Is the theory of evolution moral and ethical

[Poster0]

If, as they claim science doesn't deal in proof, they have to stop saying that the fossil record is proof of evolution.

Yes, they cant have it both ways. Its interesting, if everything has been evolving over millions of years as they claim, then you would expect transitional fossils to be everywhere, yet that's not the case, as Mr Berlinski pointed out.

 

[Poster0]

Don't play debate by dictionary, especially with scientific usages.

Evolution is not proven, but all available evidence supports it, which makes it "fact", as far as "facts" exist.

Gravity is a theory, yet it is also considered a "fact", for all practical purposes.

Cell theory is also a theory, yet supported by all available evidence, thus a "fact" as such things go.

Would you like more examples of theories that are considered "facts" for all practical purposes? I can go on, atomic theory, molecular theory, germ theory...

Rather than arguing the dictionary, or trying to base a claim on associated human morality, ask yourself this one, simple question: "is there any evidence that contradicts evolutionary theory, or contradicts any of its predictions"?

Its not supported, its just a lie. Seriously, I'm not just some closed minded idiot. I would try to rationalize ToE if I actually saw real evidence, but I don't see it. I agree with Mr Berlinski that ToE is ridiculous.

 

[Armoured]

Yes, they cant have it both ways. Its interesting, if everything has been evolving over millions of years as they claim, then you would expect transitional fossils to be everywhere, yet that's not the case, as Mr Berlinski pointed out.

Transitional fossils are all over the place. Mr Berlinski sounds like an ignorant person.

 

[Armoured]

Its not supported, its just a lie. Seriously, I'm not just some closed minded idiot. I would try to rationalize ToE if I actually saw real evidence, but I don't see it. I agree with Mr Berlinski that ToE is ridiculous.

What would you consider "real" evidence?

 

[SteveB28]

What I have been reading in books about evolution it is all about philosophical arguments. There's very little science in it. Its primary aim is to get God out of the picture and replace him with man as in "we will not have this man to reign over us."

Wrong.

 

[Poster0]

No. Science never proves anything, ever. That doesn't mean something can't be considered plausible. Gravity is "just" a theory, yet it's plausible enough to stop people jumping off cliffs.

That's absurd, science often proves things.

 

[SteveB28]

Actually its not accepted by the vast majority of Scientists, but is accepted by the majority of biologists. However, its their doctrine. THey actually use it like doctrine, and they try to prove it, yet they cannot, so they merely assert that it is proven.

Wrong.

 

[SteveB28]

That's absurd, science often proves things.

Wrong. You fellows are setting some kind of record for completely asinine statements.

 

[SteveB28]

Please, your assertion is not true. Its merely a tactic used to justify ridiculous theories that cannot be proven.

Wrong.

 

[Armoured]

That's absurd, science often proves things.

No it doesn't.Never.

 

[SteveB28]

If, as they claim science doesn't deal in proof, they have to stop saying that the fossil record is proof of evolution.

Wrong. No one claims that.

 

[SteveB28]

I understand how theory works, but at some point it can be proven with evidence, or at least accepted as plausible.

Wrong. Before you make these arrogant statements, why don't you do the hard work and at least study the thing you are attempting to criticise!?

 

[Armoured]

Wrong. No one claims that.

In fairness, I believe people may claim it, but, as I said earlier, only either as short hand or because they misunderstand the scientific method themselves.

It's not proof, it is, however, extremely strong evidence.

 

[SteveB28]

Sorry but you can't have it both ways. Either it is proven or it is not and judging by the all the red herrings thrown up by those who have an absolute belief in evolution, it sounds to me that it is wishful thinking. It is either theory or it is fact.

Theory is a contemplative and rational type of abstract or generalizing thinking, or the results of such thinking.

Fact; something that truly exists or happens : something that has actual existence

Wrong. Now look up SCIENTIFIC theory!

 

[Poster0]

What would you consider "real" evidence?

Prove that the speculation surrounding Junk DNA is true and we'll go from there

 

[Poster0]

Wrong. Now look up SCIENTIFIC theory!

scientific theory
noun
1.
a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:

 

[SteveB28]

Transitional fossils are all over the place. Mr Berlinski sounds like an ignorant person.

He works for an organisation called the Discovery Institute. Despite the misleading name, they appear to be nothing more than a front for an extreme fundamentalist creationist organisation.

Incidentally, why is it that groups like these use words like "freedom" and "discovery", when they really represent "control" and "dogma"? Mr Orwell would be impressed.

 

[SteveB28]

scientific theory
noun
1.
a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:

Well done. Now, apply that if you can when discussing matters of science. You will make far fewer errors that way and you may receive the bonus of actually learning something.

 

[Armoured]

Prove that the speculation surrounding Junk DNA is true and we'll go from there

I just explained to you that science doesn't deal in "proof".

That said, what aspect of junk DNA do you need explained?

IIRC, most non-functional DNA in the human genome is the remainder of ERVs

 

[Armoured]

scientific theory
noun
1.
a coherent group of propositions formulated to explain a group of facts or phenomena in the natural world and repeatedly confirmed through experiment or observation:

Correct.

So?