My Superiority Challenge

[dlamberth]

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

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

 

[pitabread]

Depends on what you want explained.

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.

 

[Phred]

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.

And then completely ignoring the answers given.

 

[AV1611VET]

And then completely ignoring the answers given.

* cough *

 

[o_mlly]

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.

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.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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.

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.

 

[Phred]

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.

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]

Life evolved.

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?

 

[Phred]

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?

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

 

[Gene Parmesan]

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?

 

[AV1611VET]

White to move and win in two moves:

 

[dlamberth]

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?

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]

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.

Life is life.

 

[dlamberth]

Life is life.

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]

Angels are spiritual beings which do not evolve.

Thus my question in Post 70:

How is it they don't?

 

[dlamberth]

Thus my question in Post 70:

How is it they don't?

They arrived via a different process than the physical world.

 

[o_mlly]

99%. That's the probability I assign

In all it's various pieces? 99.999%.

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

 

[o_mlly]

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

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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

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.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

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.)