Is the theory of evolution moral and ethical

[Poster0]

One more thing. Its obvious that everyone here has a political or religious agenda and anything said here is hardly objective. I would not expect a scientist to come to a Christian website and argue about evolution, unless they had a religious agenda, whether atheistic or some other belief.

 

[Poster0]

The Piltdown fraud was objected to from the first publication. The fraud delayed the recognition of the African origin of humanity (which Darwin had predicted) by the initial rejection of Raymond Dart's South African discovery of Australopithecus.

Ok, we know, man evolved from apes, thank you.

 

[durangodawood]

One more thing. Its obvious that everyone here has a political or religious agenda and anything said here is hardly objective. I would not expect a scientist to come to a Christian website and argue about evolution, unless they had a religious agenda, whether atheistic or some other belief.

Thats how it looks to you, because its what you know.
I know that some people are motivated by exploring reality.... wherever it may lead.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

People have too much of a mob mentality, in college you wouldnt believe how many idiots are actually graduating in science fields. Most of them succumb to peer pressure just like anyone else and tbh going to college made me lose faith in scientists. I decided I want to figure out things for myself, now obviously I cant experiment everything and reformulate a new idea about everything but when ever something new comes up Im always going to be suspicious. So many of these kids graduating are the kinds of people that think muslims are a race. I just dont trust people.

And you must be certainly too smart to ever graduate in a science.

You and I do agree that anyone who thinks that "Muslims are a race" is too stupid to pour water out of a boot.

Working in science carries a difficult double message- we trust our colleagues to be totally honest, and we then do all we can to prove they are wrong, or inadequate.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Ok, we know, man evolved from apes, thank you.

You are welcome

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Tens of thousands of scientists accepted Piltdown man, and many other frauds as well. Tens of thousands of scientists accepted that the appendix was useless. Eventually many of their speculations will be disproven. It seems rational to put their findings in the category of speculation, rather than unwisely asserting them to be infallible truth.

There were scientists who rejected the "Piltdown Man" from the start. In the early 1900s there were fewer than "tens of thousands" of anthropologists, or paleontologists. You would be surprised at how few we really are today.

Before antibiotics, antiseptic surgery, and anesthesia, tens of thousands of people died every year from appendicitis. Darwin's idea that it was "vestigial" was accurate. It still is. His idea that it would be totally eliminated was wrong. OH! BOO HOO!

Your gross error is to believe the creationist lie that "vestigial" means "useless."

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

I'm still putting this evidence in the category of possible fraud, or at least speculation. I'm sorry, but i have a tough time believing that man evolved from an ape like creature. I also have a tough time trusting evolutionists, considering their past history with fraudulent fossil evidence, and unproven speculation

One thing that makes exposing creationists so much fun is that it is easy. Creationists lie all the time.

For a really fast way to expose creationist's frauds, use the "Index of Creationist Claims."

The Index gives citations to scientific publications if you want, or need more information.

 

[Poster0]

And you must be certainly too smart to ever graduate in a science.

You and I do agree that anyone who thinks that "Muslims are a race" is too stupid to pour water out of a boot.

Working in science carries a difficult double message- we trust our colleagues to be totally honest, and we then do all we can to prove they are wrong, or inadequate.

There were scientists who rejected the "Piltdown Man" from the start. In the early 1900s there were fewer than "tens of thousands" of anthropologists, or paleontologists. You would be surprised at how few we really are today.

Before antibiotics, antiseptic surgery, and anesthesia, tens of thousands of people died every year from appendicitis. Darwin's idea that it was "vestigial" was accurate. It still is. His idea that it would be totally eliminated was wrong. OH! BOO HOO!

Your gross error is to believe the creationist lie that "vestigial" means "useless."

His idea that it was vestigial was accurate? How do you prove that? The same way that you prove man came from apes? Go ahead and pat yourself on the back, I'm sure you will find many people who will swallow your so called evidence, sorry but I cant be one of them. You can try to defend ToE, but the truth is that most ToE scientists readily accepted fake fossil evidence, and there were many examples. ToE is no different than religion, it will rationalize its own fallacy, rather than admit it.

 

[Poster0]

One thing that makes exposing creationists so much fun is that it is easy. Creationists lie all the time.

For a really fast way to expose creationist's frauds, use the "Index of Creationist Claims."

The Index gives citations to scientific publications if you want, or need more information.

Whenever I need advice from a guy who believes that we evolved from apes, and uses a can of soup as his avatar, i'll look you up. Thanks.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Not exactly lying, I believe current day scientists have a bias because of the amount of pressure there is around it. Everyone wants to be called smart and they fear that if they dare question it they are labeled stupid.

Actually, some students scrape by for years by being able to object to established knowledge in original, or at least amusing ways. Eventually they are forced to give some real solid results.

Then most of them are screwed into the ground because they were just talk. If they can provide something real, they are set for life. Seriously. I did that. I am retired. I post here for amusement.

 

[Poster0]

Thats how it looks to you, because its what you know.
I know that some people are motivated by exploring reality.... wherever it may lead.

Sure, whatever helps yo

Actually, some students scrape by for years by being able to object to established knowledge in original, or at least amusing ways. Eventually they are forced to give some real solid results.

Then most of them are screwed into the ground because they were just talk. If they can provide something real, they are set for life. Seriously. I did that. I am retired. I post here for amusement.

Some people come here because they need help and are in a lot of trouble. I don't see how your amusement is rational.

 

[mickiio]

The fact of evolution, as well as the scientific theory explaining the process of evolution, is neither moral or immoral, ethical or unethical. It just is.

And considering that most Christians accept the theory of evolution, and most people who accept the theory of evolution are Christians, it isn't used to bash Christianity.

Most Christians don't accept macroevolution. Microevolution is testable and verifiable so you won't have ANY Christians or Creationists arguing against that one. It's when you tie Darwinistic Evolution into microevolution and call them all the "same thing" and good science, then you will have problems from Creationists . By the way...it ALWAYS cracks me up when an "atheist" calls himself an expert on what Christians believe when they haven't a clue.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

His idea that it was vestigial was accurate? How do you prove that?

By reading Darwin, and reading current research.

Charles R. Darwin thought that the human vermiform appendix was going to be soon eliminated by evolution. It killed thousands of people every year in England, and thousands every day globally by appendicitis.

What he had missed were 3 things; 1) appendicitis was not always fatal; 2) appendicitis was not a commonly fatal childhood disease interfering with reproduction; 3) the appendix retained a modest function totally unrelated to the original organ. In fact, the human vermiform appendix had evolved.

That last fact is rather ironic.

 

[johnkw]

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.

Fossils just are. They don't have the impression of being old other than that which is imputed to them by the theory of Evolution. The Rocks are dated by the fossils they contain, and the fossils are dated by the rock layers they lie in. There are other explanations as to where the layers came from, and why certain types of fossils are found in certain layers.
So, no, God doesn't give the impression of fossils being much older than they are.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Most Christians don't accept macroevolution. Microevolution is testable and verifiable so you won't have ANY Christians or Creationists arguing against that one. It's when you tie Darwinistic Evolution into microevolution and call them all the "same thing" and good science, then you will have problems from Creationists .

First falsehood is that we have not been directly observing the evolutionary emergence of new species. We have directly observed the Emergence of New Species of over a century. (Click the link to my list of many published examples).

 

[mickiio]

By reading Darwin, and reading current research.

Charles R. Darwin thought that the human vermiform appendix was going to be soon eliminated by evolution. It killed thousands of people every year in England, and thousands every day globally by appendicitis.

What he had missed were 3 things; 1) appendicitis was not always fatal; 2) appendicitis was not a commonly fatal childhood disease interfering with reproduction; 3) the appendix retained a modest function totally unrelated to the original organ. In fact, the human vermiform appendix had evolved.

That last fact is rather ironic.

Debatable. Appendicitis only became fatal when we refined the wheat flour into white flour. If you go back to whole grains, as the body intended there would be no problems with the appendix. The appendix is also found to be a part of the immune system. You have no idea what God intended with the appendix, and just because you don't, doesn't mean it does not have a purpose.

 

[mickiio]

First falsehood is that we have not been directly observing the evolutionary emergence of new species. We have directly observed the Emergence of New Species of over a century. (Click the link to my list of many published examples).

It would be more accurate to call them new breeds. There are variances in species - of course!

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Debatable. Appendicitis only became fatal when we refined the wheat flour into white flour. If you go back to whole grains, as the body intended there would be no problems with the appendix.

And before we had a semi-literate population, there were no competent data for epidemiology. Competent data collection just lagged behind modern wheat processing. And the rural folk were still eating "coarse" and still dying. Darwin's medical background was his apprenticeship with his father's country practice, and 2 years at the University of Edinburgh.

In an evolutionary context, the human vermiform appendix was not a "second stomach" to ferment cellulose. That is "vestigial." C.R. Darwin thought it would disappear. Modern medicine has made appendicitis rarely fatal, so it will not disappear.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

It would be more accurate to call them new breeds. There are variances in species - of course!

All you are doing is falsely redefining that a species is in order to maintain your faith in magic.

 

[Skaloop]

Most Christians don't accept macroevolution. Microevolution is testable and verifiable so you won't have ANY Christians or Creationists arguing against that one. It's when you tie Darwinistic Evolution into microevolution and call them all the "same thing" and good science, then you will have problems from Creationists . By the way...it ALWAYS cracks me up when an "atheist" calls himself an expert on what Christians believe when they haven't a clue.

I'm not calling myself an expert in anything. I just know the statistics. Most Christians worldwide report that they accept the Theory of Evolution. Studies have been done by actual experts, and actual Christians say they accept the ToE more often than not. I may not have a clue what they believe, but those Christians do, and they believe in the ToE. Micro, macro, and everything in between.