Is the theory of evolution moral and ethical

[Armoured]

This is all FACT friend- confirmed by CERN themselves.

 

[KCfromNC]

Not exactly lying, I believe current day scientists have a bias because of the amount of pressure there is around it.

Not to mention the overwhelming evidence in favor of it.

 

[stevevw]

Our "absurd notion" is that the human vermiform appendix does not aid humans in digesting cellulose. Can you prove to us that the human appendix does aid in the digestion of cellulose? If not, then the only absurd notion is your absurd notion that vestigial means without any function.

"Vestigiality refers to genetically determined structures or attributes that have apparently lost most or all of their ancestral function in a given species, but have been retained during the process of evolution."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality

That is the definition that the evolutionists are using. It allows for vestigial organs to have some function.

We are saying that it is vestigial, not useless.

As far as I understand they have found a use for the appendix. It isn't a useless vestigial organ.

Researchers now say that the appendix acts as a safe house for good bacteria. The body uses this to essentially “reboot” the digestive system when one suffers from a bout of dysentery or cholera.
http://politicalblindspot.com/scientists-finally-discover-the-function-of-the-human-appendix/

but evolution like to say that life has these left over parts. The same for the junk DNA. This was suppose to be left over Pseudogenes from an evolutionary past. Genes that were parts of the process for mutating new life that collected in our DNA and proof of evolution. But now they have found they have function and this is dispelling that myth just like the vestigial organs. Evolution needs to have theses bits and pieces of non functional useless parts as this is what we would expect to see if evolution is a trial and error random process. In fact we should be seeing it all over the place. Because to get one thing right in evolution you are going to need to get a lot wrong on the way. Thats unless it has design features and then we should see well defined features and creatures without any transitions showing the not so defined connections.

 

[Poster0]

Here is, exactly, what you said:



I have emboldened the relevant section. You claim that your God makes man's wisdom into foolishness. Very well. I challenge you to provide me with just one example of that ever happening. 'Man's wisdom' is essentially the scientific process we have employed to garner our knowledge of our world. And there is no doubt that there have been many instances of those relying upon a religious interpretation of your 'god's word' having a major disagreement with the conclusions achieved by science.

Let me illustrate possibly the most famous example. The universal religious interpretation of scripture was that the earth was the centre of the universe and that all else revolved around it. Then came Copernicus and Gallileo with their 'man's wisdom' which radically opposed such a view.

Who was shown to be foolish?

Can you find me an example of the roles being reversed?

Yes I know what I said. You forget that most of the first scientists were Christian, and none of them believed that they evolved from apes

 

[Skaloop]

As far as I understand they have found a use for the appendix. It isn't a useless vestigial organ.

As has been said multiple times in this thread, nobody ever said it was useless. It is vestigial. Vestigial does not mean useless.

 

[Skaloop]

You are correct that he did say the appendix didn't interfere with reproduction, I stand corrected.

However he did say that modern medicine has made appendicitis rarely fatal, so it will not disappear. This seems to be his explanation as to why it didn't disappear, maybe I misunderstood his intention? Regardless however, his assertion still suggested that evolution has an end goal, otherwise his explanation concerning Darwin's misunderstandings would not appear to make sense. He could have just said Darwin was wrong to assume that Evolution has an end goal, but he didn't. His words actually seem to suggest that he believes that Evolution does in fact evolve in a way that benefits the human body.


Post 534




Post 539
.

I don't get how anything he said implies an end goal.

 

[bhsmte]

Sounds a little sadistic, or childish perhaps.

Observing human behavior (from a psychological standpoint), is highly entertaining to me.

 

[bhsmte]

Y'all are contracting each other again, just like with the 200,000 year vs 5 million year thing. First, our renowned and esteemed scientist, the can of Campbell's soup, said that Evolution would have done away with the appendix because it interfered with reproduction. This assertion would indicate that evolution does have an end goal. Then our other specialist from Minnesota contradicted him by saying that evolution has no logic, nor end goal.

Which is it? And please explain to me how a diseased appendix would effect human reproduction, because I have a follow up question, depending on the answer of course. Please take the popcorn out of your hand and put on your tin foil thinking caps. This should be interesting.

You are putting words in his mouth.

I understand why you need to do this though.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes I know what I said. You forget that most of the first scientists were Christian, and none of them believed that they evolved from apes

I don't believe you ever answered my question, so I will try one more time. If you don't want to answer it, just say so and I will stop asking it:

Is it possible, that your perception of science, is fallible?

Yes, or no?

 

[stevevw]

Here is, exactly, what you said:



I have emboldened the relevant section. You claim that your God makes man's wisdom into foolishness. Very well. I challenge you to provide me with just one example of that ever happening. 'Man's wisdom' is essentially the scientific process we have employed to garner our knowledge of our world. And there is no doubt that there have been many instances of those relying upon a religious interpretation of your 'god's word' having a major disagreement with the conclusions achieved by science.

Let me illustrate possibly the most famous example. The universal religious interpretation of scripture was that the earth was the centre of the universe and that all else revolved around it. Then came Copernicus and Gallileo with their 'man's wisdom' which radically opposed such a view.

Who was shown to be foolish?

Can you find me an example of the roles being reversed?

Copernicus was a Christian and so was Galileo Galilei. A lot of famous scientists were Christians. In fact Sir Francis Bacon is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. Others such as Isaac Newton and Gregor Mendel who was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics. Albert Einstein wasn't so much a devout Christian but still a believer in God and spirituality. There are plenty more as well and if it wasn't for christian scientists we wouldn't have many great discoveries in science.

Wisdom isn't about science though. Its about wise decisions in life and more about what you do with the science. We could come up with 1000s of examples where the science and tech has been put to bad use with unwise decisions and actions. Even things like money and power being abused and unwise decisions to misuse these things to harm others or make our world a worse off place.

The example in the bible about mans wisdom being foolish to God is about the ways of the world and what the world view thinks makes happiness and peace. We have seen that many base this on a superficial thing and that we have always fallen short of finding real peace. Whereas Gods peace surpasses all understanding and lasts. It is not of this worlds materialism but of storing up riches in heaven.
Matthew 6:19 to 21
"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20"But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; 21for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

 

[Skaloop]

Copernicus was a Christian and so was Galileo Galilei. A lot of famous scientists were Christians. In fact Sir Francis Bacon is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. Others such as Isaac Newton and Gregor Mendel who was the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics. Albert Einstein wasn't so much a devout Christian but still a believer in God and spirituality. There are plenty more as well and if it wasn't for christian scientists we wouldn't have many great discoveries in science.

Wisdom isn't about science though. Its about wise decisions in life and more about what you do with the science. We could come up with 1000s of examples where the science and tech has been put to bad use with unwise decisions and actions. Even things like money and power being abused and unwise decisions to misuse these things to harm others or make our world a worse off place.

The example in the bible about mans wisdom being foolish to God is about the ways of the world and what the world view thinks makes happiness and peace. We have seen that many base this on a superficial thing and that we have always fallen short of finding real peace. Whereas Gods peace surpasses all understanding and lasts. It is not of this worlds materialism but of storing up riches in heaven.
Matthew 6:19 to 21
"Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy, and where thieves break in and steal. 20"But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven, where neither moth nor rust destroys, and where thieves do not break in or steal; 21for where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.

True, but they made their discoveries in spite of their religious beliefs, not because of them. They had to look past what their religion told them and look at the reality of the world.

 

[allhart]

"add up quantum, semitry, entanglement, bio mechanics n physics"

nuff said bro

Quantum entanglement experience/experiments shows that energy is cognitive to conscious observation but I guess u would say that's subjective lol.

 

[Poster0]

True, but they made their discoveries in spite of their religious beliefs, not because of them. They had to look past what their religion told them and look at the reality of the world.

Maybe you can look past your own religious beliefs and take a look at reality. The bible doesn't contradict the laws of science, so there wasn't anything they needed to look past.

 

[Skaloop]

Maybe you can look past your own religious beliefs and take a look at reality. The bible doesn't contradict the laws of science, so there wasn't anything they needed to look past.

Even if I grant you that, they were still just successful scientists who just happened to be Christians. Their Christianity had nothing to do with it. They could have just as easily been any other religion or no religion at all.

 

[Poster0]

Even if I grant you that, they were still just successful scientists who just happened to be Christians. Their Christianity had nothing to do with it. They could have just as easily been any other religion or know religion at all.

That's true, but no one gave credit for science to Christianity. Christians would never invent a theory which says that man evolved from apes.

 

[bhsmte]

That's true, but no one gave credit for science to Christianity. Christians would never invent a theory which says that man evolved from apes.

Why do the majority of Christians (including many scientists who are Christians), agree with it then?

 

[Poster0]

Why do the majority of Christians (including many scientists who are Christians), agree with it then?

The majority doesn't believe that. I bet if you took an unbiased poll among Christians, and asked them whether they believed that man evolved from apes, then the majority would say no. They may swallow some ideas from evolution, but surely not that one.

Furthermore, just because one claims to believe in the bible doesn't mean that they are following truth. The Pharisees were very religious, yet they didn't follow the truth. Some of them did I think, but many did not.

 

[Skaloop]

The majority doesn't believe that. I bet if you took an unbiased poll among Christians, and asked them whether they believed that man evolved from apes, then the majority would say no. They may swallow some ideas from evolution, but surely not that one.

The unbiased polls that have been taken indicate otherwise.

 

[bhsmte]

The majority doesn't believe that. I bet if you took an unbiased poll among Christians, and asked them whether they believed that man evolved from apes, then the majority would say no. They may swallow some ideas from evolution, but surely not that one.

Furthermore, just because one claims to believe in the bible doesn't mean that they are following truth. The Pharisees were very religious, yet they didn't follow the truth. Some of them did I think, but many did not.

A great many polls have been taken and the majority of Christians agree with the theory of evolution.

This is reality, which you are free to deny if it suits you.

Were you going to address my question as to whether your perception of science could be fallible?

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Others such as Isaac Newton .....

Newton was non-orthodox, and would have even been considered illegally heterodox for his place and time.

Albert Einstein wasn't so much a devout Christian but still a believer in God and spirituality.

Albert Einstein was raised in a secular Jewish household. In 1954 he wrote, "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly."