Is the theory of evolution moral and ethical

[Poster0]

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

The main one is that it lacks clear evidence and is far from proven.

 

[Armoured]

The main one is that it lacks clear evidence and is far from proven.

There's tonnes of evidence, and nothing in science is ever "proven".

Next?

 

[Poster0]

Its sad when Christians will believe an unproven theory which says that man evolved from a prehistoric ape beast, and then tear his brother down for not taking the word of worldly scientists. Paul teaches us that we should strive to be of one mind and to edify each other in love, and should put away debate over things like this. You cant prove everything scientifically but must walk in the spirit instead, we must love each other and to atheists this would be a logical fallacy on my part, but love isn't a logical fallacy but is really the sum of all sound doctrine

 

[Poster0]

There's tonnes of evidence, and nothing in science is ever "proven".

Next?

Mr Berlinski doesn't seem to think so. The theory of mans origin lacks credible evidence.

 

[Job8]

And considering that most Christians accept the theory of evolution, and most people who accept the theory of evolution are Christians, it isn't used to bash Christianity.

Most Christians reject evolution, and even most people in the general population reject evolution. If you did a survey across the world, 99% of the human population would laugh at the theory of evolution.

As to not being used "to bash Christianity" that is naive thinking. The theory of evolution of a direct attack on the Divine revelation of creation, and the creation account has a direct bearing on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

[As I was saying]

The fact of evolution, as well as the scientific theory explaining the process of evolution, is neither moral or immoral, ethical or unethical. It just is. And considering that most Christians accept the theory of evolution, and most people who accept the theory of evolution are Christians, it isn't used to bash Christianity.

Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Another one of those shoot from the lip claims. Most Christians.... Now let me see. There are approximately 2.1 billion Christians on earth. Can you tell me what surveys have been done to prove that most of them accept the theory of evolution?

And.........Most people who accept... Again where is the proof that makes your claim valid?

I have a feeling that neither are true but proving that they are is going to be one hell of a job for you to come up with real evidence.

And finally, evolution isn't used to bash Christianity. If that is the case, why are christian sites full of atheists who delight in bashing christianity with their evolutionary theories, mainly because they can't handle the truth.

 

[Armoured]

Mr Berlinski doesn't seem to think so. The theory of mans origin lacks credible evidence.

Good for Mr. Berlinski. Want names of scientists who disagree with him?

 

[Poster0]

Saying that nothing in Science is ever proven is false. There are many things that can easily be proven. However, the theory of mans origin lacks credible evidence, and is far from proven, as I have said.

 

[Armoured]

Most Christians reject evolution,

Not true

and even most people in the general population reject evolution.

Not true

If you did a survey across the world, 99% of the human population would laugh at the theory of evolution.

As to not being used "to bash Christianity" that is naive thinking. The theory of evolution of a direct attack on the Divine revelation of creation, and the creation account has a direct bearing on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

I'm religious and see no conflict between evolution and Christianity.

 

[Armoured]

Saying that nothing in Science is ever proven is false. There are many things that can easily be proven. However, the theory of mans origin lacks credible evidence, and is far from proven, as I have said.

Again, nothing in science is ever proven. To say otherwise only shows one doesn't understand how science works.

 

[As I was saying]

The fact of evolution, as well as the scientific theory explaining the process of evolution, is neither moral or immoral, ethical or unethical. It just is.

I don't know what world you live in but in mine, Margaret Sanger the founder of Planned Parenthood used the evolutionary survival of the fittest to justify her murdering millions of babies in the womb soooooo it is immoral.

 

[SteveB28]

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.

Everything you said there is incorrect.

 

[Poster0]

Good for Mr. Berlinski. Want names of scientists who disagree with him?

No, because that wouldn't matter. I'm not stupid, I can look at their evidence and see that its far fetched speculation. It may be hard for you to believe that so many scientists would abandon science for fallacy, but its true. Look at their so called evidence, from the very beginning of ToE, until now, its been nothing but idealistic Atheistic speculation. Its really far from being considered credible, yet they will not accept the truth, and they continue to promote fallacy.

 

[Armoured]

I don't know what world you live in but in mine, Margaret Sanger the founder of Planned parenthood used the evolutionary survival of the fittest to justify her murdering millions of babies in the womb soooooo it is immoral.

Assuming for the sake of argument that is true, then that at most makes Margaret Sanger immoral, not evolution.

 

[As I was saying]

It is neither moral or immoral, it is morally neutral, simply a description of processes that occur in nature. It also does not deny or exclude God, any more than saying that the earth revolves around the sun. /QUOTE]

I guess if you can justify the murder of millions of babies in the womb as being moral be my guest.

P.S. Everything is moral or immoral. You know. God's way or satan's way.

 

[Armoured]

No, because that wouldn't matter. I'm no stupid, I can look at their evidence and see that its far fetched speculation. It may be hard for you to believe that so many scientists would abandon science for fallacy, but its true. Look at their so called evidence, from the very beginning of ToE, until now, its been nothing but idealistic Atheistic speculation. Its really far from being considered credible, yet they will not accept the truth, and they continue to promote fallacy.

It's considered "credible" by the vast majority of scientists.

 

[Poster0]

Everything you said there is incorrect.

No, its not incorrect. There is not one shred of evidence to prove that any DNA is junk, to the contrary, the more scientists discover about DNA the more they find uses for what was previously asserted to be junk DNA. Why not just admit the truth? Why live in denial?

 

[Poster0]

It's considered "credible" by the vast majority of scientists.

That doesn't mean it is credible. Watch Mr. Berlinski's interview, it will shine light on the truth.

 

[As I was saying]

Mr Berlinski doesn't seem to think so. The theory of mans origin lacks credible evidence.

The shifting sands of evolution. I have noticed that whenever they are up the creek without a paddle they usually say. "yes but..." and then produce some weird theory to cover their tracks about the weird theory they have been called out on. In other words, you are right and I can't prove you wrong so I will have to produce a red herring.

 

[As I was saying]

Every theory is unproven. Theories are never proven.

This has really got me foxed. If every theory is unproven why is it that atheists and evolutionaries spend so much time on Christian sites demanding that their theories are facts and our so called theories are fiction?