Is the theory of evolution moral and ethical

[Loudmouth]

Apparently, I have been imagining a bunch of stuff so I need some help from the great posters out there in CF land. Here is a picture of some pelvises. In my blinded state I have come to the conclusion that the two pelvises in the middle more closely resemble the pelvis on the left. Will someone please open my eyes and show me that the two pelvises in the middle more closely resemble the pelvis on the right?

 

[Loudmouth]

Sadly, evolutionists have turned science into religion.

How is science a religion?

Are you saying that religions are bad?

 

[Poster0]

Those skulls came from organisms who lived in the past. That's all we need to know in order to use them to test the theory of evolution.

You do know that transitional is not the same word as ancestral, right?

Transitional doesn't mean ancestral. That sounds like a straw man.

Listen, they are still speculating, and they actually have no idea what those skulls are. Not to mention, they cannot actually date them accurately because their method of dating fossils is questionable. Its really just wishful thinking on their part. Their examination, comparison, and findings are speculation, nothing more. Why would you expect me to take that as evidence.

Wouldn't it be more rational for me to understand the fallibility of scientific research, instead of asserting it to be the infallible truth? Is it wrong for me to say that their findings are speculation based on the fallible nature of mans own limitations?

To suggest that this Theory of evolution is infallible is to close our minds to pure science and instead to follow idealism rather than science.

 

[Poster0]

Apparently, I have been imagining a bunch of stuff so I need some help from the great posters out there in CF land. Here is a picture of some pelvises. In my blinded state I have come to the conclusion that the two pelvises in the middle more closely resemble the pelvis on the left. Will someone please open my eyes and show me that the two pelvises in the middle more closely resemble the pelvis on the right?

No you're not blind to those images, you are however blind to the fact that ToE proponents are merely speculating about those fossils. You refuse to admit that its more speculation than infallible truth.

Now please, stop misrepresenting my words and get real.

 

[Black Dog]

Sadly, evolutionists have turned science into religion.

Hmmmm, you didn't answer the question at all.

You said that science used flawed techniques which produced flawed data. From the tone of your statement, I'm sure you meant that this flawed data was still in use.

I asked what the flawed techniques and data were. I also suggested publishing a scientific paper on this, as you would certainly be published. So, what are the flawed techniques and data. Are you going to publish?

 

[Poster0]

How is science a religion?

Are you saying that religions are bad?

Not all science is bad, no. Some of it however is polluted with idealism which people have used much like religion.

Your second question is Irrelevant.

 

[Loudmouth]

Transitional doesn't mean ancestral. That sounds like a straw man.

We can add "straw man fallacy" to the list of concepts you don't understand.

My actual position is that transitional and ancestral are not necessarily the same thing. That was also the position that Darwin took:

"In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition."--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"

The only straw man here is you misrepresenting the scientific definition of transitional as meaning ancestral.

Listen, they are still speculating, and they actually have no idea what those skulls are.

Are they speculating on the size of brow ridges? Are they speculating on how far forward those jaws are pushed forward? Are they speculating about the width of the upper palette?

Do you even understand what scientists are looking at or reporting? Do you even understand how scientists determine if a fossil is transitional or not?

Not to mention, they cannot actually date them accurately because their method of dating fossils is questionable.

I'm sorry, but refuted arguments on creationist websites do not make radiometric dating techniques questionable. We have dealt with those arguments and shown them to be false.

Wouldn't it be more rational for me to understand the fallibility of scientific research, instead of asserting it to be the infallible truth?

Wouldn't it be more honest to show that someone is wrong if you are accusing them of being wrong?

To suggest that this Theory of evolution is infallible is to close our minds to pure science and instead to follow idealism rather than science.

Refusing to look at the evidence is closing your mind, and that is exactly what you are doing.

 

[Poster0]

Hmmmm, you didn't answer the question at all.

You said that science used flawed techniques which produced flawed data. From the tone of your statement, I'm sure you meant that this flawed data was still in use.

I asked what the flawed techniques and data were. I also suggested publishing a scientific paper on this, as you would certainly be published. So, what are the flawed techniques and data. Are you going to publish?

It wouldn't matter if I published a paper or not, you would still reject it.

 

[Loudmouth]

Not all science is bad, no. Some of it however is polluted with idealism which people have used much like religion.

How so?

Your second question is Irrelevant.

It is completely relevant. If religion is better than science then the theory of evolution would be improved if it was a religion, right?

 

[Poster0]

We can add "straw man fallacy" to the list of concepts you don't understand.

My actual position is that transitional and ancestral are not necessarily the same thing. That was also the position that Darwin took:

"In looking for the gradations by which an organ in any species has been perfected, we ought to look exclusively to its lineal ancestors; but this is scarcely ever possible, and we are forced in each case to look to species of the same group, that is to the collateral descendants from the same original parent-form, in order to see what gradations are possible, and for the chance of some gradations having been transmitted from the earlier stages of descent, in an unaltered or little altered condition."--Charles Darwin, "Origin of Species"

The only straw man here is you misrepresenting the scientific definition of transitional as meaning ancestral.



Are they speculating on the size of brow ridges? Are they speculating on how far forward those jaws are pushed forward? Are they speculating about the width of the upper palette?

Do you even understand what scientists are looking at or reporting? Do you even understand how scientists determine if a fossil is transitional or not?



I'm sorry, but refuted arguments on creationist websites do not make radiometric dating techniques questionable. We have dealt with those arguments and shown them to be false.



Wouldn't it be more honest to show that someone is wrong if you are accusing them of being wrong?



Refusing to look at the evidence is closing your mind, and that is exactly what you are doing.

OK, you believe we humans evolved from primitive creatures who were no smarter than chimps, and you base this on the wild speculations of idealistic scientists who also told us that the appendix was a leftover from that evolutionary process, and who also once accepted laughable and ridiculous man made fossils as evidence. (I'm sure you remember the missing link frauds from the past)

You will believe these ridiculous notions by fallible, idealistic people, and you will call me unrealistic for not trusting their notions. Ok, I can live with that.

 

[Loudmouth]

OK, you believe we humans evolved from primitive creatures who were no smarter than chimps, and you base this on the wild speculations of idealistic scientists who also told us that the appendix was a leftover from that evolutionary process, and who also once accepted laughable and ridiculous man made fossils as evidence. (I'm sure you remember the missing link frauds from the past)

That would be a straw man fallacy. I don't base it on any such thing. Have you not been listening to me? Where have I ever said any of those things?

You will believe these ridiculous notions by fallible, idealistic people, and you will call me unrealistic for not trusting their notions. Ok, I can live with that.

That would be a serious case of projection. What you are describing are your religious beliefs.

 

[Poster0]

Objective evidence, or idealistic notion?

Piltdown man: Orangutan Man

Piltdown man is one of the most famous frauds in the history of science. For forty years, the fraud went undetected.

Charles Dawson, and amateur archeologist, claimed to have found bones of a primitive hominid (a missing link) in a quarry near Piltdown Common in Sussex, England. Piltdown man was named Eoanthropus dawsoni and was constructed from parts of a modern-looking skull and an apelike lower jaw.

In 1953, Piltdown was discovered to be a hoax, consisting of a modern human skull and an orangutan jaw.

More than five hundred articles and memoirs are said to have been written about Piltdown man. (Nature vol. 274, #4419 (10 July 1954) pp. 61-62).



http://cavern.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/shame3.htm

 

[Poster0]

That would be a straw man fallacy. I don't base it on any such thing. Have you not been listening to me? Where have I ever said any of those things?



That would be a serious case of projection. What you are describing are your religious beliefs.

Of course. You claim to support evolution theory, but deny parts of it when its covenant.

 

[Butterfly99]

I think he means the reason behind it.
I can have a scientific theory that black people are inferior to whites, is that immoral? well the reasoning behind it might be. If im only furthering that theory because of something thats in it for me, wether consciously or not, my reasoning for persuing/spreading that theory may very well be immoral.

I told my science teacher i think it's unethical for me to say this and that when it came to evolution. I wouldnt say things as facts, because I was not convinced they were, so it'd be lying on my part. On the other hand, doing homework you dont believe in, just so you can benefit, might very well be an unethical thing...

Are you pulling my leg cause I'm new? How would it be a scientific theory that black people are inferior to white? That's crazy. Why would you tell your science teacher that it was unethical for you to say this or that when it came to evolution? Was she incompetent? Well I don't believe in the usefulness of a lot of the homework I have to do, but the Bible pretty clearly says honor your mother & father and they expect me to do my work and not sass my teachers.

 

[Loudmouth]

Of course. You claim to support evolution theory, but deny parts of it when its covenant.

I deny the parts you have invented from whole cloth.

 

[Loudmouth]

Objective evidence, or idealistic notion?

Piltdown man: Orangutan Man

Piltdown man is one of the most famous frauds in the history of science. For forty years, the fraud went undetected.

Charles Dawson, and amateur archeologist, claimed to have found bones of a primitive hominid (a missing link) in a quarry near Piltdown Common in Sussex, England. Piltdown man was named Eoanthropus dawsoni and was constructed from parts of a modern-looking skull and an apelike lower jaw.

In 1953, Piltdown was discovered to be a hoax, consisting of a modern human skull and an orangutan jaw.

More than five hundred articles and memoirs are said to have been written about Piltdown man. (Nature vol. 274, #4419 (10 July 1954) pp. 61-62).



http://cavern.uark.edu/~cdm/creation/shame3.htm

So you are trying to claim that these are fake fossils?

 

[Belk]

Its so absurd that people just blindly accept this stuff, knowing how fallible it is.

I know right?!? I mean it is almost as if we need a process by which information can be tested and validated so we can have an organized understanding of the world around us.

 

[Poster0]

I deny the parts you have invented from whole cloth.

I said that you believe we humans evolved from creatures that were no smarter than chimps.

What part of that is not true? Where have I misunderstood your beliefs? Please tell me so we can better understand what your beliefs are exactly. You keep moving the goal post it seems.

 

[Poster0]

I know right?!? I mean it is almost as if we need a process by which information can be tested and validated so we can have an organized understanding of the world around us.

Please don't be so naïve and so condescending. You know science is fallible, or at least you should anyway.

 

[bhsmte]

Please don't be so naïve and so condescending. You know science is fallible, or at least you should anyway.

And, your view of science could very well be quite fallible as well, correct?