Is the theory of evolution moral and ethical

[Poster0]

To say that creation is random, and without purpose, is to deny that God created it. God did not give his power over to randomness, because that would suggest that he has no idea what will happen, and that its out of his control, however we Christians know that everything has a purpose and that God designed it for a purpose

 

[Poster0]

All those books were written by Christians. Most were by clergy.

Where you are screwed into the void is that you deny Christian clergy, Christians who are scientists, and Christian Clergy who are Scientists. Nobody can deal with you. You are alone other than "fellowship" with creationist frauds. Go back to the program.

No, I seriously doubt those men are teaching that man evolved from prehistoric ape creatures

 

[Strathos]

To say that creation is random, and without purpose, is to deny that God created it. God did not give his power over to randomness, because that would suggest that he has no idea what will happen, and that its out of his control, however we Christians know that everything has a purpose and that God designed it for a purpose

Evolution isn't random though.

 

[Poster0]

Where you are screwed into the void is that you deny Christian clergy, Christians who are scientists, and Christian Clergy who are Scientists. .

You are really being dishonest in your assertion. IM watching a video right now and it shows what Christians actually believe. These men have PHD and are not creationists. They are saying that your version of evolution is actually much like early Gnosticism which the church fathers condemned as heresy. They specifically referred to the Toe Fallacy which asserts that creation is random and without purpose, they say that this is wrong.

 

[Poster0]

Evolution isn't random though.

That's what these atheists believe.

 

[Poster0]

Another ToE fallacy which contradicts sound doctrine asserts that Gods existence cannot be proven scientifically. However, the bible says that all creation declares Gods Glory. Romans 1 says that "since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."

Therefore its not correct to suggest that science cannot prove Gods existence.

 

[Poster0]

Chew on that for a while.

 

[Poster0]

Even Richard Dawkins says that creation seems like it was designed. However he claims it was not designed, but that it only appears that way. Talk about being subjective.

Quote- "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose” -Richard Dawkins

 

[The Barbarian]

Thats right, i fail at everything, even failing itself. I have severe phychological damage and im very messed up. Why do i come talk to people on the internet who dont care?

Why would you care what we think, other than to see if there was any truth in it?

It seems strange to me that i must agree with evolutionists or i will we accused of sin.

As Robert Heinlein remarked, it is no sin to fail to understand. But he writes, it is:

is the only universal capital crime: the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity.

Think about it. The penalty is not what your fellow humans will do; it's what you will do to yourself.

It seems strange also that a fellow Christian would care more about evoltion theory, or even politics, than his/her brother.

The truth matters. If you are a Christian, it should matter to you. God is truth. A Christian should never fear the truth.

Thats what you get when you get involved in politics and things like evoltion theory, you get arguments and it doesnt help anyone. Will we now teach evolution in church?

No more than we should teach chemistry in church. What we should not do, is take God's word and try to make it into a science lecture.

Instead of jumping in to a discussion like this, with Christians who actually do understand science, hoping to persuade them otherwise, it might be smart to learn about the issue first, and then tell us about it.

 

[SteveB28]

That's what these atheists believe.

No we do not. Evolution is not a random process.

 

[Poster0]

Why would you care what we think, other than to see if there was any truth in it?



As Robert Heinlein remarked, it is no sin to fail to understand. But he writes, it is:

is the only universal capital crime: the sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out automatically and without pity.

Think about it. The penalty is not what your fellow humans will do; it's what you will do to yourself.



The truth matters. If you are a Christian, it should matter to you. God is truth. A Christian should never fear the truth.



No more than we should teach chemistry in church. What we should not do, is take God's word and try to make it into a science lecture.

Instead of jumping in to a discussion like this, with Christians who actually do understand science, hoping to persuade them otherwise, it might be smart to learn about the issue first, and then tell us about it.

Brother, with respect, you forget that ToE is not necessarily pure science, but is riddled with idealism rather than observable science. This doesn't discount all Evolution theory, but it doesn't support all evolution theory either. These ToE biologists are actually hindering scientific discovery with their Darwin idealism.

Look at their unfounded assertions that say much of human DNA is junk. This assertion is not supported by observable scientific methods but is actually just a false notion, a fallacy. Its actually being disproven. They also assert that creation is random and without purpose, which is also fallacy instead of observable science. They claim that we evolved from primitive ape creatures which is also unproven, but instead is just another notion which they invented in their imagination.

IS that what you are comparing to Chemistry? It might be smart to learn what ToE actually teaches before we agree with it, wouldn't you think? YOu say I'm unwise to disagree with something before I understand it, yet its you guys who are telling me that I should agree with it before understanding it, and that's just as unwise, don't you think? Am I expected to take the word of Atheists who deny Gods existence? They have proven that their opinion is not based on pure science but instead on fallacy. Forgive me if I don't just take their word for it.

I may not understand all of evolution, but I surely understand enough to know that ToE is not something that I should believe in, because its polluted with idealism and fallacy.

 

[Poster0]

No we do not. Evolution is not a random process.

What does it mean when they say that genetic mutations are random?.

 

[SteveB28]

What does it mean when they say that genetic mutations are random?.

Indeed they are. But evolution is more than just mutation. The process of natural selection is the determinant of viability of those mutations and it is not a random function.

 

[Poster0]

Indeed they are. But evolution is more than just mutation. The process of natural selection is the determinant of viability of those mutations and it is not a random function.

It doesn't seem to change my point though. It doesn't much matter however, because scientists are wrong about junk DNA, which proves that they sometimes use speculation rather than observable science. Why would they even assume that this DNA is junk? ITs based on the same fallacy that mans origin is based on. THey only speculate that man evolved in the way that they have asserted. ITs not proven.

 

[Poster0]

This guy is an atheist. His credentials sound impressive. He refutes the legitimacy of ToE science.

 

[Poster0]

What's interesting is that ToE theory is so ridiculous, that anyone, no matter their education, can easily conclude that its unlikely to be true. Yet, some of the most educated people can believe it. This phenomenon is probably the most curious thing that has ever been observed I think.

 

[Armoured]

Certainly. I have given one already. That the earth orbits the sun, rather than the converse.

Demons being responsible for mental illness.

That striped goats can be bred by having their copulating parents stare at striped sticks (I am not joking!)

Lightning being the response of 'angry gods'.

Leprosy cured with the blood of a bird.

Bats being a variety of bird.

More?

grasshoppers with 4 legs

 

[Armoured]

What's interesting is that ToE theory is so ridiculous, that anyone, no matter their education, can easily conclude that its unlikely to be true.

Go ahead. Elaborte what's "ridiculous" about it without using PRATTS?

 

[Poster0]

Go ahead. Elaborte what's "ridiculous" about it without using PRATTS?

What is Pratts? Is that another logical fallacy that you are using?

I'll allow David Berlinski to answer your question. Did you listen to his analyses of ToE? It was quite brilliant.

 

[Armoured]

What is Pratts? Is that another logical fallacy that you are using?

Previously Refuted A Thousand Times, e.g. "if monkeys evolved into humans, why are there still monkeys?"

I'll allow David Berlinski to answer your question. Did you listen to his analyses of ToE? It was quite brilliant.

You said it's easy for anyone to see why it's ridiculous. Shouldn't be to hard for you to summarise the main few points.