Why you should think that the Natural-Evolution of species is true

[goout]

Vonsalza:

Most folks think it already sufficiently proofed. The vast majority of the small segment of holdouts do so only because they think it conflicts with their ideas on God.

Of course, you know that the above is thelogical fallacy argumentum ad populum. Please try again,

Odd isn’t it, that fundamentalists and atheists alike insist on materialism as proof of a thing, rather than trusting others who participate in common-sense endeavors and find consensus. Consensus is not materialist proof, of course, but when the Church is trusting of these relationships with science and scientists, we should think about that, rather than resort to materialism, as you do above.

 

[o_mlly]

Odd isn’t it, that fundamentalists and atheists alike insist on materialism as proof of a thing, rather than trusting others who participate in common-sense endeavors and find consensus. Consensus is not materialist proof, of course, but when the Church is trusting of these relationships with science and scientists, we should think about that, rather than resort to materialism, as you do above.

Want to run that by me again? The point is one of a logical fallacy offered as argument.

 

[Vonsalza]

Oh good lord… The standard of evidence/proof particularly concerning qualitative issues, is formed by consensus whether you like that or not.

What is your argument beyond a textbook a-priori?

 

[goout]

goout:

Odd isn’t it, that fundamentalists and atheists alike insist on materialism as proof of a thing, rather than trusting others who participate in common-sense endeavors and find consensus. Consensus is not materialist proof, of course, but when the Church is trusting of these relationships with science and scientists, we should think about that, rather than resort to materialism, as you do above.

Want to run that by me again? The point is one of a logical fallacy offered as argument.

See Vonsalza above.
What you are doing is akin to demanding evidence the earth is round.
"I don’t believe it, and I can’t see it. You must prove it, or your assertion the earth is round is fallacious. "
We trust consensus literally all the time. The Church trusts consensus. What you consider fallacious is simply a matter of common sense trust of those around us.
Your line of thinking is the same trap that atheism falls into.

 

[Vonsalza]

Astute observation.

Devout creationists and flat-earthers share a lot of rhetorical similarities.

 

[Metis1]

You might check out “speciation” and links, as I believe I mentioned before, plus I really don’t have the time to do all what would be necessary to find the answers to the questions you ask. Maybe use google to do as such because there’s lots of information on this in books, magazines, and especially the internet.

 

[Metis1]

How are the rats going to survive if everything else is dead ?

Actually it’s highly unlikely that everything would be dead even after a full blown nuclear war, heaven forbid.

 

[Bradskii]

Astute observation.

Devout creationists and flat-earthers share a lot of rhetorical similarities.

Well, I was right with him all the way up until the last sentence…

Which I think implies that as so many people believe in God, then He must exist. Now if all of you believed the same thing that might ring true. In fact, I have said pretty much the same thing on previous ocassions.

But the point originally made stands. And has been made many times - that those with fundamentalist views are only waving their arms about because…they have fundamentalist views.

Their God is not your God or goout’s God or Wiley’s. Their God is a small God. The one I learned about in Sunday School when we coloured in pictures of talking snakes and fig leaves and made felt animals two by two.

 

[goout]

Vonsalza:

Astute observation.

Devout creationists and flat-earthers share a lot of rhetorical similarities.

Well, I was right with him all the way up until the last sentence…

Which I think implies that as so many people believe in God, then He must exist. Now if all of you believed the same thing that might ring true. In fact, I have said pretty much the same thing on previous ocassions.

But the point originally made stands. And has been made many times - that those with fundamentalist views are only waving their arms about because…they have fundamentalist views.

Their God is not your God or goout’s God or Wiley’s. Their God is a small God. The one I learned about in Sunday School when we coloured in pictures of talking snakes and fig leaves and made felt animals two by two.

And atheists object to that small god, not the true God.

A thing is not true by force of popular assertion. That is not what is being said.
Consensus is not trusted in a vacuum, consensus can be trusted as part of an integrated whole. You can evaluate the integrity of thought in that consensus, and you can also evaluate the personal and communal integrity of that consensus.

Again, I’ve never been to the moon, but I trust the consensus that it has a dark side I can’t see. I trust those who have done the research, and I also trust the thoughtful evidence. I don’t trust either in a vacuum.

 

[PickyPicky]

And anyway, you should be in the taverna.

 

[Metis1]

I don’t understand what exactly the Pope was talking about stating that mankind could have been created using living matter. It sounds like he is trying to reach a compromise, accepting that it is not necessarily idolatry, worshipping the world as creator of mankind, to believe in evolution. Those who accept it blindly are in a different position than those who advocate for it however, and the latter should reflect on how their beliefs may conflict with those of the church.

A mistake so many make is that they believe that the basic ToE somehow negates creation, which is simply not true, plus the Church recognizes that both options are viable.

I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church that taught that evolution was not compatible with the Bible, and my first exposure to the fact that the creation accounts can be taken in a way different from that of literalism came from a Catholic priest I ran into at a bowling alley when I was 16. I eventually left that church and converted to Catholicism, but not until about 15 years later.

To me, any religion or denomination that teaches an anti-science agenda should be regarded as being bogus since such basic facts cannot and show not be denied, and the basic concept of evolution has been well established, thus leaving us only the details to be debated.

 

[Bradskii]

Bradskii:

Vonsalza:

Astute observation.

Devout creationists and flat-earthers share a lot of rhetorical similarities.

Well, I was right with him all the way up until the last sentence…

Which I think implies that as so many people believe in God, then He must exist. Now if all of you believed the same thing that might ring true. In fact, I have said pretty much the same thing on previous ocassions.

But the point originally made stands. And has been made many times - that those with fundamentalist views are only waving their arms about because…they have fundamentalist views.

Their God is not your God or goout’s God or Wiley’s. Their God is a small God. The one I learned about in Sunday School when we coloured in pictures of talking snakes and fig leaves and made felt animals two by two.

And atheists object to that small god, not the true God.

A thing is not true by force of popular assertion. That is not what is being said.
Consensus is not trusted in a vacuum, consensus can be trusted as part of an integrated whole. You can evaluate the integrity of thought in that consensus, and you can also evaluate the personal and communal integrity of that consensus.

Again, I’ve never been to the moon, but I trust the consensus that it has a dark side I can’t see. I trust those who have done the research, and I also trust the thoughtful evidence. I don’t trust either in a vacuum.

Well I agree with everything except the first sentence now.

Everything you said (apart from that) is perfectly correct. Unless we have very many years of specific education and access to an enormous amount of information that Joe Public doesn’t have - or would know what to do with if he did, we generally accept, and should accept, expert opinion.

If there is dissent in the ranks then we can examine the pros and cons as best we can. And as far as those proposing ID and the likes of the Discovery Institute, you don’t need to be a Rhodes Scholar to see their agenda. In fact, if you want to look it up, the Discovery Institute actually tells you what their’s is. The only point needing to be mentioned is that those on this tbread who support those type of views will not admit to that.

And atheists can’t object to something in which they don’t believe. That would be silly.

 

[Bradskii]

And anyway, you should be in the taverna.

Good lord. Is that the time?

 

[rossum]

Erm… “specie” is money in metallic form, as coins. For biological “species” see Biological species concept

What does this have to do with your rejection of my two examples of speciation? My earlier definition was sufficient since I was talking about metazoa.

rossum

 

[edwest211]

This is all very strange. Relying on religious leaders to support a theory means the theory cannot stand on its own weight. This is clearly a case of attempting to convince Catholics that we need to view accounts of human creation, the Fall and related events as pure symbolism. Pope Pius XII addressed that line of thought in Humani Generis. Catholics need to remember why Jesus Christ was born. The fake ‘God just dropped souls into two random almost humans’ needs to be exposed as being without scientific support. In other words, that idea is being presented as literal - it actually happened, while the rest is being presented as symbolic.

 

[Bradskii]

‘God just dropped souls into two random almost humans’ needs to be exposed as being without scientific support.

Now you are arguing theology and using science to try to make your point. Whereas you usually try to use theology to deny science.

I’m not sure if this is satire or just ironic. Nah - I’m going ironic. You’d have to know what you were doing to make it satirical.

 

[Metis1]

Part of a problem we run into a lot is that some people use “theory” in the common venacular that’s quite different then how we use it in science: The meaning of the term scientific theory (often contracted to “theory’” for brevity) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from the common [vernacular]. In everyday speech, “theory” can imply an explanation that represents an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, whereas in science it describes an explanation that has been tested and widely accepted as valid. These different usages are comparable to the opposing usages of “prediction” in science versus common speech, where it denotes a mere hope. – Scientific theory - Wikipedia

 

[Aloysium]

A mistake so many make is that they believe that the basic ToE somehow negates creation

It’s best not to simply make a claim as if it means anything to those who hold it to be untrue. Tell us how it fits and we can discuss that.

To me, any religion or denomination that teaches an anti-science agenda should be regarded as being bogus since such basic facts cannot and show not be denied, and the basic concept of evolution has been well established, thus leaving us only the details to be debated.

The point that has been made numerous times is that evolution is not science but utilizes science facts as part of the mythos that tells modrn man who we are in relation to the world. To call the “theory” out as not being science is not to be antiscience. Also, I’m not sure what agenda you are speaking about; I am merely asserting my opinions and presenting my reasoning on the matter, and see others here as doing the same.

 

[Aloysium]

I don’t think what you describe here applies to what I read here. It just comes across as another attempt to stiffle debate, not debating but asserting that those who hold contrary views don’t get it.

 

[Aloysium]

I’m trying to show you how you are mistaken. You don’t have to trust me, but I do know what I am talking about. I can only assume that you simply do not wish to pursue the facts that support my view, and are interested in only seeing your own thoughts in print, or arguing with some voice in your mind.