Ethics of anti evolution arguments

[truthpls]

That is not why this fact was cited.

The claimed and logical conclusion if there is no God in the picture

It shows that undirected evolution can result in new functional capabilities in descendants that were not present in the ancestral population.

So?

Once one knows this, denying that evolution can produce new functional capabilities would be a lie.

Or claiming that such changes amount to a hill of beans in the creation picture

To deny a fact knowingly is to lie.
From Webster’s Dictionary 1828: “Fact”

Right, why deny that changes both happen and were designed to happen?

 

[Astrid]

The claimed and logical conclusion if there is no God in the picture

So?

Or claiming that such changes amount to a hill of beans in the creation picture

Right, why deny that changes both happen and were designed to happen?

Why deny or assert that for which there is no evidence?
Religious reasons?

 

[BCP1928]

The claimed and logical conclusion if there is no God in the picture

So?

Or claiming that such changes amount to a hill of beans in the creation picture

Right, why deny that changes both happen and were designed to happen?

It's not possible to disprove that changes were designed to happen because it's an unfalsifiable proposition. It's rather like the proposition we were discussing earlier, that the purpose of the theory of evolution is to deny the existence of God. The existence of God is an unfalsifiable proposition, impossible to disprove, so no scientific theory can have that as a purpose.

 

[essentialsaltes]

So?

Some professional creationists state that evolution/mutations cannot create new functional capabilities, cannot produce 'specified complexity', cannot produce beneficial effects, etc.

Among them, those who know that mutations are responsible for nylon and citrate metabolism (in natural and laboratory experiments respectively) are lying.

 

[truthpls]

Why deny or assert that for which there is no evidence?
Religious reasons?

Why pretend there is no evidence for God?

 

[truthpls]

It's not possible to disprove that changes were designed to happen because it's an unfalsifiable proposition.

Great. What else would truth be but not falsifiable?

It's rather like the proposition we were discussing earlier, that the purpose of the theory of evolution is to deny the existence of God.

Yes, that seems to be it

The existence of God is an unfalsifiable proposition, impossible to disprove, so no scientific theory can have that as a purpose.

Not an overt purpose. However since much of science does oppose creation and the bible, it is clear where it comes from

 

[truthpls]

Some professional creationists state that evolution/mutations cannot create new functional capabilities, cannot produce 'specified complexity', cannot produce beneficial effects, etc.

OK

Among them, those who know that mutations are responsible for nylon and citrate metabolism (in natural and laboratory experiments respectively) are lying.

If they know some bacteria can chow down on nylon and then lie about it, yes.

 

[essentialsaltes]

OK

If they know some bacteria can chow down on nylon and then lie about it, yes.

OP's original question could be reframed:

"Some creationists lie about the facts; how can this be morally justified?"

 

[Astrid]

Why pretend there is no evidence for God?

Oh, Evidence, like of “ things unseen”.

Take some of that into the genetics lab,
see what wonders you can work.

Unlike you, ive no need for pretense.

 

[Astrid]

OP's original question could be reframed:

"Some creationists lie about the facts; how can this be morally justified?"

Hey that’s what I said, no fair saying it better.

 

[truthpls]

OP's original question could be reframed:

"Some creationists lie about the facts; how can this be morally justified?"

That seems to assume believers lie more than other people and beliefs. I think we know some evolution folks have been busted for lying, hoaxes etc. Some creationists might even argue that the whole model of the evolution of life is a lie, making all who promote it liars. But one needs proof before claiming others are lying. In the case of the broad accusation and slur against 'creationists' lying, what evidence do you have that they know (for example that bacteria eat nylon) and that they claim bacteria do not?

 

[truthpls]

Oh, Evidence, like of “ things unseen”.

Also things seen. How many have seen miracles over the course of history? You seem to be using unseen evidence to claim they are wrong

Take some of that into the genetics lab,
see what wonders you can work.

? Does someone claim here that 'genetics do not work'?

Unlike you, ive no need for pretense.

So you claim I have some need for pretense? Try to deal with reality.

 

[Astrid]

That seems to assume believers lie more than other people and beliefs. I think we know some evolution folks have been busted for lying, hoaxes etc. Some creationists might even argue that the whole model of the evolution of life is a lie, making all who promote it liars. But one needs proof before claiming others are lying. In the case of the broad accusation and slur against 'creationists' lying, what evidence do you have that they know (for example that bacteria eat nylon) and that they claim bacteria do not?

You here assume things not said or intended.

it’s really very simple.
There is no known data to falsify ToE*

Some, usually creationists
claim they do have such disproof.
Of course they never do.

Im inquiring into the ethics of
this behaviour.

* if someone did “ find the Cambrian bunny” and thus
disprove ToR, it would be a worldwide sensation of
the first order. The Nobel would be the least of it.

No internet rando is going to reveal the data
on CF.

 

[truthpls]

You here assume things not said or intended.

it’s really very simple.
There is no known data to falsify ToE*

Or to prove it. There is no data to falsify the tooth fairy. So?

Some, usually creationists
claim they do have such disproof.
Of course they never do.

OK. Guess no one does either way

Im inquiring into the ethics of
this behaviour.

* if someone did “ find the Cambrian bunny” and thus
disprove ToR, it would be a worldwide sensation of
the first order. The Nobel would be the least of it.

Likewise if you found proof there was no creation you would be famous. I don't expect proof for beliefs.

 

[BCP1928]

Great. What else would truth be but not falsifiable?

Yes, that seems to be it

Not an overt purpose. However since much of science does oppose creation and the bible, it is clear where it comes from

Quite so. Many biblical creationists act as if they thought they were the only authentic theists.

 

[Astrid]

Or to prove it. There is no data to falsify the tooth fairy. So?

OK. Guess no one does either way

Likewise if you found proof there was no creation you would be famous.

ig city

 

[essentialsaltes]

That seems to assume believers lie more than other people and beliefs.

That was not asserted. Some professional creationists are liars; how can that be morally justified?

In the case of the broad accusation and slur against 'creationists' lying, what evidence do you have that they know (for example that bacteria eat nylon) and that they claim bacteria do not?

Either these professional creationists are liars, or they are ignorant. In neither case should their claims be accepted.

 

[truthpls]

Quite so. Many biblical creationists act as if they thought they were the only authentic theists.

It is authentic to believe the bible.

 

[BCP1928]

It is authentic to believe the bible.

For Christians. Other theists have different opinions about it.

 

[truthpls]

For Christians. Other theists have different opinions about it.

And some may care what opinions a guy has that have nothing to do with and are not based on and oppose the bible. Not me.