What If...?

[theStudent]

Currently, I am doing what was suggested by some on these forums.
I am researching information both for, and against evolution, and trust me - I am doing so objectively.
While I am still researching, I want to put this out, to hear the different views on it.

During my research I discovered that lately, just over the last decade or so, a lot of informations has been surfacing about fake fossils.
In fact it has now become common place for fossils sold at museums to be checked for genuineness.
I find this interesting.

Why now, is this happening?
Could it be that evidence as it always does, is now surfacing?

For example
Remember the dinosaur hoax - the one that was said to be put together using different bones?
It has recently been found out that it wasn't a hoax after all.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/02/ ... ecies.html

That is quite interesting.

The fossils aren't the only things that were/are claimed to be fake.
There are the drawings, and pictures as well.
Right now, I am going through a very long document considered a case against some of Darwins picture illustrations.
But have you ever come across this one?

Pictures from the past powerfully shape current views of the world. In books, television programs, and websites, new images appear alongside others that have survived from decades ago. Among the most famous are drawings of embryos by the Darwinist Ernst Haeckel in which humans and other vertebrates begin identical, then diverge toward their adult forms. But these icons of evolution are notorious, too: soon after their publication in 1868, a colleague alleged fraud, and Haeckel’s many enemies have repeated the charge ever since. His embryos nevertheless became a textbook staple until, in 1997, a biologist accused him again, and creationist advocates of intelligent design forced his figures out. How could the most controversial pictures in the history of science have become some of the most widely seen?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Haeckel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Haec ... eks4-6.jpg
English: The pictures illustrate Ernst Haeckel's biogenetic law. In the beginning embryos of different species look remarkable similar, later different characteristics develop. The images initiated controversies and charges of fraud.

All of this lends to a possibility.
Consdering the fact that fossils can be faked, we must accept the fact that Darwin, and other scientists could have lied.

My question here, isn't whether he did lie or not, but rather, Does this not place evolutionists in the same position as the Christians they claim are believing in fables?

Consider:
Christians accept the Bible, as the word of God.
Here are just a few facts about the Bible.
With estimated total sales of over 5 billion copies, the Bible is widely considered to be the best-selling book of all time.
It has estimated annual sales of 100 million copies.
It has been a major influence on literature and history, especially in the West where the Gutenberg Bible was the first mass-printed book.
It was the first book ever printed using movable type.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

Archaeological findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls, also called the Qumran Caves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls

The evidence is there however, that the book we hold in our hand today (the Bible), contains information written centuries ago.

Atheist call the book fables - the reason I have yet to find out.
Maybe one of the reasons is that they have not seen God, or seen him write any book - whatever.
So they claim that Christians' belief in them and what they present is blind faith, and belief in stories.

However, is this not the case with those who accept the theory of evolution, where all they have to go by, is what scientists claim to be evidence?

By the way...
No one, to this day have seen them recreate the theories.
Any data they give you on species, is usually what already existed (at least what I have come across so far).
As regards other claims, all we have are pictures, and claimed fossils, which could have been edited.

So evolutionists are really believing what men claim - without any substantial proof of their claim.
How is this different to believing a book?

And what if Darwin, and others lied?


I'm just interested in you different opinions and thoughts, on the above.
Here is a nice short video of someone's opinion. Reasonable too.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 426 by Neatras]

Common descent explains various components of evolutionary traits we see in life, including ERV's.

When you say common descent, I take it you are referring to the theory of evolution common descent.
Facts:
Reproduction allows genes to be passed on from one generation to the other.
Any organism carrying a genetic defect is likely to pass it on to their offspring .
Viruses can be accumulated in various ways.
These facts do not prove evolutionary common descent.

because the tree of life was formulated to explain what we see in nature; and it explains this very well, with ERV's taken into the fold of the theory and explained in stark detail.

What we see in nature apparently relays a different message to different people.
Darwin sees descent from one common ancestor.
I see descent from each kind according to their kind, just as the facts are seen today.
Papa and mamma elephant, produces baby elephant.

That was the opening line to how they would "address" the ERVs. Not exactly intellectually stimulating, they've made up their minds already.

In this case, I don't mind tit for tat.
Since scientists had made up their mind from the beginning that there is no God, without examination, which is different to creationist who made up their minds after examining the facts.

I can see where you get this trait of unreasonable expectations. I've already addressed this in this post. It's disappointing that AiG is so incompetent.

Sorry?
I did not use this for my information.
I came across it just before my last post, and I barely browsed it.
My information came from here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endogenous_retrovirus
The article says:

Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are endogenous viral elements in the genome that closely resemble and can be derived from retroviruses.

The article did not say:
Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are endogenous viral elements in the genome that is derived from retroviruses.
So I would need to have facts to show that the ERVs are retroviruses.

We have evidence that K-class ERVs have mutated in the genome and been modified to actually have beneficial traits to us.

Do you have that evidence to hand, or do you recommend I look for it?

theStudent, both AiG and you seem unable to grasp that the purpose of a theory is to explain the facts. Just because evolution does it best doesn't mean you have to throw a fit.

"evolution does it[s] best"???
That's a strange phrase. I thought it was science doing the work. I don't see how evolution is doing anything.

A. Even if creationism weren't already bad science, it'd be "an alternative explanation", and doesn't mean that evolution automatically fails, because AiG doesn't actually do anything to debunk the explanatory power of the evolutionary theory regarding ERVs.

You have not demonstrated that creation is a bad science.
In fact, no one has. That's why they are still out looking for E.T., because they know that without E.T., evolution is in a much ore terrible shape than it already in.
Without the foundation

the explanatory power of the evolutionary theory regarding ERVs

is already debunked.

B. Once again, assuming God, therefore God. And a God of the Gaps argument to boot.

We have a right to "assume", just as they are assuming.
Only, our assumptions, exist only because of those who have closed the door to the truth, hence closed the door to logic, and opened the door to illogic in the form of truth based on scientific theory.

Oh wow. WOW. And you have the nerve to bring this up? Once again, and I'll repeat this a million times if I have to, evolution does not explain the origins of life. And trying to expect it to is dishonest. You can't keep getting away with ridiculous nonsense like this.

I did not bring it up.
I presented the article, since you were so eager to have someone to debate ERVs with.
I already presented my information in which I highlighted that fact constantly, that the theory of evolution has no root - no foundation - hence collapses.

And theStudent, I don't get why you harp on and on about the exact statement I made regarding humans and chimps. I made a comparison of the two because they were a convenient example. I've already pointed out that if there are "closer" relative species to humans, they'd have more similar ERV matches in their genome, which goes to the second point I made about how you could go about dismissing the evidence.
2. Demonstrate that distantly related species have ERV matches that closely related species do not share.
But you won't actually take up this challenge, and the links you provided are actually completely useless, and even argue in support of evolution.

Anything else? I already know that you're going to selectively pick out choice cuts from my post, and try to attack those points. But with each post, there are mounting challenges that are becoming increasingly obvious in how you avoid them. Why not address each and every thing I posit? Scared?

If this is a challenge you are proposing in response to my challenge, then you know, in a fair game, who needs to go first in this case.
You also know that when an opponent loses, the game ends.
So it's your turn.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 415 by Clownboat]

This I find to be both interesting and amusing.

You understand my words so clearly in the previous post, so that when I tell you to explain what I meant, because I believe you don't understand.
You refuse and say the words are clear for all to see what I meant.

Now you don't understand the words in the second post? LOL

Clownboat, the words in the second post are elementary, compared to the words "you so clearly understand".
So you have three choices - since you don't care to explain the first.
1. Explain what you understand by the first.
2. Understand the second in the same way you understood the first which is however you want.
3. Just forget it. Because if you are not interested in explaining the first, I'm not interested in explaining the second.

Readers, theStudent said:
"It (The Bible) has never been proven wrong, despite it has countless enemies."

What is there for me to explain?

The ownness is on him and not me to clarify what he actually meant if he did not mean what he said. When I read it, it seems pretty clear.

He talks about explaining the first and explaining the second. What is this first and second and what needs to be explained? The words are there clear as day, why should I need to explain what he said?
This is just an odd way to debate IMO.

[Clownboat]

In this case, I don't mind tit for tat.
Since scientists had made up their mind from the beginning that there is no God, without examination, which is different to creationist who made up their minds after examining the facts.

Demonstrably wrong:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Collins

Francis Sellers Collins (born April 14, 1950) is an American physician-geneticist noted for his discoveries of disease genes and his leadership of the Human Genome Project. He is director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in Bethesda, Maryland, USA.

Before being appointed director of the NIH, Collins led the Human Genome Project and other genomics research initiatives as director of the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), one of the 27 institutes and centers at NIH. Before joining NHGRI, he earned a reputation as a gene hunter at the University of Michigan. He has been elected to the Institute of Medicine and the National Academy of Sciences, and has received the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the National Medal of Science.

Collins also has written a number of books on science, medicine, and religion, including the New York Times bestseller, The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief.

After leaving the helm of NHGRI and before becoming director of the NIH, he founded and served as president of The BioLogos Foundation, which promotes discourse on the relationship between science and religion and advocates the perspective that belief in Christianity can be reconciled with acceptance of evolution and science, especially through the advancement of evolutionary creation.[3] In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI appointed Collins to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences.

Here we have a Christian man that was the lead for the Human Genome Project that would encourage you theStudent to see just how credible evolution is. It's not like you can't look at evolution and believe that a god was behind it. That was the approach I took for years after learning that evolution is a fact.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact.
http://www.nas.edu/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 428 by theStudent]

Facts:
Reproduction allows genes to be passed on from one generation to the other.
Any organism carrying a genetic defect is likely to pass it on to their offspring .
Viruses can be accumulated in various ways.
These facts do not prove evolutionary common descent.

The theory of evolution provides the best explanation for the diversity of life. It describes the process of evolution, which describes the mechanisms by which life changes over time (time being directly associated with multiple generations and iterations of life).

Facts:
Reproduction is effectively a method by which life can persist.
As living organisms interact with their environment, the relevance of their genetic traits becomes higher, and their physical traits can be a determinant in whether or not they survive to reproduce and pass on their genes. Selective pressures, such as competition, or environmental externalities provide a sieve through which certain traits can appear or disappear over generations.

Agreeing with any of the above is a guaranteed means of acknowledging the fact that evolution takes place.

What we see in nature apparently relays a different message to different people.
Darwin sees descent from one common ancestor.
I see descent from each kind according to their kind, just as the facts are seen today.
Papa and mamma elephant, produces baby elephant.

Kinds are an adorable euphemism for "groups of animals I've arbitrarily defined". The reality of the situation is that evolution doesn't ever state that one day, that baby elephant grows up and gives birth to a non-elephant. In all situations, it's expected that the offspring of a species will resemble the parent. If you somehow expect that these resemblances are meant to contain a species' genotypic expression to a small range, you'd need to demonstrate a mechanism by which a species can remain the same for millions of years, over thousands upon thousands of generations. It must've taken a great deal of coordination to keep within those tight, poorly-defined borders of yours.

In this case, I don't mind tit for tat.
Since scientists had made up their mind from the beginning that there is no God, without examination, which is different to creationist who made up their minds after examining the facts.

Are you really going to spit in my face like that? Tell me, how did creationists "make up their mind after examining the facts" when they approached the topic of ERV's with the stated intent of dismissing evolution in favor of the bible? You're being dishonest with me.

The article did not say:
Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are endogenous viral elements in the genome that is derived from retroviruses.
So I would need to have facts to show that the ERVs are retroviruses.

Alright, let's get cracking.

https://connorggbamford.wordpress.com/c ... evolution/

Just to put it into perspective, 8% of our genome is made up of these ERVs and they also make up a large chunk of other vertebrate genomes. The majority of these inserted retroviral genomes have been destroyed by the forces of evolution and thus bear little resemblance to their ‘wild’ cousins; they are not expressed and their sequence shows little homology to other retroviruses. However, some ERVs have changed very little, suggesting an important function may be conserving them – these are expressed and do sort of resemble the exogenous ones.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK6235/

Endogenous retroviruses (ERVs) are remnants of retroviral infections.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1187282/

Human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs) are a family of viruses within our genome with similarities to present day exogenous retroviruses. HERVs have been inherited by successive generations and it is possible that some have conferred biological benefits.

As a note, the above article not only makes the very bold claim that ERV's are caused by retroviruses, but that we can make comparisons between ERV's and modern retroviral genomes. A shipwreck is evidence of a ship, theStudent.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25210194

Endogenous retroviruses are the remnants of past retroviral infections that are scattered within mammalian genomes. In humans, most of these elements are old degenerate sequences that have lost their coding properties. The HERV-K(HML2) family is an exception: it recently amplified in the human genome and corresponds to the most active proviruses, with some intact open reading frames and the potential to encode viral particles. Here, using a reconstructed consensus element, we show that HERV-K(HML2) proviruses are able to inhibit Tetherin, a cellular restriction factor that is active against most enveloped viruses and acts by keeping the viral particles attached to the cell surface. More precisely, we identify the Envelope protein (Env) as the viral effector active against Tetherin.

"evolution does it[s] best"???
That's a strange phrase. I thought it was science doing the work. I don't see how evolution is doing anything.

"Just because evolution does [explain the facts regarding natural selection and inherited genes] best"

You have not demonstrated that creation is a bad science.

I'll do it right now:
Creationism makes no predictions about the natural world, and so fails to render even a single scientific discovery. It relies on the absence of knowledge and the conformity of a mystified foundation of witless believers whose sole guiding principle is to ignore evidence conflicting with their beliefs.

To even call it science is a farce. Tell me what a scientific theory is and what it entails, and how Creationism fits the bill.

We have a right to "assume", just as they are assuming.
Only, our assumptions, exist only because of those who have closed the door to the truth, hence closed the door to logic, and opened the door to illogic in the form of truth based on scientific theory.

That's the response of someone scalded by the repeated failures of trying to assert without evidence that your holy book is better than a science textbook at disseminating knowledge. The less people fall for it, the more willfully you decide that evidence is less convenient to look for, and therefore assumptions become the mainstream method of your posts.

I did not bring it up.
I presented the article, since you were so eager to have someone to debate ERVs with.
I already presented my information in which I highlighted that fact constantly, that the theory of evolution has no root - no foundation - hence collapses.

If there's any solace in my discussion with you, it's that you've demonstrated a contrast to my approach that I hope has been intensely visible to any who peruse this thread. Evidence I've provided, that remains on topic and refuses to bow to both your red herrings and your attempts to malign the discussion by pulling it into that expert trap of yours.

I believe you entrap those you debate with by arguing with them until you can't find any glaring holes in the evidence they provide, and so resort to posting walls of text of irrelevant statements about "the origins of everything" in order to make evidence seem absurd by comparison. But every time you do that, the facts remain, the ones brought forward by your detractors. And as they've piled up over the months you've been here, it becomes logical to assume that you have no method of discussing them outside of hiding behind your walls.

[Divine Insight]

What we see in nature apparently relays a different message to different people.
Darwin sees descent from one common ancestor.
I see descent from each kind according to their kind, just as the facts are seen today.
Papa and mamma elephant, produces baby elephant.

This is a straw man argument if I ever saw one.

Darin was a dedicated scientist who traveled around the world observing nature and studying biology in great depth. Therefore Darwin obviously saw far more than you see or are even willing to see.

The fact that all life on earth has a common ancestor has been demonstrated to be true by modern scientific investigations into the DNA content of all living creatures on earth. Your rejection all of this overwhelming scientific evidence by simply saying that all you see is that a papa and mamma elephant always produce a baby elephant only demonstrates your extreme ignorance of how genetic evolution works.

Apparently you are thinking of evolution as some form of magic that can magically produce a whole new species in one fell swoop. Clearly that's not how evolution works. So when speaking of biological evolution your claim that all you see are mama and papa elephants giving birth to baby elephants is nothing more than a proclamation of your total ignorance of biological evolution. Nowhere does the theory of evolution make any predictions that adult elephants should ever give birth to anything other than baby elephants, albeit that some may be obviously genetically deformed.

What you appear to be ignoring entirely here is that every baby elephant is indeed unique. No two are identical, and no baby elephant is precisely identical to either of their parents. Therefore what we actually see is that no mama and papa elephants ever actually reproduce themselves exactly.

So even without realizing it, when you see an elephant having a baby elephant you are actually witnessing evolution taking place right before your very eyes. You just can't see the subtle changes that have occurred. However, DNA analysis does reveal that these changes have indeed taken place even though, you as a layman, can't see them.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 412 by rikuoamero]

The Bible is not a science book rikuoamero.
I was merely showing you, that where the Bible comments on science, it is always accurate, and ahead of scientific findings. That's all.

Since it's not a science book, id doesn't go into detail about science.

Of course it is not a science book! The Old Testament was oral tradition passed down by nomadic ancient ignorant man without written language long before it was ever put to pen.

Why not have the message delivered to the Chinese as to avoid many of the years of necessary oral telling? 'Telephone game' anyone?

How can it be considered anything but mythology once this is known?

No, seriously, these ancient nomadic men really had the right god and accurately told oral history for thousands of years before having it recorded.

Still, despite all the talk, and ridicule against the Bible, it is the world's number one best seller, covers the most languages in the world, and has done something else that no other book or organization has been able to do.
It has built a nation that breaks down national boundaries, racial disunity, and religious disunity.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 432 by Divine Insight]

I believe you know quite well what I am referring to, and what I am not referring to.
And no one has to travel the world to know what's going on.
With all the modern technology, one can sit in their living room and travel the world.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 412 by rikuoamero]

The Bible is not a science book rikuoamero.
I was merely showing you, that where the Bible comments on science, it is always accurate, and ahead of scientific findings. That's all.

Since it's not a science book, id doesn't go into detail about science.

Of course it is not a science book! The Old Testament was oral tradition passed down by nomadic ancient ignorant man without written language long before it was ever put to pen.

Why not have the message delivered to the Chinese as to avoid many of the years of necessary oral telling? 'Telephone game' anyone?

How can it be considered anything but mythology once this is known?

No, seriously, these ancient nomadic men really had the right god and accurately told oral history for thousands of years before having it recorded.

Still, despite all the talk, and ridicule against the Bible, it is the world's number one best seller, covers the most languages in the world, and has done something else that no other book or organization has been able to do.
It has built a nation that breaks down national boundaries, racial disunity, and religious disunity.

The fact that there are sharply contrasting schools of theology based on the bible and sectarian violence shows that this is not true.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 412 by rikuoamero]

The Bible is not a science book rikuoamero.
I was merely showing you, that where the Bible comments on science, it is always accurate, and ahead of scientific findings. That's all.

Since it's not a science book, id doesn't go into detail about science.

Of course it is not a science book! The Old Testament was oral tradition passed down by nomadic ancient ignorant man without written language long before it was ever put to pen.

Why not have the message delivered to the Chinese as to avoid many of the years of necessary oral telling? 'Telephone game' anyone?

How can it be considered anything but mythology once this is known?

No, seriously, these ancient nomadic men really had the right god and accurately told oral history for thousands of years before having it recorded.

Still, despite all the talk, and ridicule against the Bible, it is the world's number one best seller, covers the most languages in the world, and has done something else that no other book or organization has been able to do.
It has built a nation that breaks down national boundaries, racial disunity, and religious disunity.

So you agree that it is mythology, but since it has sold so many copies, you decided you should be a follower?
Do you always root for the football team with the best record?
If the Quran eventually sells more copies, will you convert?

That is an odd way to determine which god concept to worship.
Also, books do not build things, much less nations.

[TiG]

All of this lends to a possibility.
Consdering the fact that fossils can be faked, we must accept the fact that Darwin, and other scientists could have lied.

Do you recognize that science itself is what ultimately discredits bogus evidence and flawed theories?

Of course there will be those who are dishonest and those who make mistakes. Weeding out falsehoods is part of the scientific process. But one must also consider the balance of high quality evidence that is on the table.

It is not objective to question (or dismiss) an entire body of science as deep and evidenced as biochemical evolution simply because not every human being involved has been honest and competent.