I am sorry. Jondcal, I should not have called you an asshole.
I promise not to burn people at the stake in Great Debates anymore.
Mea Culpa.
Tris.
Nope, he’s not Ratzinger…
I promise not to burn people at the stake in Great Debates anymore
I promise not to burn people at the stake in Great Debates anymore
I promise not to burn people at the stake in Great Debates anymore
I promise not to burn people at the stake in Great Debates…
He just caught fire sir, honest.
hee hee hee
A polite request - Christians are not anti-evolution. Fundamentalist Christians, yes - but they are a minority.
AFAIK, Roman Catholics, Lutherans, Episcopalians, Methodists, Presbyterians, etc., have no issue with the theory of biological evolution as a well-supported explanation of how God created life.
“All those gay people”, “all those black people”, “all those Irish”, “all those Christians” - none of these phrases start sentences that usually say much useful or true.
Regards,
Shodan
I just checked out the OPs profile. He’s a Christian fer C*****s sake! Maybe he can learn some respect from the atheists here. 
Sigh
OK, even if I concede on the “everyone thought the earth was flat” idea, I’m sure that there are plenty of other things that people thought were true under “common sense” that have since been proven false. Geocentrism is one.
In any event, I will concede to BlackKnight that I goofed up on my fallacies. Still want me to debate your teachers Meatros?
Zev Steinhardt
Actually, common sense tells me right now that the earth is flat. Geez, look outside fer crying out loud. Flat. My lawn? Flat. My floors? Flat. The freeway? Flat.
With all due respect, dalovindj, lots of people never question what they are taught in [secular] school either.
Ok, let’s actually examine the OP with standard critical analysis, ignoring the rising gorge it brings on an emotional level.
Not a good beginning. An undefined characteristic, appealing to popular support, having no logical validity.
An assertion. Has no weight at all unless it is accompanied by a thorough explanation of the identity of the scientific community, and the authority by which members are included and excluded, and still represents argument by authority, rather than a presentation of evidence.
Another assertion, again without evidence, and begs the question without even attempting argument. The inclusion of other theories implies that the status of all scientific conjecture is equivalent in verifiability. In actual fact, many scientists feel that evolution is far more verified than the big bang, or plate tectonics. (but why start including facts, at time like this.
The unkindest cut of all. Argument ad hominem by presumption. A pointless, and unsubstantiated, allegation is presumed to be the primary objection.
The additional presumption that all argument against evolution must be based on religious belief, and a totally unfounded assertion that the poster has the authority to determine what bears upon the existence of God in the opinion of the opposing respondent.
We have now included abiogenisis, cosmology, physics, and no doubt all social science as our allies, and begged all possible questions, wholesale. I am not sure what this logical fallacy is. It may represent a new low in critical thinking altogether.
Throw in Beauty, and truth, all the best people, and a whole bunch of named and unexplained science words, and our argument is complete. Not counting common sense.
Ok, now, someone explain to me why burning at the stake is illogical in this case. I accept that it is not socially acceptable in this forum, and I do not intend to advocate that, again. But I would like to hear evidence that it would be a bad thing.
Tris.
polution.
polution.
That may be, but it’s certainly possible to observe evidence that common sense should tell you is at odds with the idea of a flat earth. The classic exampe is watching a ship as it sails away from you. Rather than being able to see all of it equally until it reaches the limit of your eyesight, there is a visible “sinking” effect as it drops below the horizon.
It’s OPs like this that make me (temporarily) embarassed to count myself as a rational scientific thinker.
To be honest, I think y’all are overreacting. The presentation is rather naive, and the thread title is guaranteed to raise hackles–although, as has already been pointed out, the poster is actually apparently a Christian, and not, as one might first suppose, a drive-by atheist. What we have here seems to be an admittedly clumsy attempt by one Christian to convince other Christians that evolution and their religion are not in conflict–something which is frequently advocated around here.
The appeal to “common sense” is admittedly foolish.
Numbered point 1 contains an appeal to authority, but possibly a defensible one: Appeals to authority are not totally out of bounds if there is in fact good reason to believe the authorities appealed to are in fact knowledgeable on the topic at hand. Certainly, based on its level of acceptance in the scientific community, one must conclude that scientists are remarkably stupid–a bit of a hard sell even for YEC’s in this age of scientific and technological marvels–or that scientists are in fact more or less conspiring against Christianity (which is, in fact, a common YEC theme). I don’t really see why comparisons between evolution and other well accepted theories is out of bounds–people around here seem to do it all the time. I think “atomic theory of matter” or “germ theory of infectious disease” would have been a much better comparison, since YEC’s generally reject plate tectonics and certainly the Big Bang along with Darwinian evolution.
I’m particularly suprised at Triskadecadecamus’ reaction to numbered point 2. Er…so, defenders of evolutionary science must concede the point that evolution and belief in God are incompatible? Aren’t sentiments like those of point 2 de rigeur for defenders of evolution?
I think numbered point 3 is quite weak. Perhaps an argument could be made that most Christians these days don’t believe angels have to push the planets along in their orbits, but are willing to accept that orbiting planets obey “natural law” in the form of gravity (and that, for Christians, God would be the author of these natural laws); so, I suppose, Christians could accept that life, including humans, also obeys (God-authored) “natural law”, rather than requiring continuous direct divine intervention. But, it’s still a pretty weak argument.
The final unnumbered paragraph is probably the strongest. What’s objectionable about pointing out that evolution is supported by evidence from a variety of fields? And references to “elegance” seem pretty routine in discussions of scientific theories. Yeah, okay, that “common sense” thing has crept in again. Really, it ought to be common sense, but alas, common sense is all too uncommon
Welcome to the Straight Dope, johndcal. Please take all this criticism as an invitation to engage in debate on a more rigorous level here, rather than as the mindless and kneejerking attack that it seems.
When I was a boy, a rabbi told me that fossils were planted by the devil to deceive humans. the result was - I lost my faith for a good seven years!
Also, a religious Jewish co-religionist told me, “God created the world already old, with fossils in it.”
Now there is a compelling argument.
Ok, ok.
The witch burning is cancelled.
I had a bad day.
Johndcal,
Really a good idea to get a bit of a read on your audience before you start a thread here. Read a few threads, answer a few threads, do a search or three on subjects you plan to debate.
They eat young earth creationists here. It isn’t pretty. What passes as scholarly and logical on MS Forums or the NYTimes forums will elicit gales of laughter in this forum. For the record, I do believe that the ever changing, always adjusting reality model called the theory of evolution is a venerable element of the state of the art in biological science. I also believe that there is a God. I believe Jesus Christ is His son. I don’t see a contradiction in that.
But calling Christians dummies, and presuming that errant theology must be the source to any objection to evolution is objectionable, and my posturing was elicited by that fact alone.
Welcome to Great Debates.
Tris
Triskadecamus, only johndcal can speak for what he meant, but IMO you misconstrued the title of this thread as equivocating Christians and Dummies, when it did no such thing. If fact, by listing them separately in the title, he is indicating they are NOT the same. The title is an obvious play on the popular book series of [Insert subject here] for Dummies and I for one did not interpret it as a slam on Christians. If you will spend the time to peruse his website, (which I have previously used as a reference to Christian friends by the way) I think you will reach the same conclusion.
Does this mean I have to rescind my parody now?
Don’t rescind, Libertarian, but I’d love to see a redraft in light of the fascinating developments in this thread.
That’s not how I read Triskadecadecamus’ point, but AFAICT this is a disputed point. Gould would agree, Dawkins would not.