Ethics of anti evolution arguments

David Lamb · Oct 31, 2024

Astrid said:
Dr. K Wise for one.

You quoted part of what Dr Wise said that made it fit your argument. Here is a little more context:

"Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."

The same website provides these credentials for him:

"Dr. Wise is director of origins research at Bryan College, Dayton, Tennessee. He holds a B.A. with honors in geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago and an M.A. and Ph.D. in geology from Harvard University. He studied under Professor Stephen Jay Gould. Dr. Wise has written a wide range of articles on origins issues. He is a member of the Geological Society of America."

essentialsaltes · Oct 31, 2024

o_mlly said:
Lying is immoral. However, as science has no facts

It is a fact that mutations have enabled bacteria to eat nylon.
It is a fact that Lenski's experiments with bacteria observed multiple mutations that enabled citrate metabolism.
It is a fact that homologous ERVs fall into a nested hierarchy within the primates.

It is a fact that science has facts.

You know this.

To deny a fact knowingly is to lie.
From Webster’s Dictionary 1828: “Fact”

Piers Plowman · Oct 31, 2024

essentialsaltes said:
It is a fact that mutations have enabled bacteria to eat nylon.
It is a fact that Lenski's experiments with bacteria observed multiple mutations that enabled citrate metabolism.
It is a fact that homologous ERVs fall into a nested hierarchy within the primates.

It is a fact that science has facts.

You know this.

To deny a fact knowingly is to lie.
From Webster’s Dictionary 1828: “Fact”

There are 'facts',
And then there are the conclusions of the 'creationists' of such 'facts',
And then there are your conclusions of such 'facts' as well.
And you're right now conflating all three at once.

B Griffin · Oct 31, 2024

Astrid said:
“ Tit for Tat” could be called a dodge, but never mind that.

I provided one example of a false argument to disprove
evolution, the fake human footprint with dinosaur footprint.

i could list them to the limits of patience.

More simply, all such are false. Else someone
would have a Nobel, among many many other result.

Would you deny that any are false? What “ accusation” might
suit those who deliberately or negligently sponsor such?

That is a real question, I would appreciate an answer!
it would be the first on topic response I’ve gotten.

To your last comment-
Educated Christians have no issue with evolution.

It's not a dodge. Like I said, I was replying to what you said in the OP. And I really don't care to debate evolution. If you really want answers, there is plenty of information on the internet.

Astrid · Oct 31, 2024

David Lamb said:
You quoted part of what Dr Wise said that made it fit your argument. Here is a little more context:

"Although there are scientific reasons for accepting a young earth, I am a young-age creationist because that is my understanding of the Scripture. As I shared with my professors years ago when I was in college, if all the evidence in the universe turned against creationism, I would be the first to admit it, but I would still be a creationist because that is what the Word of God seems to indicate."

The same website provides these credentials for him:

"Dr. Wise is director of origins research at Bryan College, Dayton, Tennessee. He holds a B.A. with honors in geophysical sciences from the University of Chicago and an M.A. and Ph.D. in geology from Harvard University. He studied under Professor Stephen Jay Gould. Dr. Wise has written a wide range of articles on origins issues. He is a member of the Geological Society of America."

So you are accusing me of a lack of integrity. Im very disappointed in you.

I know the full quote, including the part you
thoughtfully bolded for your accusation.

The part I quoted was just about his proudly
announcing his dishonesty.

The full quote just makes it worse, so I can
thank you for that.

He can claim as he likes, but there is no evidence for “young earth”

Why do you choose to take the word of
someone who in the very same sentence
says he has an ideological commitment to dishonesty?

The topic is integrity. Dr. Wise admits to
abandoning scientific integrity.

And nicely illustrates the impossibility
of being an educated yec with integrity.

You get a pass, so far, as you have not
studied any of the relevant science.

Studiously ignoring proof that yec is
false does, though, become an integrity issue.

essentialsaltes · Oct 31, 2024

Piers Plowman said:
There are 'facts',

Those above are facts. Some professional creationists deny them, as when they say mutations cannot do things mutations have been factually observed to do. To the extent that they are aware of the facts, they are liars.

Piers Plowman · Oct 31, 2024

essentialsaltes said:
Those above are facts. Some professional creationists deny them, as when they say mutations cannot do things mutations have been factually observed to do. To the extent that they are aware of the facts, they are liars.

I'm not sure as to how this vague assertion regarding this vague grouping of 'professional creationists' have bearing on my statement. What I'm saying is, there is difference between 'facts', and conclusions from such 'facts'.
One can 'claim' monopoly on conclusion of 'facts', but it takes much more suspension of disbelief to gloss over claims of monopoly on 'facts' themselves.

essentialsaltes · Oct 31, 2024

Piers Plowman said:
What I'm saying is

The topic of this thread is the ethics of telling lies to deceive people into rejecting the theory of evolution.
The Terms Of Service instruct members to “Submit replies that are relevant to the topic of discussion.”

Piers Plowman · Oct 31, 2024

essentialsaltes said:
The topic of this thread is the ethics of telling lies to deceive people into rejecting the theory of evolution.
The Terms Of Service instruct members to “Submit replies that are relevant to the topic of discussion.”

Sorry, but my posts have as much bearing on the present topic, as much as your quotation of Webster's for definition of 'fact'.
And, might I recommend that you obtain yourself a moderator's hat first, before grandstanding.

truthpls · Oct 31, 2024

Larniavc said:
If there is no way to possibly disprove something it cannot be explored with the scientific method.

OK, so? It can't be explored with Hans Christian Anderson tales either.

Larniavc said:
I’d go a step further and say that if something is infallible it probably (but not definitely) does not exist.

Of course you have no way of knowing or proving it either way, so I guess you are entitled to an ignorance based guess.

truthpls · Oct 31, 2024

trophy33 said:
Because they repeat still the same, according to physical laws.

The way God sets things up to work we call laws. Of course they work.

trophy33 said:
Chemistry, physics etc. If you jump 100 times, you will go down 100 times.

Yet Enoch jumped up and never came down. Elijah also. Jesus as well. Then there was Philip who somehow jumped across a huge lake in no time somehow he was just there on the other side. So I guess laws are made to be broken.

trophy33 said:
If the "God parameter" is useless for a computer program predicting hurricanes, then we can agree that adding God to natural sciences adds nothing to their results.

No, we can agree the program is useless in seeing what is really going on. If god is not natural praytell, how do you propose 'adding Him' to natural observation and sciences?

trophy33 said:
And therefore, we also do not need to add God to the theory of evolution as such, as far as it is only a naturalistic description of biological phenomena.

Evolution subtracts God, how could one add Him back after that?

trophy33 said:
If you do not want to go the route of Spinoza, defining God as just some blind force without personality, then you have no point and its not God directly, what is pushing you down.

Spinoza sounds spinny. Obviously he did not know Jesus if he imagined God had no personality

trophy33 said:
I said we are talking about what is "normal", in natural sciences.

Great, and who gets to decide what is normal? For some people, anything that ignores, insults, eliminates and replaces God is 'normal'.

trophy33 said:
When you jump 100 times, you will go down 100 times. We do not need God to describe this phenomenon - for example mathematically.

The Hebrew slaves that were freed jumped across the Red sea. We do need to include God to describe this. So what we have is people choosing. Some choose to exclude and other to include God.
The OP suggests some people that include God are liars and purposely so. I don't recall the evidence for that yet?

essentialsaltes · Oct 31, 2024

Piers Plowman said:
Sorry, but my posts have as much bearing on the present topic, as much as your quotation of Webster's for definition of 'fact'.
And, might I recommend that you obtain yourself a moderator's hat first, before grandstanding.

The Terms Of Service instruct members to “Address only the content of the post and not the poster.”

trophy33 · Oct 31, 2024

truthpls said:
The way God sets things up to work we call laws. Of course they work.

Therefore?

truthpls said:
Yet Enoch jumped up and never came down. Elijah also. Jesus as well. Then there was Philip who somehow jumped across a huge lake in no time somehow he was just there on the other side. So I guess laws are made to be broken.

Neither of them jumped up. No need to lie.

truthpls said:
No, we can agree the program is useless in seeing what is really going on. If god is not natural praytell, how do you propose 'adding Him' to natural observation and sciences?

You are using internet, but I am pretty sure the internet protocols have no God parameter in their algorithms. But they work, obviously and reliably.

truthpls said:
Evolution subtracts God, how could one add Him back after that?

Nope. Evolution is a focused scientific theory. It does not subtract God anymore than the theory of gravity does. For Christians, God is the framework everything exists in, but it does not mean that specific mechanisms need God in their description.

truthpls said:
Great, and who gets to decide what is normal?

In the context of our conversation, which you seem to have a problem remembering properly, the "normal" means obeying the natural laws.

truthpls said:
The Hebrew slaves that were freed jumped across the Red sea. We do need to include God to describe this.

1. They did not jump. Why are you manipulating the text of Scriptures?
2. Its a biblical story and thats fine for its theological or cultural purpose. But it has nothing to do with this thread - natural sciences. Natural sciences say nothing about possible miracles, its not their focus.

Piers Plowman · Oct 31, 2024

essentialsaltes said:
The Terms Of Service instruct members to “Address only the content of the post and not the poster.”

Take away my posting privileges, then.

Piers Plowman · Oct 31, 2024

Astrid said:
Must we involve a moderator, to get you to either leave, or post on topic?

I thought you put me on 'Ignore'?

Astrid · Oct 31, 2024

B Griffin said:
It's not a dodge. Like I said, I was replying to what you said in the OP. And I really don't care to debate evolution. If you really want answers, there is plenty of information on the internet.

The topic is ethics of yec claims against evolution, so you were and are off topic.

truthpls · Oct 31, 2024

trophy33 said:
Therefore?

Therefore they work as they should

trophy33 said:
Neither of them jumped up. No need to lie.

Can you prove no person or child jumped when crossing the Red sea?

trophy33 said:
You are using internet, but I am pretty sure the internet protocols have no God parameter in their algorithms. But they work, obviously and reliably.

On the net one can hear His words. For example any version of the bible

trophy33 said:
Nope. Evolution is a focused scientific theory. It does not subtract God anymore than the theory of gravity does.

One simply can search high and low in that philosophy/theory for any trace of God. They will find none. It seems funny that proponents of such a theory accuse 'creationists' of lying.

trophy33 said:
For Christians, God is the framework everything exists in, but it does not mean that specific mechanisms need God in their description.

That depends on whether one is satisfied with and seeking for a partial and alternative description.

trophy33 said:
In the context of our conversation, which you seem to have a problem remembering properly, the "normal" means obeying the natural laws.

To you that may be what normal means. I would consider it normal as well for things to obey the laws set in place for this place and time. It would also be normal to totally bypass as required them as history shows.

trophy33 said:
1. They did not jump. Why are you manipulating the text of Scriptures?

Maybe some did a little jumping. We don't know for sure either way. I assume a bunch of kids on a grand adventure might do a little jumping. If there were little rocks on the sea floor they may have jumped over them. Etc. The point of course was that normal laws were tossed out the window. That might be cause for a little celebration in itself.

trophy33 said:
2. Its a biblical story and thats fine for its theological or cultural purpose.

It is a record of what happened.

trophy33 said:
But it has nothing to do with this thread - natural sciences.

I think you mean false allegations? Was this not about calling some 'creationists' liars?

trophy33 said:
Natural sciences say nothing about possible miracles, its not their focus.

So? Labels on sweaters say nothing about miracles either. Are we to believe that unless it is written in a book talking about other things, that there are no miracles??

Astrid · Oct 31, 2024

truthpls said:
OK, so? It can't be explored with Hans Christian Anderson tales either.

Of course you have no way of knowing or proving it either way, so I guess you are entitled to an ignorance based guess.

A quarter step further to say you indicate. you’ve no idea about what scientific theory is, or
what disproof / falsification in science means.

Or else you are being deliberately deceptive.

Either way it illustrates the ethical issue
facing the deniers.

Astrid · Oct 31, 2024

Piers Plowman said:
I thought you put me on 'Ignore'?

Will you behave or must you be forced to?

Piers Plowman · Oct 31, 2024

Astrid said:
Will you behave or must you be forced to?

essentialsaltes said:
The Terms Of Service instruct members to “Address only the content of the post and not the poster.”

Ethics of anti evolution arguments

Well-Known Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

δόξα τῷ Θεῷ πάντων ἕνεκεν

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

δόξα τῷ Θεῷ πάντων ἕνεκεν

Fact-Based Lifeform

δόξα τῷ Θεῷ πάντων ἕνεκεν

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Fact-Based Lifeform

Well-Known Member

δόξα τῷ Θεῷ πάντων ἕνεκεν

δόξα τῷ Θεῷ πάντων ἕνεκεν

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

δόξα τῷ Θεῷ πάντων ἕνεκεν

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency