Ethics of anti evolution arguments

[Astrid]

I’d have done better to make the
question about a literal reading of
noahs ark, and the ethics of using
falsehoods to try to show the flood
really happened.

Same ethics question, simpler topic.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I’d have done better to make the
question about a literal reading of
noahs ark, and the ethics of using
falsehoods to try to show the flood
really happened.

Same ethics question, simpler topic.

But Astrid, part of the problem here is in the way that literalist Christians conceptualize the operative principles of "how to know."

In some cases, literalist Christians may not be unethical so much as they are either uninformed or misguided (or uneducated).

Moreover, even though I agree with you that they are epistemically wrong in the way in which they evaluate the story of Noah's Ark, I'm going to go with Basil Mitchell's assertion that many Christians are caught in what he called the "Layman's Predicament," which is where the typical laymen has neither the resources, whether those resources are psychological or financial in nature, or the time to figure out fully who among leaders or scholars to trust in applying principles of "knowing."

Reference

Mitchell, Basil. (1990). How to Play Theological Ping-pong: Essays on faith & reason. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdman's Publishing Company.

 

[Neogaia777]

I’d have done better to make the
question about a literal reading of
noahs ark, and the ethics of using
falsehoods to try to show the flood
really happened.

Same ethics question, simpler topic.

It can still be possible if the flood was regional, and not global, and that's unfalsifiable right now, etc. Same with a literal Garden of Eden, and a literal Adam and Eve. Not that you really care anything at all about that though, etc. But it's not lying or dishonest yet, because it's unfalsifiable, and doesn't contradict all the other knowledge we right now know, or right now currently have right now, etc.

God Bless.

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

Show me an example of arguments consisting of things I make up.
You cannot.

Show me yec argument against evolution thst is not made up.
You cannot.

But my topic is the ethics of using falsehoods.

The Ethics of Arguments in Support of Evolution:

We observe that virtually all such arguments are simply​

falsehoods, either made up by the poster, or, borrowed​

from someone else who made them up.​

​

How can this behaviour be consistent with​

any moral code?​

See, I can do it too.

 

[Astrid]

The Ethics of Arguments in Support of Evolution:

We observe that virtually all such arguments are simply​

falsehoods, either made up by the poster, or, borrowed​

from someone else who made them up.​

​

How can this behaviour be consistent with​

any moral code?​

See, I can do it too.

Dreadfully clever! But no examples so….

 

[NewLifeInChristJesus]

Dreadfully clever! But no examples so….

Just returning tit-for-tat. Your OP caught my attention because it offered no evidence in support of your postulate. It only contained accusations against those who hold a different view than yours. When you asked for evidence that your accusations were wrong, I noticed that your original arguments could just as well be made against your POV.

Do I care to argue against evolution? Not really. Other people have made it their life's work to do that (it's called apologetics). To me the real issue is not evolution, it is placing one's trust in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins. If evolutionary theory is preventing you from finding God's forgiveness in Christ Jesus, I would recommend putting evolution aside until you have found what you need the most.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Estimates are as you know 15-30bn years , but to put that into context requires understanding Hubble-lemaitre which at best is a very long extrapolation based on assumptions. So, it is indicative not definitive .

Better informed persons would know the range as 13.5-14.0 Gyr. 15-30 Gyr hasn't been on the table for a couple decades.

considering other long extrapolations like gravity over 100s bns light years ,

which is larger than the cosmic horizon

the diameter of galaxies, doesn’t work very well on galax rotation with an error term expressed in mass ten times the visible matter ( the origin of the dark matter question) all extrapolations need taking with a pinch of salt.

you seem to be talking of DM w/ the galaxy rotation bit, but DM isn't 10x regular matter.

I thought you might know better mr ex-tech director.

All so called laws are emperiometric not ontological. That is the view of even hawking!

I doubt (Stephen) Hawking has much of a view about anything these days.

spot the one time tech director of an astrophysics facility.:me.

Was it just the IT, or were you also in charge of the maintenance of the telescopes?

What was the point of these (incorrect) claims about cosmology in a thread about ethics?

 

[Astrid]

Just returning tit-for-tat. Your OP caught my attention because it offered no evidence in support of your postulate. It only contained accusations against those who hold a different view than yours. When you asked for evidence that your accusations were wrong, I noticed that your original arguments could just as well be made against your POV.

Do I care to argue against evolution? Not really. Other people have made it their life's work to do that (it's called apologetics). To me the real issue is not evolution, it is placing one's trust in Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of sins. If evolutionary theory is preventing you from finding God's forgiveness in Christ Jesus, I would recommend putting evolution aside until you have found what you need the most.

“ Tit for Tat” could be called a dodge, but never mind that.

I provided one example of a false argument to disprove
evolution, the fake human footprint with dinosaur footprint.

i could list them to the limits of patience.

More simply, all such are false. Else someone
would have a Nobel, among many many other result.

Would you deny that any are false? What “ accusation” might
suit those who deliberately or negligently sponsor such?

That is a real question, I would appreciate an answer!
it would be the first on topic response I’ve gotten.


To your last comment-
Educated Christians have no issue with evolution.

 

[trophy33]

That the purpose of the theory of evolution is to deny the existence of God. The rest follow from it.

I do not know why would you want to accuse Darwin of such dishonesty. If you read his diary, you would know that he went on his journeys as a YEC Christian, looking for the global flood signs. But he could not find any.

Instead, he noticed that species living on isolated islands developed specific features and even speciation. He had to change his natural science view based on what he discovered. And because he, as todays YEC Christians, did not know how to keep the Christian faith without believing that Genesis is a literal dictation from God, it seems he later became just a theist, though some sources say he remained a Christian.

In other words, Darwin changed his view after his journeys and discoveries, not before.

 

[Belk]

I do not know why would you want to accuse Darwin of such dishonesty. If you read his diary, you would know that he went on his journeys as a YEC Christian, looking for the global flood signs. But he could not find any.

Instead, he noticed that species living on isolated islands developed specific features and even speciation. He had to change his natural science view based on what he discovered. And because he, as todays YEC Christians, did not know how to keep the Christian faith without believing that Genesis is a literal dictation from God, it seems he later became just a theist, though some sources say he remained a Christian.

In other words, Darwin changed his view after his journeys and discoveries, not before.

He is stating that is the foundational falsehood that other anti evolution arguments stem from. He is claiming that to be his own understanding.

 

[BCP1928]

I do not know why would you want to accuse Darwin of such dishonesty. If you read his diary, you would know that he went on his journeys as a YEC Christian, looking for the global flood signs. But he could not find any.

Instead, he noticed that species living on isolated islands developed specific features and even speciation. He had to change his natural science view based on what he discovered. And because he, as todays YEC Christians, did not know how to keep the Christian faith without believing that Genesis is a literal dictation from God, it seems he later became just a theist, though some sources say he remained a Christian.

In other words, Darwin changed his view after his journeys and discoveries, not before.

Yes the effect of the theory of evolution is to deny the existence of God for those who are convinced that a belief in a literal Genesis is required for faith in God. But is that the purpose of the theory? To follow Morris's argument further, have evolutionary biologists intentionally crafted a false theory in order to deny the existence of God?

 

[Astrid]

Yes the effect of the theory of evolution is to deny the existence of God for those who are convinced that a belief in a literal Genesis is required for faith in God. But is that the purpose of the theory? To follow Morris's argument further, have evolutionary biologists intentionally crafted a false theory in order to deny the existence of God?

Would anyone here like to say that it’s ethical to
spread Morris’ lie?

 

[Carlo Alberto]

Le stime sono come sapete 15-30 miliardi di anni, ma per mettere questo in contesto è necessario comprendere Hubble-lemaitre che nella migliore delle ipotesi è una lunghissima estrapolazione basata su ipotesi. Quindi, è indicativo, non definitivo.

considerando altre lunghe estrapolazioni come la gravità su centinaia di miliardi di anni luce, il diametro delle galassie, non funziona molto bene sulla rotazione delle galassie con un termine di errore espresso in massa dieci volte la materia visibile (l'origine della questione della materia oscura) tutte le estrapolazioni devono essere prese con le pinze. Tutte le cosiddette leggi sono empiriometriche, non ontologiche. Questa è la visione anche di Hawking!

individua l'ex direttore tecnico di una struttura di astrofisica.:me.




Sto semplicemente dicendo che la vita, presumibilmente un prodotto dell'evoluzione, ha problemi significativi, la cui soluzione spetta agli evoluzionisti e non a me; uno di questi è il quadro morale oggettivo o condiviso che sembra violare la legge della sopravvivenza del più adatto.
Darwin lo menziona e poi lo aggira, non lo affronta, e tanto meno lo risolve. Pochi sembrano aver letto Darwin prima di citarlo qui,

Ce ne sono altri. La mente - l'anima. La coscienza.
se la mente non è un processo del cervello, che è sempre meno sostenibile come paradigma, allora la vita non è spiegata dall'evoluzione chimica. Punto.
E la mancanza di QUALSIASI prova di un percorso evolutivo verso la cellula moderna minima. Quindi la maggior parte del percorso è mancante. Ciò che è scritto sul lavoro dell'RNA è pura congettura non supportata.

Puoi avere le tue convinzioni, ma non dare per scontato che siano supportate dalla scienza.

forse dovresti ascoltare i biologi evoluzionisti premio Nobel come Szostak
che in un recente articolo ha notato che ci sono tre grandi problemi che l'uomo deve risolvere,
1/ origine dell'universo
2/ origine della vita
3/ origine della mente

Afferma che 1/ 3/ sono TROPPO DIFFICILI da risolvere. Ma senza 3 non hai alcuna spiegazione della vita.

Il. nel discutere 2/ dimostra di non avere prove di ciò che ha preceduto le nostre cellule minime orribilmente complesse
Egli ipotizza un mondo a RNA, che è ancora molto complesso. Quindi non ha idea dell'origine delle cellule.

Quindi mi dispero per i post semplicistici e mal informati su forum come questo, dove gli atei fingono che l'origine e l'evoluzione della vita siano un fatto compiuto. Non lo è. Nemmeno lontanamente.
Ancora peggio quando usano paroloni che non capiscono, come chiamare "immorali" i detrattori senza mettere in discussione il significato della moralità, che è uno dei problemi degli evoluzionisti.

La cosiddetta teoria di Darwin non è una teoria nemmeno nella scienza rigorosa.

IOthe

Estimates are as you know 15-30bn years , but to put that into context requires understanding Hubble-lemaitre which at best is a very long extrapolation based on assumptions. So, it is indicative not definitive .

considering other long extrapolations like gravity over 100s bns light years , the diameter of galaxies, doesn’t work very well on galax rotation with an error term expressed in mass ten times the visible matter ( the origin of the dark matter question) all extrapolations need taking with a pinch of salt. All so called laws are emperiometric not ontological. That is the view of even hawking!

spot the one time tech director of an astrophysics facility.:me.




I am simoly telling you that life assumed a product of evolution has significant problems , which are for evolutionists not me to solve, one of them is objective or shared moral framework which appear to violate survival of fittest.
Darwin mentions it then skirts around it , he did not address it, far less did he solve it. Few seem to have read Darwin before quote him here,

There are others. The mind - the soul. Consciousness.
if the mind is not a process of the brain, which is increasingly less supportable as a paradigm, then life is not explained by chemical evolution . Period.
And The lack of ANY evidence for an evolutinary pathway to the minimum modern cell. So most of the pathway is missing . what is written about rna workd is pure unsupported conjecture.

You are welcome to your beliefs, but don't assume they are supported by science .

perhaps you should listen to such as Nobel laureate evolutinary biologists szostak
who in a recent article noted there are three major problems For man to solve,
1/ origin of universe
2/ origin of life
3/ origin of mind

He states 1/ 3/ are TOO HARD to solve. but Without 3 you have no explanation of life.

The. in discussing 2/ he proves he has no evidebce of what preceded our hideously complex minimumcells
He conjectures RNA world , which is still very complex . So he has no idea of origin of cells.

So I despair of the simplistic illinformed posting on forums like this where atheists pretend the origin and evolutin of life is a done deal. It Isnt. not even close.
Even worse when they use big words they don’t understand like calling nay sayers “immoral” without questioning the meaning of morality, which is one of the evolutionists problems.

Darwins so called theory is not even a theory in rigorous science.

Why are you talking of origin of cells with origin of life? I have heard that Darwin evolution theory is based on that all life on earth today is a product of millions years of evolutionary process start from a single cell called Luca formed by a chance from abiogensis but still don't know how life originated because all abiogensis experiments were a big flops.

 

[Astrid]

IOthe

Why are you talking of origin of cells with origin of life? I have heard that Darwin evolution theory is based on that all life on earth today is a product of millions years of evolutionary process start from a single cell called Luca formed by a chance from abiogensis but still don't know how life originated because all abiogensis experiments were a big flops.

You heard wrong

 

[Carlo Alberto]

You heard wrong

Nope, I have heard correctly, this is also written on Wikipedia page of Abiogenesis page.

 

[Astrid]

Nope, I have heard correctly, this is also written on Wikipedia page of Abiogenesis page.

Ah, so sorry, you remembered wrong.
Cut n paste from wiki and let’s count
all the ways you falsified the original.

 

[Carlo Alberto]

Hai sentito male

No, ho sentito bene, questo è scritto anche sulla pagina di Wikipedia di Abiogenesis pa

Ah, mi dispiace tanto, ricordavi male.
Taglia e incolla da wiki e contiamo
tutti i modi in cui hai falsificato l'originale.

Abiogenesis is a process in which life arise from non living matter as organics compound

 

[o_mlly]

The ends justifies the means I guess.

Yes. However, the ends can never justify evil means.

To deny a fact knowingly is to lie.

You'd have a point if evolution was a fact. But TOE is not, so you don't

 

[essentialsaltes]

You'd have a point if evolution was a fact. But TOE is not, so you don't

Like gravity, evolution is a term used both for a fact of nature and the scientific theory that best explains it.

In context, the previous use of fact referred to a fact known by professional creationists, but denied as a deceptive rhetorical gambit, e.g. "there are no transitional fossils".

 

[o_mlly]

No known fact disproves evolution- which is where earnest

No known fact proves it.

But the disproving evidence is mounting:

This small ground beetle is rekindling debate on Darwin’s theory of evolution

A tiny insect that survived the extinction event which killed the dinosaurs throws up questions for evolutionary theory.

www.scmp.com