What If...?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
theStudent
Guru
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:32 pm

What If...?

Post #1

Post by 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.
John 8:32
. . .the truth will set you free.

User avatar
theStudent
Guru
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:32 pm

Post #471

Post by theStudent »

[Replying to post 462 by Clownboat]
Clownboat wrote:If you have actual questions though that are not straw men, please ask them.
If you have actual evidence for creationism or your god concept, please present it.
As best that I can tell, we only want you to shut up with your straw men arguments about evolution.

This is not a matter of us calling it a tomat'o' and you calling it a tom'a'to.
More accurately, we are saying 'tomato' and you're yelling 'bowling shoes'.
I'm sorry C, but if the things someone says contrary to another is considered straw man, just because it contradicts that person's strongly held position, or view, I think it's about time that person do what I do.
Just turn the table around, or exchange places.

In other words, the next time they look down the barrels of the shotgun they are pointing at others, just give the person the shotgun, and feel the experience.

So right now, i guess, I'm holding the shotgun.
And here comes another blast.
John 8:32
. . .the truth will set you free.

User avatar
theStudent
Guru
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:32 pm

Post #472

Post by theStudent »

Let me exercise my face muscles a bit.

Plantinga, Alvin (11 April 2010). "Evolution, Shibboleths, and Philosophers — Letters to the Editor". The Chronicle of Higher Education. ...I do indeed think that evolution functions as a contemporary shibboleth by which to distinguish the ignorant fundamentalist goats from the informed and scientifically literate sheep.

According to Richard Dawkins, 'It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid, or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).'
Daniel Dennett goes Dawkins one (or two) further: 'Anyone today who doubts that the variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution is simply ignorant—inexcusably ignorant.' You wake up in the middle of the night; you think, can that whole Darwinian story really be true? Wham! You are inexcusably ignorant.

I do think that evolution has become a modern idol of the tribe. But of course it doesn't even begin to follow that I think the scientific theory of evolution is false. And I don't.


Image


Does the theory of evolution represent true science at its best?
Note this answer from Christoph Schönborn, Catholic archbishop of Vienna, quoted in The New York Times:
Any system of thought that denies or seeks to explain away the overwhelming evidence for design in biology is ideology, not science.
Is he wrong?
Once again, here it is, in plain view:
Naturalism
In philosophy, naturalism is the "idea or belief that only natural (as opposed to supernatural or spiritual) laws and forces operate in the world."
Adherents of naturalism (i.e., naturalists) assert that natural laws are the rules that govern the structure and behavior of the natural universe, that the changing universe at every stage is a product of these laws.
Philosophy and science

Naturalism (philosophy) is any of several philosophical stances wherein all phenomena or hypotheses commonly labeled as supernatural are either false or not inherently different from natural phenomena or hypotheses.
Spiritual naturalism, an approach to spirituality that is devoid of supernaturalism.
Religious naturalism, religious institutions, rituals, doctrines and communities which do not include supernatural beliefs.
The theory of evolution was started by the ideology (I call it scientific religion) called Naturalism, of which Charles Darwin, and his associates were the leaders.
Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by the English naturalist Charles Darwin (1809-1882) and others...

Iris Fry, The Emergence of Life on Earth, 2000, p. 184
...origin of life research consists in looking for a naturalistic alternative to the idea of the creation of life by a designer.
Practical atheism
In practical or pragmatic atheism, also known as apatheism, individuals live as if there are no gods and explain natural phenomena without reference to any deities. The existence of gods is not rejected, but may be designated unnecessary or useless; gods neither provide purpose to life, nor influence everyday life, according to this view. A form of practical atheism with implications for the scientific community is methodological naturalism — the "tacit adoption or assumption of philosophical naturalism within scientific method with or without fully accepting or believing it.
Is it possible to push an agenda in science, and get away with it?
In other words, can scientists cheat, in order to establish an ideology?
[url=file:///C:/Users/John/Downloads/debating/evolutionTheories/Scientific%20method%20-%20RationalWiki.mht]Cheating the scientific method[/url]
Pseudoscientists have discovered an obvious way to 'cheat' the scientific method. It goes like this:
Pick a personal belief that you already 'know' is true, but for which you want 'proof'.
Perform some related observations or experiments, and note the results.
Generate a hypothesis that shoehorns said results into your personal belief.
Falsely claim that your personal belief predicts the particular results, and that the observations/experiment confirmed your suspicions.
This is a blatant perversion of the scientific method, but to someone not versed in science, fallacies, or psychology, it might seem similar enough to be accepted as legitimate.
This manner of cheating has been used by proponents of intelligent design. Note that this isn't limited to pseudoscientists such as those trying to grant legitimacy to intelligent design, but is a mistake frequently made even by "proper" scientists, if they focus too much on finding evidence that supports their hypothesis (their "belief"), instead of focusing on attempting to find evidence that would refute it, or on attempting to find evidence that would refute competing hypotheses.
Which specific aspect of Naturalism did Darwin subscribe to?
Not sure. However,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)
In the 20th century, Willard Van Orman Quine, George Santayana, and other philosophers argued that the success of naturalism in science meant that scientific methods should also be used in philosophy. Science and philosophy are said to form a continuum, according to this view.
Can this work?

[url=file:///C:/Users/John/Downloads/debating/other/What%20is%20the%20Relation%20between%20Science%20and%20Religion%20%20%20Reasonable%20Faith.mht]What is the Relation between Science and Religion[/url] - William Lane Craig
As Thaxton and Pearcey point out in their recent book The Soul of Science, for over 300 years between the rise of modern science in the 1500’s and the late 1800s the relationship between science and religion can best be described as an alliance. Up until the late 19th century, scientists were typically Christian believers who saw no conflict between their science and their faith—people like Kepler, Boyle, Maxwell, Faraday, Kelvin, and others. The idea of a warfare between science and religion is a relatively recent invention of the late 19th century, carefully nurtured by secular thinkers who had as their aim the undermining of the cultural dominance of Christianity in the West and its replacement by naturalism — the view that nothing outside nature is real and the only way to discover truth is through science. They were remarkably successful in pushing through their agenda. But philosophers of science during the second half of the 20th century have come to realize that the idea of a warfare between science and theology is a gross oversimplification.

Sometimes you hear slogans like “Science deals with facts and religion deals with faith.� But this is a gross caricature of both science and religion. As science probes the universe, she encounters problems and questions which are philosophical in character and therefore cannot be resolved scientifically, but which can be illuminated by a theological perspective. By the same token, it is simply false that religion makes no factual claims about the world.
I would say, it could work as it did in the past, but there is an obvious reason why it won't.

A new book of mythology...
Chapter 1 - The beginning of our universe
Once upon a time, billions of years ago - 13.8 billion years ago, to be exact...

Chapter 2 - The beginning of life on earth
Traveling through space on a massive chunk of debris from the exploded star, imbedded deep in its recesses, lay the exact formula that would give life to the mother of all life on the planet below - earth.
Image
John 8:32
. . .the truth will set you free.

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Post #473

Post by rikuoamero »

I hope someone has been keeping track of how many times Student has talked about evolution as if it explains the origin of life, and how many times he's been told that no, it doesn't, it has nothing to do with the origin of life.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2572 times

Post #474

Post by JoeyKnothead »

[Replying to rikuoamero]

I don't wish to single anybody out, but I've found that many "anti-evolutionists" exhibit the trait of constantly expecting scientists to "prove life came from non-life in order to prove evolution happens". Such a condition is clear evidence of their inability to learn the difference, however non/subtle it may be.

My experience indicates such theists are so bound to "god created", that they simply can't fathom the idea that once 'created', there are still evolutionary forces at play. There's even those who accept "micro" evolution may occur, but then balk at our ability to consider vast scales of time, and how such may introduce "macro" levels of evolution. Of course there's those who don't think vast scales of time have occurred :wave:

I don't think it's nefarity or a lack of intelligence, I just think it's an inability to grasp exactly what the ToE, and evolution, is about.

I kinda suffer the same thing - I'm told of a loving God - who'd condemn me to an eternity in a "lake of fire" simply 'cause I reject the unfounded claims of those incapable of showing they speak truth. I can't square a "loving" god with a hateful act. But danged if there ain't a bunch that can.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9387
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 911 times
Been thanked: 1262 times

Post #475

Post by Clownboat »

theStudent wrote:
Clownboat wrote:
theStudent wrote:I have to remind myself that the material man does not grasp the sayings of the spiritual man, quite readily.
Please evidence this mechanism that spiritual man has but a material man does not.

I was a born again, tongue talking, street evangelizing Christian for 2 decades. I neither had nor lost anything real.
(Yes, like most Christians, I did think I had some special spiritual knowledge, but I came to understand that I believed it to feel special, not because myself or any other Christian that made that claim actually had special knowledge).

IMO, such claims are made so believers can justify virtually any spiritual claim they make.

Non-believer: "That explanation doesn't make sense though".
Believer: "Well, if only you had special spiritual wisdom, then you would believe like me, but you don't have special spiritual wisdom, so I'm right and you're just a sinner".
Non-believer" Aren't Christians great? It's always someone else's fault for not thinking just like them.
If you were truly born again Clownboat, then you of all people should understand that expression.
Didn't Paul say something to that effect?
Paul wrote:  But a physical man does not accept the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot get to know them, because they are examined spiritually. However, the spiritual man examines all things, but he himself is not examined by any man. For “who has come to know the mind of Jehovah, so that he may instruct him?� But we do have the mind of Christ.
- 1 Corinthians 2:14-16

I don't have to explain it, do I.
No you don't have to explain it. You just further evidenced my point.
It's always someone else's fault when they don't have the religious thoughts that you have. This mechanism is built into Christianity.

The option that the Christian is wrong is not on the table, just excuses for why others don't think like you. It's pathetic IMO. The book and the claims can't stand up on their own, so we will just put the blame on others and claim that they can't understand the 'true meaning'.

Thanks once again for helping me make my argument.

Were you going to evidence this mechanism or not?
"Please evidence this mechanism that spiritual man has but a material man does not."
If you cannot, perhaps this claimed mechanism doesn't really exist. Nah, can't be that, you have beliefs to protect.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9387
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 911 times
Been thanked: 1262 times

Post #476

Post by Clownboat »

theStudent wrote: [Replying to post 459 by Clownboat]

Notice.
I never agreed to your statement.

Notice.
You said:
It's like you understand how I got to considering it mythology, but choose to ignore that point because of its popularity.
"It like", is an assumption.
So you assumed I agreed to something I didn't agree to.
So you don't agree that the Bible is mythology?
And the reason it is not mythology is because it has sold a lot of books?

Also, see the bold above please. Now is your chance to clarify.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9387
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 911 times
Been thanked: 1262 times

Post #477

Post by Clownboat »

theStudent wrote: [Replying to post 460 by Clownboat]
Clownboat wrote:Do you not agree that your logic here is flawed? If not, please defend it.
No.
Books can build nations indeed.
Although, I think I did specify that it breaks down racial, and national boundaries.
I should also have mentioned that the nation that it builds, is united in love, not war.

So it is a nation unlike any existing nation.
Is this nation on earth?
What nation are you speaking about?

What did the book do to help build this nation?

United in love not war? You can't be talking about the Bible any longer I assume, so what book are you even talking about?
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9387
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 911 times
Been thanked: 1262 times

Post #478

Post by Clownboat »

theStudent wrote: [Replying to post 461 by Clownboat]
Clownboat wrote:For the love of all that is holy, please learn that evolution does not touch on how life began!
How many times have I heard that?
I lost count.

Let me see if I can paint a partial and, not so pretty picture of the evolution theory.
Remember Darwin's little quote, about possible intelligence?
There was a reason for that.

Remember his little pond theory?
The one where the common ancestor would emerge from.
There was a reason for that.

Do you really think Darwin would have been satisfied with a theory without foundation? I don't.

I see a complete picture, with Darwin as one of the artists.
You don't have to believe what I do, and I am not trying to persuade you to.
Clownboat wrote:Let's pretend for a moment, that the Christian god started life off on this planet, starting here perhaps will help you follow along. You with me so far? So the Christian god created some life, and the theory of evolution is the best explanation so far that we have for the diversity of life we see now on this planet, and also in the fossil record.

If you disagree, pretend that evolution has been faulsified and give us your best explanation for the life we see here and now, and also in the fossil record.
That's fair.
Just give me a little time to put it together. Thanks.
So out of all of this, you only continue to evidence how little you understand about evolution, and what's worse, you don't even have an alternative theory at hand that describes what we see.

You reject how the ToE explains everything perfectly, and you don't even have another theory ready to replace it?

It seems that you are willing to do whatever you must to reject evolution, even if that means rejecting a working theory for one you have not thought up yet.

:roll:
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9387
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 911 times
Been thanked: 1262 times

Post #479

Post by Clownboat »

theStudent wrote: [Replying to post 462 by Clownboat]
Clownboat wrote:The next time you want to say something like this:
Sounds to me as though you prefer that by some magical occurance, nothingness poofed wormlike common ancestor into existence.

Perhaps it would be best to just shut up.
LOL. Thanks.
But again, you seem to be assuming.
You need to read the definition of assuming. When I offer you a personal opinion, that is all it is, my opinion. I'm not assuming anything when I offer my opinion that you should perhaps 'shut up' (your words) about how you for some unknown reason think that evolution should describe abiogenesis.
prefer that by some magical occurance, nothingness poofed wormlike common ancestor into existence.
I don't know where you got that.
They are your words.
theStudent wrote:Sounds to me as though you prefer that by some magical occurance, nothingness poofed wormlike common ancestor into existence.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9387
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 911 times
Been thanked: 1262 times

Post #480

Post by Clownboat »

theStudent wrote: [Replying to post 462 by Clownboat]
Clownboat wrote:If you have actual questions though that are not straw men, please ask them.
If you have actual evidence for creationism or your god concept, please present it.
As best that I can tell, we only want you to shut up with your straw men arguments about evolution.

This is not a matter of us calling it a tomat'o' and you calling it a tom'a'to.
More accurately, we are saying 'tomato' and you're yelling 'bowling shoes'.
I'm sorry C, but if the things someone says contrary to another is considered straw man, just because it contradicts that person's strongly held position, or view, I think it's about time that person do what I do.
Just turn the table around, or exchange places.

In other words, the next time they look down the barrels of the shotgun they are pointing at others, just give the person the shotgun, and feel the experience.

So right now, i guess, I'm holding the shotgun.
And here comes another blast.
Woops, you forgot to address what I did post in favor of something I did not post.
Again:
If you have actual questions though that are not straw men, please ask them.
If you have actual evidence for creationism or your god concept, please present it.

See the one in bold? It really is about time that you address it.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

Post Reply