My Superiority Challenge

[d taylor]

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.

Same evidence that God exist. You know (or believe) Rembrandt existed because of his work.

Well

The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the raqia shows His handiwork.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Same evidence that God exist. You know (or believe) Rembrandt existed because of his work.

Well

The heavens declare the glory of God;
And the raqia shows His handiwork.

That's the claim, not the evidence. God is a super-natural being, very simply put. By that simple fact, He exists outside of nature, so therefore, He cannot leave evidence in the natural world.

 

[Shemjaza]

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 the mechanisms, methods and materials Rembrandt used to create the painting are understandable and repeatable.

We have easy demonstration of humans putting wet pigment on flat surfaces to create works of art.

We don't have anything analogous to special creation of a universe by God.

 

[pitabread]

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.

Surely you understand that asking for an objectively quantifiable probability regarding the validity of a scientific theory is a nonsensical ask to begin with?

I suspect you knew this going in and such asks were little more than a rhetorical trap. And your subsequent asks for people to objectively quantify their responses speaks to that.

no observable scientific evidence for macroevolution (that is, evolution from one distinct kind of organism into another) exists

Moot point since "kind" is not a thing in biology.

observable microevolution -- minor horizontal (or vertical downward changes) -- occur fairly often, but such changes are not true "vertical" evolution

What does "vertical" evolution mean?

paleontologists found themselves with major gaps in the fossil record, with no evidence of transformational intermediates between documented fossil species

There are numerous documented transitional or intermediary fossils found in the fossil record.

• 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

Even if true, lack of knowledge of something specific to evolution does invalidate what we do know in respect of the same.

the patterns of evolution show that virtually all members of a biota remain basically stable, with minor fluctuations, throughout their durations

This entirely depends on what one is specifically talking about and how is qualifying stability and the time frames involved. Within contemporary biology, we do have examples of rapid evolution in species.

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

Not true, since it's possible to test hypotheses regarding reconstructions of evolutionary events.

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

You'll need to explain what you mean by this one.

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

None of this is really true.

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?

There's another explanation here. There is a correlation between understanding of biological evolution and science in general with its acceptance. Among creationists the understanding of evolution tends to be far weaker.

The correlation you should be looking at is that among religious belief and rejection of science.

 

[Ophiolite]

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

Why are you asserting that all chordates had exoskeletons? They didn't.
Why are you asserting the first vertebrates were fish? They weren't.

the transition from spineless invertebrates to the first backboned fishes is still shrouded in mystery

Isn't it odd that such a mystery has hundreds and thousands of papers detailing various aspects of what, though not yet fully delineated, is quite well understood. I think the mystery here is how long you think you can get away with cherry picking quotes and misunderstanding research.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

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

"Here's a finished painting, here's a blank canvas waiting for the painting to appear." You may not have said the Rembrandt was painted on canvas, but you certainly implied it was - if you knew it was painted on wood, why not link a picture of a wooden panel and say "here's a blank wooden panel waiting for the painting to evolve"?

There's nothing wrong with accepting errors. The problem is in denying them.

 

[partinobodycular]

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.

Perhaps you're getting caught up in the minutiae, when all that you really need to do to is apply the simple technique advocated by Paul in his letter to the Romans...look at the world around you. Evolution isn't simply a biological process, it occurs across a broad spectrum of phenomenon, from cosmology to technology. Things change and evolve over time depending upon the forces acting upon them. Complex structures emerge where none previously existed. To recognize this, all that you have to do is look. Cosmology even allows us to see evolution in action, from the birth of the first stars, to the formation of galaxies, all the way down to the evolution of planets. Cosmology allows us to look backwards in time and see evolution firsthand. And once you recognize this process, you'll see evolution occurring everywhere. Everything it would seem...evolves.

But perhaps you think that that's where evolution ends, with physical things, or perhaps you think that these things too were created in situ, and you're welcome to believe that, but the logical conclusion based upon Paul's instruction to look at the world around us, is that things evolve. And there's no reason to assume that this process of evolution doesn't apply to biological systems as well.

It seems to me, that if you need to look at the minutiae in an attempt to disprove what seems abundantly obvious, then all that you're doing is arguing for a God of the gaps. I for one, would rather go with Paul's very simple and straight forward suggestion, look at the world around you...and the world says...things evolve.

 

[d taylor]

"Here's a finished painting, here's a blank canvas waiting for the painting to appear." You may not have said the Rembrandt was painted on canvas, but you certainly implied it was - if you knew it was painted on wood, why not link a picture of a wooden panel and say "here's a blank wooden panel waiting for the painting to evolve"?

There's nothing wrong with accepting errors. The problem is in denying them.

Do you want me to show you how wrong you are. Or do you prefer to stay in your deceptive state.

 

[o_mlly]

... I suspect you knew this going in and such asks were little more than a rhetorical trap. And your subsequent asks for people to objectively quantify their responses speaks to that.

Your demeaning suspicions that my motivations are malevolent are once again not justified (ARB #4). As I have not read all the papers in molecular biology, I allowed that the respondents may have. A paper demonstrating by means of a properly designed experiment could demonstrate the probability that a predicted evolutionary event occurs.

 

[o_mlly]

It seems to me, that if you need to look at the minutiae in an attempt to disprove what seems abundantly obvious, then all that you're doing is arguing for a God of the gaps. I for one, would rather go with Paul's very simple and straight forward suggestion, look at the world around you...and the world says...things evolve.

Of course, you are welcome to your opinion. St. Paul would never accept a theory of living beings other than from the hand of God. He would reject the evolution theory proposal that man is fully explained without the hand of God. There is no need to appeal to the God of the Gaps; only to the Fossils of the Gaps.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Of course, you are welcome to your opinion. St. Paul would never accept a theory of living beings other than from the hand of God. He would reject the evolution theory proposal that man is fully explained without the hand of God. There is no need to appeal to the God of the Gaps; only to the Fossils of the Gaps.

Except that there being gaps in the fossil record is expected since we know that fossils are not all that easy to come by and also can easily be destroyed by nature too.
Tilting at a windmill a bit there.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Your demeaning suspicions that my motivations are malevolent are once again not justified (ARB #4). As I have not read all the papers in molecular biology, I allowed that the respondents may have. A paper demonstrating by means of a properly designed experiment could demonstrate the probability that a predicted evolutionary event occurs.

I'm sure you will move the goal posts but here you go.

Stochastic bacterial population dynamics restrict the establishment of antibiotic resistance from single cells

 

[pitabread]

A paper demonstrating by means of a properly designed experiment could demonstrate the probability that a predicted evolutionary event occurs.

That's not what you asked for though and we both know it.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Do you want me to show you how wrong you are. Or do you prefer to stay in your deceptive state.

Lol. Put your money where your mouth is - but don't forget to leave room for your feet.

While you're at it, you may want to research this punctuation mark ?

 

[o_mlly]

Except that there being gaps in the fossil record is expected since we know that fossils are not all that easy to come by and also can easily be destroyed by nature too.
Tilting at a windmill a bit there.

? That would be Darwin's windmills. Darwin's imagined but never realized transitional fossils gave his theory traction. Absent those fossils, his theory is reduced to merely his imagination.

Darwin and the scientific method

The possibility of empirical falsification of a hypothesis is carried out by ascertaining whether or not precise predictions derived as logical consequences from the hypothesis agree with the state of affairs found in the empirical world. A hypothesis that cannot be subject to the possibility of rejection by observation and experiment cannot be regarded as scientific.​

 

[pitabread]

"Here's a finished painting, here's a blank canvas waiting for the painting to appear." You may not have said the Rembrandt was painted on canvas, but you certainly implied it was - if you knew it was painted on wood, why not link a picture of a wooden panel and say "here's a blank wooden panel waiting for the painting to evolve"?

In fairness to them, they never did say anything about what surface the Rembrandt painting was painted on. Their only reference to the canvas was to the picture of the blank canvas.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

? That would be Darwin's windmills. Darwin's imagined but never realized transitional fossils gave his theory traction. Absent those fossils, his theory is reduced to merely his imagination.

Darwin and the scientific method

The possibility of empirical falsification of a hypothesis is carried out by ascertaining whether or not precise predictions derived as logical consequences from the hypothesis agree with the state of affairs found in the empirical world. A hypothesis that cannot be subject to the possibility of rejection by observation and experiment cannot be regarded as scientific.​

Except that theory of evolution no longer solely relies on what Darwin said or wrote. We have the fossils, we have the DNA and genetic evidence. We do not solely need to have Darwin like he's some apostle of evolutionary theory.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

In fairness to them, they never did say anything about what surface the Rembrandt painting was painted on. Their only reference to the canvas was to the picture of the blank canvas.

I already mentioned that. However, you don't talk about wood panel paintings appearing on canvas if you know what you're talking about. They're not the same.

 

[pitabread]

Darwin's imagined but never realized transitional fossils gave his theory traction. Absent those fossils, his theory is reduced to merely his imagination.

Even if there wasn't a single fossil in existence, the Theory of Evolution still stands and is backed up by evidence from various other avenues.

That transitional fossils do exist (and it's a weird thing to deny the existence of such fossils) is simply that much more evidence in support of the ToE.

Blatantly denying the existence of said evidence is little more than grasping at straws.

 

[pitabread]

I already mentioned that. However, you don't talk about wood panel paintings appearing on canvas if you know what you're talking about. They're not the same.

I think the surface of the paintings in question is entirely beside their point. It's not worth arguing over.