Is the theory of evolution moral and ethical

[Poster0]

You don't understand DNA sequencing, but you are sure that all of the world's expert geneticists and molecular biologists are wrong. Do I have that right?



What is that fallacy?



I don't blindly accept it. I have followed the evidence.

It would appear that you ignore the evidence because you don't like where it leads.

They have been wrong before. I also understand that they are peering into an ocean of DNA evidence, yet all their understanding could be held in a bucket. Forgive me if I don't blindly accept their findings. I have seen them demonstrate fallacy many times before in the past and present, so observing that history would be rational and scientific. I also see that they are way over their heads in understanding, so again it seems logical to not blindly accept what they say. I would think its more rational to admit that they are speculating, rather than to assert that their findings are infallible and trustworthy.

Its ironic that you seem to be accusing me of being closed minded, yet it also seems to be you who has closed their mind, not i.

 

[bhsmte]

They have been wrong before. I also understand that they are peering into an ocean of DNA evidence, yet all their understanding could be held in a bucket. Forgive me if I don't blindly accept their findings. I have seen them demonstrate fallacy many times before in the past and present, so observing that history would be rational and scientific. I also see that they are way over their heads in understanding, so again it seems logical not to blindly accept what they say. I would think its more rational to admit that they are speculating, rather than to assert that their findings are infallible and trustworthy.

Its ironic that you seem to be accusing me of being closed minded, yet it also seems to be you who has closed their mind, not i.

It would appear then, you are simply hoping, all of these well educated experts in their field of study, are simply all incompetent and wrong.

Good luck with that.

 

[Poster0]

It would appear then, you are simply hoping, all of these well educated experts in their field of study, are simply all incompetent and wrong.

Good luck with that.

No, it would appear that many evolutionists are hoping that they are right, and their hope has clouded their judgment. Unlike them, at least I admit my hope is built on faith. However, there is a part of me that will believe that I was created by God, and that it is completely rational to assume this. I find it hard to believe that we simply came into existence without any reason, and without any purpose. I believe Creationism is logical and it explains why man is here and what his purpose is. So, I'm not merely following blind faith but I'm following something inside that tells me that Gods existence is logical. Although I cannot prove it scientifically, it also cannot be disproven scientifically, so its not irrational to choose God. The truth is, despite assertions to the contrary, that evolution theory is not proven, its full of speculation even though its asserted to be observable science, and its actually nothing more than Atheistic faith. Evolution has one good purpose, it proves that all mankind is blind and foolish without God.

 

[Poster0]

Anyway, one day we will all stand before God, and no one will be able to boast in anything, every knee will bow and confess to God. It wont matter what any of us believe, whether we are Atheist, Catholic, Protestant, or Muslim. NO one will be boasting and no one will have any hope without Christ. ITs not illogical to follow Christ, its my opinion that Christ makes more sense than anything else when it comes to explaining mans purpose. However, we all must choose who to follow. Dont get me wrong, im not looking down on anyone, and its my hope that God will show us all mercy, because we surely need it, at least i know that i do anyway.

It wont serve logic to debate this anymore, because this will go on forever. Thank you for your answers, and your time. Have a nice day.

 

[bhsmte]

No, it would appear that many evolutionists are hoping that they are right, and their hope has clouded their judgment. Unlike them, at least I admit my hope is built on faith. However, there is a part of me that will believe that I was created by God, and that it is completely rational to assume this. I find it hard to believe that we simply came into existence without any reason, and without any purpose. I believe Creationism is logical and it explains why man is here and what his purpose is. So, I'm not merely following blind faith but I'm following something inside that tells me that Gods existence is logical. Although I cannot prove it scientifically, it also cannot be disproven scientifically, so its not irrational to choose God. The truth is, despite assertions to the contrary, that evolution theory is not proven, its full of speculation even though its asserted to be observable science, and its actually nothing more than Atheistic faith. Evolution has one good purpose, it proves that all mankind is blind and foolish without God.

I don't need hope, I have plenty of objective evidence to rely on.

 

[Poster0]

I don't need hope, I have plenty of objective evidence to rely on.

It was not objective to blindy accept fake fossil evidence (fake missing links) as scientists once did in the past. Nor is it objective to invent new ones as they are now doing. Its also not objective to assume that the appendix has no purpose simply because we dont understand its purpose, nor objective to conclude that DNA is junk simply because be dont understand its purpose. The evidence is not objective and never has been. ITs mere speculation. Nor was many other areas of science objective, such as early DNA forensic science, but was really fallacy and speculation based on mans own limitations. IM sure you wil now try to dissagree and rationalize that speculation by denying this, and by asserting that its objective, but that wont change the truth. YOu can have the last word. Bye.

 

[bhsmte]

It was not objective to blindy accept fake fossil evidence (fake missing links) as scientists once did in the past. Nor is it objective to invent new ones as they are now doing. Its also not objective to assume that the appendix has no purpose simply because we dont understand its purpose, nor objective to conclude that DNA is junk simply because be dont understand its purpose. The evidence is not objective and never has been. ITs mere speculation. Nor was many other areas of science objective, such as early DNA forensic science, but was really fallacy and speculation based on mans own limitations. IM sure you wil now try to dissagree and rationalize that speculation by denying this, and by asserting that its objective, but that wont change the truth. YOu can have the last word. Bye.

Objective evidence that points in one direction is not blind. If it was, it wouldn't be objective evidence.

In fact, it is only blind, to deny it.

 

[Loudmouth]

No, because it was the absence of morality in evolution which made them feel justified.

There is also an absence of morality in the theory of gravity. Does this mean we should feel justified in pushing people off of tall buildings?

 

[Loudmouth]

It was not objective to blindy accept fake fossil evidence (fake missing links) as scientists once did in the past.

These aren't fake fossils.

Its also not objective to assume that the appendix has no purpose simply because we dont understand its purpose, nor objective to conclude that DNA is junk simply because be dont understand its purpose.

It is objective to conclude that the human vermiform appendix does not help humans digest cellulose as it does in other species. Therefore, if the human vermiform appendix has any function it is a rudimentary and secondary function compared to the same organ in other species which makes it vestigial by definition.

It is objective to conclude that there is no signal of negative selection in 90% of the human genome. Therefore, 90% of the human genome does not have function that impacts human health or fitness. That makes it junk DNA.

The evidence is not objective and never has been.

You don't even know what the evidence is, how the science works, or the research that has been done. What you suffer from is called the Dunning-Kruger effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

Nor was many other areas of science objective, such as early DNA forensic science, but was really fallacy and speculation based on mans own limitations. IM sure you wil now try to dissagree and rationalize that speculation by denying this, and by asserting that its objective, but that wont change the truth. YOu can have the last word. Bye.

Deny what? All you have presented is assertions with no evidence to back it up.

 

[dlamberth]

As we look at life itSelf, we see that God creates new life forms through change which we call evolution. I think it's pretty wrong minded to call the way God creates new life forms as being immoral.

 

[pwood]

Is the theory of evolution really a theory; there are rules governing scientific theories and I wonder if scientists have bent the rules to accommodate the theory of evolution.

The most important part of the Theory of Evolution is the word theory. Evolution before Darwin was observations made in real time like caterpillars changing into butterflies rose buds changing into roses and tadpoles changing into frogs. Darwin’s theory is different because it is not observation but speculation about what happened billions of years ago.


The theory of evolution is used by the opponents of Christianity to ridicule the concept of creation so in the first place Christians are defensive. When the Pope say it looks like evolution may be true it is difficult to work out what he is talking about or why he would want to talk about it in the first place.


The theory of evolution is in the same category as the theory of homosex and both are outside of God’s ball park. The main feature of homosex that I can see is that they are born that way. I think there is a saying of Christ, ”Some men are born without testicles, other men castrate themselves for the kingdom of God sake.” Always men and women are required to be chased regardless of how they are born.

The theory of Evolution is a scientific work in progress as is many other things in science. Christians who get all worked up over it have been fed a bill of goods that only shows they have allowed their faith to be dependant upon the lack of scientific evidence.

Those who simply see evolution as a means by which God created us never have our faith threatened by science no matter what science finds whether the theory is wrong, or whether it's right is irrelevant to faith.

If you have to disprove the theory of evolution in order to give credibility to your faith, you are doing it wrong.

 

[bhsmte]

The theory of Evolution is a scientific work in progress as is many other things in science. Christians who get all worked up over it have been fed a bill of goods that only shows they have allowed their faith to be dependant upon the lack of scientific evidence.

Those who simply see evolution as a means by which God created us never have our faith threatened by science no matter what science finds whether the theory is wrong, or whether it's right is irrelevant to faith.

If you have to disprove the theory of evolution in order to give credibility to your faith, you are doing it wrong.

And that person will be in a constant state of cognitive dissonance, needing to deny well evidenced reality and that makes folks, grumpy.

 

[Cyle]

Let us look at the question:

Is the theory of evolution moral and ethical?

Then lets look at both the definitions of moral and ethical:

Moral

1. of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.

2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work.

Ethical

Ethical

1. pertaining to or dealing with morals or the principles of morality; pertaining to right and wrong in conduct.

2. being in accordance with the rules or standards for right conduct or practice, especially the standards of a profession:

Any theory that is not based on the truth is neither moral or ethical.

Evolutionary theory states:

Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations. Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules. All life on Earth shares a common ancestor.

There are many, many flaws in this theory:

1. Evolutionists persist in declaring that there was no oxygen in the earth's early atmosphere. However, this would also be fatal to an evolutionary origin of life. If there were no oxygen there would be no protective layer of ozone surrounding the earth. Ozone is produced by radiation from the sun on the oxygen in the atmosphere, converting the diatomic oxygen(O2) we breathe to triatomic oxygen O3), which is ozone.

2. The energy available on a hypothetical primitive Earth would consist primarily of radiation from the sun, with some energy from electrical discharges (lightning), and minor sources of energy from radioactive decay and heat. With that stated, decomposition in the atmosphere or ocean clearly preclude the possibility of accumulating useful concentrations of organic compounds over eons of time. . . . Unless you remove the principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics.

3. An indescribable mess would have been the result. In addition to the 20 different amino acids found in proteins today, hundreds of other kinds of amino acids would have been produced. In addition to deoxyribose and ribose, the five-carbon sugars found in DNA and RNA today, a variety of other five-carbon sugars, four-carbon, six-carbon, and seven-carbon sugars would have been produced. In addition to the five purines and pyrimidines found in DNA and RNA today, a great variety of other purines and pyrimidines would exist.

4. Evolutionists persistently claim that the initial stage in the origin of life was the origin of a self-replicating DNA or RNA molecule. There is no such thing as a self-replicating molecule, and no such molecule could ever exist.The formation of a molecule requires the input of a highly selected type of energy and the steady input of the building blocks required to form it. To produce a protein, the building blocks are amino acids. For DNA and RNA these building blocks are nucleotides, which are composed of purines, pyrimidines, sugars, and phosphoric acid. If amino acids are dissolved in water they do not spontaneously join together to make a protein. That would require an input of energy. If proteins are dissolved in water the chemical bonds between the amino acids slowly break apart, releasing energy (the protein is said to hydrolyze).

5. DNA, as is true of messenger-RNA, transfer-RNA, and ribosomal-RNA, is destroyed by a variety of agents, including ultraviolet light, reactive oxygen species, alkylting agents, and water. Even water is one of the agents that damages DNA! If DNA somehow evolved on the earth it would be dissolved in water. Thus water and many chemical agents dissolved in it, along with ultraviolet light would destroy DNA much faster than it could be produced by the wildest imaginary process. If it were not for DNA repair genes, the article effectively states, DNA could not survive even in the protective environment of a cell!

6. There is one single intelligent life form on the planet. The offspring of the human race has to be cared for for several years before the offspring would be capable of surviving on it's own. Following evolutionary theory, the traits gained for the human races offspring to survive on their own out of the womb would be a beneficial trait. That trait would not be lost as it would detrimental to the survival of the offspring. In fact that trait would have to go into full regression would would never happen based on evolutionary theory.

 

[DavidFMayerPhD]

Yes. Scientific theories are neither moral, or immoral, they are amoral, that is, factual. Newton's Theory of Gravity is an example. It is not moral or immoral that you will fall if you jump from the top of a cliff; it is simply a fact that this will happen.

 

[durangodawood]

...If you have to disprove the theory of evolution in order to give credibility to your faith, you are doing it wrong.

Biblical literalism is a brittle foundation.

 

[GraceSeeker]

Is the theory of evolution really a theory; there are rules governing scientific theories and I wonder if scientists have bent the rules to accommodate the theory of evolution.

No, I don't think so.

The most important part of the Theory of Evolution is the word theory. Evolution before Darwin was observations made in real time like caterpillars changing into butterflies rose buds changing into roses and tadpoles changing into frogs. Darwin’s theory is different because it is not observation but speculation about what happened billions of years ago.

It is exactly a theory, that is it is a hypothesis. There is nothing particularly weak about that concept. And caterpillars changing into butterflies was metamorphosis, not evolution. If you observe the fossil record and can see in the fossil record the arrival of one species and the disappearance of previous species, even if you don't call that evolution, it also doesn't fit the literal interpretation of Genesis. That would make Genesis also just a theory with even less support for it in the fossil record than that which you're objecting to.

The theory of evolution is used by the opponents of Christianity to ridicule the concept of creation so in the first place Christians are defensive. When the Pope say it looks like evolution may be true it is difficult to work out what he is talking about or why he would want to talk about it in the first place.

Really, I know few scientists who are interested in using evolution as a tool by which they might ridicule Christianity or anything else. So, if you're experience ridicule it probably isn't because of the faith you claim as much as either the science you claim/dismiss or the way you project yourself with regard to your faith. It is very easy to work out what the Pope is saying when he says it looks like evolution may be true. He is saying that it looks like evolution may be true. And do you know why? Because it looks like evolution may be true. No hard concepts there, none that is, unless you're not willing to consider the possibility and have your eyes and ears closed along with a mind already made up on the matter. Given how many people appear to be confused and misled by those who appear to be ignorant about not just the very simple theory of evolution and also the truths taught in the Bible and see in them (both of them) things that they don't actually say, the Pope in his role as pastor of the Catholic church probably felt he had a responsibility to exercise his role as shepherd to help clarify the church's understand that no conflict exists where some would suppose, or perhaps even like to create a conflict.

The theory of evolution is in the same category as the theory of homosex and both are outside of God’s ball park. The main feature of homosex that I can see is that they are born that way. I think there is a saying of Christ, ”Some men are born without testicles, other men castrate themselves for the kingdom of God sake.” Always men and women are required to be chased regardless of how they are born.

Now you're just getting crass and ridiculous yourself. I'll not dignify these comments with any further response.

 

[Poster0]

These aren't fake fossils.

It is objective to conclude that the human vermiform appendix does not help humans digest cellulose as it does in other species. Therefore, if the human vermiform appendix has any function it is a rudimentary and secondary function compared to the same organ in other species which makes it vestigial by definition.

It is objective to conclude that there is no signal of negative selection in 90% of the human genome. Therefore, 90% of the human genome does not have function that impacts human health or fitness. That makes it junk DNA.



You don't even know what the evidence is, how the science works, or the research that has been done. What you suffer from is called the Dunning-Kruger effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect



Deny what? All you have presented is assertions with no evidence to back it up.

I never said those were fake fossils, I was actually referring frauds that were used in the past. I also said that these particular ones that you have posted are not evidence that man evolved from a chimp or ape like creature into what he is now. If you want to believe that your ancestors were once like apes or chimps who lacked the intelligence that man now has, and also lived in trees, then be my guest. I however am not buying that nonsense, and I know that these evolutionists have no evidence that man was ever like that, but instead they are misinterpreting the evidence to support their absurd notions.

 

[Loudmouth]

They have been wrong before.

If you are going to claim they are wrong, then have the fortitude to actually demonstrate that they are wrong. It's the honest thing to do.

I also understand that they are peering into an ocean of DNA evidence, yet all their understanding could be held in a bucket.

You are projecting. You are describing your own ignorance, and it isn't shared by the scientific community.

Forgive me if I don't blindly accept their findings.

I won't forgive you for blinding yourself to the evidence.

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

I have seen them demonstrate fallacy many times before in the past and present, so observing that history would be rational and scientific. I also see that they are way over their heads in understanding, so again it seems logical to not blindly accept what they say. I would think its more rational to admit that they are speculating, rather than to assert that their findings are infallible and trustworthy.

Then don't blindly accept it. LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE!!!

 

[Loudmouth]

I never said those were fake fossils, I was actually referring frauds that were used in the past. I also said that these particular ones that you have posted are not evidence that man evolved from a chimp or ape like creature into what he is now.

Why not? What features would a fossil need in order to be evidence for human evolution?

Or are you saying that you will never accept any fossil as evidence?

If you want to believe that your ancestors were once like apes or chimps who lacked the intelligence that man now has, and also lived in trees then be my guest. I however am not buying that nonsense, and I know that these evolutionists have no evidence that man was ever like that, but instead they are misinterpreting the evidence to support their absurd notions.

Why aren't those fossils evidence?

 

[Poster0]

Why not? What features would a fossil need in order to be evidence for human evolution?

Or are you saying that you will never accept any fossil as evidence?



Why aren't those fossils evidence?

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