My Superiority Challenge

[partinobodycular]

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.

Considering the inherent difficulty in assigning a probability to such things, and considering the fact that I dislike hyperbole, I can only say that I believe the probability of evolution being true to be EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY HIGH.

Did I mention that I dislike hyperbole?

 

[o_mlly]

I believe the probability of evolution being true to be EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY HIGH.

Did I mention that I dislike hyperbole?

Is the operative word in your post "believe"?

 

[Phred]

Is the operative word in your post "believe"?

As has been exhaustively explained to you. Belief has nothing to do with it.

 

[partinobodycular]

Is the operative word in your post "believe"?

Absolutely. I sometimes think theists forget the importance of that word, instead substituting the word "know" far more often than warranted.

 

[d taylor]

A created painting (by Rembrandt) and a blank canvas waiting for the evolution of this painting. Wonder which one will be superior.

 

[Shemjaza]

A created painting (by Rembrandt) and a blank canvas waiting for the evolution of this painting. Wonder which one will be superior.

Paint and paintings don't reproduce or change on their own... life does.

 

[AV1611VET]

Paint and paintings don't reproduce or change on their own... life does.

Of the two, which is superior in monetary value?

 

[Shemjaza]

Of the two, which is superior in monetary value?

That depends on the painting in question and the life in question. (And I guess the individual and context of the people exchanging money).

Is a Rembrandt more costly than a fly? Sure, I guess.

Would I pay for a random piece of art with my dog? No.

 

[d taylor]

Paint and paintings don't reproduce or change on their own... life does.

They do change, paintings age with time

 

[Shemjaza]

They do change, paintings age with time

But can't grow and reproduce like life can, so it isn't comparable.

 

[d taylor]

But can't grow and reproduce like life can, so it isn't comparable.

Does evolution cause trees to grow

 

[Shemjaza]

Does evolution cause trees to grow

It gave plants the mechanism to grow, but the process of evolution happens over the course of generations on the scale of of populations, it does not apply to the actions or activity of an individual plant or animal.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

A created painting (by Rembrandt) and a blank canvas waiting for the evolution of this painting. Wonder which one will be superior.

"Head of an old man in a cap" was painted on wood, not canvas.

Yet again, a creationist who doesn't know the basics.

 

[d taylor]

"Head of an old man in a cap" was painted on wood, not canvas.

Yet again, a creationist who doesn't know the basics.

Show me where i stated that Rembrandt's painting was on canvas.

 

[o_mlly]

Absolutely. I sometimes think theists forget the importance of that word, instead substituting the word "know" far more often than warranted.

The evolution proponents who responded claimed the probability that evolution theory as an explanation for the diversity of life on the planet is virtually certain. However, when asked to substantiate that claim by some objective means, they could not. Therefore, their claims are subjective opinions, ie., they feel that the theory is true. Furthermore, to make such a claim of near certainty requires turning a blind eye to the manifest problems with the theory:

• no observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another) exists
• observable microevolution -- minor horizontal (or vertical downward changes) -- occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution
• paleontologists found themselves with major gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species ... "The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life" (Stephen Jay Gould)
• the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery
• how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its "hard parts" on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate -- that is, the first fish-- with its hard parts all on the inside remains unexplained
• the patterns of evolution show that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations
• DNA sequence data provides no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination
  
• DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution is often inconsistent with, not only the fossil record, but also with the comparative morphology of the creatures
• Evolution theory remains largely an historical science with its inherent weaknesses. We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about

Is it a coincidence that the correlation between non-believers and the proponents of evolution theory is
extremely high? Is there a causality underlying that fact? If so, then in which direction does that causality run?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

The evolution proponents who responded claimed the probability that evolution theory as an explanation for the diversity of life on the planet is virtually certain. However, when asked to substantiate that claim by some objective means, they could not. Therefore, their claims are subjective opinions, ie., they feel that the theory is true. Furthermore, to make such a claim of near certainty requires turning a blind eye to the manifest problems with the theory:

• no observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another) exists
• observable microevolution -- minor horizontal (or vertical downward changes) -- occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution
• paleontologists found themselves with major gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species ... "The Cambrian explosion was the most remarkable and puzzling event in the history of life" (Stephen Jay Gould)
• the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery
• how some invertebrate creature in the ancient ocean, with all its "hard parts" on the outside, managed to evolve into the first vertebrate -- that is, the first fish-- with its hard parts all on the inside remains unexplained
• the patterns of evolution show that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations
• DNA sequence data provides no direct access to the processes of evolution, so objective reconstruction of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination
  
• DNA and other genetic evidence as proof of evolution is often inconsistent with, not only the fossil record, but also with the comparative morphology of the creatures
• Evolution theory remains largely an historical science with its inherent weaknesses. We cannot identify ancestors or "missing links," and we cannot devise testable theories to explain how particular episodes of evolution came about

Is it a coincidence that the correlation between non-believers and the proponents of evolution theory is
extremely high? Is there a causality underlying that fact? If so, then in which direction does that causality run?

Oh yes, our claims are 100% subjective opinion, but science behind the claims is factual and evidenced.
Claims are subjective, science is really not.

I also like how your list is just points that have been shown to be wrong time and time again.

 

[d taylor]

A created painting (by Rembrandt) and a blank canvas waiting for the evolution of this painting. Wonder which one will be superior.

What is interesting about my post ( i believe) is that not a single person questioned or did not believe that Rembrandt painted the painting.

That is interesting, because not a single person alive today witnessed Rembrandt paint this painting. But seems like, by no post of anyone, not believing Rembrandt was the creator of the painting.

This painting was openly accepted as created by Rembrandt but when it comes to another creation, this one by God. People are quick to dismiss God as existing and being the creator of of the seen creation in existence.

When there is no more evidence that Rembrandt created the painting i posted than God created creation, but one is accepted and the other rejected

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

What is interesting about my post ( i believe) is that not a single person questioned or did not believe that Rembrandt painted the painting.

That is interesting, because not a single person alive today witnessed Rembrandt paint this painting. But seems like, by no post of anyone, not believing Rembrandt was the creator of the painting.

This painting was openly accepted as created by Rembrandt but when it comes to another creation, this one by God. People are quick to dismiss God as existing and being the creator of of the seen creation in existence.

When there is no more evidence that Rembrandt created the painting i posted than God created creation, but one is accepted and the other rejected

Except that there is multiple evidence that Rembrandt existed and did the work he did. God gets bit more messy since God, by His nature, exists in a place where evidence for Him does not exist.

So no, you're arguing and claiming victory over a strawman.

 

[AV1611VET]

I Sing the Mighty Power of God, by Isaac Watts:

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I Sing the Mighty Power of God, by Isaac Watts:

I always preferred Abide with Me.