-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Is the theory of evolution moral and ethical
- Thread starter sparow
- Start date
- Status
Fallible is not a synonym for wrong.
You have the data right in front of you. What I am showing you is not speculation. It is the fossils themselves. Fossils aren't speculation.
Upvote
0
keith99
sola dosis facit venenum
Of course, if you just say they are wrong because it does not fit your understanding of a Holy book. If instead you had said it is wrong and gave a decent line or argument it would most likely have led to further investigation, even it just to prove you wrong.
And who was it that exposed the fraud? Scientists! Creationists seem to trumpet any misstep of science but rarely actually play any part in finding or correcting them.
EDIT: From WIKI:
As early as 1913, David Waterston of King's College London published in Nature his conclusion that the sample consisted of an ape mandible and human skull.[7] Likewise, French paleontologist Marcellin Boule concluded the same thing in 1915. A third opinion from American zoologist Gerrit Smith Miller concluded Piltdown's jaw came from a fossil ape. In 1923, Franz Weidenreich examined the remains and correctly reported that they consisted of a modern human cranium and an orangutan jaw with filed-down teeth.[8]
Last edited:
Upvote
0
The conclusion is that those fossil species had pelvises that are more like a human pelvis than an ape pelvis.
This would mean that those fossil species had human features not found in other apes.
Upvote
0
The Barbarian
Crabby Old White Guy
- Apr 3, 2003
- 29,590
- 13,205
- 78
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Catholic
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Barbarian asks:
So you admit that sprouts can grow from redwood seeds, but giant redwood trees cannot, since we've never seen it happen?
And Hyracotherium had all the genetics needed to evolve into a modern horse. It appears the only reason you don't see them as equivalent, is that growing big trees don't scare you.
All that is necessary is sunlight, water, and decent soil. Hyracotherium started as a small browsing animal and evolved over time into a large grazing animal. All that is necessary is mutation and natural selection.
That's been directly observed. Sorry, but observed phenomena say that you are wrong.
No, you're wrong about that. The bacteria observed by Barry Hall, for example, evolved a new irreducibly complex enzyme system by mutation and natural selection. You're denying what's directly observed. There's a word for such thinking, and it's not "inquisitive."
Interesting claim. Let's see your data.
No, that's observably wrong, too. Repeated observations show that mutation and natural selection frequently result in increased fitness. Would you like some more examples?
Hall's bacteria retained the old enzyme, but evolved an entirely new, regulated system. Let's see your numbers showing that it was not an increase in complexity.
Sounds interesting. Show us your numbers.
And yet Hall's bacteria did several such mutations in less than a year, producing that new enzyme system. If reality doesn't agree with your reasoning, isn't that an important clue for you?
See above. Let's see what you have. Looks like more creationist fairy tales.
So you admit that sprouts can grow from redwood seeds, but giant redwood trees cannot, since we've never seen it happen?
And Hyracotherium had all the genetics needed to evolve into a modern horse. It appears the only reason you don't see them as equivalent, is that growing big trees don't scare you.
All that is necessary is sunlight, water, and decent soil. Hyracotherium started as a small browsing animal and evolved over time into a large grazing animal. All that is necessary is mutation and natural selection.
That's been directly observed. Sorry, but observed phenomena say that you are wrong.
No, you're wrong about that. The bacteria observed by Barry Hall, for example, evolved a new irreducibly complex enzyme system by mutation and natural selection. You're denying what's directly observed. There's a word for such thinking, and it's not "inquisitive."
Interesting claim. Let's see your data.
No, that's observably wrong, too. Repeated observations show that mutation and natural selection frequently result in increased fitness. Would you like some more examples?
Hall's bacteria retained the old enzyme, but evolved an entirely new, regulated system. Let's see your numbers showing that it was not an increase in complexity.
Sounds interesting. Show us your numbers.
And yet Hall's bacteria did several such mutations in less than a year, producing that new enzyme system. If reality doesn't agree with your reasoning, isn't that an important clue for you?
See above. Let's see what you have. Looks like more creationist fairy tales.
Upvote
0
Poster0
Well-Known Member
I'm still putting this evidence in the category of possible fraud, or at least speculation. I'm sorry, but i have a tough time believing that man evolved from an ape like creature. I also have a tough time trusting evolutionists, considering their past history with fraudulent fossil evidence, and unproven speculation
Upvote
0
Not exactly lying, I believe current day scientists have a bias because of the amount of pressure there is around it. Everyone wants to be called smart and they fear that if they dare question it they are labeled stupid. Earlier Darwinians twisted evidence, I believe I can find get you evidence of such lies, some even in Biology textbooks. This mostly happened in early 1900s and late 1800s. Alot of drawn illustrations convinced people and made evolution spread, such as forging illustrations of dog and human in the womb to look almost the same.
Upvote
0
pastor marty
Active Member
When a man whose sex-prefs. differ from my own & we're back 2 back,surrounded ,runnin' low on ammo, (where the hell is evac ?) He is 4ever;my bro.,neighbor,prayer partner. GODZ job is judgement,seems I recall JESUS tellin' us 2 love/respect,treat w/honor; our neighbors. (did I get that right,.Wolfie ?) .....PAX... marty
Upvote
0
The problem is that you aren't questioning it. You are ignoring the evidence. It would appear that you are the one with the bias.
I have been posting actual photographs of very real fossils. We could also discuss very real DNA sequence data. However, if your response to all of this is that it is lies, then who really has the bias?
Upvote
0
DNA doesnt mean much, Im sure you are well aware of mice apparently splitting off ages ago and yet being about 93%. Notice how human is the odd one out of apes in bone density. Funny how so many apes have close to the same bone density except humans being a ton lighter and thats not even close to being the only difference. Koalas bears have LITERALLY IDENTICAL finger prints to humans to the point that their finger prints could show up as human on a police finger scan. And instead of scientists asking does this change anything about evolution. they ask " How does this fit into evolution ". That is ignoring evidence. Same as trying to fit taste buds into evolution and the [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] etc which have nothing to do with natural selection and yet they try to force it in.
Upvote
0
I don't see how one leads to the other. Why does the mouse data put DNA evidence in doubt?
What about it? How does that put common ancestry in doubt?
I see lots of accusations, but nothing to really back it.
Upvote
0
I am asking you to look at the fossils yourself and come to your own conclusions. Are you saying that you are untrustworthy?
Upvote
0
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
