Is the theory of evolution moral and ethical

[bhsmte]

Personal attacks, I expected as much.

Not personal, when I address the content of your posts.

 

[Poster0]

Not personal, when I address the content of your posts.

No, it was more like passive aggression.

 

[Loudmouth]

Sure I have, you refuse to acknowledge it however. I showed that radiometric science is not perfected, and scientists are far from being able use it effectively

You showed no such thing. What you claimed are assumptions are not actual assumptions.

 

[Poster0]

You showed no such thing. What you claimed are assumptions are not actual assumptions.

The scientific data, that was cited in the article that I quoted, would disagree with you.

 

[bhsmte]

The scientific data, that was cited in the article that I quoted, would disagree with you.

What was your source for the information you posted?

 

[Loudmouth]

The scientific data, that was cited in the article that I quoted, would disagree with you.

The article only has empty assertions. It lacks data.

The article makes the claim that radiometric dating won't work if there is daughter product in the rock when it forms. This is false. Rb/Sr isochron dating does just fine with Sr being in the rock when it forms. In fact, using Rb/Sr isochron dating you can measure the amount of Sr that was present when the rock formed.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

 

[Poster0]

What was your source for the information you posted?

Don't attack the source, refute the argument instead.

The source was an article written by Dr Andrew Snelling. He specializes in geological studies.

 

[Poster0]

Rb/Sr isochron dating does just fine with Sr being in the rock when it forms. In fact, using Rb/Sr isochron dating you can measure the amount of Sr that was present when the rock formed.

It sounds like you are referring to using assumptions to gather data, just as Dr Snellings article suggested..

 

[bhsmte]

Don't attack the source, refute the argument instead.

The source was an article written by Dr Andrew Snelling. He specializes in geological studies.

These answers in genesis arguments have been refuted over and over again, it is old news.

 

[Loudmouth]

Don't attack the source, refute the argument instead.

The argument is based on bare assertions, such as the decay rates being assumed. They aren't assumed. They have been checked, such as in the case of the Oklo reactors.

 

[Poster0]

These answers in genesis arguments have been refuted over and over again, it is old news.

Refuted by using assumption rather than science.

 

[Poster0]

The argument is based on bare assertions, such as the decay rates being assumed. They aren't assumed. They have been checked, such as in the case of the Oklo reactors.

He addressed that.

 

[Loudmouth]

Refuted by using assumption rather than science.

Assumptions are not used, as we have already shown you.

 

[allhart]

Science is after the fact not behind it all n info can change at any given moment of time according to the stars/stats lol..... Scientist theory of evolution is s religion not a fact n the university's are their churches of worship not the place ideas.... At least when I bring my presupposed presupposition I do it with a honest intent.... My claim is that Yahweh/creator is sovereign over creation n I take the bible as literal n it just is. I am about reproofing n approving His word not here to disprove His Holy Scriptures. I do not worship the created but the creator...

 

[Loudmouth]

He addressed that.

How?

 

[bhsmte]

Don't attack the source, refute the argument instead.

The source was an article written by Dr Andrew Snelling. He specializes in geological studies.

You mean this guy, who appears to say one thing when writing for answers in genesis and says something completely different, when he submits scientific papers?

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/Stear-NoAiG/no-AiG/realsnelling.htm

 

[Black Dog]

I see nothing wrong with teaching the Theory of Evolution so long as it is taught as a "theory" and taught why it is the theory it is. And also be able to teach creation as well. Maybe not as fact, but explain what some believe.

I taught science for several years and I made sure that kids understood that it was just a theory and explained the evidence and what was missing from the whole puzzle on the theory.

When you were teaching science, did you also teach flat earth? How about astrology? And Phrenology? If not, why not?

 

[Loudmouth]

Science is after the fact not behind it all n info can change at any given moment of time according to the stars/stats lol..... Scientist theory of evolution is s religion not a fact n the university's are their churches of worship not the place ideas.... At least when I bring my presupposed presupposition I do it with a honest intent.... My claim is that Yahweh/creator is sovereign over creation n I take the bible as literal n it just is. I am about reproofing n approving His word not here to disprove His Holy Scriptures. I do not worship the created but the creator...

Once again, we have someone trying to discredit evolution by making it look like their own religious beliefs. What does that tell you about this persons religious beliefs?

More to the point, the theory of evolution uses repeatable observations to test hypotheses just like the rest of science. The evidence we have in the present is a result of events in the past, so that evidence can be used to test our hypotheses of what happened in the past. When those hypotheses prove to be accurate time and time again, they are rolled together into a theory and accepted as a supported theory by the scientific community.

 

[Black Dog]

Refuted by using assumption rather than science.

Hi PosterO. I posted this earlier in the thread in a reply to your post, but I guess you missed it. Could you answer it now?

I have an honest question I would appreciate you answering:

According to you the TOE is "a bunch of nonsense". But we use it as the basis of modern biology, to help create more effective medicine for fighting pathogens and to help explain and combat hereditary diseases.

The question: How does something that is "a bunch of nonsense" keep explaining natural processes, and keep making successful predictions about what we are going to discover, and do it over and over and over?

 

[Poster0]

You mean this guy, who appears to say one thing when writing for answers in genesis and says something completely different, when he submits scientific papers?

http://chem.tufts.edu/science/Stear-NoAiG/no-AiG/realsnelling.htm

Sounds like a lot of typical ranting.