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

[abu afak]

View attachment 997644

View attachment 997646

View attachment 997650

Sherlock the the Creator Troll, now defeated, meme's out.

`

 

[BackAgain]

Sherlock the the Creator Troll, now defeated, meme's out.

`

Hey. Apu dumfuk. Nobody buys the crap you try to peddle.


;

 

[abu afak]

If, by “Pillars,” you meant shitpiles.

No, in fact they have 140,000+ views.
Another (NOW TWO) (EDIT NOW 3 with below) NO CONTENT posts from the board's most prolific Insult-alone member.

Frustrated and beaten Sherlock now out of the Closet too.

`

 

[BackAgain]

No, in fact they have 140,000+ views.
Another NO CONTENT post from the board's most prolific Insult-alone member.

“Viewing” your idiocy isn’t the same as buying the shit you try to peddle, dumfuk.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Sherlock the the Creator Troll, now defeated, meme's out.

`

Why do you end your posts with a backtick and why do you use a huge font, is it to give the impression you've said a lot?

 

[abu afak]

I find apu to be even less intellectually capable than you and that's hard to do.

As even you can see, my posts are the intellectual Pillars of the section.
But as you can also see I barely post here any more, and in fact barely ever did.
7K+ in 18 years.
And yet my posts/opinions Dominate the section!

Back to Mensa for me where I don't have to debate accepted science with one-line mental defective motor-mouths like you.

`

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Back to Mensa for me where I don't have to debate accepted science with one-line mental defective motor-mouths like you.

There are two types of people with a high IQ those who choose not to join Mensa (like me) because it serves absolutely no purpose and those who do because their egos rather than intellect are what really drives them.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

and

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I find apu to be even less intellectually capable than you and that's hard to do.

so sweet of you to share that

thank you

 

[abu afak]

There are two types of people with a high IQ those who choose not to join Mensa (like me) because it serves absolutely no purpose and those who do because their egos rather than intellect are what really drives them.

And those who have friends who ask them to join.. and in fact join the more selective groups above it.
Are you embarrassed to put your idiotic posts in Mensa's groups?
There are no raging anti-science Kweationists like you in the discussion groups.
There are perhaps one or two a year posts to that effect.

`

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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

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

1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki

God of the gaps​

​

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

​

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

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

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

​

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

*Therefore the cause must be supernatural.​

​

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

​

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

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

Take 2 million random lines of computer code, mix them randomly

How many years until you get an operating system?

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

And those who have friends who ask them to join.. and in fact join the more selective groups above it.
Are you embarrassed to put your idiotic posts in Mensa's groups?
There are no raging anti-science Kweationists like you in the discussion groups.
There is perhaps one a year post to that effect.

Take 2 million random lines of computer code, mix them randomly

How many years until you get an operating system?

Good question.

Or take the binary files of say the Windows kernel DLL, edit it in note pad and make a few "random" tweaks and see if it improves...

 

[abu afak]

Take 2 million random lines of computer code, mix them randomly

How many years until you get an operating system?

Premise error. But Alot, maybe even 4.54 Billion Years.
3 Billion to get first line.
`

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

And those who have friends who ask them to join.. and in fact join the more selective groups above it.

Well that would make three types then, not two.

Are you embarrassed to put your idiotic posts in Mensa's groups?

No, have you stopped beating your wife?

There are no raging anti-science Kweationists like you in the discussion groups.

More conflation, this time its "evolution" with "science".

There are perhaps one or two a year posts to that effect.

That settles it then, evolution must be true.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Premise error. But Alot, maybe even 4.54 Billion Years.
3 Billion to get first line.

Not much of a theory really if the test takes 4.54 billion years to complete.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Disputing a claim about the very distant past made by a scientist is not anti-science, it is in fact the essence of science. I do not subscribe to the argument from authority defense of evolution, one must be free to question any claim, especially about the distant past, million, billions of years ago.

 

[abu afak]

Well that would make three types then, not two.

No, have you stopped beating your wife?

More conflation, this time its "evolution" with "science".

That settles it then, evolution must be true.

So you ARE embarrassed to post the shlt you dump here on Mensa.
Or likely you are LYING about being a member.
Why wouldn't you post your earth shattering case there?
Think of the notoriety! (and infinitely better opposition)
Gameover pt 12,850.

`

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

So you ARE embarrassed to post the shlt you dump here on Mensa.
Or likely you are LYING about being a member.

I'm not a member, I never said I was so on what grounds do you accuse me of being a liar? hardly and intelligent statement.

Why wouldn't you post your earth shattering case there?
Think of the notoriety!
Gameover pt 12,850.

I passed the Mensa entrance test in London back in the mid 90s, when I was about 35 or so. I was curious that's all and was not interested in parading the fact, saw no reason to join such a club based on what I learned from others about it.

What "earth shattering case" are you referring to? There are many scientists who don't accept the dogma that underpins modern evolutionary claims.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Smart People Do Doubt Evolution

Here is where Macbeth makes his biggest contribution by citing David Fischer who describes “the fallacy of the possible proof” as an attempt to demonstrate that a statement is true or false by establishing the possibility of it being true or false. This is exactly how Darwinists today argue when they postulate that even though evolution may not be possible, with enough time the impossible becomes possible. Some evolutionists even go further than this and explain away the finetuning of the universe as a result of chance operating in an unlimited array of universes. Given enough universes, eventually one will arise that looks designed but is not actually designed. However, this is fallacious reasoning; the mere possibility of something happening does not mean that it did or that it can or will.

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

So you ARE embarrassed to post the shlt you dump here on Mensa.
Or likely you are LYING about being a member.
Why wouldn't you post your earth shattering case there?
Think of the notoriety! (and infinitely better opposition)
Gameover pt 12,850.

`

Here, I recall getting 132 (the minimum) on the Stanford-Binet test:

I passed and could have joined but it just didn't mean anything to me.