Is the theory of evolution moral and ethical

[Poster0]

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?

What I meant to say was that I can misuse biology to teach fallacy, just as ToE does.

 

[bhsmte]

What I meant to say was that I can misuse biology to teach fallacy, just as ToE does.

Quite the back peddle.

Do you know what makes it real easy to misuse biology? When a person doesn't understand it.

 

[Poster0]

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.

No, because scientists don't understand the laws of physics as much as they would have us believe. They don't understand anything as much as they would have us believe. They assume much of what they assert as fact. The article I posted cited evidence that would show the error of Radiometric dating. You cant change the facts. The truth is that scientists are using flawed techniques in order to measure the age of rocks, which in turn they use to determine the age of fossils, which in turn promotes a lot of fallacy, not truth.

 

[bhsmte]

No because scientists don't understand the laws of physics as much as they would have us believe. The article I posted cited evidence that would show the error of Radiometric dating. You cant change the facts. The truth is that scientists are using flawed techniques in order to measure the age of rocks, which in turn they use to determine the age of fossils, which in turn promotes a lot of fallacy, not truth.

And, you can't make up facts.

 

[Poster0]

Quite the back peddle.

Do you know what makes it real easy to misuse biology? When a person doesn't understand it.

No, that was my original intention, so I'm not back peddling. Creation scientists use biology, yet they do not try to suggest that because they use biology that all their ideas on creationism have achieved great medical advancements. Biology has helped advance medical science, but ToE has not.

 

[Poster0]

And, you can't make up facts.

I didn't make anything up. I used scientific data.

 

[bhsmte]

No, that was my original intention, so I'm not back peddling. Creation scientists use biology, yet they do not try to suggest that because they use biology that all their ideas on creationism have achieved great medical advancements. Biology has helped advance medical science, but ToE has not.

Well, those working in medical science and research would strongly disagree with you and folks have linked this evidence on this thread to support that.

But, what do they know, they only have Phd's and do that stuff for a living.

 

[Poster0]

I'm not blaming scientists for using flawed techniques, I understand that they are forever learning, and making mistakes along the way. I'm only blaming those who would assert that science does not make mistakes and that their data is flawless.

 

[Poster0]

Well, those working in medical science and research would strongly disagree with you and folks have linked this evidence on this thread to support that.

But, what do they know, they only have Phd's and do that stuff for a living.

I understand their limitations and I don't worship them, they are very fallible just as we are. I cannot see how misjudging the age of rocks, or theorizing that man was once like a chimp or ape, would help produce any medical advancements. You see, what you are asserting is that ToS is infallible, which its not, and you are suggesting that those fallacies have achieved great medical advancements, which they have not.

 

[bhsmte]

I understand their limitations and I don't worship them, they are very fallible just as we are. I cannot see how misjudging the age of rocks, or theorizing that man was once like a chimp or ape, would help produce any medical advancements. You see, what you are asserting is that ToS is infallible, which its not, and you are suggesting that those fallacies have achieved great medical advancements, which they have not.

You have yet to demonstrate, you have any grasp of the subject at hand.

You can start now though.

 

[Poster0]

You have yet to demonstrate, you have any grasp of the subject at hand.

You can start now though.

Yes, that's typical of ToS posters. They cant refute the arguments that contradict their beliefs, so they accuse others of not grasping the subject.

 

[Loudmouth]

What I meant to say was that I can misuse biology to teach fallacy, just as ToE does.

WHICH FALLACY ARE YOU REFERRING TO?

 

[gigman7]

I see nothing wrong with teaching the Theory of Evolution so long as it is taught as a "theory" and taught why it is the theory it is. And also be able to teach creation as well. Maybe not as fact, but explain what some believe.

I taught science for several years and I made sure that kids understood that it was just a theory and explained the evidence and what was missing from the whole puzzle on the theory.

 

[Loudmouth]

I'm not blaming scientists for using flawed techniques,

You haven't shown that they are flawed.

The only flaw found so far is in the arguments used by creationists.

 

[Loudmouth]

I see nothing wrong with teaching the Theory of Evolution so long as it is taught as a "theory" and taught why it is the theory it is. And also be able to teach creation as well. Maybe not as fact, but explain what some believe.

I would have no problem with a World's Religions course where students are taught about the origin myths from several religions. What we have a problem with is creationism being portrayed as science.

I taught science for several years and I made sure that kids understood that it was just a theory and explained the evidence and what was missing from the whole puzzle on the theory.

Did you also explain the mountains of evidence that support the theory of evolution?

 

[Loudmouth]

No, because scientists don't understand the laws of physics as much as they would have us believe.

Don't project your own ignorance of physics onto others. You don't understand the laws of physics. Physicists do understand them.

I'm sorry, but you don't get to sweep all of this evidence under the carpet by simply saying, "Scientists are dumb".

They assume much of what they assert as fact.

You keep saying that, but are never able to back it up.

The article I posted cited evidence that would show the error of Radiometric dating.

Your article made empty assertions with no evidence to back it up.

 

[Poster0]

You haven't shown that they are flawed.

The only flaw found so far is in the arguments used by creationists.

Sure I have, you refuse to acknowledge it however. I showed that radiometric science is not perfected, and scientists are far from being able use it effectively

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, that's typical of ToS posters. They cant refute the arguments that contradict their beliefs, so they accuse others of not grasping the subject.

Your posts speak for themselves and they are there for all to see.

 

[Poster0]

Don't project your own ignorance of physics onto others. You don't understand the laws of physics. Physicists do understand them.

I'm sorry, but you don't get to sweep all of this evidence under the carpet by simply saying, "Scientists are dumb".


You keep saying that, but are never able to back it up.



Your article made empty assertions with no evidence to back it up.

Yes, I would expect such arrogance. Please don't project your arrogance.

 

[Poster0]

Your posts speak for themselves and they are there for all to see.

Personal attacks, I expected as much.