As an explanation of the existence of man, creation is superior to evolution

[o_mlly]

You've not present any evidence that evolution might be wrong ...

Really? What percentage probability do you assign to evolution being right?

NB: I've asked several of your fellow evo's the same question and got no replies.

 

[AV1611VET]

We stand on the shoulders of others.

So do we.

And while I'll agree that we shouldn't attempt to use science to validate the Bible, will you agree that you shouldn't use science to attempt to invalidate It?

After all, science and history are two different things.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Really? What percentage probability do you assign to evolution being right?

NB: I've asked several of your fellow evo's the same question and go no replies.

Nice dodge. You asking me to what percentage I feel evolution to be correct is not your presenting evidence for evolution being incorrect or creation being factual or better than evolution.
Cute. And you say you're a scientist?

 

[HitchSlap]

Really? What percentage probability do you assign to evolution being right?

NB: I've asked several of your fellow evo's the same question and go no replies.

Probability 100%.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not only did he cross it, but he walked on water doing it. And he did so wearing a MAGA hat, carrying a Chump flag, whistling Yankee Doodle.

Just remember:

Washing crossing the Delaware is a painting; not a photograph.

 

[pitabread]

Really? What percentage probability do you assign to evolution being right?

NB: I've asked several of your fellow evo's the same question and go no replies.

What to you mean by "right"?

In the context that evolution is an observable process we see in populations of living things, 100%. I mean, it's an observable process. To deny it just doesn't make any sense. You might as well be denying gravity.

In the context of the theory of evolution being "right", that entirely depends on how one qualifies that. All scientific theories are provisional (as you have said) and represent simplified explanations for observable phenomena. So depending on how your define "right" in that context, the answer could be 0% or 100% or any number in between.

 

[HitchSlap]

So do we.

And while I'll agree that we shouldn't attempt to use science to validate the Bible, will you agree that you shouldn't use science to attempt to invalidate It?

After all, science and history are two different things.

But there is a certain rigor applied to historical methods that Christians ignore.

 

[HitchSlap]

Just remember:

Washing crossing the Delaware is a painting; not a photograph.

A painting based on what… exactly?

 

[pitabread]

After all, science and history are two different things.

The study of history is a science (social science).

 

[o_mlly]

An emergent property is a property which a collection or complex system has, but which the individual members do not have. A failure to realize that a property is emergent, or supervenient, leads to the fallacy of division.
In chemistry, for example, the taste of saltiness is a property of salt, but that does not mean that it is also a property of sodium and chlorine, the two elements which make up salt. Thus, saltiness is an emergent or a supervenient property of salt. Claiming that chlorine must be salty because salt is salty would be an example of the fallacy of division.
In biology, for example, heart is made of heart cells, heart cells on their own don't have the property of pumping blood. You will need the whole heart to be able to pump blood. Thus, the pumping property of the heart is an emergent or a supervenient property of the heart. Claiming that an individual heart cell can pump blood because the heart can would be an example of fallacy of division.

Thanks, Phred. What is the difference between "strong" and "weak" emergence? And with respect to the OP: What type of emergence is "consciousness"?

 

[o_mlly]

All of the above. Especially in lieu of the discussion in the thread. Your attempts at paraphrasing aren't paraphrasing; they're distorted fabrications.

I did not claim to "paraphrase"; I claimed I did not "distort". Show the answer that you claim I distorted.

 

[pitabread]

I did not claim to "paraphrase"; I claimed I did not "distort". Show the answer that you claim I distorted.

I answered that, specifically the claim that we can't explain how humans are alive. That is the very thing that biology (and by extension chemistry) does explain and it was discussed earlier in this thread.

 

[o_mlly]

I feel evolution to be correct ...

That explains a lot. I cannot argue with how you feel; only with how you think.

 

[o_mlly]

Probability 100%.

Then you are definitely not a scientist.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That explains a lot. I cannot argue with how you feel; only with how you think.

Nice dodge. You're still not presenting any evidence that evolution is wrong or creation is correct, or even that creation is better than evolution.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The emergence of speech really be cannot
be explained by evolution per se.

Nobody has a inified explanation of everything,
though the goddidits manage to explain nothing.

Yes - some of the structural/organizational changes in the brain for speech are clearly evolutionary, from comparisons with close relatives, but brains don't preserve, so we don't have an ancestral record other than cranial impressions, which are of limited use. I would expect a lot more details from the genetic record, at least for relatively recent human evolution.

 

[HitchSlap]

Then you are definitely not a scientist.

I’ve never heard of a scientist who doesn’t accept ToE. Maybe you’re new at this?

 

[HitchSlap]

That explains a lot. I cannot argue with how you feel; only with how you think.

Feelings are often based on one’s knowledge, are thereby reliable.

 

[o_mlly]

What to you mean by "right"?

In the context that evolution is an observable process we see in populations of living things, 100%. I mean, it's an observable process. To deny it just doesn't make any sense. You might as well be denying gravity.

In the context of the theory of evolution being "right", that entirely depends on how one qualifies that. All scientific theories are provisional (as you have said) and represent simplified explanations for observable phenomena. So depending on how your define "right" in that context, the answer could be 0% or 100% or any number in between.

"In the context that evolution is an observable process we see in populations of living things, 100%"

All I have observed is microevolution. In the context of the OP, have you observed in nature an animal reproduce a descendant that possessed a cognitive property not present in its parents?

 

[HitchSlap]

"In the context that evolution is an observable process we see in populations of living things, 100%"

All I have observed is microevolution. In the context of the OP, have you observed in nature an animal reproduce a descendant that possessed a cognitive property not present in its parents?

Like a crockoduck?