you get "Functional" Proteins when it takes the process above (along with ~ 300 other processes) to get "Functional" Proteins?

Beats me.

We need not know the exact processes involved in order to rationally and logically conclude that chemicals act according to their properties.

Is it like the Space Shuttle giving Birth to the Space Shuttle Assembly Plant?

We observe chemicals act according to their properties, that we can't figure out the mechanism doesn't mean they don't.

Still doesn't change the fact that stuff that reacts with other stuff, that's what it does

So "Stuff Reacts...with other Stuff" is your answer? Is that from talk origins? (lol)

I prefer to cite my sources, as accurately as I know how, when I quote 'em.

Let's say I got it from 'em.

How does that refute the notion that stuff reacts with other stuff?

Here again is yet one more example at an attempt to use useful terms in order to get a point across, only it happens that some folks ain't so proud of useful terms, such that they'd question where the terms come from, as opposed to arguing the ideas behind those terms.

Chemicals act according to their properties. There's no getting around that fact.

So the Ink Molecules up to their old Authoring Books tricks again, eh? Or Paul Revere's Lights constructing messages.

Let's do an experiment, for science:

Step 1 - Find you a bucket of hydrochloric acid.
Step 2 - Dip your arm in it.

Report your findings.

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"

Whatcha think of that synopsis?

I think it's a brilliant use of useful terms to describe the situation. I find it thoroughly destroys your "ink making books" (my term) argument.

What do you think of it?

Chemicals act according to their properties.

This is fact, whether it upsets Mr. Lewis or not.

Yes, he's just a Nobel Laureate Geneticist..what does he know.

He ain't here to debate, so I'll leave him to his own devices about any potential misunderstanding of the fact that chemicals act according to their properties.

I have a sense though that he wouldn't disagree with my statement.

...
Define "a priori" adherence's to preposterous ludicrousness?

A priori means beforehand.

Adherence means sticking to something.

To means we're fixing to get at what's getting stuck to.

Preposterous means I can't rightly tell.

Ludicrousness means I can't rightly tell so much, I had to tell the whole world about my argument ad ignorantiam.

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 80 by Enoch2021]

Hey why do you not respond to me Enoch2021 probably because I have clearly shown you are incorrect. If you can not counter my arguments then coincide don't just ignore. Your terminology is incorrect, use the proper usage and if you don't know the proper usage that is okay. It is fine to be wrong best way to learn.

I will put my opinion in on the original subject line. "Is There Any Real Difference Between ID and God of the Gaps?" for me no. The baseline argument is always the same and based on what we don't know yet or applying our ability to create technology or software to biology. These are dramatically different things, yes we do base some technology on biology but biology is not inspired by technology. To me there is no way to prove a spiritual belief and there is no way to disprove it. Yet what I can do is disprove a usage of scientific data to prove the existence of God, every time unless you do dot accept(not believe) that all scientific fields are progressive and that is personal not something anyone else can change by reasoning.

I will also add biology is not expressed the same as software, we use or software to decipher it but this because of the human ability to assign characters to natural occurrence so we may decipher the natural working of these occurrences. Take language we assign sounds that represent objects, actions, or ideas. Does that mean we use the word tree so there for a tree knows its a tree, no, we(humans) assigned these word so we know what we are talking about. The tree itself is still a tree whether we call it a rock cause then the definition of rock would change to define a tree, the tree will not change to a rock physically because of our assignment of a words or sounds. Same goes for biology all terms are relative to the observer not to whatever part of an organism we study.

[Enoch2021]

[Replying to post 80 by Enoch2021]

Hey why do you not respond to me Enoch2021 probably because I have clearly shown you are incorrect.

Well because your arguments are put together with the effort of no more than that of a clumsy child.

If you can not counter my arguments

My 10 year old daughter could counter them. (Seriously)

Your terminology is incorrect, use the proper usage and if you don't know the proper usage that is okay. It is fine to be wrong best way to learn.

Sir ahhh, I'm degreed in Biochemistry from a Top Tiered Secular University and worked half my life in the Profession. These "so-called" arguments and what you're gonna "TEACH" me, are Tear Jerkin Belly Laugher's.

Here's the Issue, I have no problem with people that don't have a background in any of the "Actual" Sciences; their path in life has led them in another direction, No Problem. HOWEVER, when these same people Talk with Authority about said subjects...that's another matter entirely!!!! They will be EXPOSED...as you have witnessed.

When you have a substantive cogent argument with @ least something relevant and accurate to 8th Grade Biology or above then I'll respond.

I've had my fill of "The Dunning–Kruger effect", and the frivolous half-baked Baseless Assertions; aka: No Argument Diversions....that's rampant on these threads, so from here on out...I will not respond until that above standard is met.

Any questions, concerns, or something that needs clarification?

regards

[Danmark]

Sir ahhh, I'm degreed in Biochemistry from a Top Tiered Secular University and worked half my life in the Profession.

I don't believe that and have seen nothing to substantiate it.

[rookiebatman]

If you can not counter my arguments

My 10 year old daughter could counter them. (Seriously)

Perhaps you should let her use your account, then, since that would mean she could do a better job than you.

I've had my fill of "The Dunning–Kruger effect", and the frivolous half-baked Baseless Assertions; aka: No Argument Diversions....that's rampant on these threads, so from here on out...I will not respond until that above standard is met.

Really? This from the guy who just spams "How Did Stupid Atoms Write Their Own Software.....?" any time you can't find something about the other person's argument to nitpick?

Look at the name of the thread; Is There Any Real Difference Between ID and God of the Gaps? That proposition puts the burden of proof on YOU. We don't need to make any arguments or assertions, and all your arguments and assertions about all the questions you think evolution can't answer (i.e. gaps) really just illustrates how correct the proposition is.

[Excubis]

[Replying to post 84 by Enoch2021]

Okay then, sure, biochemist who told me amino acids have nothing to do with DNA sure buddy. You say my arguments are childish hmmm, Funny I could easily find my definitions of terms you use online but I prefer to deal with free thinkers who check info. themselves, and does not matter to me if they are theist or atheist. I do this as well if I either don't know what is being said or lack a basic understanding. Yes my definitions are not verbatim because I am recalling from memory. Also what biochemist would use quotes about genetics from the 1960's hmmm and if so you would use to show how much our knowledge has grown or to show the incorrect understanding at that time. This is doubtful highly doubtful. See you cannot respond adequately because my info is correct. To resort to calling my arguments childish ha, I have never encountered childish from any person holding such a degree, debates and discussion on topics such as this has been a part of my life since childhood. Refute my terminology than it is not childish it is correct and if I am not, show me proof, I am not afraid to be shown I am incorrect, I personally love being challenged intellectually. I revel on being showed my info. is incorrect it is the way I gain new knowledge and not propagate outdated or even wrong information. Please do or should I continue to pick apart the terms you use such as "translation" with in genetics. or what splicing actually is. I honestly could but I am holding back quite a bit but if you wish to continue on the path you are on I will continue to call you out. I do this to theists and atheists alike, incorrect term and their definitions are one of my biggest pet peeves and drives such misinformation. How is me saying no DNA no organism incorrect. I am even leaving you an opening but you cannot see it, which is fine, if you did not portray to be an academic but now the gloves are off.

I edited and removed some stuff sorry if admin and mods saw before I did edit.

Also I know the dunning-kruger effect very well but does not mean anything here unless you are first ready to provide your credentials if so I do concede, once I check them I am not yet ready to show mine. I wish I hadn't even mentioned mine yet I am proud and pride can often override reason.

[Danmark]

[Replying to post 84 by Enoch2021]

Okay then, sure, biochemist who told me amino acids have nothing to do with DNA sure buddy. You say my arguments are childish hmmm, Funny I could easily find my definitions of terms you use online but I prefer to deal with free thinkers who check info. themselves, and does not matter to me if they are theist or atheist. I do this as well if I either don't know what is being said or lack a basic understanding. Yes my definitions are not verbatim because I am recalling from memory. Also what biochemist would use quotes about genetics from the 1960's....

Real biochemists keep up on the literature and know how to properly cite first sources, current peer reviewed sources, not blogs that have recycled invented quotes and quotes taken out of context. A real biochemist would cite respected journals in the field . . . if he had any that supported his claims. If not, he would use religious sites that rely on 4th generation misquotes and claims from creation sites whose founders, like Kent Hovind, are in jail for fraud.

The funniest part of what this pseudo scientist, typical of the YEC tribe, said was his response to a U.S. magistrate before he was convicted:

The government charged that Hovind falsely listed the IRS as his only creditor in his bankruptcy, filed a false and frivolous lawsuit against the IRS in which he demanded damages for criminal trespass, made threats of harm to those investigating him and to those who might consider cooperating with the investigation, filed a false complaint against IRS agents investigating him, filed a false criminal complaint against IRS special agents (criminal investigators), and destroyed records.[165]
Wikisource has original text related to this article:
United States of America v Kent Hovind and Jo Hovind
[b]After being indicted, Hovind claimed incomprehension to the charges[/b], telling the court: "I still don't understand what I'm being charged for and who is charging me."[163] Magistrate Miles Davis asked Hovind if he wrote and spoke English, to which Hovind responded "To some degree".

[Wootah]

[Replying to post 80 by Enoch2021]

Hey why do you not respond to me Enoch2021 probably because I have clearly shown you are incorrect.

Well because your arguments are put together with the effort of no more than that of a clumsy child.

If you can not counter my arguments

My 10 year old daughter could counter them. (Seriously)

Your terminology is incorrect, use the proper usage and if you don't know the proper usage that is okay. It is fine to be wrong best way to learn.

Sir ahhh, I'm degreed in Biochemistry from a Top Tiered Secular University and worked half my life in the Profession. These "so-called" arguments and what you're gonna "TEACH" me, are Tear Jerkin Belly Laugher's.

Here's the Issue, I have no problem with people that don't have a background in any of the "Actual" Sciences; their path in life has led them in another direction, No Problem. HOWEVER, when these same people Talk with Authority about said subjects...that's another matter entirely!!!! They will be EXPOSED...as you have witnessed.

When you have a substantive cogent argument with @ least something relevant and accurate to 8th Grade Biology or above then I'll respond.

I've had my fill of "The Dunning–Kruger effect", and the frivolous half-baked Baseless Assertions; aka: No Argument Diversions....that's rampant on these threads, so from here on out...I will not respond until that above standard is met.

Any questions, concerns, or something that needs clarification?

regards

Moderator Warning


Please show others more respect when debating. It may or may not be true that an argument is weak or strong but this site values civil discussion and argument.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.