Is the theory of evolution moral and ethical

[Butterfly99]

Is this a for real question? How can a scientific theory be ethical or moral? Lol, I'd like to say my science homework is unethical and immoral so I wouldn't have to do it anymore but I don't think that's gonna fly w my teacher.

 

[wogspeaker]

I agree that adaptation exists, but the volume of evidence that should be present to support transition between species is lacking.

Really, there is no reason to disturb a literal translation of Genesis for purpose of salving the burning consciences of those who deny the power of God, the creator. God will not be mocked, and those who leave this life not having reconciled with Him will be perfectly orthodox in their view of creation some day...

OK. But it is.



Every theory is unproven. Theories are never proven.



Examples?



Neither do I.



Probably not, because it's a ridiculous strawman. But still, most Christians accept the actual process of evolution.

I

 

[Belk]

And to think hubris used to be considered a sin.

 

[The Barbarian]

Everett Dirkson once observed that people are down on things they aren't up on.

 

[The Barbarian]

Everett Dirkson once observed that people are down on things they aren't up on.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

.................................

I was going to reply, but by the time I read to the end of this opening statement, I realized it is merely electron abuse.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Evolution was a proponent of the madness of the Holocaust. There's about as much morals with evolution as there are corners in perfect circles..

This is another common creationist lie. In fact, all texts on evolution were banned in Nazi Germany:

Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279

Die Bucherei, the official Nazi journal for lending libraries, published these collection evaluation "guidelines" during the second round of "purifications" (saüberung).

6. Schriften weltanschaulichen und lebenskundlichen Charakters, deren Inhalt die falsche naturwissenschaftliche Aufklärung eines primitiven Darwinismus und Monismus ist (Häckel).

Guidelines from Die Bücherei 2:6 (1935), p. 279

6. Writings of a philosophical and social nature whose content deals with the false scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism and Monism (Häckel)

Even obscure texts such as Arnold Dodel's 1875 book were removed from German libraries.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Up until twenty years ago every intermediate stage skull found was proved to be a fraud or at least there were strong claims to that effect.

This is a lie.

Ask yourself two questions;

1) Who told you that lie?

2) Why would you trust anyone that would tell you that lie?

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Let us look at the question:

You made 6 statements that you apparently think are true.

Every single one is false. Some contained several falsehoods.

Why not start your own thread, and we can dissect each.

 

[SteveB28]

That's what I'm talking about right there, thank you. I don't believe most of those fossils are actually human ancestors, I believe TOE understanding of mans origin is built on much speculation instead of actual evidence. ITs really just fantasy. I believe that man, in beginning, was much the same as he is now. I'm not buying this ToE speculation, no matter who else accepts it. I also don't care what the Vatican believes because I disagree with them on most things anyway

I have emboldened the key word in your..............argument.

Fortunately, the reality of our world does not hinge upon belief. It merely requires an accurate analysis of the EVIDENCE that is before us.

You are free to "believe" whatever pleases you, even if it is totally at odds with truth.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

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?

Like nearly every thing you wrote, this is a falsehood.

The Emergence of New Species

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

We descended from ape or chimp like creatures, who lived in trees 200,000 years ago and the evidence is overwhelming and cannot be refuted.

That is also a falsehood contrary to human evolutionary biology, and paleontology.

 

[SteveB28]

Yes, I would expect you to rationalize their fallacy. That has been the case since the beginning of this Evolution Theory. I have observed that Evolution theory itself is actually evolving, and instead of admitting their fallacy they simply try to rationalize it. Their behavior is observable, unlike the findings of the theory itself. So I scientifically conclude that ToS is not built on pure science, nor logic or reasoning, but instead is built on mere speculation and unscientific reasoning.

Why would you not expect any scientific theory to change over time, as we learnt more about the field to which it applies? Would you have us not realise that Mr Newton's theory of gravity required some refinement? Should we still be considering that disease is caused by breathing 'bad air'? Do you want us to regard any theory that has undergone improvement to be useless?

 

[99terabytes]

Is this a for real question? How can a scientific theory be ethical or moral? Lol, I'd like to say my science homework is unethical and immoral so I wouldn't have to do it anymore but I don't think that's gonna fly w my teacher.

I think he means the reason behind it.
I can have a scientific theory that black people are inferior to whites, is that immoral? well the reasoning behind it might be. If im only furthering that theory because of something thats in it for me, wether consciously or not, my reasoning for persuing/spreading that theory may very well be immoral.

I told my science teacher i think it's unethical for me to say this and that when it came to evolution. I wouldnt say things as facts, because I was not convinced they were, so it'd be lying on my part. On the other hand, doing homework you dont believe in, just so you can benefit, might very well be an unethical thing...

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

I can have a scientific theory that black people are inferior to whites, is that immoral?

Before you even started with any moral question, it would be a bigger problem that your "theory" would be false. I think promoting such an incompetent "theory" would be immoral.

 

[99terabytes]

evolutionists need to really expand their vocabulary. evolution could mean anything from a caterpillar/butterfly, to a dog breed having better smell, to deer being created from zebras, and becoming their own species. i call the last speciation, and there is no evidence to prove speciation. there is evidence supporting speciation, and evidence against. so many dogs are so different, yet no speciation or even a single new piece of genetic information arises? nobody has ever witnessed, or created a new species. mixes of 2 species cannot even provide a fertile animal. (like a mule, being a donkey and horse, has NO sexual interest or capability)

DNA similarities is definitly a fact.
How that happened is not evidence, because the reason of why they are similar is a guess. you can say a chimpanzee has similar DNA to you till the cows come home, but the reasoning behind it is pure speculation. speculating its because God made it that way, or because nature made it that way, is completely based on opinions and faith.


I believe the whole idea of seperating evolution from a possible theory, into a "fact" is because all theories and personal beleifs require faith. Faith is a terribly cold thing to have. having to question your core beleifs, and consider the possibility that your wrong ? who wants that, when you could just convince youreself its a fact.

 

[99terabytes]

Before you even started with any moral question, it would be a bigger problem that your "theory" would be false. I think promoting such an incompetent "theory" would be immoral.

whos definition of false are you using? thats why its a theory and not a fact, because people debate wether its right or wrong, because its not proven right or wrong, and usually its beyond man's realm of thinking to prove right or wrong (at least current men)


of course I didnt even think it'd be something to argue over, otherweise i would of used something thats not an opinion, like superior.

how about if my theory was black people are faster, on average, then other races, because of their race? if my reasoning for this theory was to put down other races, and exhalt me and my black race, that would be immoral. if my reasoning was because thats what the science says, thats different.

of course thats nothign like evolution... a theory comparable to evolution would be that x race was stronger then the other races 30 million years ago, because unlike the black=fast theory, this one would not be provable.

 

[99terabytes]

edit:oops how do i delete this?

 

[99terabytes]

another thing is that to some christians, plants and animals are worlds apart. In genesis there are different words, vegetation for plants, living creatures for the rest. latter on the bible says the lion and sheep will eat the straw together. plants replicate, but so do some crystals/chemicals.
Plants are repetidly trampled on, just as the earth might be. there was no respect for their "life" because they werent considered alive in the same sense as an animal.
IF there were, and there very well might be speciation examples of plants, ive never seen that info before, that still does not negate some christians belief that God created all animals differently. the premise for God creating different species was never relevant because of plant species, but because of the "life" "soul" "spirit" "blood" or whatever word, of an animal.


just a public service announcement lol It just goes to show how great the divide is between beliefs.

 

[Poster0]

That is also a falsehood contrary to human evolutionary biology, and paleontology.

I heard it from an evolutionist.