The Catholic Perspective (page 14)

Curtains

exactly what I was going to say psac

Its funny that you guys are debating evolution in a thread about the Catholic perspective when the Catholic perspecitve accepts Evolution.

but I disagree that abiogenises can be see as being as distinct from evolution as you and bohm are maintaining. Well at least for the purposes of this thread - in the context of this thread I would expect that the problematic aspect of leaping from non self replicating and non self containing to self containing and self replicating would be grist to the mill.

and bohm here is mad dawgs reply to you. It is plain enough to me

Are you familiar with the terms: Quantum fluctuations of nothingness? Chemical evolution? How about prebiotic evolution? This is what is taught at Harvard. Look them up, Google is your friend. All I did was strip them of the mumbo jumbo and used plain English. Remember, if you believe in evolution, you cannot escape the conclusion that we evolved from rocks. An absurd idea.

bohm

Curtains: When Mad Dawg reduce evolution to "We came from rocks" it is clearly an emotionally charged and propegandistic statement. it is no more accurate than christianity is getting saved by torturing jesus. Sure there is a nugget of truth, but it is delibrately inaccurate.

I think Mad Dawg should leave the invention of thought-terminating cliches to the WT.

clearly there is an overlap between when something become life, and when something is life which evolve. noone will deny that. but so is there overlap between geology/chemistry/physics/astronomy/cosmology/biology/meterology/oceanology/etc.etc.

clearly rocks played some role in the arrival of life. noone will deny this. but so did a gazillion of other factors. Is it equally true we came from vulcanos?

If MD is just making fun of evolution -- thats fine, i make fun of jehovah to. im just afraid he really think evolution can be summerized as rocks turning into humans.

Curtains

bohm, in thinking about it, I feel that Mad dawg is making an argument from incredulity and I'd like to ask Mad Dawg whether or not he'd concede that he is. But on the other we could also accuse a strict atheist of doing so. Isn't life complicated.

bohm

Curtains: I will easily agree many youtube-atheists make very simplistic, erronous arguments about christianity and other things on youtube, it is human nature to redicule the other parts position instead of arguing it. I to sometimes do that, especially with the watchtower.

as far as what a strict atheist believe, i am not familiar with that term.

however i think there is reasons fear MD actually believe his cliche is a true representation of evolution.

Mad Dawg

Curtains said:

bohm , in thinking about it, I feel that Mad dawg is making an argument from incredulity and I'd like to ask Mad Dawg whether or not he'd concede that he is. But on the other we could also accuse a strict atheist of doing so.

You hit the nail on the head. That was the stated reason for rejecting the notion of even investigating claims about Adam and Eve - on a thread purportedly about the Catholic perspective. Atheists argue from incredulity constantly, but have very thin skin when it is used on them.

Bohm said:

however i think there is reasons fear MD actually believe his cliche is a true representation of evolution.

Evolution in total? Of course not. An oversimplification of a certain facet of evolution? Sure. We must have evolved from some material that was present. Whether it was rock, water, or the atmosphere really doesn't matter. It is fascinating to watch you scream like a little girl about it, yet it is an inescapable conclusion.

The Catholic Perspective

Share this