Is the theory of evolution moral and ethical

[Loudmouth]

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

You forgot the rest:

"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 is the stuff you have made up. I don't base it on any of that.

Want to try again?

 

[Poster0]

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

No, I already stated that. Your incessant reiteration of that question is starting to seem childish, as if you are merely trying to be silly rather than serious.

 

[bhsmte]

No, I already stated that. Your incessant reiteration of that question is starting to seem childish, as if you are merely trying to be silly rather than serious.

IRONY!

 

[Poster0]

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

My view is that science is fallible, and that's clearly true.

 

[Poster0]

IRONY!

Ironic because he is a child?

 

[Loudmouth]

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

That doesn't mean science is wrong. Fallible and wrong are not synonyms.

If you think scientists are wrong, then demonstrate they are wrong. Otherwise, we are not going to accept your bare assertions on blind faith.

 

[Loudmouth]

My view is that science is fallible, and that's clearly true.

Your view is that tens of thousands of scientists are wrong, yet you can't demonstrate that they are wrong.

 

[bhsmte]

My view is that science is fallible, and that's clearly true.

But, your view of science could not be fallible, correct?

Your expert knowledge and education on the subject and your personal religious beliefs, could in no way make you perceptions fallible, correct?

 

[Loudmouth]

No, I already stated that. Your incessant reiteration of that question is starting to seem childish, as if you are merely trying to be silly rather than serious.

Then why did you bring up Piltdown Man?

 

[bhsmte]

My view is that science is fallible, and that's clearly true.

And science is so fallible, you rely on science every day of your life, in ways you likely take for granted.

 

[Poster0]

You forgot the rest:

"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 is the stuff you have made up. I don't base it on any of that.

Want to try again?

You misunderstood my statement, and misrepresented it as well. I never said that you based your your belief on those ridiculous assertions which ToE has made in the past. I only said you base it on other assertions, which are given by the same people who also made those ridiculous ones as well.

 

[Poster0]

And science is so fallible, you rely on science every day of your life, in ways you likely take for granted.

I don't take it for granted, but I also don't blindly follow it because I know its fallible. Science also creates many problems in our life as well, and so its not like science is always beneficial to mankind.

 

[bhsmte]

Can the hole, get any deeper?

 

[bhsmte]

I don't take it for granted, but I also don't blindly follow it because I know its fallible. Science also creates many problems in our life as well, and so its not like science is always beneficial to mankind.

Could your view of science be fallible?

Yes, or no?

 

[Loudmouth]

You misunderstood my statement, and misrepresented it as well. I never said that you based your your belief on those ridiculous assertions which ToE has made in the past. I only said you base it on other assertions, which are given by the same people who also made those ridiculous ones as well.

But I don't base it on assertions. I base it on evidence, which I keep showing you and you keep ignoring. Look at this picture.

Is it just speculation that the two pelvises in the middle are more like the pelvis on the left than the pelvis on the right? Seems pretty obvious to me.

 

[Poster0]

Then why did you bring up Piltdown Man?

To demonstrate the fallibility of ToE, and to show reason for not blindly following them. THat faked evidence was accepted for 40 years before it was disproven.

 

[Loudmouth]

To demonstrate the fallibility of ToE, and to show reason for not blindly following them. THat faked evidence was accepted for 40 years before it was disproven.

What does that have to do with the fossils I showed you? Those aren't fake fossils. They aren't speculations. Why do you refuse to deal with them?

 

[Poster0]

But I don't base it on assertions. I base it on evidence, which I keep showing you and you keep ignoring. Look at this picture.

Is it just speculation that the two pelvises in the middle are more like the pelvis on the left than the pelvis on the right? Seems pretty obvious to me.

Sure friend, sure. Just like the scientific community accepted Piltdown man for 40 years. Please don't expect me to wait 40 years to discover that they were wrong about their speculation concerning these skulls, i'll instead put their "evidence" in the category of speculation. Its seems like the rational thing to do.

 

[Poster0]

What does that have to do with the fossils I showed you? Those aren't fake fossils. They aren't speculations. Why do you refuse to deal with them?

They may not be fake, but they are speculating none the less.

 

[Poster0]

Your view is that tens of thousands of scientists are wrong, yet you can't demonstrate that they are wrong.

Tens of thousands of scientists accepted Piltdown man, and many other frauds as well. Tens of thousands of scientists accepted that the appendix was useless. Eventually many of their speculations will be disproven. It seems rational to put their findings in the category of speculation, rather than unwisely asserting them to be infallible truth.