Is the theory of evolution moral and ethical

[stevevw]

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.

Faith would still stand because it still comes down to believing in a supernatural being that is outside the parameters of scientific verification that is responsible. Without God there would be nothing. Those who purely believe there is no God don't have the faith to find God. Those who believe in God can never satisfy their belief by scientific evidence because that would defeat the purpose of faith.

 

[Poster0]

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


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?

ITs nonsense because its proponents use lies to deceive people. They mix truth with lies, like you are doing now. I can use biology to teach creationism, yet should i expect you to believe it? Evolution misuses biology to teach lies..

 

[hgkeller771]

No reasonable person uses evolution to bash Christianity, but people do (with some justification) critique fundamentalism with evolution. Very reasonable theists and atheists would say it's actually ethically problematic for God to give the impression of fossils being much older than they are when they really aren't. Otherwise, unlike homosexuality (which fits within the category of ethics), evolution isn't an ethical matter; it's a question of truth.

Yes, very true. None of us were here when God created heaven and earth. None of us know how it all happened and what was in God's mind at the time. The Bible was written for a simple minded group of people. People who thought the earth was flat. I believe that God used the timeless process of evolution to steer the development of all species and eventually man. God did this through the DNA molecule.

 

[bhsmte]

ITs nonsense because its proponents use lies to deceive people. They mix truth with lies, like you are doing now. I can use biology to teach creationism, yet should i expect you to believe it? Evolution misuses biology to teach lies..

Go ahead, use biology, to teach creationism.

 

[hgkeller771]

David's Gifts is a book about how Genesis and science coincide. It puts forward the idea that God used the DNA molecule to design all the species, past and future, and the process for these species to appear on earth and their success in surviving and propagating using the conditions on an earth created by God.

 

[Poster0]

Go ahead, use biology, to teach creationism.

Do you think that creation scientists don't use biology? The assertion that biology helps us advance medical science is true, however its not true that ToE advances medical science. ToE is a mixture of truth and fallacy. It has been noted by some people that ToE actually hinders true scientific advancement. Look at evolutionists absurd notions concerning the human appendix. There was no scientific reason to suggest that the appendix was useless, and that it was merely a leftover from the evolutionary process. Its was quite absurd to reach such a conclusion because it was not based on biology or any other pure science, but instead was based on absurd notions in the minds of evolutionists who would rather follow fantasy instead of pure science. They boast that they follow pure science yet they actually follow an impure science that is polluted with their own unscientific notions.

 

[Loudmouth]

Do you think that creation scientists don't use biology?

They don't use the scientific method. They certainly don't use creationism to do scientific research in the field of biology.

The assertion that biology helps us advance medical science is true, however its not true that ToE advances medical science.

We need more than your assertions. Where is the evidence for this claim?

ToE is mix of truth and fallacy.

What fallacies?

It has been noted by some people that ToE actually hinders true scientific advancement. Look at evolutionists absurd notions concerning the human appendix.

Our "absurd notion" is that the human vermiform appendix does not aid humans in digesting cellulose. Can you prove to us that the human appendix does aid in the digestion of cellulose? If not, then the only absurd notion is your absurd notion that vestigial means without any function.

"Vestigiality refers to genetically determined structures or attributes that have apparently lost most or all of their ancestral function in a given species, but have been retained during the process of evolution."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality

That is the definition that the evolutionists are using. It allows for vestigial organs to have some function.

Their was no scientific reason to suggest that the appendix was useless,

We are saying that it is vestigial, not useless.

and that it was merely a leftover from the evolutionary process.

Why is that absurd? We find a well developed caecum in other species, and that caecum is used to digest plant material. Why is it absurd that as humans moved away from herbivory that the organ responsible for digesting plants would tend to lose function?

Its was quite absurd to reach such a conclusion because it was not based on biology or any other pure science, but instead was based on absurd notions in the minds of evolutionists who would rather follow fantasy instead of pure science.

Are you saying that we are inventing the fact that other species have a well developed caecum that is larger than the human appendix and has more function than the human appendix?

 

[bhsmte]

Do you think that creation scientists don't use biology? The assertion that biology helps us advance medical science is true, however its not true that ToE advances medical science. ToE is a mixture of truth and fallacy. It has been noted by some people that ToE actually hinders true scientific advancement. Look at evolutionists absurd notions concerning the human appendix. There was no scientific reason to suggest that the appendix was useless, and that it was merely a leftover from the evolutionary process. Its was quite absurd to reach such a conclusion because it was not based on biology or any other pure science, but instead was based on absurd notions in the minds of evolutionists who would rather follow fantasy instead of pure science. They boast that they follow pure science yet they actually follow an impure science that is polluted with their own unscientific notions.

Your post does not use biology, to teach creationism, as you claimed.

Want to try again?

 

[Poster0]

The science of Radiometric dating is not proven. This is the science that evolutionists use to date fossils, if I'm not mistaken.

Quote: Most people think that radioactive dating has proven the earth is billions of years old. Yet this view is based on a misunderstanding of how radiometric dating works


https://answersingenesis.org/geolog...ometric-dating-problems-with-the-assumptions/

 

[Poster0]

Your post does not use biology, to teach creationism, as you claimed.

Want to try again?

Biology doesn't prove many of the absurd notions that ToE invents either, yet they still misuse biology to assert their fallacy. Would you like me to misuse biology in order to assert fallacy, as ToE does? Is that what you want?

 

[Loudmouth]

The science of Radiometric dating is not proven.

Yes, it is proven, as in proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

"There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating — it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible."
http://ncse.com/rncse/20/3/radiometric-dating-does-work

It is the agreement between several different and independent methods that demonstrates the accuracy and dependability of radiometric dating.

This is the science that evolutionists use to date fossils, if I'm not mistaken.

It is the science we use to date rocks. Fossils less than 50k years old can be directly dated by methods using 14C.

Quote: Most people think that radioactive dating has proven the earth is billions of years old. Yet this view is based on a misunderstanding of how radiometric dating works

A planet must be older than the rocks found on it. If we find rocks that are billions of years old, then the planet has to be at least that old.

 

[Poster0]

Yes, it is proven, as in proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

"There are several important things to note about these results. First, the Cretaceous and Tertiary periods were defined by geologists in the early 1800s. The boundary between these periods (the K-T boundary) is marked by an abrupt change in fossils found in sedimentary rocks worldwide. Its exact location in the stratigraphic column at any locality has nothing to do with radiometric dating — it is located by careful study of the fossils and the rocks that contain them, and nothing more. Second, the radiometric age measurements, 187 of them, were made on 3 different minerals and on glass by 3 distinctly different dating methods (K-Ar and 40Ar/39Ar are technical variations that use the same parent-daughter decay scheme), each involving different elements with different half-lives. Furthermore, the dating was done in 6 different laboratories and the materials were collected from 5 different locations in the Western Hemisphere. And yet the results are the same within analytical error. If radiometric dating didn’t work then such beautifully consistent results would not be possible."
http://ncse.com/rncse/20/3/radiometric-dating-does-work

It is the agreement between several different and independent methods that demonstrates the accuracy and dependability of radiometric dating.



It is the science we use to date rocks. Fossils less than 50k years old can be directly dated by methods using 14C.



A planet must be older than the rocks found on it. If we find rocks that are billions of years old, then the planet has to be at least that old.

No its not proven, and the article which I posted a link for shows why its not proven.

 

[bhsmte]

Biology doesn't prove many of the absurd notions that ToE invents either, yet they still misuse biology to assert their fallacy. Would you like me to misuse biology in order to assert fallacy, as ToE does? Is that what you want?

All I am asking is for you to support the claim you made. Do you remember what that was?

Biology can be used to teach creationism.

Can you demonstrate that for us, or are you going to take a pass?

 

[Loudmouth]

Biology doesn't prove many of the absurd notions that ToE invents either, yet they still misuse biology to assert their fallacy.

Here is a list of fallacies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Can you please tell us which fallacy we are committing? "You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means"--Inigo Montoya

Also, please tell us how the evidence we have been presenting does not support the theory of evolution.

 

[Loudmouth]

No its not proven, and the article which I posted a link for shows why its not proven.

Please, present that evidence.

 

[Poster0]

I found this interesting.



Radiometric Dating: Problems with the Assumptions

Assumption 2: No Contamination
The problems with contamination, as with inheritance, are already well-documented in the textbooks on radioactive dating of rocks.7 Unlike the hourglass, where its two bowls are sealed, the radioactive “clock” in rocks is open to contamination by gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes because of waters flowing in the ground from rainfall and from the molten rocks beneath volcanoes. Similarly, as molten lava rises through a conduit from deep inside the earth to be erupted through a volcano, pieces of the conduit wallrocks and their isotopes can mix into the lava and contaminate it.

Because of such contamination, the less than 50-year-old lava flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand (Figure 4), yield a rubidium-strontium “age” of 133 million years, a samarium-neodymium “age” of 197 million years, and a uranium-lead “age” of 3.908 billion years!8

 

[Loudmouth]

I found this interesting.



Radiometric Dating: Problems with the Assumptions

Assumption 2: No Contamination
The problems with contamination, as with inheritance, are already well-documented in the textbooks on radioactive dating of rocks.7 Unlike the hourglass, where its two bowls are sealed, the radioactive “clock” in rocks is open to contamination by gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes because of waters flowing in the ground from rainfall and from the molten rocks beneath volcanoes. Similarly, as molten lava rises through a conduit from deep inside the earth to be erupted through a volcano, pieces of the conduit wallrocks and their isotopes can mix into the lava and contaminate it.

Because of such contamination, the less than 50-year-old lava flows at Mt. Ngauruhoe, New Zealand (Figure 4), yield a rubidium-strontium “age” of 133 million years, a samarium-neodymium “age” of 197 million years, and a uranium-lead “age” of 3.908 billion years!8

Using techniques such as Rb/Sr isochron dating, you can measure the amount of daughter isotope that the rock started with.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/isochron-dating.html

For K/Ar dating, the argon gases out, no matter how much was added to the molten lava. You can also use Ar/Ar dating to detect any contaminating daughter product.

For U/Pb dating, zircons exclude Pb when they form, and they are tough little crystals that don't allow more Pb to enter. You would have to change the laws of physics or invent miracles in order to get the amount of PB into zircons necessary for a young Earth.

Those bases are already covered. Perhaps you should find a real scientific website.

 

[Poster0]

Assumption 3: Constant Decay Rate
Physicists have carefully measured the radioactive decay rates of parent radioisotopes in laboratories over the last 100 or so years and have found them to be essentially constant (within the measurement error margins). Furthermore, they have not been able to significantly change these decay rates by heat, pressure, or electrical and magnetic fields. So geologists have assumed these radioactive decay rates have been constant for billions of years.

However, this is an enormous extrapolation of seven orders of magnitude back through immense spans of unobserved time without any concrete proof that such an extrapolation is credible. Nevertheless, geologists insist the radioactive decay rates have always been constant, because it makes these radioactive clocks “work”!

New evidence, however, has recently been discovered that can only be explained by the radioactive decay rates not having been constant in the past.9 For example, the radioactive decay of uranium in tiny crystals in a New Mexico granite (Figure 5) yields a uranium-lead “age” of 1.5 billion years. Yet the same uranium decay also produced abundant helium, but only 6,000 years worth of that helium was found to have leaked out of the tiny crystals.

This means that the uranium must have decayed very rapidly over the same 6,000 years that the helium was leaking. The rate of uranium decay must have been at least 250,000 times faster than today’s measured rate! For more details see Don DeYoung’s Thousands . . . Not Billions (Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 2005), pages 65–78.

If these clocks are based on faulty assumptions and yield unreliable results, then scientists should not trust or promote the claimed radioactive “ages.”
The assumptions on which the radioactive dating is based are not only unprovable but plagued with problems. As this article has illustrated, rocks may have inherited parent and daughter isotopes from their sources, or they may have been contaminated when they moved through other rocks to their current locations. Or inflowing water may have mixed isotopes into the rocks. In addition, the radioactive decay rates have not been constant.

So if these clocks are based on faulty assumptions and yield unreliable results, then scientists should not trust or promote the claimed radioactive “ages” of countless millions of years, especially since they contradict the true history of the universe as recorded in God’s Word

 

[bhsmte]

I see we are in copy and paste mode.

 

[Loudmouth]

Assumption 3: Constant Decay Rate
Physicists have carefully measured the radioactive decay rates of parent radioisotopes in laboratories over the last 100 or so years and have found them to be essentially constant (within the measurement error margins). Furthermore, they have not been able to significantly change these decay rates by heat, pressure, or electrical and magnetic fields. So geologists have assumed these radioactive decay rates have been constant for billions of years.

However, this is an enormous extrapolation of seven orders of magnitude back through immense spans of unobserved time without any concrete proof that such an extrapolation is credible.

We have that concrete proof.

"The radioactive decay rates of nuclides used in radiometric dating have not been observed to vary since their rates were directly measurable, at least within limits of accuracy. This is despite experiments that attempt to change decay rates (Emery 1972). Extreme pressure can cause electron-capture decay rates to increase slightly (less than 0.2 percent), but the change is small enough that it has no detectable effect on dates.

Supernovae are known to produce a large quantity of radioactive isotopes (Nomoto et al. 1997a, 1997b; Thielemann et al. 1998). These isotopes produce gamma rays with frequencies and fading rates that are predictable according to present decay rates. These predictions hold for supernova SN1987A, which is 169,000 light-years away (Knödlseder 2000). Therefore, radioactive decay rates were not significantly different 169,000 years ago. Present decay rates are likewise consistent with observations of the gamma rays and fading rates of supernova SN1991T, which is sixty million light-years away (Prantzos 1999), and with fading rate observations of supernovae billions of light-years away (Perlmutter et al. 1998).

The Oklo reactor was the site of a natural nuclear reaction 1,800 million years ago. The fine structure constant affects neutron capture rates, which can be measured from the reactor's products. These measurements show no detectable change in the fine structure constant and neutron capture for almost two billion years (Fujii et al. 2000; Shlyakhter 1976). "
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html

In order to change the decay rates you would have to change the fundamental laws of physics.