My Superiority Challenge

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

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 probably true.)

Actually, it was just as valid as your arguments so far that consist of "my premise is that this is the answer and I don't have to provide more than that. " Ain't the way Philosophy or Science or even normal discussion is done.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

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.)

No, I don't need to provide any math for me to say that I think, based on my own education and knowledge, that evolution is the more convincing argument.
And yes, it is compared to creationism since that's the thread you made and also the topic of this thread.

 

[Phred]

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

Yeah, it's called "I actually know what I'm talking about."

 

[Phred]

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

We've witnessed many speciation events. You want a dog to give birth to cat. That's never going to happen.

 

[pitabread]

Kinda like witnessing a "speciation" event.

Once again I want to point out how weird to see creationists seemingly deny speciation.

 

[AV1611VET]

Is that a king capturing his opponent's king?

I believe it's the black queen capturing the white rook.

If you look at the top of the pieces, the queen is black, and the rook is white.

It's probably a set more for show, than it is play.

 

[Gene Parmesan]

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

It is not. And it is not.

 

[Ophiolite]

Once again I want to point out how weird to see creationists seemingly deny speciation.

Or how sadly normal.

 

[Ophiolite]

Actually, it was just as valid as your arguments so far that consist of "my premise is that this is the answer and I don't have to provide more than that. " Ain't the way Philosophy or Science or even normal discussion is done.

I disagree partly with your last statement in a Venn diagram kind of a way. It is the way a sub-set of normal discussion is done and that is normal bad-faith discussion.

 

[o_mlly]

No, I don't need to provide any math for me to say that I think, based on my own education and knowledge, that evolution is the more convincing argument.

Yeah, it's called "I actually know what I'm talking about."

Am I to understand that your knowledge in general and evolution theory in particular substantiate your assigning a 99% probability that the theory is true?

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Am I to understand that your knowledge in general and evolution theory in particular substantiate your assigning a 99% probability that the theory is true?

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.

 

[o_mlly]

I believe it's the black queen capturing the white rook.

If you look at the top of the pieces, the queen is black, and the rook is white.

It's probably a set more for show, than it is play.

On closer examination, I think it's probably black's bishop capturing white's rook. In the background, it appears that both black's king and queen are watching the awesome display of the church's power against her opponent's castle.

 

[AV1611VET]

On closer examination, I think it's probably black's bishop capturing white's rook. In the background, it appears that both black's king and queen are watching the awesome display of the church's power against her opponent's castle.

Good point! I didn't see them in the background.

I was thinking it may have been the bishop, but it looked like the piece was moving forward and knocking the rook off the board; but on closer inspection, it is indeed moving diagonally.

Good catch!

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Good point! I didn't see them in the background.

I was thinking it may have been the bishop, but it looked like the piece was moving forward and knocking the rook off the board; but on closer inspection, it is indeed moving diagonally.

Good catch!

If you look at the capture below you can see it is the bishop.

 

[AV1611VET]

If you look at the capture below you can see it is the bishop.

Yup.

 

[Phred]

Am I to understand that your knowledge in general and evolution theory in particular substantiate your assigning a 99% probability that the theory is true?

Yes.

You want to say it's not true. So you're desperately grasping at any and all possible avenues of attack. I get that. Your most basic avenue is simply refusing to understand what you're talking about.

Let's talk for a moment about something you can't do that to. Gravity. Objects fall. You can't argue about that because it's so flipping obvious. We all can observe the phenomena in a moment. Would you say that Gravity is real? Would you say that your knowledge in general would allow you to state categorically that gravity is real? Would you even go so far as to give it 100%?

Now, about Einstein's Theory of General Relativity. That's where he explains gravity. Would you say that your general knowledge and your knowledge of that theory in particular would allow you to give it a numeric value as to its probability of truth? Here's the thing... we don't yet know exactly how gravity works. So far Einstein has been proven right at every turn. But can you tell me what causes gravity? I'll bet you can't. You would have stated with absolute certainty that gravity is real and yet you can't tell me what causes it.

Now you want me to give you a mathematically-based number for the certainty of the probability that the Theory of Evolution is correct and you can't even tell me the difference between evolution and the Theory of Evolution.

You can play in a sandbox without counting the grains of sand. But if you really want to, go count them. I'm not going to.

 

[o_mlly]

Now you want me to give you a mathematically-based number for the certainty of the probability that the Theory of Evolution is correct and you can't even tell me the difference between evolution and the Theory of Evolution.

It's not an assignment; only a request to determine if you have a mathematical method that I might examine to support your position of a 99.999% certainty in either evolution or The Theory of Evolution. If not then that's OK as well. Am I correct that your estimate is not mathematically determined? I see you make a distinction between "evolution" and "The Theory of Evolution". What is the basis of your distinction?

 

[Phred]

It's not an assignment; only a request to determine if you have a mathematical method that I might examine to support your position of a 99.999% certainty in either evolution or The Theory of Evolution. If not then that's OK as well. Am I correct that your estimate is not mathematically determined? I see you make a distinction between "evolution" and "The Theory of Evolution". What is the basis of your distinction?

Reality.

One is the observed phenomena and the other is the theory that explains it.

Things fall. We call the thing that makes things fall "gravity." Now what is "gravity?" That's explained by Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

Life evolved. We observed this. Yes, it's complicated and not as simple as "things fall." But it's as fact-based as "things fall." Life evolved. That's the phenomena we observe. It's why there are so many different types of animals and plants. It's why there are extinct species. The Theory of Evolution explains HOW life evolved. It explains the mechanisms.

If the Theory of Evolution was proven to be completely wrong tomorrow that wouldn't change the fact that life evolved. It would just mean we got the method wrong. Just like when Einstein published his paper and showed that Newton was wrong about gravity. Objects didn't stop falling. We just started explaining WHY they fall in a different way.

So you're busy asking if I can give you a numeric value as to whether the Theory of Evolution is correct while what you mean to ask is whether or not life evolved. If that's what you're really asking then the answer is 100%.

 

[pitabread]

while what you mean to ask is whether or not life evolved.

Further to this point, I'd suggest it really comes down to whether life has the appearance of having been evolved (e.g. shared ancestry). Because this is something that I find even creationists have trouble escaping. They can't explain biological characteristics, biogeographies, etc., in lieu of evolution.

At best they can claim that God made living things yet apparently did so within a framework that includes evolutionary constraints.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I see you make a distinction between "evolution" and "The Theory of Evolution". What is the basis of your distinction?

"I'm a scientist". *snigger*