Is the theory of evolution moral and ethical

[allhart]

Same where?



I can do it here.





One could just as easily say it's evidence of common design. The creator would use the materials available, so to find commonality could just as easily reflect common design. Gold and lead are only separated by one element.


The video will answer all these questions. Actually, the video doesn't answer anything, it's the Berkeley Biologist in the video.

Peer reviewed? That's a meaningless term. "Peer"

Full Definition of PEER
1
: one that is of equal standing with another : equal; especially : one belonging to the same societal group especially based on age, grade, or status

In short, a peer is someone of the same group as another. The bible is peer reviewed and found to be 100% accurate. To say that something that is peer reviewed simply because people of the same group agree, doesn't provide validity.

The Creationist Biologist in the video is the peer of his counterparts that believe we evolved. In effect, the biologist is refuted by a peer of those he's disputing.



The Cambrian Explosion supports creation because it shows that prior to it, nothing existed, then suddenly, everything exists. Exactly as the bible describes, all life was created at roughly the same time.


See all of the above.



Since I am discussing it, clearly your presupposition is wrong.

They have to start with something to build off of.... They assume space, time n matter but there forces of nature that out weight even those elements.... We can't even explain basic gravity 101 without some scientific gobblygoop....

 

[allhart]

But if we can, and a scientist designs and creates life, is he a God?

Do have the ability to be ommipotent in your "GRAD" design.... Past, present n future????

Do do stand outside the elements!?

 

[allhart]

I mean are we creating or stumbling around with the elements hoping for the best.... I get we are reverse engineering everything but nothing new unless u think three or four stranded DNA creatures are a good thing!?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Evolution is too broad of a term, adapting and mutations are thrown under it which are all true

Are you suggesting there is a limit for mutations and natural selection a population of species undergoes over many generations?

then they sneak common ancestry into it which is completely a pathetic move but it works and people fall for it.

Evidence for common ancestry is overwhelming. DNA & genetics is the slam dunk for this evidence. The fossil record is the icing on the cake.

"Yes, evolution by descent from a common ancestor is clearly true. If there was any lingering doubt about the evidence from the fossil record, the study of DNA provides the strongest possible proof of our relatedness to all other living things."
Francis Collins- Lead of the human genome project, well respected geneticist and also a devout Christian.

The main reason its even debated is because atheists use it against christians.

Many Christians accept the theory of evolution. You'll find many of them on this very forum.

But if you look past evolution dogma then you can see how ridiculous their core beliefs are such as abiogenesis ( Failed hypothesis )

Evolution has nothing to say about abiogenesis. It explains the process of how species evolved into the diversity of life we see today. You may be confusing abiogenesis with spontaneous generation. SG was proven wrong. Abiogenesis is still actively studied.

then things get uncomfortable for the atheist.

It doesn't make me uncomfortable. "I don't know" is the current and most honest answer for the question about how life started. I am content with this answer.

 

[Loudmouth]

One could just as easily say it's evidence of common design. The creator would use the materials available, so to find commonality could just as easily reflect common design. Gold and lead are only separated by one element.

That's like saying God could plant fingerprints at crime scenes, so we can't use fingerprint evidence.

We can watch retroviruses producing ERVs in the lab. Why would you conclude that ERVs were put there by a deity?

The video will answer all these questions.

This is a discussion forum, not a suggested viewing forum. You need to discuss the evidence.

Peer reviewed? That's a meaningless term. "Peer"

Full Definition of PEER
1
: one that is of equal standing with another : equal; especially : one belonging to the same societal group especially based on age, grade, or status

In short, a peer is someone of the same group as another. The bible is peer reviewed and found to be 100% accurate. To say that something that is peer reviewed simply because people of the same group agree, doesn't provide validity.

You claim to have a science degree yet you don't understand what peer review means in the context of science? I find that hard to believe. Didn't you have any seminar classes where you presented peer reviewed papers?

The Creationist Biologist in the video is the peer of his counterparts that believe we evolved. In effect, the biologist is refuted by a peer of those he's disputing.

That's not peer review. That's not how it works.

The Cambrian Explosion supports creation because it shows that prior to it, nothing existed, then suddenly, everything exists.

Where does it show that? There are many fossils found in Precambrian strata.

Here is a peer reviewed paper describing these Precambrian fossils.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26180072

Exactly as the bible describes, all life was created at roughly the same time.

All life is found in the Cambrian? Really? Want to test that idea?

 

[Cearbhall]

Thx for the restating it is a theory not a fact n a religion in my opinion...

Are you posting from your cell phone?

Could you explain what you believe is the difference between a theory and a fact?

 

[allhart]

I guess the Nephilim whom created the rephaim/giants are not mutants enough for Dr. Jekyll n Mr Hyde so nothing to look at or any revelation when it comes to humans nor is there any hybridization thoughout scripture n in the book Of Enoch.... The smithsonian have had nothing todo with Giants n their evidence disappearance cuz if those facts show up it threatens Darwinism n gives Yahweh creedance

 

[Kutte]

Is the theory of evolution really a theory; there are rules governing scientific theories and I wonder if scientists have bent the rules to accommodate the theory of evolution.

The most important part of the Theory of Evolution is the word theory. Evolution before Darwin was observations made in real time like caterpillars changing into butterflies rose buds changing into roses and tadpoles changing into frogs. Darwin’s theory is different because it is not observation but speculation about what happened billions of years ago.


The theory of evolution is used by the opponents of Christianity to ridicule the concept of creation so in the first place Christians are defensive. When the Pope say it looks like evolution may be true it is difficult to work out what he is talking about or why he would want to talk about it in the first place.


The theory of evolution is in the same category as the theory of homosex and both are outside of God’s ball park. The main feature of homosex that I can see is that they are born that way. I think there is a saying of Christ, ”Some men are born without testicles, other men castrate themselves for the kingdom of God sake.” Always men and women are required to be chased regardless of how they are born.

Hi sparow,

The "theory" of evolution is neither moral or ethical but factual. Therefore one can not speak of evolution as a theory. Why do some people continue to cling to an evolutionary process as a "theory"? Because it conflicts with their belief that, according to the Genesis report, Adam was instantly created out of dust in a place called Eden, as if to argue, God must have been in a hurry to create man.
The true story of man can be found in Genesis 1:26-31, whereas the story of Adam and Eve in Eden has been placed there as an intellectual challenge.

Kutte

 

[allhart]

Are you posting from your cell phone?

Could you explain what you believe is the difference between a theory and a fact?

Ya I'm on my cell.... Theory is a logical hypnosis n the best n most logical ideas win.... Design is still champion here over creation

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolution is too broad of a term, adapting and mutations are thrown under it which are all true and then they sneak common ancestry into it which is completely a pathetic move but it works and people fall for it.

Common ancestry was part of the theory before DNA mutations were even considered. Common ancestry was there at the very beginning of the theory.

"I am fully convinced that species are not immutable; but that those belonging to what are called the same genera are lineal descendants of some other and generally extinct species, in the same manner as the acknowledged varieties of any one species are the descendants of that species. Furthermore, I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification."--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"

The main reason its even debated is because atheists use it against christians.

No, we don't. We defend it against creationists. Not all Christians are creationists.

I will gladly state that evolution does not disprove Christianity.

But if you look past evolution dogma then you can see how ridiculous their core beliefs are such as abiogenesis ( Failed hypothesis ) then things get uncomfortable for the atheist.

Evolution doesn't require abiogenesis.

 

[allhart]

Put it this way on facts.... Everything can be true but in how u prioritize the logic n timeline.... Not everything is linear or, either or .... Being Exclusive .... Facts are made mostly in exclusive fashions in ones ideological presuppositions....in personal opinions or personal truths; however, there are foundational truths....

Ppl will go to the movies n put down their personal ideologies n entertain fiction however will not entertain information n as we all know most fiction becomes reality

 

[Loudmouth]

I guess the Nephilim whom created the rephaim/giants are not mutants enough for Dr. Jekyll n Mr Hyde so nothing to look at or any revelation when it comes to humans nor is there any hybridization thoughout scripture n in the book Of Enoch.... The smithsonian have had nothing todo with Giants n their evidence disappearance cuz if those facts show up it threatens Darwinism n gives Yahweh creedance

Are we going to see any scientific evidence?

 

[allhart]

Are we going to see any scientific evidence?

There is but the smithsonian gets rid of it.... Have to go to another country to see more physical evidence.... The 10 conundrums are a good indication that there is a more technolgical advancement than we have

 

[Loudmouth]

There is but the smithsonian gets rid of it.... Have to go to another country to see more physical evidence.... The 10 conundrums are a good indication that there is a more technolgical advancement than we have

And people wonder why creationism is not taken seriously.

 

[Tzhaar724]

The main reason I didnt stay an atheist after college is because I was never fully convinced by common ancestry, apes all have too much in common and then humans are the odd ones out. The main problem of all of this is why would EVOLUTION EVEN EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE. We live in a logical universe and Christian scientists realized this due to their belief in God instead of seeing it as random possibilities leading to big advancements. Sir Isaac Newton is a good example of this. And you cant use the excuse of that was before evolution because Einstein was a deist, now he didnt prescribe to a religion but he didnt buy the atheist story. Im surprised people still think intelligent design couldnt be true.

 

[Belk]

There is but the smithsonian gets rid of it.... Have to go to another country to see more physical evidence.... The 10 conundrums are a good indication that there is a more technolgical advancement than we have

 

[allhart]

And people wonder why creationism is not taken seriously.

Why bc USA is the litmus test in science n evidence lol

 

[Loudmouth]

The main reason I didnt stay an atheist after college is because I was never fully convinced by common ancestry, apes all have too much in common and then humans are the odd ones out.

Chimps share more DNA with humans than they do with gorillas or orangutans.

The main problem of all of this is why would EVOLUTION EVEN EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE.

If you have organisms that replicate imperfectly and compete for limited resources, how could evolution not happen? It would seem to me that evolution is an inevitable outcome when you have species and individuals competing for limited resources. There have to be winners and losers, and once you average out chance events the winners and losers are determined by their heritable traits.

We live in a logical universe and Christian scientists realized this due to their belief in God instead of seeing it as random possibilities leading to big advancements.

Creationists argue just the opposite. They argue that the laws of physics have been changing all willy nilly through time which is why they refuse to accept radiometric dating. Almost all of the arguments they make refuse to accept natural processes for what we observe, and try to replace them with capricious and random miracles.

And you cant use the excuse of that was before evolution because Einstein was a deist, now he didnt prescribe to a religion but he didnt buy the atheist story. Im surprised people still think intelligent design couldnt be true.

Einstein stated quite clearly that he didn't believe in deities.

 

[bhsmte]

Atheism is about 5% of the global population n is on its way out. CERN is about to change everything u want to believe

I would check your sources.

Non belief in Gods has been steadily increasing the world over, for decades.

 

[Poster0]

The fossils are objective evidence. Perhaps you don't base your beliefs in reality, but I do base my conclusions on reality and facts.

They are not reality, but merely the speculations of fallible men. I don't believe anyone, who is truly objective, would actually take what these fallible men say as truth without question. They have been wrong about many things, and their techniques and data have been seriously and objectively criticized as well. To just blindly accept their findings as reality is to not be rational. Seriously, they have made fallible assertions, and when they are proven wrong they simply rationalize it with misinformation. Its not unlike what I see in certain religious circles of thought. They are proven wrong as well, yet they will not accept it, and instead will simply rationalize it with misinformation concerning their beliefs.