As an explanation of the existence of man, creation is superior to evolution

[o_mlly]

My point is that if everyone believed in the same God and all agreed on what He was and what He wanted, then yes, I'd have serious doubts about my lack of belief.

if everyone believed in the EVOLUTION OF BUG TO MAN ... then yes, I'd have serious doubts about my lack of belief.

 

[Bradskii]

Does that include any atheists who would claim they know the Bible better than any Christians around?

Said the guy who thinks that Adam must have known some German in order to write the first bible in Jacobean English.

 

[o_mlly]

This just goes back to my earlier point in the thread. You seem to be rejecting science as a means of epistemology in favor of theological beliefs.

I do not reject science; it has improved the lives of countless human beings.

 

[Astrid]

I agree. Sometimes the following sequence occurs:

1. Poster A asserts proposition P and appeals to expert X to justify their belief in P.

2. Other posters discover that expert X actually has a very bad reputation and challenge Poster A by pointing out that X is not a credible source.

3. Poster A accuses these other posters of committing the genetic fallacy - that P is being attacked solely on the basis of "where it came from" and not on the basis of its merits.

But this is not correct. If poster A had provided an actual argument of their own - if they had offered evidence over and above simply appealing to the authority of X, then, and only then, would the genetic fallacy critique apply.

But if A's entire argument rests on the credibility of X as an expert, then we are more than justified in attacking the credentials of X.

I was in Louisiana years ago and overheard
a description of " thrashing around like a foul- hooked
alligator lookin' for something to bite ."

This may apply to some of our posters'
attempts to argue.

 

[Astrid]

I do not reject science;[ /QUOTE]

Wouldn't do to reject one's profession,
would it?

 

[Bradskii]

if everyone believed in the EVOLUTION OF BUG TO MAN ... then yes, I'd have serious doubts about my lack of belief.

Are you suggesting that evolution/science is akin to a religious belief system? I think the mods were clear a few posts in that that wasn't acceptable.

'evolution should not be called pseudoscience nor should evolution or science be called a religion.. Please be aware that there are Christians who believe in Theistic Evolution or simply Evolution.'

 

[Astrid]

Xx

 

[pitabread]

I do not reject science; it has improved the lives of countless human beings.

Yet you just stated that you consider all of science to be unreliable.

edited to add: I just noticed you modified that previous post. To which I respond that provisional is not the same as unreliable.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Wait, the OP has actually claimed to be a scientist?

See #486.

 

[Astrid]

Yet you just stated that you consider all of science to be unreliable.

Odd thing for a "scientist" to say.

 

[o_mlly]

How does creation specifically explain how human beings "came to life"?

The unity of soul and body is so profound that one has to consider the soul to be the "form" of the body:i.e., it is because of its spiritual soul that the body made of matter becomes a living, human body; spirit and matter, in man, are not two natures united, but rather their union forms a single nature.

The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God - it is not "produced" by the parents - and also that it is immortal: it does not perish when it separates from the body at death, and it will be reunited with the body at the final Resurrection (emphasis mine) (CCC #364, 365).

 

[pitabread]

The Church teaches that every spiritual soul is created immediately by God -

Okay. So now you just need to demonstrate the existence of the soul and explain how such a thing gets created, and how that ties back to "life" in the context of the biological organism that is humankind.

 

[o_mlly]

Yet you just stated that you consider all of science to be unreliable.

edited to add: I just noticed you modified that previous post. To which I respond that provisional is not the same as unreliable.

Nope, no modification. Your avatar still needs a corrective lens. Use the forum's quote facility to avoid your error in future.

 

[o_mlly]

Okay. So now you just need to demonstrate the existence of the soul and explain how such a thing gets created, and how that ties back to "life" in the context of the biological organism that is humankind.

No I don't. I can know everything that one who is merely scientistic claims to know. Having other modes of knowing, I know more.than they do. Are you a disciple of scientism?

 

[pitabread]

Nope, no modification. Your avatar still needs a corrective lens. Use the forum's quote facility to avoid your error in future.

Yes, there was a modification to your post #72. When I quoted it (back in post #86) all you had written was "All science".

You subsequently edited it to state, "All science is provisional. No more, no less."

The post even shows that it was edited at 5:44 AM versus the original post time of 4:58 AM. Though the times may be different depending on what your timezone is set to.

I'm not sure why you're trying to dispute this?

 

[Astrid]

No I don't. I can know everything that one who is merely scientistic claims to know. Having other modes of knowing, I know more.than they do. Are you a disciple of scientism?

Ah, so you know more than any scientist on earth.

 

[pitabread]

No I don't. I can know everything that one who is merely scientistic claims to know. Having other modes of knowing, I know more.than they do.

I'm simply pointing out that you don't have an explanation. You have an assertion or a claimed answer, but it's devoid of an actual explanation.

 

[o_mlly]

Are you suggesting that evolution/science is akin to a religious belief system? I think the mods were clear a few posts in that that wasn't acceptable.

No. Are you?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I do not believe I am committing this fallacy.

Let's review: You initially claimed that evolution was not good science.

I simply observed that if your claim were true, it would require us to believe something rather implausible - that thousands and thousands of experts have been guilty of doing "bad" science for decades and decades and decades. And we have solid reasons for believing this is not true - the people who have advanced the theory of evolution are highly trained experts.

If I were to say "evolution is true because most regular people believe it is", then I would be guilty of that fallacy.

But I am not saying that - I am saying it is clearly hard to believe that you are right in asserting that evolution is "bad" science, given that so many trained experts disagree with you.

There is a difference, albeit perhaps a tad subtle - the matter of relevant expertise.

Taking your line of reasoning one could defend oneself in court by saying this: "Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, if you believe those 100 ballistics experts who testified the deadly bullet came from my gun, you are committing the fallacy of consensus".

And that is clearly not right.

Yes, this is the same principle as the 'Argument from Authority' fallacy, which is really the argument from false authority, where the authority's expertise is not relevant to the argument, or doesn't represent the consensus of experts in the field.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Some commit the fallacy of claiming fallacies that are not there.

Ah, the fallacy fallacy...