My Superiority Challenge

o_mlly said:

To transcend both scientism and faith one has to take recourse to philosophy, specifically metaphysical philosophy.

Click to expand...

There's a place for the Mystic where matter and spirit meet. It's not philosophical, it's experiential in nature.

AV1611VET said:

Depends on what you want explained.

Click to expand...

It doesn't seem to be about an explanation so much as having an answer.

As I said in the other thread, this just seems to come down to satisfying psychological need for closure.

AV1611VET said:

Asking which is superior is not the same thing as ignoring creation.

I do ignore any evolutionist claims, but that's not the point of this thread.

This thread is comparing two paradigms and asking which is superior to the other.

Click to expand...

And then completely ignoring the answers given.

partinobodycular said:

it lies within the human imagination. Unencumbered by a need for evidence the mind is free to imagine whatever it wants, and that strips creationism of any explanatory power that it may have thought it had. When every explanation that the human mind can conceive must be deemed credible, then none of them are credible.

Click to expand...

if you substitute "evolution" for "creationism" and its pronouns above then you would see the improbability of evolution to explain what it claims.

In another thread, I asked proponents of evolution to post the probability they assign to the truth of evolution theory. I ask you the same question.

o_mlly said:

In another thread, I asked proponents of evolution to post the probability they assign to the truth of evolution theory. I ask you the same question.

Click to expand...

99%. That's the probability I assign to the truth of the theory of evolution because I am willing to accept that I could be wrong.

o_mlly said:

if you substitute "evolution" for "creationism" and its pronouns above then you would see the improbability of evolution to explain what it claims.

In another thread, I asked proponents of evolution to post the probability they assign to the truth of evolution theory. I ask you the same question.

Click to expand...

Life evolved. There is no doubt. That's the phenomenon we've observed and are explaining. It happened. It's like gravity. Objects fall. That's the phenomenon we're trying to explain.

Now the Theory of Evolution explains HOW life evolved. What is the probability that it's correct? In all it's various pieces? 99.999%.

Evolution by Natural Selection is how it happened. It's corroborated by multiple lines of scientific study including but not limited to Genetics, geology, paleontology, anthropology, Biology, Chemistry, Biogeography, anatomy, molecular biology...

AV1611VET said:

But it didn't come into existence via evolution or abiogenesis.

If you think it did, how did the angels manage to circumvent these two processes?

Click to expand...

How did Mickey Mouse? He doesn't exist either.

AV1611VET said:

But it didn't come into existence via evolution or abiogenesis.

If you think it did, how did the angels manage to circumvent these two processes?

Click to expand...

AV1611VET said:

But it didn't come into existence via evolution or abiogenesis.

If you think it did, how did the angels manage to circumvent these two processes?

Click to expand...

Your talking about two different things here. Angels are not physical matter which does change and evolve over time. Angels are spiritual and function differently than the physical world. It's wrong to compare the spiritual world as if it's the physical world acting in the same manor.

AV1611VET said:

Life is life.

Click to expand...

There's different kinds of life that fills different realms with differing means. Angels are spiritual beings which do not evolve. On the other hand, the physical world does change and does evolve over time. I bet that you've changed quite a bit over the years. I know for certain that I have. That's not something that Angels do.

AV1611VET said:

Thus my question in Post 70:

How is it they don't?

Click to expand...

They arrived via a different process than the physical world.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

99%. That's the probability I assign

Click to expand...

Phred said:

In all it's various pieces? 99.999%.

Click to expand...

If rationally determined, do you have any math that support these probabilities of virtual certainty?

Gene Parmesan said:

Click to expand...

Is that a king capturing his opponent's king? Never saw that in a chess game. Kinda like witnessing a "speciation" event.

o_mlly said:

If rationally determined, do you have any math that support these probabilities of virtual certainty?

Click to expand...

I don't need to do any math. I've seen the evidence for myself from both parties and have made the deduction with my own intelligence that evolution is the much more likely fact that creationism is.

Warden_of_the_Storm said:

I don't need to do any math. I've seen the evidence for myself from both parties and have made the deduction with my own intelligence that evolution is the much more likely fact that creationism is.

Click to expand...

The math would serve to make the accuracy of your determination more convincing. But OK, this is your guesstimate or feeling, correct? (The question was not "compared to creationism"; only to the probability that the science of evolution theory is true.)