Is the theory of evolution moral and ethical

[Poster0]

I have had enough. If I must agree with atheists then I may as well be one. YOu want me to agree with the scientific consensus? Ok. I'll be an atheist. I'm tired Christians anyway.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Alright, i'll give into the scientific consensus, so I'm not guilty of pride.

God created man millions of years ago, in the form of a lemur, or something close to it, then allowed him to slowly evolve, over millions of years, into multiple forms, until finally transforming into his present form.

Is that about right?

Um no. All living things on earth are related and share a common ancestor. Theists who accept evolution believe that God guided the process. If you want to learn more about the theist point of view for evolution, pick up Francis Collins' book "The Language of God". (He talks about other things besides evolution, but it's part of the book). Another good option, if you have Netflix is the documentary by Dr. Shubin "Your Inner Fish". It's a 3 part documentary.

 

[Poster0]

Um no. All living things on earth are related and share a common ancestor. Theists who accept evolution believe that God guided the process. If you want to learn more about the theist point of view for evolution, pick up Francis Collins' book "The Language of God". (He talks about other things besides evolution, but it's part of the book). Another good option, if you have Netflix is the documentary by Dr. Shubin "Your Inner Fish". It's a 3 part documentary.

No, i'll just be atheist, it seems much easier. I'm not kidding, I have had it.

 

[Poster0]

The only reason I come here is because I'm so messed up that I cant go to church, why I come to forums like this I don't know. One think I sure of, I cant handle anymore nonsense. Y'all are mistaken if you think I'm going to take this crap anymore. I'm done with your contradictions and your BS.

 

[SteveB28]

The only reason I come here is because I'm so messed up that I cant go to church, why I come to forums like this I don't know. One think I sure of, I cant handle anymore nonsense. Y'all are mistaken if you think I'm going to take this crap anymore. I'm done with your contradictions and your BS.

There are other alternatives if you really need help.

 

[bhsmte]

How do I know? Because that's what an evolutionist poster told me, he said that our earliest ancestors were less intelligent than a Chimp, and that's not far from other apes. Plus, evolutionists have said that our brain is evolving into a more intellectual processor, and this explains why we are supposedly more intelligent than our ancestors.

Don't blame me, blame followers of ToE, its they who you are disagreeing with, I'm only reiterating their message.

Since when do you listen to evolutionists?

 

[Poster0]

There are other alternatives if you really need help.

You haven't seen tired and fed up till you have been me. I eat and breath weariness. Everyday is a struggle to hold onto hope, but i cant handle anymore contention, contradiction, politics or religion, no i cant take one more day, one more minute of this BS.
You all can have this world, you can have the religion, the politics, the whole stinking rotten thing. IM so tired that i don't even care if i die anymore. That's what life does to you after it sucks every bit of will from inside you. You cannot even begin to comprehend the hell I live with everyday. My world is is like nothing you have imagined. I dont want to talk to another Christian, Muslim, Atheist, or another political person. You Catholics, Anglicans, Atheists, Democrats and Republicans can all take a hike. Ive struggled and endured and tried, but i have nothing left. YOu can have this world and it can have my life for all i care, weariness has killed me.

 

[Poster0]

Since when do you listen to evolutionists?

Like I care, I don't much give a crap. Bye.

 

[bhsmte]

The only reason I come here is because I'm so messed up that I cant go to church, why I come to forums like this I don't know. One think I sure of, I cant handle anymore nonsense. Y'all are mistaken if you think I'm going to take this crap anymore. I'm done with your contradictions and your BS.

You confuse me.

You have said for more than a day, that you are leaving this thread and have repeated the same numerous times. Yet, you keep posting in the thread and responding to people.

Maybe, this part of the forum is not best for you and you need to stick to the Christian only sections, where you won't run into so many who may having differing views than you.

 

[stevevw]

Newton was non-orthodox, and would have even been considered illegally heterodox for his place and time.

Albert Einstein was raised in a secular Jewish household. In 1954 he wrote, "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."[/QUOTE]
Yes Einstein didn't believe in a personal God but it is interesting as to how he came to that conclusion. When he formed his theory of relativity he realized that this equation meant there had to be a beginning to the universe. But he didn't like that idea as he thought this would mean one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So he introduced his cosmological constant for which he said was the greatest mistake of his life. Since then we have discovered that the universe does have a beginning. So, Einstein became a believer in an impersonal creator God. Here are a couple of more quotes from him.

"I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.

"In view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God. But what really makes me angry is that they quote me for the support of such views."


"I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God."
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/einstein.html

So as the great man suggest that even the most intelligent humans should at least suspect that there is some sort of arrangement of things beyond a naturalistic cause. This is coming from the very man who discovered relativity and the physics for which all science is based upon.

 

[stevevw]

The theory of evolution is based on assumption. We know that animals can evolve small changes in their features just like the the beaks of finches that Darwin observed. They could become larger and stronger to help crack the husks of seeds bu only those finches with these beaks surviving. But thats about where it stops. The ability to evolve changes in beaks , hair, size, length and even shape of face or snout are within the genetic capabilities of existing genes. But more importantly the changes dont extend beyond what would cause a cost to fitness because a creature had moved to far away from its natural state which was already best for them. Mutations are basically errors in the copying of what is already good. A mistake cannot make something better in the end even if it seems like it gives a short term advantage.

The assumption is because a finch can change its existing beak size or strength animals can also change beyond the species level and become new ones. We have observed and tested the minor changes in genetics that are within a creatures existing genetics. But we havnt observed the major changes that are claimed by evolution. This is called an assumption. Its like saying that the famous climber George Malory who was the first to attempt to climbed Mt Everest made it all the way to the top. But all that was witnessed was that he got to a certain point before the top and disappeared. His ability and fitness didn't get him to the top. He only had the ability to make it so far. But some want to assume that he made it all the way without any evidence.

 

[SteveB28]

You haven't seen tired and fed up till you have been me. I eat and breath weariness. Everyday is a struggle to hold onto hope, but i cant handle anymore contention, contradiction, politics or religion, no i cant take one more day, one more minute of this BS.
You all can have this world, you can have the religion, the politics, the whole stinking rotten thing. IM so tired that i don't even care if i die anymore. That's what life does to you after it sucks every bit of will from inside you. You cannot even begin to comprehend the hell I live with everyday. My world is is like nothing you have imagined. I dont want to talk to another Christian, Muslim, Atheist, or another political person. You Catholics, Anglicans, Atheists, Democrats and Republicans can all take a hike. Ive struggled and endured and tried, but i have nothing left. YOu can have this world and it can have my life for all i care, weariness has killed me.

Please. I celebrated my 87th birthday last week. Don't tell me about weariness!

But, when you stand in my shoes and realise that this is all you get, you make sure you cherish every weary minute of it.

 

[SteveB28]

The theory of evolution is based on assumption. We know that animals can evolve small changes in their features just like the the beaks of finches that Darwin observed. They could become larger and stronger to help crack the husks of seeds bu only those finches with these beaks surviving. But thats about where it stops. The ability to evolve changes in beaks , hair, size, length and even shape of face or snout are within the genetic capabilities of existing genes. But more importantly the changes dont extend beyond what would cause a cost to fitness because a creature had moved to far away from its natural state which was already best for them. Mutations are basically errors in the copying of what is already good. A mistake cannot make something better in the end even if it seems like it gives a short term advantage.

The assumption is because a finch can change its existing beak size or strength animals can also change beyond the species level and become new ones. We have observed and tested the minor changes in genetics that are within a creatures existing genetics. But we havnt observed the major changes that are claimed by evolution. This is called an assumption. Its like saying that the famous climber George Malory who was the first to attempt to climbed Mt Everest made it all the way to the top. But all that was witnessed was that he got to a certain point before the top and disappeared. His ability and fitness didn't get him to the top. He only had the ability to make it so far. But some want to assume that he made it all the way without any evidence.

No. As is the case with all scientific theories, it is based upon evidence.

Mountains of it.

 

[stevevw]

No. As is the case with all scientific theories, it is based upon evidence.

Mountains of it.

A lot of the so called evidence is based on assumption and interpretation. The observational evidence which makes up a lot of it is up for interpretation and has been refuted a lot of the time. There can just many who disagree with what supporters say. What may be viewed as a transitional feature to some is also seen as a normal variation with a species to others. Evolution has been found out many times with this. What may be the fossil of the same creature found out of place in the fossil records can be made into a new species rather than be accepted as fossils out of place to one. Will be a fossil out of place which throws another spanner in the works for evolution to another. This happens a lot as well.

What we have is scientists who already assume and believe evolution is true are determining which way the evidence falls which is highly biased. But the best evidence is the genetic evidence and according to tests mutations cannot evolve new functional features. Even if they could for same changes it would take to much time to do so. Its when you look into the detail and put t to the grind stone that you begin to find the many holes. But if you can come up with some testable and verifiable evidence that shows directly that evolution is true then by all means post it. you make the claim that it is based on evidence but you dont post any.

The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full
Evolutionary layering and the limits to cellular perfection.
http://www.pubfacts.com/detail/23115338/Evolutionary-layering-and-the-limits-to-cellular-perfection.
Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15340163
The Limits of Complex Adaptation: An Analysis Based on a Simple Model of Structured Bacterial Populations
http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/index.php/main/article/view/BIO-C.2010.4

 

[The Barbarian]

I guess ppl will believe aliens created us...

Ah, the "Intelligent Design" guys.

 

[The Barbarian]

But the best evidence is the genetic evidence and according to tests mutations cannot evolve new functional features.

The Hall-Hartl E. coli experiment. In a 1974 paper Barry Hall and Daniel Hartl identified a gene in the bacterium E. coli that is responsible for metabolizing lactose, using a complicated three-part process. They removed this gene, and then permitted the bacteria to multiply in a stressed environment containing lactose. Within 24 hours the bacteria had evolved a capability to utilize lactose, by means of a similar but distinct three-part biochemical pathway, involving two mutated genes [Hall1974; Miller1999, pg. 145-147]. Biologist Douglas Futumya described this discovery as follows: "One could not wish for a better demonstration of the neo-Darwinian principle that mutation and natural selection in concert are the source of complex adaptations." [Futumya1986]. Biologist Kenneth Miller points out that not only is it a valid example of evolutionary novelty, it is also an example of a multi-part biochemical system that intelligent design writer Michael Behe has insisted could not be produced by natural evolution [Miller2005]. See also the discussion of Complexity.
http://www.sciencemeetsreligion.org/evolution/novelty.php

Reality beats anyone's reasoning. And those papers you cited don't say what you seem to think they say.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Yes Einstein didn't believe in a personal God but it is interesting as to how he came to that conclusion. When he formed his theory of relativity he realized that this equation meant there had to be a beginning to the universe. But he didn't like that idea as he thought this would mean one would have to conclude that the universe was created by God. So he introduced his cosmological constant for which he said was the greatest mistake of his life. Since then we have discovered that the universe does have a beginning. So, Einstein became a believer in an impersonal creator God.

That is not a very accurate picture of how the general theory of relativity developed.

In fact, it was that the equations showed that a universe that was initially 'at rest' would collapse together in the future that motivated Einstein's idea, since the available evidence (and thinking) was that the universe was static. The cosmological constant was supposed to solve the problem of the universe coming to an end, rather than to prevent it from having a beginning. Later work by Friedmann, Lemaître, Robertson & Walker produced the idea of an expanding universe, and Lemaître is generally regarded as the first to propose the Big Bang Theory, shortly before Hubble's experimental verification of the expansion of the universe. None of this has anything to do with Einstein's religious ideas.

 

[Strathos]

No, i'll just be atheist, it seems much easier. I'm not kidding, I have had it.

It is pretty difficult to follow TE as you get called out by both sides. But it's worth it.

 

[keith99]

How do I know? Because that's what an evolutionist poster told me, he said that our earliest ancestors were less intelligent than a Chimp, and that's not far from other apes. Plus, evolutionists have said that our brain is evolving into a more intellectual processor, and this explains why we are supposedly more intelligent than our ancestors.

Don't blame me, blame followers of ToE, its they who you are disagreeing with, I'm only reiterating their message.

Oh so basically you have just some guy said.

Doh!

 

[keith99]

Alright, i'll give into the scientific consensus, so I'm not guilty of pride.

God created man millions of years ago, in the form of a lemur, or something close to it, then allowed him to slowly evolve, over millions of years, into multiple forms, until finally transforming into his present form.

Is that about right?

Nope, fail at fail.