Evolutionism leads to moral decay

The Christian Church has had 2000 years to evangelize the world. Don't blame our failure on the last 200 years.

 

Sounds like Romans 1:30,contrivers of evil things.I would'nt be suprized if they were not trying to do these things in Noahs days.

 

There is a problem here. Mainly that you did nothing to prove your assertion that an acceptance of evolution leads directly to an acceptance of the kind of work being cited.

Even from the title you should see that this is controversial even in the fields you are attempting to demean. In my reading of the article, more time is spent on raising the possbile ethical problems than on allowing proponents time to share their views or talking about the possible benefits.

I think anyone who reads the article will see that this is not such a cut and dry situation. We have been creating chimeras that are partially human for quite a while. Do you find it unethical to use a pig heart valve to help someone? Do you find it unethical to implant human genes into other animals to have them make human proteins for medicinal purposes? Should diabetics quit taking insulin that is derived in this manner?

There is a place for debate on where the line is crossed by this topic. And it seems that the people you are trying to attack are having that debate without you. And from the article you cite, there does not seem to be any clear indication that your premise is true. Many of the people quoted seem to be pushing for rules that I think we would all find acceptable.

So with your premise not being true, your conclusion is not true. Sorry.

 

In contrast, we can show how young earthers are not shy about using questionable means to promote their agenda. Direct evidence that YEism can lead to moral decay.

I'll give an example that should be close your heart. Quote mining.

http://www.evolutionisdead.com/quotes.php?QID=297&cr=58

"Species that were once thought to have turned into others have been found to overlap in time with these alleged descendants. In fact, the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another." (Stanley, S.M., The New Evolutionary Timetable: Fossils, Genes, and the Origin of Species, 1981, p. 95)

Oh no. It sounds like there might not be the plethora of transitionals as we were led to believe. Maybe solace will be found in the full quote.

Oh, so the author was talking about a specific geographic location, and not the fossil record in general. Not an honest quote, do you think? Why would someone feel the need to deceive in order to support something they thought was really true? Could they not find honest examples to present? Is God in need of dishonest help?

 

Since you are often rely on quote mining for your material, let's continue down this path.

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/phylo/phylo.htm

"Undeniably, the fossil record has provided disappointingly few gradual series. The origins of many groups are still not documented at all." (Futuyma, D., Science on Trial: The Case for Evolution, 1983, p. 190-191)

And now the full quote.

 

How about another quote mine?

http://www.genesispark.org/genpark/link/link.htm

"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." (Ridley, Mark, "Who doubts evolution?" "New Scientist", vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831)

Oh no! Maybe the fossil record doesn't support evolution. What does he say in context?

Oh, so Mark, the zoologists, is only saying that in his opinion that there are at least three better reasons to accept evolution than even the fossil record. Maybe there is not a problem after all except for the out of context quoting. We should not be surprised that a zoologists would find the evidence he has personally studied most closely to be the most convincing.

 

You are not showing cause and effect.

There is nothing in what you have posted that suggests that to accept evolution is to accept any form of experimentation that can be dreamed up on human embryos.

You are not showing that people in favor of gay rights do so because they may or may not accept the facts of evolution. (Does the phrasing of your statement indicate that you think gays are a class that it should be legal to discriminate against? It sounds like it! So you think that if someone is fired because they are gay that they should not have a legal recourse to address this!?)

The article you cite shows that the group you are trying to condemn is already addresing your concerns and that not all are in favor of marching down the aisle of every sort of experimentation being permissible.

So do you find it unethical to use a pig heart valve to help someone?

Do you find it unethical to implant human genes into other animals to have them make human proteins for medicinal purposes? Should diabetics quit taking insulin that is derived in this manner?

Ultimately, are you personally against all forms of chimeras or do you, too, find that some forms are acceptable? If you oppose all forms, what do you think we should do about things like humulin? If you do not oppose all forms, then what is the point of the article you linked since your opinion is no different than many in the group you are trying to criticize?

 

If one is deceived they don't have to feel the need to deceive in order to support something they thought was true,thats true."Is God in need of dishonest help?I don't think he needs our help at all.We all sure need His.

 

Thanks, Bob, for pointing out that belief in YE can lead to being so blind that even if the face of a quote where the author is talking about how many transitions there really are, where the author is listing specific transitions, and where the author points out that young earthers can only make a case by "denying the richness of paleontological collections, by denying the transitional series that exist, and by distorting, or misunderstanding, the genetical theory of evolution," that you can hop right back into a mode of pulling snippets out of their context to attempt to make th opposite case. You give a textbook case of the moral decline inherent in trying to prop up YE believes in the face of all the contrary evidence. This is especially distressing considering that it is a quote about "gradual" series that you pull out after the pages we have gone on explaining to you that we don't find nor expect to find gradual series to begin with. We find and expect to find bushy jerky series. Though, of course, there are some exceptions where we do find gradual series but they are in the minority.

Now, back to the subject that you started.

THus far you have only asserted that there is a link. There is as yet no demonstration that acceptance of evolution necessarily leads to an acceptance of any form of experimentation that can be dreamed up. You ignore that members of the very group you attack are condemning the same acts as you in the very article you cite.

Furthermore, in your normal debating style, which is to pretend thaat the other guys posts do not exist, you have ignored questions to clarify your position on the matter. We need to know where you stand in relation to various forms of chimeras to see if you are drawing any distinction between yourself and the groups you seek to attack.

So do you find it unethical to use a pig heart valve to help someone?

Do you find it unethical to implant human genes into other animals to have them make human proteins for medicinal purposes? Should diabetics quit taking insulin that is derived in this manner?

Ultimately, are you personally against all forms of chimeras or do you, too, find that some forms are acceptable? If you oppose all forms, what do you think we should do about things like humulin? If you do not oppose all forms, then what is the point of the article you linked since your opinion is no different than many in the group you are trying to criticize?

 

"What a wonderful array of bogus claims "as if" there were anything like actual transitions showing a smooth stepwise "perfect link sequence" between one species and another."

And if there is, do you withdraw your claims? It is one of the ones he mentioned to which you directly responded that you did not think they actually exist.

The differences between mammals and reptiles are considerable. A chief difference is that reptiles have at least four jaw bones and one middle ear bone while mammals have one jaw bone and three middle ear bones. To make matters worse, two bones in the fetal reptile that turn into jaw bones turn into ear bones in developing mammals. Other key differences. Reptile have undifferentiated teeth while mammals have incisors, canines, premolars, and molars. Reptile teeth are continuously replaced, mammals teeth are replaced at most once. Reptile teeth only have a single root while mammal molars have two roots. Reptiles lack a diaphragm. Reptiles have their legs sprawled out to the sides while mammals have their legs underneath. The pelvis of a mammal is fused. They have different numbers of bones in their toes. Reptiles are cold blooded while mammals are warm blooded.

A list of transitional animals with limited comments (still long and still a cut and hatchet job but editted to reduce length):

Paleothyris - A reptile
Protoclepsydrops haplous
Clepsydrops
Archaeothyris - Showed a slight change in teeth
Varanops - Lower jaw shows first changes in jaw musculature...lower-limb musculature starts to change Too late to be a true ancestor, and must be a "cousin".
Haptodus - Teeth become size-differentiated, with biggest teeth in canine region and fewer teeth overall...Vertebrae parts & joints more mammalian.
Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon or a similar sphenacodont - More advanced pelycosaurs, clearly closely related to the first therapsids (next). Dimetrodon is almost definitely a "cousin" and not a direct ancestor... Teeth further differentiated, with small incisors, two huge deep- rooted upper canines on each side, followed by smaller cheek teeth, all replaced continuously. Fully reptilian jaw hinge. Lower jaw bone made of multiple bones & with first signs of a bony prong later involved in the eardrum..
Biarmosuchia - Upper jaw bone (maxillary) expanded to separate lacrymal from nasal bones, intermediate between early reptiles and later mammals. Canine teeth larger, dominating the dentition. Variable tooth replacement: some therocephalians (e.g Scylacosaurus) had just one canine, like mammals, and stopped replacing the canine after reaching adult size. Jaw hinge more mammalian in position and shape, jaw musculature stronger (especially the mammalian jaw muscle)...more mammalian femur & pelvis. The toes were approaching equal length, as in mammals, with #toe bones varying from reptilian to mammalian.
Procynosuchus - The first known cynodont -- a famous group of very mammal-like therapsid reptiles, sometimes considered to be the first mammals. Lower incisor teeth was reduced to four (per side), instead of the previous six (early mammals had three). Jaw hinge still reptilian. Scapula beginning to change shape. A diaphragm may have been present.
Dvinia - First signs of teeth that are more than simple stabbing points -- cheek teeth develop a tiny cusp. The dentary bone was now the major bone of the lower jaw. The other jaw bones that had been present in early reptiles were reduced to a complex of smaller bones near the jaw hinge.
Thrinaxodon - Functional division of teeth: incisors (four uppers and three lowers), canines, and then 7-9 cheek teeth with cusps for chewing. The cheek teeth were all alike, though (no premolars & molars), did not occlude together, were all single- rooted, and were replaced throughout life in alternate waves. First sign of the mammalian jaw hinge. Scapula shows development of a new mammalian shoulder muscle. All four legs fully upright, not sprawling. Number of toe bones is intermediate between reptile number and mammalian . The specialization of the lumbar area (e.g. reduction of ribs) is indicative of the presence of a diaphragm, needed for higher O2 intake and homeothermy. The eardrum had developed in the only place available for it -- the lower jaw, right near the jaw hinge, supported by a wide prong (reflected lamina) of the angular bone. Cynodonts developed quite loose quadrates and articulars that could vibrate freely for sound transmittal while still functioning as a jaw joint, strengthened by the mammalian jaw joint right next to it.
Cynognathus - Teeth differentiating further; rate of replacement reduced, with mammalian-style tooth roots (though single roots). TWO JAW JOINTS in place, mammalian and reptilian. Limbs were held under body. There is possible evidence for fur in fossil pawprints.
Diademodon - Mammalian toe bone numbers, with closely related species still showing variable numbers.
Probelesodon - Teeth double-rooted, as in mammals. Second jaw joint stronger. Hip & femur more mammalian.
Probainognathus - Additional cusps on cheek teeth. Still two jaw joints. Mammalian number of toe bones.
Exaeretodon - Mammalian jaw prong forms, related to eardrum support. Three incisors only (mammalian). More mammalian hip related to having limbs under the body. This is probably a "cousin" fossil not directly ancestral, as it has several new but non-mammalian teeth traits.
Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium - Alternate tooth replacement with double-rooted cheek teeth, but without mammalian-style tooth occlusion. Skeleton strikingly like egg- laying mammals (monotremes). Double jaw joint. Scapula is now substantially mammalian, and the forelimb is carried directly under the body. Various changes in the pelvis bones...this animal's limb musculature and locomotion were virtually fully mammalian. There is disagreement about whether the tritylodontids were ancestral to mammals or whether they are a specialized offshoot group not directly ancestral to mammals.
Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus - Alternate replacement of mostly single- rooted teeth. This group also began to develop double tooth roots -- in Pachygenelus the single root of the cheek teeth begins to split in two at the base. Pachygenelus also has mammalian tooth enamel. Double jaw joint, with the second joint ...fully mammalian. Reptilian jaw joint still present but functioning almost entirely in hearing. Highly mobile, mammalian-style shoulder. These are probably "cousin" fossils, not directly ancestral.
Adelobasileus cromptoni - Currently the oldest known "mammal."
Sinoconodon - The next known very ancient proto-mammal. Mammalian jaw joint stronger. This final refinement of the joint automatically makes this animal a true "mammal". Reptilian jaw joint still present, though tiny.
Kuehneotherium - A slightly later proto-mammal, sometimes considered the first known pantothere (primitive placental-type mammal). Teeth and skull like a placental mammal. The three major cusps on the upper & lower molars were rotated to form interlocking shearing triangles as in the more advanced placental mammals & marsupials. Still has a double jaw joint, though.
Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon - Truly mammalian teeth: the cheek teeth were finally differentiated into simple premolars and more complex molars, and teeth were replaced only once. Tiny remnant of the reptilian jaw joint. Thought to be ancestral to all three groups of modern mammals -- monotremes, marsupials, and placentals.
Peramus - A "eupantothere" (more advanced placental-type mammal). The closest known relative of the placentals & marsupials.
Endotherium
Kielantherium and Aegialodon
Steropodon galmani - The first known definite monotreme.
Vincelestes neuquenianus - A probably-placental mammal with some marsupial traits.
Pariadens kirklandi - The first definite marsupial.
Kennalestes and Asioryctes - Canine now double rooted.
Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops - Primitive North American placentals with same basic tooth pattern.

So we have a finely divided set of fossils going from purely reptile to purely mammal with intermediate features seen gradually changing throughout the sequence. Nothing but a string of microevolutionary steps.