Is the theory of evolution moral and ethical

[Armoured]

Easy, modern aircraft and space craft can easily prove it. Do you think satellites orbit in a flat, square pattern, verses a round one? Do you think that if you fly around the world that you will find the end? Or do you think that you must make two 90 degree turns in order to find the other side of it?

Have you seen any pictures of the earth lately?

That's evidence it's round, not proof.

 

[Armoured]

See, this is typical subjective nonsense. ITs nothing more than trying to rationalize fallacy.

What fallacy?

It's a fundamental principle of the scientific method.

 

[Poster0]

What fallacy?

It's a fundamental principle of the scientific method.

No, its your flawed interpretation of it.

 

[Armoured]

No, its your flawed interpretation of it.

No it's not. Seriously, the basic strength of the scientific method is that any "fact" can be reevaluated in light of new evidence. That's kinda the whole point of the deal. Therefore, nothing is ever "proven", because it's ALWAYS open to new information. Sorry you find this so difficult.

 

[Poster0]

No it's not. Seriously, the basic strength of the scientific method is that any "fact" can be reevaluated in light of new evidence. That's kinda the whole point of the deal. Therefore, nothing is ever "proven", because it's ALWAYS open to new information. Sorry you find this so difficult.

Unlike with ToE, we have more than enough evidence to proclaim without reservation, that the earth is indeed not flat, but round. Lets examine how this argument was started. It was because ToE posters keep trying to discredit the opposition by arguing about words. Just like when they say that using the term prehistoric ape is not correct, even though they themselves have offered ape bones as evidence that man supposedly evolved from apes.

 

[Poster0]

They are using this theory to discredit Genesis which also discredits the genealogy of Christ. THey dont have any credible evience either. THey use wild speculations about junk DNA and the appendix being vestigial, but this is mere speculation not science. THey try to convince us that adapting bacteria is an example of evolution when its not, but instead its just the way God designed bacteria to be. THey use this stuff to convince us that man evolved over millions of years, from a primitive ape beast, who lacked the intelligence of man, into an intelligent man.

IM sorry, but it seems logical to reject their theory and just follow the scriptures. Sure they will say we are stupid but they are saying that anyway because they think the cross is foolishness. Why would you want to agree with them? It seems better to put faith in God, that in the end they will bow to him and admit their folly.

Don't be afraid to stand apart from them, we are holy and we will not look like them anyway. To them we are fools regardless.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

They are using this theory to discredit Genesis

The Genesis story is an unfalsifiable claim. I cannot disprove Genesis but I have no reason to believe any of it to be true. I could be wrong, but there isn't evidence to suggest it is true, so I don't believe the story.

THey use wild speculations about junk DNA and the appendix being vestigial, but this is mere speculation not science.

How is it mere speculation? Explain why the evidence is wrong.

THey try to convince us that adapting bacteria is an example of evolution when its not

What does it mean then? Please, enlighten me.

but instead its just the way God designed bacteria to be.

So God designed bacteria to be resistant to antibiotics so we can keep getting sick?
Did he also give the HIV virus the ability to copy it's DNA in such a sloppy way that we can't eradicate the disease, leading to the death of millions? It's annoying always getting a new flu shot. Did God design the flu virus the ability to constantly mutate into different strains? Some being very deadly.

THey use this stuff to convince us that man evolved over millions of years, from a primitive ape beast, who lacked the intelligence of man, into an intelligent man.

Define intelligence. What makes you think our ancestors weren't intelligent?

IM sorry, but it seems logical to reject their theory and just follow the scriptures.

I disagree. But I can't make your choices for you. You are free to believe whatever you'd like.

that in the end they will bow to him and admit their folly.

I won't be bowing to anyone. I am my own person.

 

[stevevw]

Well folks, if anyone is uncertain what "cognitive dissonance" looks like, this thread is exhibit A.

Actually thats similar to something the bible says. He must have a good teacher.
Luke 16:10
"Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much.

 

[bhsmte]

Actually thats similar to something the bible says. He must have a good teacher.
Luke 16:10
"Whoever can be trusted with very little can also be trusted with much, and whoever is dishonest with very little will also be dishonest with much.

I don't see the connection.

 

[As I was saying]

What "books about evolution"? Again, we need to know exactly what one is referring to when he/she says "evolution". In Only a Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul Kenneth R. Miller gives an example where it was discovered that bacteria had developed an enzyme to break down nylon and then the whole process was reproduced in a lab. Evolution happening right before our eyes!

Do you? O ye of little faith. I don.t keep a list of all the over 1,000 books I have read and am reading. I read to enjoy, not to worry about someone who is going to pounce on me and say "What books?"

 

[essentialsaltes]

Do you? O ye of little faith. I don.t keep a list of all the over 1,000 books I have read and am reading. I read to enjoy, not to worry about someone who is going to pounce on me and say "What books?"

Yes, but if the only books you read about evolution treat it as "all about philosophical arguments", then you are missing out on the many books that discuss the mountains of evidence, such as the nylon-eating bacteria that evolved the novel ability to digest a synthetic material.

 

[As I was saying]

Yes, but if the only books you read about evolution treat it as "all about philosophical arguments", then you are missing out on the many books that discuss the mountains of evidence, such as the nylon-eating bacteria that evolved the novel ability to digest a synthetic material.

I never said that all the books I read about evolution said it was a philosophy.

 

[As I was saying]

You're right, but we can go with general probability. The largest group of Christians in the world are Roman Catholics, who number 1.2 billion, that's over half of the entire Christian population of the world. The official position of the Roman Catholic Church is that there is no conflict between the science of evolution and Christian teaching. Let's take another large grouping Christians, Orthodoxy, and if we want we can also just speak of the Eastern Churches, both Eastern and Oriental Orthodox. The Eastern Orthodox approach is, essentially, a non-dogmatic one, and one can find Orthodox members on both sides of the issue; though it seems to me that some of the most prominent leaders within Orthodoxy (e.g. the Ecumenical Patriarch, Bartholomew I) are keenly open to the role of modern science in the life of faith. As as I'm aware the Oriental Orthodox have the same standing as the Eastern Orthodox on the issue.

So what about the about 800 million Protestants? Well it really comes down to both denominations and individuals. My own ELCA, the largest Lutheran body in the United States, is agreeable toward evolution, though you'll no doubt find individuals who aren't; likewise the second largest Lutheran body in the US, the LCMS is generally not-agreeable toward evolution, but individuals in the LCMS are. But that's within the United States. When we start to look to old world Lutherans such as the Church of Sweden, the Evangelical Church of Finland, or the Church of Norway, well the fact of the matter is that in Europe the Creationist Controversy is largely a not a thing--you'll find American style Creationists in Europe, but they're usually not members of the older established churches of Europe, but tend to be members of American missionary (read: Evangelical/Fundamentalist) churches whose Modus Operandi will be in keeping with American Evangelicalism and Fundamentalism.

I have spoken to many Christians from Europe who never even heard anyone question evolution until they spoke with American Christians or visited the United States--it's simply not something they realized was an issue because it's not an issue where they're from. There is no controversy where they're from, evolutionary science is accepted in the same way that the roundness of the earth is accepted--they only discover there's any controversy at all through interaction with certain American Christians.

So, I still stand by my statement--most Christians accept evolution, either implicitly or explicitly. It's only an issue for those Christians who have chosen to make it an issue through a particular rigid and wooden reading of Genesis, which has become a litmus test of orthodoxy for modern Fundamentalists in the United States, but it is, largely speaking, an entirely American phenomenon, not a global, Church-wide phenomenon.

Educated Christians from diverse church backgrounds across the world simply don't have an issue with the science of evolution and their faith is not negatively impacted, nor is their faith in the authority of Scripture injured. Because for them the peculiarities of Fundamentalist literalism have never been part of their Christian tradition; such literalism, as a tradition, is a peculiarity of modernity within American Christendom. It's certainly not part of the larger, and much older, patristic-medieval tradition which is much more influential on Catholic, Orthodox, and Protestant thinking than the modernistic traditions of Fundamentalism.

-CryptoLutheran

So many vague generalisations if you gave it as a lecture at uni you would be bombarded with a barrage of comments and questions about the validity of your claims.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Actually its not accepted by the vast majority of Scientists, but is accepted by the majority of biologists. However, its their doctrine. THey actually use it like doctrine, and they try to prove it, yet they cannot, so they merely assert that it is proven.

Maybe you should read some books written by professionals for professionals. Then we are not trying to explain minor basics to "civilians." If you want some real science;
Large Scale Review;

Carroll, Robert L.
1998 "Patterns and Processes of Vertebrate Evolution" New York: Cambridge University Press

Erwin, Douglas H., James W. Valentine
2013 "The Cambrian Explosion: The Construction of Animal Diversity" New York: Roberts and Company Publishers

Human Endogenous Retroviruses;

Romano, C. M.; Ramalho, R. F.; Zanotto, P. M. de A. 2006. Tempo
and mode of ERV-K evolution in human and chimpanzee genomes. ARCHIVES OF VIROLOGY Volume: 151 Issue:11 Pages: 2215-2228.

Sverdlov, ED. 2000. Retroviruses and primate evolution. BIOESSAYS Volume: 22 Issue: 2 Pages: 161-171.

Welkin E. Johnson and John M. Coffin
"Constructing primate phylogenies from ancient retrovirus sequences" PNAS 1999 96 (18) 10254-10260; doi:10.1073/pnas.96.18.10254

Heui-Soo Kim, Osamu Takenaka, Timothy J. Crow
"Isolation and phylogeny of endogenous retrovirus sequences belonging to the HERV-W family in primates" J Gen Virol October 1999 vol. 80 no. 10: 2613-2619

Teeth

Teaford, Mark F., Moya Meredith Smith, and Mark W.J. Ferguson
2000/2006 “Development, Function and Evolution of Teeth” Cambridge University Press

Cosmology;

Gross, David
2005 “The Quantum Structure of Space and Time: Proceedings of the 23rd Solvay Conference on Physics” Ed. David Gross (Brussels: World Scientific Pub Co Inc)

 

[keith99]

I don't see the connection.

Nor do I. Someone is reaching.

 

[As I was saying]

Wrong. No one claims that.

I have read this claim about 10 times in the last two weeks by atheists. And I have many books about evolution that point out the fallacies of their claims, one of which is that they claim the fossil record proves evolution.

As they say, the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

 

[As I was saying]

Wrong. Now look up SCIENTIFIC theory!

Right.

 

[As I was saying]

Wrong.

If that is the case, then providing proof won't be too hard for you but I am not going to hold my breath.

 

[As I was saying]

Wrong. No one claims that.

What is the fossil record?
The fossil record refers to the collection of physical and research evidence that paleontologists and geologists have used to prove the veracity of evolutionary theory. The physical evidence in the fossil record comes from fossilized remains of prehistoric animals.

Fossils provide a unique view into the history of life by showing the forms and features of life in the past. Fossils tell us how species have changed across long periods of the Earth’s history. For instance, in 1998, scientists found a fossil showing an animal at the transition from sea creature to land creature. This tetrapod had a hand-like fin, confirming a prediction of evolutionary biology. Though the fossil record does not include every plant and animal that ever lived, it provides substantial evidence for the common descent of life via evolution. The fossil record is a remarkable gift for the study of nature. - See more at: https://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/fossil-record/#sthash.G4JZlaDz.dpuf

The fossil record, nonetheless, remains crucial to unfolding major and minor branching points of the great tree of life. Without fossils, inferring when genotype change occurred requires the use of the molecular clock hypothesis, which states that nucleotide or amino acid substitutions (mutations) occur at a constant rate. In other words, the amount of difference between two sequences can be used to infer when in geological time that ancestral sequence diverged occurred, thereby forming a phylogenetic branching point. Actually, the rate of mutation differs among groups of organisms, among genes, and even among different portions of the same gene. Because of this, molecular clocks used in molecular phylogenetics must be calibrated with fossils to ascertain when groups and clades of organisms appeared. To repeat, the fossil record is absolutely critical for calibration in phylogenetics.

The fossil record is one of the most common evidences given for evolution. It is named as such in the National Curriculum for Key Stage 4 Science and so features in most syllabuses and textbooks at this level and above.

Fossil record,history of life as documented by fossils, the remains or imprints of the organisms from earlier geological periods preserved in sedimentary rock. In a few cases the original substance of the hard parts of the organism is preserved, but more often the original components have been replaced by minerals deposited from water seeping through the rock. Occasionally the original material is simply removed, while nothing is deposited in its place; in this case, all that remains is a mould of the shape of the plant or animal.

The study of fossils across geological time, how they were formed, and the evolutionary relationships between taxa (phylogeny) are some of the most important functions of the science of paleontology.

These articles do.

 

[As I was saying]

Wrong. You fellows are setting some kind of record for completely asinine statements.

If science cannot prove ANYTHING why do you atheists make such asinine statements that it does?