Is the theory of evolution moral and ethical

[bhsmte]

If I admitted that I am fallible would that make you, or evolution, any less fallible? I don't see the relevance in your question. If I agreed with your beliefs, it would mean that I must deny my creator because you are an atheist, and also believe in a lie that the human race evolved from apes because you're an evolutionist. The simple truth is that you will not acknowledge God no matter what I say, and even if I have concrete proof that ToE speculation about mans origin was false, you still wouldn't believe it. TO you I am a fool no matter what I say or admit, because you think the cross is foolishness. For me though, the cross is all that is left after my life has been through the crucible. For me Christ is the only reason I keep going, and without him I would most likely be drowning my pain and hopelessness in drug addiction, as I did before. The Lord gives me strength and direction, without him I have nothing but regret.TO you, I am a fool no matter what I say, and the only thing that would bring your praise is if i were to deny God, and to also believe that we evolved from apes. So what's the point?

I didn't ask you to agree with me and preaching to me, does not address the question.

I simply asked you, could your perceptions of science be fallible?

Very simple question.

 

[bhsmte]

I get the impression u are a self righteous extremist whom has a pinch of arrogance

Honestly, I can't make heads or tails out of some of your posts either. So, use that as you will.

 

[stevevw]

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.

Look past what their religion told them. You mean look beyond what their religion told them. They didn't give up their beliefs because of science. they knew they both played a part in understanding everything. Their beliefs gave them an understanding where science couldn't and science gave them explanations where religion couldn't. But they acknowledged that both played an important part. The thing is they had critical minds and therefore could know that faith didn't add up scientifically. Yet they still believed despite that.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Several years ago, I took it upon myself, to study the works of a variety of NT historians and scholars. The impact of that study, is one of the main reasons I am no longer a Christian.

I think that a solid, serious study of the Bible is nearly guaranteed to terminate belief. Seriously honest seminaries are littered with the formerly faithful.

 

[bhsmte]

I think that a solid, serious study of the Bible is nearly guaranteed to terminate belief. Seriously honest seminaries are littered with the formerly faithful.

I don't know about guarantee, but the more you learn from a scholarly and historical viewpoint, the story becomes quite difficult to reconcile any longer.

 

[Armoured]

I think that a solid, serious study of the Bible is nearly guaranteed to terminate belief. Seriously honest seminaries are littered with the formerly faithful.

If you insist on a literalist reading, and refuse to accept that any of it is at least influenced by the time and ideology of the authors, yes.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

It actually says that man evolved from a creature that was much less intelligent and evolved than an ape. An ape would be an improvement by comparison.

Where did you get this lump of solid falsehood?

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

I like to use the word ape for a reason.

You are an ape. That is your membership as a Homo sapiens.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

I don't know about guarantee, but the more you learn from a scholarly and historical viewpoint, the story becomes quite difficult to reconcile any longer.

The Bart Ehrman vs William Craig debate is really good. Ehrman is a new testament scholar who identifies as agnostic. I can hardly stand to listen to apologists but it was interesting to hear from a scholar's point of view.

 

[bhsmte]

The Bart Ehrman vs William Craig debate is really good. Ehrman is a new testament scholar who identifies as agnostic. I can hardly stand to listen to apologists but it was interesting to hear from a scholar's point of view.

Ehrman attended Moody Bible Institute, Wheaton College and got his Phd from Princeton. He studied under what many consider the leading NT scholar of the 20th century.

He is interesting, because he was a conservative Christian and a pastor for a while. The more he studied the NT, the more liberal his Christianity got and eventually, he become an agnostic.

His knowledge of the NT and his credentials, are not matched by many.

 

[Poster0]

And how do you know was much less intelligent than an ape? And just how is an ape an improvement over its ancestors? You speak as if evolution is a general trend toward some absolute better being. Darwinian evolutionary theory says no such thing. One might take you seriously if you could at least get the claims of Darwin right.

How do I know? Because that's what an evolutionist poster told me, he said that our earliest ancestors were less intelligent than a Chimp, and that's not far from other apes. Plus, evolutionists have said that our brain is evolving into a more intellectual processor, and this explains why we are supposedly more intelligent than our ancestors.

Don't blame me, blame followers of ToE, its they who you are disagreeing with, I'm only reiterating their message.

 

[Poster0]

Does this prospect make you feel less offended? More?

You seem to have an inordinate dislike for apes. Were you insulted by a chimpanzee at some time in the past, perhaps?

I think it may be rooted deep within the trauma that I sustained when I was very young. I watched a movie called Planet of the Apes, and it gave me nightmares. The Chimpanzees seemed very nice but the Gorillas were savage and brutal in their treatment of humans. To this very day I struggle with feelings of hate towards apes.

 

[SteveB28]

Look past what their religion told them. You mean look beyond what their religion told them. They didn't give up their beliefs because of science. they knew they both played a part in understanding everything. Their beliefs gave them an understanding where science couldn't and science gave them explanations where religion couldn't. But they acknowledged that both played an important part. The thing is they had critical minds and therefore could know that faith didn't add up scientifically. Yet they still believed despite that.

And what of the situations where their beliefs and their science were in conflict? This was the point of my question and challenge. EVERY TIME that science has conflicted with an interpretation of the scriptures, the scientific explanation has been shown to be correct. Not mostly, not occasionally, EVERY TIME!

Why do you think that might be?

 

[Poster0]

You are an ape. That is your membership as a Homo sapiens.

Alrighty, thanks.

 

[Poster0]

EVERY TIME that science has conflicted with an interpretation of the scriptures, the scientific explanation has been shown to be correct. Not mostly, not occasionally, EVERY TIME!

?

Give us some examples.

 

[Rebecca12]

How do I know? Because that's what an evolutionist poster told me, he said that our earliest ancestors were less intelligent than a Chimp, and that's not far from apes. Plus, evolutionists have said that our brain is evolving into a more intellectual processor, and this explains why we are supposedly more intelligent than our ancestors.

Don't blame me, blame followers of ToE, its they who you are disagreeing with, I'm only reiterating their message.

You use the phrase "followers of ToE" and the word "evolutionist" in misleading ways, as if there was a church called Evangelical Free Evolvers. Reality is that you have those who understand and are educated in the facts of evolution and the underlying theories of the mechanisms. They may be biologists, paleontologists, chemists. They know the science. You do not and you should not pretend to know the science. That is hubris and pride on your part. Then you have people who have some knowledge but for the most part rely on scientific consensus about evolution. That is a reasonable way come to conclusions when you are not educated on the issue, but you must be educated enough to know when there is in fact scientific consensus and on what issue. Popular opinion or consensus is irrelevant. Then you have those who refuse to accept the scientific consensus. Like you. If those who refuse to accept the consensus are not educated in the field and do not have evidence to back up what they say, they should be ignored as they are simply engaging in motivated reasoning.

 

[SteveB28]

Give us some examples.

Certainly. I have given one already. That the earth orbits the sun, rather than the converse.

Demons being responsible for mental illness.

That striped goats can be bred by having their copulating parents stare at striped sticks (I am not joking!)

Lightning being the response of 'angry gods'.

Leprosy cured with the blood of a bird.

Bats being a variety of bird.

More?

 

[Poster0]

You use the phrase "followers of ToE" and the word "evolutionist" in misleading ways, as if there was a church called Evangelical Free Evolvers. Reality is that you have those who understand and are educated in the facts of evolution and the underlying theories of the mechanisms. They may be biologists, paleontologists, chemists. They know the science. You do not and you should not pretend to know the science. That is hubris and pride on your part. Then you have people who have some knowledge but for the most part rely on scientific consensus about evolution. That is a reasonable way come to conclusions when you are not educated on the issue, but you must be educated enough to know when there is in fact scientific consensus and on what issue. Popular opinion or consensus is irrelevant. Then you have those who refuse to accept the scientific consensus. Like you. If those who refuse to accept the consensus are not educated in the field and do not have evidence to back up what they say, they should be ignored as they are simply engaging in motivated reasoning.

Thank you, but that had nothing to do with my post.

 

[Poster0]

Certainly. I have given one already. That the earth orbits the sun, rather than the converse.

Demons being responsible for mental illness.

That striped goats can be bred by having their copulating parents stare at striped sticks (I am not joking!)

Lightning being the response of 'angry gods'.

Leprosy cured with the blood of a bird.

Bats being a variety of bird.

More?

No, please continue, I'm more than happy to hear it. I'm glad that you demonstrated that the bible is full of errors, and I'm glad that we have scientists to show us how fraudulent our faith is. Maybe Rebecca12 will find your facts interesting.

 

[Poster0]

Alright, i'll give into the scientific consensus, so I'm not guilty of pride.

God created man millions of years ago, in the form of a lemur, or something close to it, then allowed him to slowly evolve, over millions of years, into multiple forms, until finally transforming into his present form.

Is that about right?