My Superiority Challenge

[o_mlly]

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

No, you are wrong, again. Use the forum's quote facility back up your demeaning accusation or retract.

 

[pitabread]

No, you are wrong, again. Use the forum's quote facility back up your demeaning accusation or retract.

I stand by what I stated.

If you have a problem with it, feel to demonstrate otherwise. Isn't that how this works?

 

[o_mlly]

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

Responding to a post that begins with a zinger and then links a 9,600 word paper without comment is not worth a response. If you have a point, try making it first.

 

[pitabread]

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

They didn't move the goalposts, but they did invoke Handwaving Dismissal.

 

[partinobodycular]

He would reject the evolution theory proposal that man is fully explained without the hand of God.

Couldn't it just as easily be argued that evolution is evidence FOR the hand of God, not evidence AGAINST the hand of God?

Arguing that things evolve doesn't at all explain why they evolve, or even why they exist at all. Order arises from disorder...isn't that evidence enough for the hand of God. Or do you only see evidence for God in the miraculous?

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Responding to a post that begins with a zinger and then links a 9,600 word paper without comment is not worth a response. If you have a point, try making it first.

You wanted evidence of a paper fitting your criteria. "A paper demonstrating by means of a properly designed experiment could demonstrate the probability that a predicted evolutionary event occurs." The title should be enough for you to realize that what you asked for exists, or you could have read at least the abstract.
I'll even sumarize it at a level that hopefully a scientist such as yourself can understand.
This is an experiment to test at what level of antibiotic can keep the probability of a mutant strain in a bacterial colony from establishing itself. It has mutations even delineated to the molecular level, probabilities, predictions, the evidence to back it up and everything else you asked for in your post.

 

[o_mlly]

Couldn't it just as easily be argued that evolution is evidence FOR the hand of God, not evidence AGAINST the hand of God?

Arguing that things evolve doesn't at all explain why they evolve, or even why they exist at all. Order arises from disorder...isn't that evidence enough for the hand of God. Or do you only see evidence for God in the miraculous?

If the evolutionists argued so -- evolution is evidence FOR the hand of God -- then an interesting question is to evidence when God acted directly or through secondary causes. But I do not think the evolutionists will allow God as a primary or secondary cause. I could be wrong. Let's count the posts that follow this exchange that affirm God as an actor, primary or secondary, in causing the diversity of lie.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

If the evolutionists argued so -- evolution is evidence FOR the hand of God -- then an interesting question is to evidence when God acted directly or through secondary causes. But I do not think the evolutionists will allow God as a primary or secondary cause. I could be wrong. Let's count the posts that follow this exchange that affirm God as an actor, primary or secondary, in causing the diversity of lie.

So you've never heard of theistic evolution then?

 

[dlamberth]

Which is superior: Creation or Evolution?

This is a matter of right and wrong.
Evolution is right.
Creation is wrong.

 

[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.

Basically what you are trying to do is use an argument from ignorance: We don't know every detail about evolution, so I can still argue the necessity of the Hand of God. However, since science does not deal with undemonstrable causes, the burden of proof falls to you to demonstrate this Hand of God to fill in the gaps.

 

[o_mlly]

This is an experiment to test at what level of antibiotic can keep the probability of a mutant strain in a bacterial colony from establishing itself. It has mutations even delineated to the molecular level, probabilities, predictions, the evidence to back it up and everything else you asked for in your post.

In light of your reference, what then do you assign as the % probability that the theory of evolution -- random mutations acted on by natural selection -- explains the diversity of all life on earth?

 

[o_mlly]

So you've never heard of theistic evolution then?

So you allow God as a secondary cause?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

So you allow God as a secondary cause?

Not really. Don't see that question follows from me asking if you know what theistic evolution is.

Also, I feel I need to quote myself from post #91 on which I state why I hold my view that evolution is 99% correct:
For me, it's me saying that I thoroughly accept evolution as being the best descriptor for how modern live came about (not originated, but became what it is, just getting that out of the way before anyone tries and says something else), but I am more than willing to say that I could be wrong, although the amount of evidence and the general consensus of scientists across the world and over a century of work don't really make that likely.

 

[AV1611VET]

This is a matter of right and wrong.
Evolution is right.
Creation is wrong.

44% disagree with you.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

So you allow God as a secondary cause?

If God is secondary cause, who/what do you propose as primary source?

 

[dlamberth]

44% disagree with you.

So 44% are wrong.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

In light of your reference, what then do you assign as the % probability that the theory of evolution -- random mutations acted on by natural selection -- explains the diversity of all life on earth?

Who knows or cares since this is a malformed question. First, RMNS is far from the totality or even a reasonably defineable portion of the current ToE, Second, this is an abuse of probability in that basically any answer could be correct. No theory is ever 100% correct in that theories are only the best explanation at present of the data at hand so the answer is 0% that the theory is totally correct. on the other hand, since there is no other competing scientific theory, the Toe is 100% the most likely theory out there.
You are not going anywhere with this argument, it is just a basic recapitulation or the argument from ignorance, I don't know, we don't know therefor God.

 

[o_mlly]

If God is secondary cause, who/what do you propose as primary source?

Do you allow God as a secondary cause?

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

44% disagree with you.

Homer trumps Alfred.

 

[partinobodycular]

So you allow God as a secondary cause?

Why are you assigning God the position of secondary cause?

Self-Organization Related to Aquinas, Primary Cause and Secondary Causes

The worldview derived from contemporary scientific investigation holds that natural processes in natural animate and inanimate beings (i.e., creations, creatures) "possess an inner dynamism" responsible for the continuing production of new results having "ever increasing degrees of complexity" (Artigas). Information and information exchange play a critical and central role in these natural processes: "Natural information exists coded in dynamic structures, and its deployment produces new structures" (Artigas).

Considering self-organization in relation to Aquinas's Primary cause and secondary causes, "the subtlety of natural processes and their results," when viewed in light of and in conjunction with the "high degree of creativity" apparent in natural animate and inanimate activity, suggest that natural processes are "coherent with the existence of a divine plan" as described by Aquinas as Primary Cause (Artigas).

The new paradigm of self-organization was metaphorically anticipated by Aquinas, who wrote in his Commentary on Aristotle's Physics: "Nature is nothing but the plan of some art [artful manner], namely a divine [art], put into things themselves, by which those things move towards a concrete end: [done] as if the man who builds up a ship could give to the pieces of wood [some art] that they could move by themselves to produce the form of the ship [by themselves]" (p. 124).

This [paradigmatic] worldview [of self-organization] does not lead to metaphysical or theological consequences by itself. Reflection upon it, however, paves the way for an understanding of natural agency as supported by a founding divine action that does not oppose nature but rather provides it with its ultimate grounding. The world can be [metaphorically] represented as an unfinished symphony where human beings have a role to play. (Artigas)