So I was in the bathroom this morning brushing my teeth and it suddenly occured to me, the atheists are some very clever and sly bunch.

They accuse the theists of proposing as proof of their god a concept aptly named 'GOD OF THE GAPS' whereby whatever that can't be explained by current knowledge is beyond human understanding and therefore proof of the supernatural/god.

Now, that position is quite a naïve one because heck! This same argument has been used over the ages in explaining fire, snow, thunder, rainbow, storms, mountains etc and for theists to still be propounding this here notion of 'GOD OF THE GAPS' arguments is quite foolish if I may say so myself (although I used it some time ago against ooman[before I knew he was a dunce!] to good effect), and the atheists gladly make them look silly when they start spewing that crap. So I say damn you theists! If that's all you have then you have no arguments.

Then here comes the atheists...they usually point to what they call 'accidents of nature' to show that in fact what we see around us are just results of random accidents over a looooooong period of time because heck! there are some quite 'USELESS' parts of the body for example which have no purpose and therefore, voila! Proof of evolution!

What the heck!!!? How's this position different from the 'GOD OF THE GAPS' position?

It isn't if you look at it closely because man, both positions are arguments from ignorance
The one says, what caused the big bang? You don't know? Voila! Its God!

The other says, why are there numerous seemingly surplus galaxies and why is the universe so big if we are all alone and are the purpose of all creation? You don't know? Voila! Evolution!!!

While the former has been aptly named the 'GOD OF THE GAPS', the latter in my opinion is the 'evolution of the useless'

So hey theists, whenever the atheists make you look silly when you pull the 'GOD OF THE GAPS' line outta your ar'se, make them look silly too by shoving the 'evolution of the useless' in their face!

Final score: 1-1, Nobody win.

Edits.

Mr Troll:

Then here comes the atheists...they usually point to what they call 'accidents of nature' to show that in fact what we see around us are just results of random accidents over a looooooong period of time because heck! there are some quite 'USELESS' parts of the body for example which have no purpose and therefore, voila! Proof of evolution!

That's not what atheists, or rather, scientists say, troll. In case you missed it, scientists KNOW why most vestigials are there, they were useful to an ancestor....

wiegraf:

That's not what atheists, or rather, scientists say, troll. In case you missed it, scientists KNOW why most vestigials are there, they were useful to an ancestor....

they KNOW or they THEORIZE it?
Just like how they 'knew' the appendix was useless and now...?

Mr Troll: they KNOW or they THEORIZE it?
Just like how they 'knew' the appendix was useless and now...?

They KNOW

And the appendix is mostly useless. It is useful to herbivores, not necessary to omnivores.

And all these other organs, I suppose they were just intelligently designed? It just happens to be a coincidence that whales and snakes have remnants of limbs, we have remnants of our days as herbivores via the appendix and of course, tails, etc. Even chickens that have lost the ability to fly, have wings because?

wiegraf:

They KNOW

And the appendix is mostly useless. It is useful to herbivores, not necessary to omnivores.

And all these other organs, I suppose they were just intelligently designed? It just happens to be a coincidence that whales and snakes have remnants of limbs, we have remnants of our days as herbivores via the appendix and of course, tails, etc. Even chickens that have lost the ability to fly, have wings because?

...because eh... Evolution? Yeks!
See the OP. Read it again...

Mr Troll: ... because eh... Evolution? Yeks!
See the OP. Read it again...

wiegraf:
they were useful to an ancestor

You're beginning to veer into foolishness..

wiegraf:



You're beginning to veer into foolishness..

they were useful to our ancestors but are no longer useful now. Therefore it is proof that evolution took place, abi?


Now Mr Wiegraf, what do you think my OP is talking about?

wiegraf:

They KNOW

And the appendix is mostly useless. It is useful to herbivores, not necessary to omnivores.

And all these other organs, I suppose they were just intelligently designed? It just happens to be a coincidence that whales and snakes have remnants of limbs, we have remnants of our days as herbivores via the appendix and of course, tails, etc. Even chickens that have lost the ability to fly, have wings because?

There was evolution. But it is illogical and improbable to suggest that it occurred by chance random events. Chance and random matter could not and would not contrive conscious beings.

Indeed, by the principles of evolution, unicellular organisms would not ever have evolved into statistically less successful multicellular creatures.

Not to speak about brains.

Mr Troll: they were useful to our ancestors but are no longer useful now. Therefore it is proof that evolution took place, abi?


Now Mr Wiegraf, what do you think my OP is talking about?

hmmm

Mr Troll:

Then here comes the atheists...they usually point to what they call 'accidents of nature' to show that in fact what we see around us are just results of random accidents over a looooooong period of time because heck! there are some quite 'USELESS' parts of the body for example which have no purpose and therefore, voila! Proof of evolution!

Which HAD a purpose but are obviously useless now, therefore one of the effects of evolution. This is a natural explanation for their ubiquity.

Not saying 'don't know, therefore; Evolution (or god, etc)'
Saying 'Do know. Because of evolution'

Again, a natural explanation that agrees with the evidence. Explains why their presence, how they occurred, and indeed what their purpose is, via explaining why they exist. Do you understand?

Mr Troll:
What the heck!!!? How's this position different from the 'GOD OF THE GAPS' position?

Above..

Mr Troll:
It isn't if you look at it closely because man, both positions are arguments from ignorance

Really?

Mr Troll:
The one says, what caused the big bang? You don't know? Voila! Its God!

Rather than 'I don't know', make something up. Illogical as it may be and completely untestable, probably even featuring supernatural elements that have never been or even be tested or confirmed, that contradict natural observations and common sense, then saying it did it? Yes, argument from ignorance.

Don't know, therefore 'GOD', etc = argument from ignorance

Mr Troll:
The other says, why are there numerous seemingly surplus galaxies and why is the universe so big if we are all alone and are the purpose of all creation? You don't know? Voila! Evolution!!!

Again, just as we know why vestigials exist through nature, we do know why the universe is gargantuan. You already state it; because there is NO PURPOSE. At the very least, it's because we are not the purpose. So, again, a natural explanation that agrees with the evidence. Nothing being made up. Hope that's clear now? If you can come up with a reasonable purpose and the evidence to back it up, please do so. I hope it's not because GOD!! wants to watch big brother earth?

And just how in whargarbl does lots of galaxies = "Voila! Evolution!!!"? Evolution is responsible for the birth of stars?

Deep Sight:

There was evolution. But it is illogical and improbable to suggest that it occurred by chance random events. Chance and random matter could not and would not contrive conscious beings.

Indeed, by the principles of evolution, unicellular organisms would not ever have evolved into statistically less successful multicellular creatures.

Not to speak about brains.

I obviously disagree.

I think the low odds are the reason we've not encountered alien life yet (yes, we've not visited the stars or other habitable planets, but we're yet to even come across stuff like radio waves from other species, etc). They are also the reason why despite the (probably) billions of species that have been, we're the only ones we know of that have acquired our sort of consciousness. In other words, the paucity of life gives weight to the case for low odds.

And of course matter MUST interact, entropy must occur. Matter must work, all around us, all the time. So inevitably, so long as life is conceptually possible, it MUST occur (well, at least, very likely, depending on size, and this universe is pretty BIG. In an infinite universe though it MUST occur eventually)..

wiegraf:

hmmm

Okay.

wiegraf: Which HAD a purpose but are obviously useless now, therefore one of the effects of evolution. This is a natural explanation for their ubiquity.

State the purpose and features in the ancestral organisms in which it was purposeful.

wiegraf: Not saying 'don't know, therefore; Evolution (or god, etc)'
Saying 'Do know. Because of evolution'

So how did evolution do it . . . Enter the speculators.

wiegraf: Again, a natural explanation that agrees with the evidence. Explains why their presence, how they occurred, and indeed what their purpose is, via explaining why they exist. Do you understand?

Doesn't state how. Only speculates based on flimsy evidence about how. In fact, numerous details are left out and impossibilities ignored or hand-waved away.

wiegraf: Above.

Dismissed above.

wiegraf: Really?

Tough meat to chew huh ! Too much milk from the marvelously evolved tittië$ of evolutionists has made your molars weak.

wiegraf: Rather than 'I don't know', make something up. Illogical as it may be and completely untestable, probably even featuring supernatural elements that have never been or even be tested or confirmed, that contradict natural observations and common sense, then saying it did it? Yes, argument from ignorance.

Like the patently inane idea that random mutations creates new traits and natural selection must preserve good ones, all the while lacking teleology.

wiegraf: Don't know, therefore 'GOD', etc = argument from ignorance

Don't know, therefore Evolution = argument from ignorance (or should I say I say chimeras because the idea that whales evolved from certain mammals and dinosaurs from birds is just as magical)

wiegraf: Again, just as we know why vestigials exist through nature, we do know why the universe is gargantuan. You already state it; because there is NO PURPOSE. At the very least, it's because we are not the purpose. So, again, a natural explanation that agrees with the evidence. Nothing being made up. Hope that's clear now? If you can come up with a reasonable purpose and the evidence to back it up, please do so. I hope it's not because GOD!! wants to watch big brother earth?

Cut off that belly button dude! It's vestigial.

wiegraf: And just how in whargarbl does lots of galaxies = "Voila! Evolution!!!"? Evolution is responsible for the birth of stars?

The big mystery, eh ?

^^^

Really, whatever happened to your ignore list? I was really excited about making it, then you had to ruin it by taking me off it....

What do I have to do to get back on it??

wiegraf:
So inevitably, so long as life is conceptually possible

Life is not conceptually possible at all, given the blind chance pre biotic soup model.

In fact, i positively assert to you that in such a scenario, life is impossible, and could never have arisen. I also say to you that no scientist anywhere has ever shown how first life arose from such.

Can you tell me of any proper explanation or concept that shows how the first living thing would have become living, from dead matter and though chance events?

wiegraf: ^^^

Really, whatever happened to your ignore list? I was really excited about making it, then you had to ruin it by taking me off it....

What do I have to do to get back on it??

Comprehension problems, since I never said I was ignoring you. Quite the contrary, you are on my radar, hence my saying that you are on my blacklist. You should feel happy, thehomer has top spot.

Uyi Iredia:

Comprehension problems, since I never said I was ignoring you. Quite the contrary, you are on my radar, hence my saying that you are on my blacklist. You should feel happy, thehomer has top spot.

Though you could use the word that way, the word you probably meant to use, my good confusionist, is hitlist..

Anyways..

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/blacklist

blacklist
n.
A list of persons or organizations that have incurred disapproval or suspicion or are to be boycotted or otherwise penalized.

tr.v. black·list·ed, black·list·ing, black·lists
To place on or as if on a blacklist.

Doesn't the bolded definition look se.xier to you? What exactly do you aim to achieve anyhow?

Deep Sight:

Life is not conceptually possible at all, given the blind chance pre biotic soup model.

In fact, i positively assert to you that in such a scenario, life is impossible, and could never have arisen. I also say to you that no scientist anywhere has ever shown how first life arose from such.

Can you tell me of any proper explanation or concept that shows how the first living thing would have become living, from dead matter and though chance events?

I nearly missed this. Anyways, conceptually it is possible, a few theories are flying around. Biologists discuss the odds here

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

And this universe may be inherently probabilistic, but that is maybe not so relevant at this moment

Philosophically, your very existence proves abiogenesis did occur, no? Unless life occurred before the ingredients used to create it even existed, which obviously does not make sense. Same old; simple - complex. The question is how

Now, even if the leading theories of the day remain imperfect, invoking 'god did it' is obviously; 'god of the gaps'. How has that worked out? We'll work it out eventually, find a natural explanation, rather than continue to claim evil spirits cause diseases.

wiegraf:

I nearly missed this. Anyways, conceptually it is possible, a few theories are flying around. Biologists discuss the odds here

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html

And this universe may be inherently probabilistic, but that is maybe not so relevant at this moment

Philosophically, your very existence proves abiogenesis did occur, no? Unless life occurred before the ingredients used to create it even existed, which obviously does not make sense. Same old; simple - complex. The question is how

Now, even if the leading theories of the day remain imperfect, invoking 'god did it' is obviously; 'god of the gaps'. How has that worked out? We'll work it out eventually, find a natural explanation, rather than continue to claim evil spirits cause diseases.

I aint talking about no God of any gaps.

And there's nothing u have written here to show the cause of first life from mindless matter.

So when you say "conceptually possible" you are fulfilling the OP's prediction: you are speculating, and therefore living on a theory and theories of gaps as well. Simple.

wiegraf: ^^^

Really, whatever happened to your ignore list? I was really excited about making it, then you had to ruin it by taking me off it....

What do I have to do to get back on it??

notice how wiegraf, having no answers to Uyi's questions... slyly uses an over-worn trick to dodge them.

davidylan:

notice how wiegraf, having no answers to Uyi's questions... slyly uses an over-worn trick to dodge them.

looooolz

Deep Sight:

There was evolution. But it is illogical and improbable to suggest that it occurred by chance random events. Chance and random matter could not and would not contrive conscious beings.

Indeed, by the principles of evolution, unicellular organisms would not ever have evolved into statistically less successful multicellular creatures.

Not to speak about brains.

Are you saying there was evolution ,or that there is evolution?
Perhaps you should explain to us what you mean by evolution, how it works, where it occurs and where it does not occur.

Isn't it more logical, morel likely, and less contradictory that the universe accidentally evolved a spark of consciousness that grew into further complexity, then directed, and is still directing the further evolution of biological systems?

Chance and random matter produced everything in the universe, including conscious, sentient beings with complex brains. That is very obvious.
Unless, ofcourse, conscious beings are not part of this universe, but are tokumbos from another universe.

wiegraf:

Though you could use the word that way, the word you probably meant to use, my good confusionist, is hitlist..

Anyways..

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/blacklist

blacklist
n.
A list of persons or organizations that have incurred disapproval or suspicion or are to be boycotted or otherwise penalized.

tr.v. black·list·ed, black·list·ing, black·lists
To place on or as if on a blacklist.

Doesn't the bolded definition look se.xier to you? What exactly do you aim to achieve anyhow?

Sexiër ! Don't patronize me. Hitlist, incorrect. More like $hitlist.

shit·list also shit list (sh t l st )
n. Vulgar Slang
A number of persons who are strongly disapproved of.

wiegraf:
Which HAD a purpose but are obviously useless now, therefore one of the effects of evolution. This is a natural explanation for their ubiquity.

can you tell me with certainty what their purpose WAS? and pls don't give me theories. Give me proof.

Not saying 'don't know, therefore; Evolution (or god, etc)'
Saying 'Do know. Because of evolution'

see question above.

Again, a natural explanation that agrees with the evidence. Explains why their presence, how they occurred, and indeed what their purpose is, via explaining why they exist. Do you understand?

see first question, and while at it pls add the how.

Rather than 'I don't know', make something up. Illogical as it may be and completely untestable, probably even featuring supernatural elements that have never been or even be tested or confirmed, that contradict natural observations and common sense, then saying it did it? Yes, argument from ignorance.

Don't know, therefore 'GOD', etc = argument from ignorance

ok.
Funny how you start waxing scientific when you see 'god of the gaps'. Lol

Again, just as we know why vestigials exist through nature, we do know why the universe is gargantuan. You already state it; because there is NO PURPOSE. At the very least, it's because we are not the purpose. So, again, a natural explanation that agrees with the evidence. Nothing being made up. Hope that's clear now? If you can come up with a reasonable purpose and the evidence to back it up, please do so. I hope it's not because GOD!! wants to watch big brother earth?

No, in fact its not clear. Can you tell me with certainty why the Universe is gargantuan? I already said it? Hell no! I only reported what the atheists say. Do you have evidence for your position that it has no purpose and is just as a result of random chance? Pls show it.

And just how in whargarbl does lots of galaxies = "Voila! Evolution!!!"? Evolution is responsible for the birth of stars?

so mr Wiegraf, lots of galaxies = what again?

Mr Troll:
Now, that position is quite a naïve one because heck! This same argument has been used over the ages in explaining fire, snow, thunder, rainbow, storms, mountains etc and for theists to still be propounding this here notion of 'GOD OF THE GAPS' arguments is quite foolish if I may say so myself (although I used it some time ago against ooman[before I knew he was a dunce!] to good effect), and the atheists gladly make them look silly when they start spewing that crap. So I say damn you theists! If that's all you have then you have no arguments.

Who is the dunce here? You, whose position is based on assumptions or me, whose position is based on observation.

You know, you theist have a very simple work to do compared to atheists. You propose a conscious God, all you need to do is to call him down. Simple.

We propose randomness, and this we have shown the world.

Mr Troll:
Final score: 1-1, Nobody win.

Edits.

Except reason and logic betrays you.

By reason and logic, the atheistic position is satisfied and has one more point than the theistic position.

davidylan:

notice how wiegraf, having no answers to Uyi's questions... slyly uses an over-worn trick to dodge them.

DAVID!!!

Are we back on speaking terms, am I now off your, as @uyi would call it, $hitlist? I missed you about as one could miss cancer. In other news, if you really think @uyi, whose case of rabies seems worse than yours, has anything remotely useful to add...

Well... Who do I speak to?

Mr Troll: can you tell me with certainty what their purpose WAS? and pls don't give me theories. Give me proof.

see question above.

see first question, and while at it pls add the how.

Like I said, head first into foolishness. What exactly do you think remnants of limbs were used for? Or what do you think wings on chickens served? I supposed they used those wings back in the day to swim, yes?

Also, the foolishness of focusing on the word 'theory'.. I suppose gravity is just a theory as well, yes? If you jump of a building you won't fall down as it's a nonsense theory. It's not really real, just speculation.

Mr Troll:
ok.
Funny how you start waxing scientific when you see 'god of the gaps'. Lol

No, in fact its not clear. Can you tell me with certainty why the Universe is gargantuan? I already said it? Hell no! I only reported what the atheists say. Do you have evidence for your position that it has no purpose and is just as a result of random chance? Pls show it.

so mr Wiegraf, lots of galaxies = what again?

I can tell you, and you guys love to have one repeat himself over and over, that it is by far the more likely 'purpose' as it agrees the most with the evidence. You have a better one that explains to colossal size, randomness, and general capriciousness, then please, do share. Unlike you nutters science will gladly change its stance if shown to be wrong. You see, because it's actually looking for the real answers, not comically making $hit up then pretending to know.

As for your demand that I prove to you this universe is gargantuan........ Well....... I hope you're trolling

Deep Sight:

I aint talking about no God of any gaps.

And there's nothing u have written here to show the cause of first life from mindless matter.

So when you say "conceptually possible" you are fulfilling the OP's prediction: you are speculating, and therefore living on a theory and theories of gaps as well. Simple.

I am applying the very basics of the scientific method, which is based of falsifications...very simple.

So, you tell me what's more likely.

GOD!!! Once resided in rocks and rivers, after being besought he moved to immaterialness

Or

A natural, logical explanation, like the path the urey-miller(? Can't remember name) experiments follow? Explanations that have fueled humanity's spectacular progress over the last few hundred years?

If falsified, we gladly find another option. But note, last I checked, god was immaterialness. That's not going to help.

And invoking god is, indeed, the very definition of god of the gaps. Don't know = GOD!!!

notice also how the atheist spends most of his time simply insulting the intelligence of the OP and any other person who opposes his opinion (often masquerading as scientific "fact") rather than answering the questions with thoughtfulness and a modicum of intelligent reasoning.

wiegraf:
A natural, logical explanation, like the path the urey-miller(? Can't remember name) experiments follow? Explanations that have fueled humanity's spectacular progress over the last few hundred years?

to call the Urey-miller experiment logical and "natural"... now you know those who truly know their onions and those who simply copy-paste what they read from talk-origins. There is really no point discussing with people like this.

davidylan: notice also how the atheist spends most of his time simply insulting the intelligence of the OP and any other person who opposes his opinion (often masquerading as scientific "fact" rather than answering the questions with thoughtfulness and a modicum of intelligent reasoning.

I'm quite sure I didn't address the op. I'm also sure I did not mention the scientific method and falsification.

But do note, evolution is a FACT.

davidylan:

to call the Urey-miller experiment logical and "natural"... now you know those who truly know their onions and those who simply copy-paste what they read from talk-origins. There is really no point discussing with people like this.

DAVID!! You speak to me again.

https://www.google.com.ng/search?q=natural+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

nat·u·ral
/ˈnaCHərəl/
Adjective
Existing in or caused by nature; not made or caused by humankind.
Noun
A person regarded as having an innate gift or talent for a particular task or activity.
Adverb
Naturally: "keep walking—just act natural".

Do indulge me. How is it not logical and natural, oh supposed scientist? Or is all you have, as usual, ad hominems (and I nearly forgot, a healthy dose of hypocrisy and projection)?

davidylan: notice also how the atheist spends most of his time simply insulting the intelligence of the OP and any other person who opposes his opinion (often masquerading as scientific "fact" rather than answering the questions with thoughtfulness and a modicum of intelligent reasoning.

Olodo. The OP itself is forged in insult.

Birds of same feather, blind leaders of the blind always fall into deep abyss of delusions.

People speak for a conscious god like priest speak for rocks they've deified.

Pathetic

davidylan:

to call the Urey-miller experiment logical and "natural"... now you know those who truly know their onions and those who simply copy-paste what they read from talk-origins. There is really no point discussing with people like this.

These guys' experiment really threatened your bible. Dont worry, calm down, its not perfect yet.

The time comes when the bible shall fill the incinerator.