Is the theory of evolution moral and ethical

[stevevw]

Under your name is the descriptor "inquisitive". Given your statement above, how do you justify that picture you paint of yourself?

I think "dogmatic" more appropriate.

How is it dogmatic. I have acknowledged that evolution happens but have drawn a line on what has been verified and what hasn't. That my friend is science and a balance view. The inquisitive is what it says, I investigate things and dont just take it as true because someone says it is even if they have a few letters after their name.

 

[The Barbarian]

How is it dogmatic. I have acknowledged that evolution happens but have drawn a line on what has been verified and what hasn't. That my friend is science and a balance view. The inquisitive is what it says, I investigate things and dont just take it as true because someone says it is even if they have a few letters after their name.

So you admit that sprouts can grow from redwood seeds, but giant redwood trees cannot, since we've never seen it happen?

There's a word for such thinking, and it's not "inquisitive."

 

[malvina]

I watched this and am pretty convinced about the ancient world of giants

It doesn't need much discernment to believe that this man is telling the truth

God created the new world from the dust of the Ancient World that he destroyed because of man's sinfulness
and it looks like it wont be too long before He destroys this next one for the same reasons
What with the 3rd World War on the go and CERN that is about to open us up to the bottomless pit there'll be
little for us to argue about here soon

 

[Armoured]

God created the new world from the dust of the Ancient World that he destroyed because of man's sinfulness
and it looks like it wont be too long before He destroys this next one for the same reasons
What with the 3rd World War on the go and CERN that is about to open us up to the bottomless pit there'll be
little for us to argue about here soon

Ooh, good, another "Cern is going to bring about Armageddon" person! That never gets old. Now do the one about NASA hiding Nibiru from everyone's telescopes...

 

[stevevw]

So you admit that sprouts can grow from redwood seeds, but giant redwood trees cannot, since we've never seen it happen?

A seed has all the genetics needed to grow that big cedar tree already there. Its starts a sprout and then grows into a big tree. But the genetics didn't mutate themselves into existence from something that is a copying error and causes a fitness loss and not a increase in complexity.

There's a word for such thinking, and it's not "inquisitive."

No as I said Inquisitive doesn't just say oh its true because on the face of it it seems true. Inquisitive looks beyond that and investigates what is really going on. So when we look at evolution we can verify through scientific tests that micro evolution which allows a species to make small changes such as a birds and the size of its beak and or an animals hair color ect. But this has limits because mutations are basically an error and change to what is already good. They incur a fitness cost and not an addition of fitness. There is no evidence for increasing complexity through adaptive evolution.

Evidence shows for multi mutations of more than 6 mutations to produce a benefit would take more time than the earth has been in existence. Even for two simultaneous mutations under Darwinian evolution would take over 100 million years which is far to long for evolution let alone for the evolution of complex complex creatures and the vast amount of variety we see in life. The evidence and tests have verified this as well. So its all based on investigation through the science and not assumption. When you actually question the assumptions and look into the detail evolution has no solid evidence.

 

[pwood]

The arguments that go back and forth in most of these evolution threads are just people mining others peoples work and presenting it as being the proof of one side or another. If someone tries to use science to disprove the God of the bible, they are doing it wrong, science makes no statement about the non existence of God of the bible. If you try to use science to prove the God of the bible exists you are also doing it wrong, because science makes no statement about God existing. So either side in that point is on a fools errand.

Evolution doesn't disprove a God of any kind, because science cannot demonstrate that a God of some sort is not behind it. Neither can science prove God, because any evidence may suggest some sort of intelligence exists, it cannot demonstrate what or who that intelligence is. For all we know, it actually is ALLAH, or an advanced race of aliens, or countless other forms of intelligence, that created or set in motion the things we have before us to look at and study.

The bible is compatible with science, the only thing that trips people up is thinking certain interpretations must be correct, absolute, and without flaw, you are doing it wrong.

 

[stevevw]

The arguments that go back and forth in most of these evolution threads are just people mining others peoples work and presenting it as being the proof of one side or another. If someone tries to use science to disprove the God of the bible, they are doing it wrong, science makes no statement about the non existence of God of the bible. If you try to use science to prove the God of the bible exists you are also doing it wrong, because science makes no statement about God existing. So either side in that point is on a fools errand.

Evolution doesn't disprove a God of any kind, because science cannot demonstrate that a God of some sort is not behind it. Neither can science prove God, because any evidence may suggest some sort of intelligence exists, it cannot demonstrate what or who that intelligence is. For all we know, it actually is ALLAH, or an advanced race of aliens, or countless other forms of intelligence, that created or set in motion the things we have before us to look at and study.

The bible is compatible with science, the only thing that trips people up is thinking certain interpretations must be correct, absolute, and without flaw, you are doing it wrong.

It depends on what you mean by evolution. There are those who believe that God set in motion evolution by planting all the necessary information of life to start with. There are those who believe God created everything as it is in the beginning and life stemmed from this. There is a limited amount of evolution within species which may produce variations of existing things. In both these scenarios God is needed and life wasn't produced on its own accord without God. Then there is Darwinian evolution which doesn't require God. Everything stems from a self creating mechanism of nature.

Then there may be some variations of these like you say life was planted here by aliens or whatever. But even in this scenario people acknowledge that life had to have a kick start. It didn't just form on its own from some chance occurrence of chemicals. Though you have to be careful because evolution doesn't like mixing with abiogenesis. Though its not an automatic assumption but many atheists will support Darwinian evolution. So belief can be mixed in there as well which can influence a persons views.

Overall you cant definitely prove evolution and certainly it is hard to prove God scientifically. But just because evolution claims its supported by the evidence doesn't mean it is verified. you have to check it out and look at the detail. you can find some indirect evidence for God and creation as well and thats why its hard to say either side is definitely true. It can come down to what you believe and how you see things as to what side the evidence will fall.

 

[pwood]

It depends on what you mean by evolution. There are those who believe that God set in motion evolution by planting all the necessary information of life to start with. There are those who believe God created everything as it is in the beginning and life stemmed from this. There is a limited amount of evolution within species which may produce variations of existing things. In both these scenarios God is needed and life wasn't produced on its own accord without God. Then there is Darwinian evolution which doesn't require God. Everything stems from a self creating mechanism of nature.

Then there may be some variations of these like you say life was planted here by aliens or whatever. But even in this scenario people acknowledge that life had to have a kick start. It didn't just form on its own from some chance occurrence of chemicals. Though you have to be careful because evolution doesn't like mixing with abiogenesis. Though its not an automatic assumption but many atheists will support Darwinian evolution. So belief can be mixed in there as well which can influence a persons views.

My point still stands, doesn't matter what type of evolution you point to. If you say God is needed, you will not be able to use science to say that the God you believe in is actually the absolute source. Evolutionists that say God is not needed because of Darwinian evolution cannot actually say that God is not behind the creation of that mechanism.

If either try, they miss the point of science in the first place.

 

[Black Dog]

No. I don't think that is correct.

I don't believe that God created man and gave him the brain of a stupid ape like beast, and then allowed him to slowly evolve into a man over the course of 200,000 years. I also don't think most Christians believe that either.

I'm glad to hear that. Neither do I.

Evolution theory is a bunch of nonsense. Its proponents use broad definitions which give their arguments flexibility, and this enables them to avoid any meaningful debate which would prove ToE fallacy. Its really the art of deception, not science.

I have an honest question I would appreciate you answering:

According to you the TOE is "a bunch of nonsense". But we use it as the basis of modern biology, to help create more effective medicine for fighting pathogens and to help explain and combat hereditary diseases.

So, how does something that is "a bunch of nonsense" keep explaining things over and over and over?

 

[Loudmouth]

In the beginning, God created H. erectus, an ape like creature who was no more inteligent than a Chimp, he lived in trees and lived like a dumb beast. God allowed him to slowly evolve, over millions of years, into one form, and into another, and another, until finally he evolved into man.

H. erectus was a tool maker. H. erectus was smarter than chimps.

Don't you find it odd that you are so sure evolution is wrong, yet you don't even know what is in the theory?

 

[JohnSerew]

[1] Evolution isn't about morality. [2] It is an explanation about the past and it is a great explanation of where our morality comes from ([3] not saying it is the basis for morality). The debate about whether it is a moral theory sais nothing about whether or not it is true[4].

 

[Loudmouth]

Evolutionists that say God is not needed because of Darwinian evolution cannot actually say that God is not behind the creation of that mechanism.

It is up to those who claim that God is behind the creation to provide evidence that this is the case. Without such evidence, there is no reason to accept their claim as true.

"Many orthodox people speak as though it were the business of sceptics to disprove received dogmas rather than of dogmatists to prove them. This is, of course, a mistake. If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."--Bertrand Russell

 

[pwood]

It is up to those who claim that God is behind the creation to provide evidence that this is the case. Without such evidence, there is no reason to accept their claim as true.

Yes, I agree for the most part, I chose to believe that the God of the bible exists, I actually do not need to prove it in order to have that faith. I am not lacking in the understanding that science continually discovers new things, whether it be evolution of any kind or life on other planets, or things we haven't even scratched the surface of. None of those discoveries will threaten my faith because my faith isn't about anything but me and how I go along with life. If someone tells me that my faith is to something that does not exist, then the burden of proof is on them whether they like it or not.

 

[Loudmouth]

What makes you think anything is stopping me? Furthermore, why do you assume I haven't seen it before? I earned my science degree, how about you?

Same here.

Since you claim to understand the science, why don't you go to my thread discussing the genetic evidence for human evolution.

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/endogenous-retroviruses-and-human-evolution-v-2.7911273/

One of the scientific papers to discuss is this one:

"Given the size of vertebrate genomes (>1 × 10^9 bp) and the random nature of retroviral integration (22, 23), multiple integrations (and subsequent fixation) of ERV loci at precisely the same location are highly unlikely (24). Therefore, an ERV locus shared by two or more species is descended from a single integration event and is proof that the species share a common ancestor into whose germ line the original integration took place (14)."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC17875/

As it turns out, there are over 200,000 endogenous retroviruses in the human genome. Of those, more than 99% are found at the same exact spot in the chimp genome. This is smoking gun evidence for common ancestry.

I paid thousands of dollars to fed this stuff. Then found out, most of the theory is wrong, completely unsupported or on shaky ground.

What is wrong? References?

It's dogmatic because the evidences against it are never presented.

What are these evidences?

Much of the so called evidence can be used by either side of the discussion.

Where do creationists use it?

This video will dispute most of the "evidences" in your link, using the same evidence.

If you actually know anything about science, you know that it isn't done with youtube videos. Have any peer reviewed references that you are willing to discuss?

Search the Cambrian explosion and you'll find both sides use it to support their position.

How does it support creationism?

Indoctrination is teaching one view and purposely withhold any information the contradicts it.

What information contradicts it? Why can't you discuss it?

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, I agree for the most part, I chose to believe that the God of the bible exists, I actually do not need to prove it in order to have that faith. I am not lacking in the understanding that science continually discovers new things, whether it be evolution of any kind or life on other planets, or things we haven't even scratched the surface of. None of those discoveries will threaten my faith because my faith isn't about anything but me and how I go along with life. If someone tells me that my faith is to something that does not exist, then the burden of proof is on them whether they like it or not.

If you want scientists to consider God as being a part of how nature operates, then you need to supply the evidence. That's how it works. We don't have to disprove claims that have no evidence backing them.

 

[malvina]

Ooh, good, another "Cern is going to bring about Armageddon" person! That never gets old. Now do the one about NASA hiding Nibiru from everyone's telescopes...

Well there's none so blind as those that do not want to see! This is all FACT friend- confirmed by CERN themselves.
I looked at Cern's people they had obviously had some sort of party. Each one used occult hand and arm signals and some even wore horns! it is a complete occult fixture and they are in the act of releasing 'the other side' to our earth.
Already occult manifestations have occurred - have you see the mirages in the clouds? - 2 this week one in China and one
in Hastings UK one earlier in China - of 'towns' floating in the skies. How do you think that happened - by natural causes?
The is the opening of The EURO New Age using the closing ceremony of the EURO Games to commence their evil work

Part 2 the completion of the opening of The New World Order

Here is good info all about it

 

[stevevw]

My point still stands, doesn't matter what type of evolution you point to. If you say God is needed, you will not be able to use science to say that the God you believe in is actually the absolute source. Evolutionists that say God is not needed because of Darwinian evolution cannot actually say that God is not behind the creation of that mechanism.

If either try, they miss the point of science in the first place.

Yes I agree and they will also miss the point of faith.

 

[pwood]

If you want scientists to consider God as being a part of how nature operates, then you need to supply the evidence. That's how it works. We don't have to disprove claims that have no evidence backing them.

You missed my point, I don't actually expect God being a part of the equation when I study things of science, I do not need to fill in the gaps with the God I choose to believe in and never stated that I do. Evolutionary theory is what it is, if it is correct, then I don't worry that somehow the God I believe in no longer is needed. I have a personal faith, if you want me to believe my personal faith is to nothing, then yes, that IS up to you to demonstrate. I have had atheists state that my faith is to nothing, at that point, then, the burden of proof is on them, because I do not need nor expect them to be convinced of my personal faith. Moving the goal posts as is often accused, goes both ways.

 

[pwood]

Yes I agree and they will also miss the point of faith.

Actually, that is not inherently true. If it was, then there would be no Christians that also accept evolutionary theory is something God could have used to bring us about.

 

[Loudmouth]

You missed my point, I don't actually expect God being a part of the equation when I study things of science, I do not need to fill in the gaps with the God I choose to believe in and never stated that I do. Evolutionary theory is what it is, if it is correct, then I don't worry that somehow the God I believe in no longer is needed.

On the flip, no scientists are saying that finding a natural process disproves the existence of God. As an atheist, I never make that claim. Here is a quote from Darwin that you may appreciate.

"It can hardly be supposed that a false theory would explain, in so satisfactory a manner as does the theory of natural selection, the several large classes of facts above specified. It has recently been objected that this is an unsafe method of arguing; but it is a method used in judging of the common events of life, and has often been used by the greatest natural philosophers ... I see no good reason why the views given in this volume should shock the religious feelings of any one. It is satisfactory, as showing how transient such impressions are, to remember that the greatest discovery ever made by man, namely, the law of the attraction of gravity, was also attacked by Leibnitz, "as subversive of natural, and inferentially of revealed, religion." A celebrated author and divine has written to me that "he has gradually learnt to see that it is just as noble a conception of the Deity to believe that He created a few original forms capable of self-development into other and needful forms, as to believe that He required a fresh act of creation to supply the voids caused by the action of His laws.""

— Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1859)

I have a personal faith, if you want me to believe my personal faith is to nothing, then yes, that IS up to you to demonstrate. I have had atheists state that my faith is to nothing, at that point, then, the burden of proof is on them, because I do not need nor expect them to be convinced of my personal faith. Moving the goal posts as is often accused, goes both ways.

You are free to believe whatever you will.