Is the theory of evolution moral and ethical

Poster0 said:

I don't believe that evolutionists have a clue about what they are looking at.

Click to expand...

Does the evidence for evolution, really scare you that much?

Please propagate your evolution fantasy without me, I really don't want to debate it further. If you believe that your ancestors were no smarter than a chimp and lived in trees, then be my guest.

GodB4S said:

Is the theory of evolution moral and ethical...
Is telling a lie moral and ethical?

Click to expand...

I would say most of the time telling a lie is not moral.

Now, anyone claiming a lie, should provide evidence of this lie. Christians are not supposed to falsely accuse, correct?

Poster0 said:

I don't believe that evolutionists have a clue about what they are looking at.

Click to expand...

Your beliefs are mere speculation.

Please demonstrate that these fossils are not transitional. Not "I believe". I want to see actual science. Address the features in each of these fossils and show how they do not fit the predictions made by the theory of evolution. Show us how these fossils do not have a mixture of modern human and ancestral ape features.

bhsmte said:

Does the evidence for evolution, really scare you that much?

Click to expand...

It doesn't scare me at all, because i have seen the fallacy that these scientists have displayed, please don't waste your words on me. If you want to ignore their fallacy and blindly follow their notions, then please do.

Poster0 said:

Please propagate your evolution fantasy without me, I really don't want to debate it further. If you believe that your ancestors were no smarter than a chimp and lived in trees, then be my guest.

Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with belief. It has everything to do with the evidence that you refuse to address.

Poster0 said:

It doesn't scare me at all, because i have seen the fallacy that these scientists have displayed, please don't waste your words on me. If you want to ignore their fallacy and blindly follow their notions, then please do.

Click to expand...

Ok, I promise to keep following the evidence.

Loudmouth said:

Your beliefs are mere speculation.

Please demonstrate that these fossils are not transitional. Not "I believe". I want to see actual science. Address the features in each of these fossils and show how they do not fit the predictions made by the theory of evolution. Show us how these fossils do not have a mixture of modern human and ancestral ape features.

Click to expand...

No, simple observation. They have been wrong many times before and so there is no rational reason that I should blindly accept their notions as evidence.

Ever notice how evolutionists will manipulate reality to try and do away with creationism? For example, when you ask an evolutionist how they come up with the age of the sedimentary layers in the earth, they will always tell you they date them by the fossils found in those sedimentary layers. Then when you ask them how they come up with the age of the fossils, they say their age is determined by which sedimentary layer of rock they’re found in. But how can that be? How can the rocks date the layers, if the layers date the rocks? That's what's called “circular reasoning.” One minute they say the rock determines the age of the fossil, the next they say the fossil determines the age of the rock.

• Darwin said “It is a truly wonderful fact… that all plants throughout all time and space should be related to each other…” –The Origin of the Species p 170.

The evolutionist agrees with Darwin and says all life on earth evolved from primordial soup, which then somehow formed into many different species like birds, animals, plants, fish etc; and those birds, animals, plants and fish evolved into many different types of species themselves. For example, they believe a bird later formed different types of lizards, horses and dogs. They also believe that plants created everything from vines to trees to flowers, and fish evolved into dinosaurs, apes and humans.

If that’s true, then I have to ask the evolutionist why is it for the last 6000 years of recorded history that not a single new species has ever been created? Scientific fact is, we still have many of the old species among us, and we know of many that did in fact become extinct. But not a single bird has been found that used to be a fish. And not a single bird has been found that is related to a lizard. If life truly evolves like they say it does, why did it all of a sudden stop dead in its tracks 6000 years ago? After all, if life is as they define it to be, then it must be a constant evolutionary process for life to continue, which means that evolutionary process be never ending.

And by the way, I say 6000 years because as Christians we know by reading Genesis chapters 1 & 2 that our Lord created all that is seen and unseen in creation week 6000 years ago. We also know this is when creation stopped and He hallowed the day He rested. We call that day Sabbath to this day and we keep it holy to acknowledge Him as our Creator every seventh day. Could it be this is why Satan inspired Darwin with evolution? I believe so because evolution allows you to hide the fact you were created and in so doing removes your requirement to acknowledge Him as Lord which would mean you need to and obey Him since He truly would know what’s best for you seeing how it is He that made you.

Getting back, the evolutionist believes the evolutionary cycle is never ending, but they too cannot explain why according to their Darwin inspired calculations that there has been no new species recorded for hundreds of millions of years, let alone the true 6000 years as reality dictates.

They also state it takes billions of years for each animal, insect or plant to evolve. If that's true, why do we have termites? Termites eat wood but can't digest it. In their intestines are smaller insects that digest the cellulose the termites place in there for them. Kind of like the worm inside the cricket. The termite can't exist without the smaller insect, and the smaller insect can't live without the termite. If evolution is true neither insect should be on this planet.

There are even some that believe in Creation, but not the Bible version wherein it took only 6 days. These so called "Creationists" insist it took 1000 years for each "day" of creation because 2 Peter 3:8 says, "one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day" If they aren’t twisting that passage out of context and it is as they claim, why do we have wasps that rely on certain plants to lay their eggs within them to procreate. And if this is true, how do those plants survive without the wasp pollinating them? If the plants and the wasps were created thousands of years apart, how does the plant pollinate without the wasp, and how does the wasp procreate without the plant? That means the 1000 years for each day recorded in Genesis must be wrong by simply applying easy to research reality.

Moving right alone, we have the big bang theory which declares a spinning dot of absolutely nothing exploded to form all the planets, stars, asteroids, black holes, quasars, nova’s, and primordial soup found on earth. According to the scientific discovery called, “conservation of angular momentum”, which actually means, if what’s spinning in a clockwise manner explodes, everything flying off of it will explode in the exact same manner. That being the case, why is it 2 planets, and numerous moons orbiting many planets in our galaxy alone spin in a different direction than all the others. If their big bang theory was true, why is it those planets and moons appear to have come off of a different explosion? Were there two big bangs?

Jumping ahead a bit, let’s take a look at man for example. The Word of God says we were created with Human bodies that have organs that are designed to live forever. Science has recently proven that if we were to learn something new every second, we would take well over 3 million years to exhaust the memory capacity of our "post flood" brains. (Pre-flood brains were 3 times larger) Now keep in mind, no one learns something every second. They just calculated it that way to get an educated idea. Most will learn something new once a week or even once a month and later in life once every few months or so.

That means the human brain, as small as it is now, can handle the data for literally billions of years. That being the case, we see that evolutionists also claim that all species evolve after there is a need for a change. So I have to ask, how is it possible for us to have a brain that could hold enough info to last over billions of years, when all we can live up to is 90 -100 years? If evolution is true, why haven’t we evolved to age extremely slow so as to meet the requirements of our own brains, wherein we can live for an eternity?

bhsmte said:

Ok, I promise to keep following the evidence.

Click to expand...

Loudmouth said:

It has nothing to do with belief. It has everything to do with the evidence that you refuse to address.

Click to expand...

Yes, we were once given fake fossils of missing links that were later discredited, then we were told that the appendix was a useless organ that was leftover from the evolution process, and that notion was later discredited. They are wrong about junk DNA as well. Please, spare me the nonsense about so called objective evidence.

Theologicalseeker said:

I think the Pope was forced to talk about Evolution.

On his death bed, Darwin himself questioned if his theory was true.

And modern Genetics has disproven this theory already. The devils that make the claim and write your science books are not willing to accept the fact.

Click to expand...

This devout Christian, who happens to be a world renowned geneticist, disagrees with you and quite strongly:

Karl Giberson: One of the things I appreciate a lot about Darrel Falk, who I think is a courageous voice in this conversation, is that he will come out and say that common ancestry is simply a fact. And that if you’re not willing to concede that the genetic evidence points to common ancestry than you’re essentially denying the field of biology the possibility of having facts at all. That’s the strong language that he uses.

Would you say that common ancestry and evolution in general is at that level? How compelling is the evidence at this point?

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

https://biologos.org/blogs/archive/...on-talk-about-evolution-and-the-church-part-2

There are all kinds of spiritual ideas that look to evolution as their engine. In the east you have the Hindu and Buddhist philosophies, in the west you have your Kabbalistic, Alchemical, Rosicrucian, and other ideologies that find their fusion of Egyptian, Greek, and Judao-Christian thought. Theosophy, Golden Dawn, OTO/A.'.A.'., etc. are just your more modern iterations and various late 19th and early 20th century spins on these philosophies

I'm thinking it (universal evolution) may be too big a process for us to understand in terms of a morality in the modern western sense of the term, however what we do with it in our own framework is critical and yes - it does need to be wrested back more from reductive materialism. Being in AMORC and BOTA, I can tell you that a lot is made of being born again of the Spirit constant quotes of Jesus with Nicodemus, seeking connection with the One that sent you and whose power is not your own and whose Will is supreme to your own will, but outside of that Christian mystic context and the use of the Hebrew letters it's largely what you would consider panentheistic (ie. the Universe as a tiny subsection of one God) and with evolution you have reincarnation as an instructional tool - not for any free pass on punishment but rather the punishment here in the flesh never relenting until you learn to understand it's causes and morally rectify the situation.

Presently I'm reading Golden Chain of Homer as I've heard a lot of good things about it. It seems like this particular author as well as Jacob Boehme seem to have a lot in common - that is a very Platonic spin of their Christianity where they chose to fuse the external and internal as much as possible (ie. that search for God in the operations of the mundane) and what they come up with the say the least is heady, ie. yes there's a Fall and there's a great deal of authentic evil counterbalancing the good, however it seems a lot less linear or two-dimensional than the Augustinian grid-iron showdown with Jesus in a Cowboy's helmet and Satan as a 49'er.

I guess this is where we really have to dissect the various ideas and currents that were behind the bible, analyze the various mysteries such as the Egyptian, Babylonian, Mithraic, Eleusinian, Orphic, Kratonian, etc.., analyze what the writings of the Corpus Hermeticum and the various Kabbalists and later Qabalists were about, and decide just how much truth the spiritual geeks of history were able to dredge up. I know for me being able to compare the different systems was a real eye-opener with respect to understanding context of what was said in the bible and a lot of what previously seemed like external logic-loops that were implied but missing in the texts themselves were available in the high-pagan diaspora.

I think at this point just the sheer wealth of historical and cultural data should be enough for us to be able too reconstruct our understanding of Christianity, with or without evolution in the most absolute sense, without having the cloud of the Catholic church and it's teachings/logic hovering over that evaluation as heavily as it hung over people like Luther or even the 17th and 18th century founders of various sects.

GodB4S said:

Is the theory of evolution moral and ethical...
Is telling a lie moral and ethical?

Click to expand...

Sometimes lies are the right thing to do. Not usually, though.

No it is not. The Theory of Evolution is not ethical or moral or unethical or immoral. It's just an explanation. It doesn't deal with morality at all. Neither does the theory of gravity nor the theory of plate tectonics.

As a scientific theory, it is an explanation for well documented natural phenomena such as the genetic variation and relation between different species of animals. That's it.

.

.

bhsmte said:

This devout Christian, who happens to be a world renowned geneticist, disagrees with you and quite strongly:

Karl Giberson: One of the things I appreciate a lot about Darrel Falk, who I think is a courageous voice in this conversation, is that he will come out and say that common ancestry is simply a fact. And that if you’re not willing to concede that the genetic evidence points to common ancestry than you’re essentially denying the field of biology the possibility of having facts at all. That’s the strong language that he uses.

Would you say that common ancestry and evolution in general is at that level? How compelling is the evidence at this point?

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.

Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

https://biologos.org/blogs/archive/...on-talk-about-evolution-and-the-church-part-2

Click to expand...

Actually, we are related to everything on earth, but that doesn't prove that we evolved from anything, but only proves we were created from the same earth. Its really just speculation to suggest that man was once as dumb as a chimp and that he looked and lived similar to chimps as well. ITs the most absurd and unproven notion that man has ever invented.

Skaloop said:

The fact of evolution, as well as the scientific theory explaining the process of evolution, is neither moral or immoral, ethical or unethical. It just is.

And considering that most Christians accept the theory of evolution, and most people who accept the theory of evolution are Christians, it isn't used to bash Christianity.

Click to expand...

Evolution is accepted because of the dogmatic manner in which it's presented. Face it, if a person is told they evolved from kindergarten through high school or college, naturally they are going to accept it. When I left college, I was convinced that science had it all figured out, I never bothered to question it.

Then those pesky creationists had a revival of their stance about 25 years ago, and the observations they made, forced me to question what I had been taught all my life.

I can even tell you the exact piece of information I heard that made me question it. I learned that man made objects have been found in coal. I was surprised to hear that, and a little disappointed that no where in my "so called" education was this ever mentioned. That throws a huge wrench in the entire theory.

The OP stated he or she wondered if evolution science "bent the rules." They do frequently. The evidence of evolution is full of frauds and outright lies.

Most Christians and everyone else that "accepts" the theory really know nothing about the theory. They don't even know enough to ask questions. Unfortunately, few people ever question their beliefs and what they are told. We humans tend to accept what we're told based on several factors. The authority of the people telling us, our bias, and because questioning one's beliefs can be traumatic.

Few people are smart enough to know how ignorant they are, and have no desire to find out.

Poster0 said:

Actually, we are related to everything on earth, but that doesn't prove that we evolved from anything, but only proves we were created from the same earth. Its really just speculation to suggest that man was once as dumb as a chimp and that he looked and lived similar to chimps as well. ITs the most absurd and unproven notion that man has ever invented.

Click to expand...

Please explain to me then, regarding Dr. Collins strong opinion in regards to evolution and the 99% of Phd biologists who agree with him, who are most qualified, to have knowledge on the subject.

Are they all somehow incompetent?