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.

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 177 by Kenisaw]

No, that is not what it "officially became". If you go to wikipedia and type in "chemical evolution" it will offer up several other topics, one of them being abiogenesis. When you go to the abiogenesis link it does not mention chemical evolution. It's getting ridiculous how much stuff you make up in a vain effort to boost your own baseless argument...

Respectfully.
Maybe I don't understand too well, but this is how I read.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Abiogenesis
The study of abiogenesis involves three main types of considerations: the geophysical, the chemical, and the biological,[13] with more recent approaches attempting a synthesis of all three.

The Miller–Urey experiment and similar experiments demonstrated that most amino acids, basic chemicals of life, can be synthesized from inorganic compounds in conditions intended to be similar to early Earth.

Other approaches ("metabolism first" hypotheses) focus on understanding how catalysis in chemical systems on the early Earth might have provided the precursor molecules necessary for self-replication.

Robert Shapiro has summarized the "primordial soup" theory of Oparin and J. B. S. Haldane in its "mature form" as follows:

1. The early Earth had a chemically reducing atmosphere.
2. This atmosphere, exposed to energy in various forms, produced simple organic compounds ("monomers").
3. These compounds accumulated in a "soup" that may have concentrated at various locations (shorelines, oceanic vents etc.).
4. By further transformation, more complex organic polymers—and ultimately life—developed in the soup.

The chemical processes that took place on the early Earth are called chemical evolution.

Perhaps my head is a bit hard, or maybe I don't understand the scientific... speech.
Perhaps you can help me get it right.

I already tried to help you "get it right", and you ignored it.

Post 152, 156, 162, and 177 contain the history of all this if you want to go back and refer to it.

To summarize, you make two claims. One is that "chemical evolution" is now the official title of the process that led to the first life form. While some people use that phrase when talking about the chemistry behind abiogenesis, the phrase "chemical evolution" has not replaced and does not stand in officially for the word abiogenesis. And in the very next paragraph in the wikipedia article after the one containing "The chemical processes that took place on the early Earth are called chemical evolution" it states:

"Chemical evolution was followed by the initiation of biological evolution, which led to the first cells"

Two different things. I hope this finally sinks in with you.

The second claim is below and I will address that there.

ROFL. That's rich. Look at your own OP, and tell me in all your talk about fossils and Darwin and biogenetics you get into "chemical evolution". You talk about nothing but the scientific theory of evolution as first proposed by Darwin. Your own words show what a fraudulent claim your statement truly is.

Oh.
I got my answer.
It's not that you don't read, or do you?
Now I am confusing myself.
How do you read?

In other words, do you understand what you read?

You mention fossils several times, fake fossils, embryonic stage development, species, and ask if Darwin and others lied. None of that has anything to do with abiogenesis. The scientific theory of evolution as first stated by Darwin does not contain or deal with how life arose from non-living components. If you think that it does than you are in error.

In other words, you don't understand what you wrote...

Example

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?

Don't worry though.
It happens to all of us, whenever we take people's statements at face value, or in parts, intead of a whole, or sometimes when we think we know what they mean, becase we already have a preconceived idea.

You are definitely living proof of that, aren't you. Your preconceived notions of evolution have led you to incorrectly use words that have been established for 150 years.

I have already explained to you once that you don't have to "go by...what scientists claim to be evidence". You are free to examine and test all the data and empirical evidence yourself, and I've encouraged you to do so. I've mentioned colleges and universities, libraries and museums, dig sites and creek beds. The facts are all around you, all you have to do is go look at them.

But you won't. I believe you are scared to actually verify the information yourself. But that is your problem, not everyone else's. No one in science ever has to take anyone's word for anything. But here you are taking the word of people at ICR and "questions for Islam" whilst claiming others are just taking the word of scientist. What an obvious double standard...

If you honestly were trying to include chemical evolution in your OP, then you did a horrendous job constructing your OP...

Are you addressing things I said, or things I didn't say.
I'm not going to play guessing games with your post, and just say things that I want to say, instead of addressing what you say.

Why am I not stunned that you don't want to address the things that I say...

[Kenisaw]

I guess you can also explain to me, what is responsible for the order (organized) in even the most complex things in existence - including the ones that would not work correctly, if things were off by just a fraction.

I'm interested in hearing your answer.
So I will ask.

How did the order come about?
Perhaps you can start with the cell divisions in the womb to produce a life form, with everything in its place.

We don't know where the laws of the universe come from. That is one of the bigger generic questions being looked into. There are many different hypothesis about it, including that the universe ISN'T actually constant, but changes slowly in relativistic scales so that is appears consistent to each location in the universe. If multiverses are true then the order of this one is just a variation of all the possibilities. There's definitely a quantum component to the laws of chemistry for example, so the answer may lie in quantum mechanics.

I will note that the idea of an intelligent source for order is self-defeating false logic. If order takes a creator to exist, and a creator is an ordered entity (obviously), then order can never exist...

[Kenisaw]

We get back to basics:

1. Religion has never falsified science.
2. Science has repeatedly falsified the bible.

I have known some science to agree with scriptures.
Could you give me examples where

Science has repeatedly falsified the bible.

except in the area of evolution?

Let's start with Genesis 1. It claims that plants came before the Sun, that the sky was water at the top, calls the moon a light source, and that the iron laden Earth came before the stars that make iron during supernovae events. Falsified claims of the Bible...

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 179 by arian]

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrar ... vograms_06

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 173 by Kenisaw]

First off, how is that quote proof that a god creature exists and created us? I'd like a specific answer to this question too if you don't mind.

It can't.
I didn't put it there to prove any god creature.
I hope that's direct enough, because that's as direct as I can get.

So it was completely unrelated to the topic of the post and was just stuck in there willy nilly. Wonderful, good to know...

Second, yes we can say with 100% certainly that life can happen via "blind chance". There is nothing about life that violates any law of the universe. Everything about life is chemically possible. We don't know how it specifically happened, but we do know it is possible. Please retract your statement.

We? Who do you mean?
Are you speaking for yourself, or all of whom you represent?

We, the people that understand chemistry.

Well, I guess all the we(s), are willing to go against certain laws of science, in order to accept a scientific theory then.
Namely the laws of thermodynamics - 2nd and 3rd, to be exact - which depend upon entropy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy

It is painfully obvious that you are following the standard creationist playbook these days. All we get from you is the typical blabber that the thousands of scientifically ignorant cultists that have come before you trotted out because they read it on the website of their creationist masters. At least have the guts to tell us which creationist site you took this from.

Some of the creationist sites don't even use that anymore because they realized that life is not a violation of the laws of thermodynamics of the law of entropy.

But please, by all means, tell us why evolution violates thermodynamics...

[Clownboat]

So if you went into a room, and found all the chairs in rows eight, in columns four feet apart, you would conclude that that could happen by chance?

Since you are talking about evolution, please show us a room with chairs, that reproduces via biological sexual reproduction with variation for us to examine.

When you cannot, please understand why your analogy is illogical and not well thought out.

What I see is a strong desire for evolution to be wrong, so much so that you will compare how populations of creatures reproduce with variation to a room full of chairs which do not come about by even remotely the same mechanism.

You might as well argue against snowflakes formation by pointing to your cats litter box.

I will never ask that question here again.

I hope this is true, but more importantly, I hope you understand WHY you should never ask it again.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to post 175 by Clownboat]

I already addressed it.
How do you read?
Speculation
S p e c u l a t i o n
Definition

1. A message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence
2. A hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)
3. Continuous and profound contemplation or musing on a subject or series of subjects of a deep or abstruse nature
   • i.e. "the habit of speculation is the basis for all real knowledge"

If that's not enough for you, try this
http://www.icr.org/article/new-research ... hromosome/

So I went back to post 175...

From post 175:
"What are you talking about? Address the fact that it IS your fault for not seeing just how easy evolution would be to falsify."
"What are you talking about and what does it have to do with your god not being able to falsify evolution?"
"What are you talking about and why can't you show a fossil out of place and why don't you address the fused chromosome that we found that must have been there in order for human evolution to be true. Again, if there was no fused chromosome, human evolution would have been disproved, but there was.
All this and we haven't even touched much on retro viruses. "

Stop ignoring that it is your fault and not ours for your failure to see how easily evolution is to falsify.

What did you actually do though? You supplied the definition of 'speculation' as if that cleared up your post or addressed your lack of noticing the falsification mechanisms for evolution.

[Kenisaw]

The hypothesis of a Last Universal Ancestor remains unproven.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Last_universal_ancestor

The LUA is estimated to have lived some 3.5 to 3.8 billion years ago (sometime in the Paleoarchean era). The earliest evidence for life on Earth is biogenic graphite found in 3.7 billion-year-old metasedimentary rocks discovered in Western Greenland[4] and microbial mat fossils found in 3.48 billion-year-old sandstone discovered in Western Australia. A study in 2015 found potentially biogenic carbon from 4.1 billion years ago in ancient rocks in Western Australia. Such findings would indicate the existence of different conditions on Earth during that period than what is generally assumed today and point to an earlier origination of life.

...the LUA is thought to have been a small, single-cell organism. It likely had a ring-shaped coil of DNA floating freely within the cell, like modern bacteria. Morphologically, it would likely not have been exceptionally distinctive among a collection of generalized, small-size, modern-day bacteria. However, Carl Woese et al, who first proposed the currently-used three domain system based on an analysis of the 16S rRNA sequences of bacteria, archaea, and eukaryotes, stated that the LUA would have been a "...simpler, more rudimentary entity than the individual ancestors that spawned the three [domains] (and their descendants)" regarding its genetic machinery.

In 1859, Charles Darwin published The Origin of Species in which he twice stated the hypothesis that there was only one progenitor for all life forms. In the summation he states, "Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed." The very last sentence is a restatement of the hypothesis: "There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one."

In 2010, based on "the vast array of molecular sequences now available from all domains of life," a formal test of universal common ancestry was published. The formal test favored the existence of a universal common ancestor over a wide class of alternative hypotheses that included horizontal gene transfer. While the formal test overwhelmingly favored the existence of a single LUA, this does not imply that the LUA was ever alone. Instead, it was a member of the early microbial community.

However, in their quest to find LUA, they decided that Archaea would be a most probable acceptance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaea

The "hypothesis" of the last universal ancestor is established fact thanks to genetics. Science knows all life forms are related, therefore all life forms come from a common ancestor. If you think this is not accurate, please tell me where in the sequenced genomes of living things it shows that all life forms are NOT related...

Archaea were initially classified as bacteria, receiving the name archaebacteria (in the Archaebacteria kingdom), but this classification is outdated.

Archaea reproduce asexually by binary fission, fragmentation, or budding; unlike bacteria and eukaryotes, no known species forms spores.

Archaea were initially viewed as extremophiles living in harsh environments, such as hot springs and salt lakes, but they have since been found in a broad range of habitats, including soils, oceans, marshlands and the human colon, oral cavity, and skin.[5] Archaea are particularly numerous in the oceans, and the archaea in plankton may be one of the most abundant groups of organisms on the planet.

So a single-celled microorganisms split itself to produce two or more different kinds of species.
Did not.p

Ahh, I see. The work of thousands of geneticists, microbiologists, paleontologists, and biologists over the last 50 years is wrong. How do we know? Because Student says "Did not", and he used a 14 font size and bold letters to tell us. That is a really powerful argument you made there Student.

Concept of species
The classification of archaea into species is also controversial. Biology defines a species as a group of related organisms. The familiar exclusive breeding criterion (organisms that can breed with each other but not with others) is of no help here because archaea reproduce asexually.

The ARMAN are a new group of archaea recently discovered in acid mine drainage.
Archaea show high levels of horizontal gene transfer between lineages. Some researchers suggest that individuals can be grouped into species-like populations given highly similar genomes and infrequent gene transfer to/from cells with less-related genomes, as in the genus Ferroplasma. On the other hand, studies in Halorubrum found significant genetic transfer to/from less-related populations, limiting the criterion's applicability. A second concern is to what extent such species designations have practical meaning.

Current knowledge on genetic diversity is fragmentary and the total number of archaeal species cannot be estimated with any accuracy. Estimates of the number of phyla range from 18 to 23, of which only 8 have representatives that have been cultured and studied directly. Many of these hypothesized groups are known from a single rRNA sequence, indicating that the diversity among these organisms remains obscure. The Bacteria also contain many uncultured microbes with similar implications for characterization.

Here too is a gap they want us to fill in.
From a single-celled microorganisms to multi-celled organisms which depend on minerals to survive.
So these scientists believe in miracles after all.
And you guys still don't want to admit that it's an anti-God religion, based on blind baseless faith.

How do you think that the quoted parts of that article you list above means evolution can't happen?

For example, look at this idiotic reasoning, and absurd conclusion.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... -ancestor/

Using computer models and statistical methods, biochemist Douglas Theobald calculated the odds that all species from the three main groups, or "domains," of life evolved from a common ancestor—versus, say, descending from several different life-forms or arising in their present form, Adam and Eve style.

The statistical analysis showed that the independent origin of humans is "an absolutely horrible hypothesis," Theobald said, adding that the probability that humans were created separately from everything else is 1 in 10 to the 6,000th power.

Honestly, I suggest he should have ran a test on his brain - no joke - to see what it is, inside his head.
What manner of brain could produce such a conclusion?

Probably a highly educated and organized brain. One that knows, for example, the difference between the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and evolution for instance.

Do you have anything that shows that his methodology or statistical model is erroneous or flawed? You certainly didn't list it if you did. Do you have anything showing the numbers he used to reach his statistical conclusion are wrong? If so please produce it. Can you even sum up, in your own words, what he is comparing and why it matters? Let me know...

Or are we going to have to settle for the fact that you just don't like it as the smoking gun of your commentary?

Today, when any species from the three main groups, or "domains," of life produce offspring/seed, what do they produce?
A species of the same kind.

As predicted by the theory of evolution. The theory never claims that you get a new species from one parent to one offspring. This has to be repeatedly pointed out to you yet you continue to make the same basic erroneous claim time and again...

If particular species of any one of the three main groups, or "domains," of life mate, what do they produce?
A species of the same kind with different charateristics.
For example, the ridiculous Liger (crazy idea from crazy minds - poor creatures).
You can graft two plants to get another of the same kind with different charateristics.

As predicted by the theory of evolution. The theory never claims that you get a new species from one parent to one offspring. This has to be repeatedly pointed out to you yet you continue to make the same basic erroneous claim time and again...

By the way, a graft does not produce a seed with different characteristics than that of the part that produces the seed...

Everything produces according to its kind.
Everything has its own material makeup.
That's how life was designed.
What else do they expect to find?

Try mating an animal with a plant. What do you get?

Unbelievable.
The more information I look at on this subject is just leaving me in more and more disbelief.
And to see that these are men with PHDs and the like.

You've just claimed that life is designed. Prove it. This also means that there must be a designer that designed it. Prove the designer exists (which you've been asked to do many times before and have yet to do so...).

https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

The origin of life is a scientific problem which is not yet solved. There are plenty of ideas, but few clear facts.

Life originated itself spontaneously from chemicals.
Proven? - No.
Reasonable? - No.
Logical? - No.

Life originated from an intelligent creator.
Proven? - No.
Reasonable? - Yes.
Logical? - Yes.

Great. Show me how it is reasonable and logical.

Now.
Here is a challenge to you guys.

A little quote mining wouldn't hurt in this case, I suppose, since it's from your team.
Hermann Joseph Muller

So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.

Kenneth R. Miller

evolution is as much a fact as anything we know in science.

Ernst Mayr observed

The basic theory of evolution has been confirmed so completely that most modern biologists consider evolution simply a fact. How else except by the word evolution can we designate the sequence of faunas and floras in precisely dated geological strata? And evolutionary change is also simply a fact owing to the changes in the content of gene pools from generation to generation.

Using the quotes of these guys...

I am designer.
If someone gave you one of my designs, would you be able to prove whether I did it or not?
I would say no. N O.
Even if you asked the one who gave you.
Even if you asked me.
Even if you asked those who saw me do it.
That's the only facts/evidence you have, and it's up to you to accept it, or not.
There is another option you have...
You could say nobody designed it. The materials just came together in some unexplained fashion - and voilà!

So crystal clear, as pure water in an untarnished glass, is the fact that I am responsible for this design, that for anyone to disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence.
I will go as far as to say that if I am not the designer then you are not reading these words.

The universe, as well as all within it, bear evidence of a designer.
I go so far as to say that the evidence for creation being a fact, is so abundant, that for one to deny it, is to accept that nothing is real - including us.

The challenge to you...
Prove to me that the universe, and all within it, was not created/designed by someone.

So you are saying that the universe had to be created, because it is ordered and because life is complex, right?

[Clownboat]

Theory of Evolution, whether we accept it or not, is still a theory.

Yes, and the Theory of Gravity is just a theory, whether we accept it or not.
How in the nine hells does the theory of gravity show that gravity itself is not a fact?
Do you seriously doubt that gravity is real?


Evolution is a fact. The Theory of Evolution that you fight so hard against due to ignorant religious beliefs (that I once shared mind you) is just the currently accepted theory that describes the fact of evolution.

Biologist Richard Lenski says, "Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.

But why should we listen to biologist about biology when we could attend a Christian church and learn about biology.

[Willum]

I guess you can also explain to me, what is responsible for the order (organized) in even the most complex things in existence - including the ones that would not work correctly, if things were off by just a fraction.

I'm interested in hearing your answer.
So I will ask.

How did the order come about?
Perhaps you can start with the cell divisions in the womb to produce a life form, with everything in its place.

We don't know where the laws of the universe come from. That is one of the bigger generic questions being looked into. There are many different hypothesis about it, including that the universe ISN'T actually constant, but changes slowly in relativistic scales so that is appears consistent to each location in the universe. If multiverses are true then the order of this one is just a variation of all the possibilities. There's definitely a quantum component to the laws of chemistry for example, so the answer may lie in quantum mechanics.

I will note that the idea of an intelligent source for order is self-defeating false logic. If order takes a creator to exist, and a creator is an ordered entity (obviously), then order can never exist...

Oh, that's easy.
If it didn't work, it wouldn't have evolved. Given an infinite number of possible states, the ones that work best survive. I forget what that's called.

So if something were off by a fraction, it wouldn't survive. And doesn't. But all it's brothers and sisters, do survive.

It's alot like life surviving on Earth under current conditions. Say the Earth had less of a magnetic field...
WE'D ALL DIE!!!!!!!!

But, since the Earth has the magnetic field it does, we've all adapted to it, and think nothing of it. If it changed (gradually enough), life on Earth would adapt.

So this is why if things changed just a bit we'd die, but, since we've adapted to the status quo, things aren't off a bit for us.

It just like if you entered a room full of 48 chairs stacked in six neat rows of eight. You suspect that someone did it, and there is an inspection: The only way the room passes the inspection is if all those chairs are aligned in six neat rows of eight. You pass, someone must have done this for you!

Naturally, you are astounded!

Until you examine the other 200 million rooms that are in 200 million other states of organization, or more aptly, mess.

Still another way to look at it is: Imagine you came upon a beautiful 3 dimensional image of a fantastic dragon, taken out in blue, grey, red yellow and orange. Now, the Student would brilliantly deduce that it had a creator.

The rest of us would admire the Sun setting on the horizon, and observe how much the clouds look like a dragon.

Clouds are random patterns that do this everyday. Imagine you had millions of years and all the chemicals on the Earth, to get it right, once. All you need is once. The probability of random chance creating life looks very very high to me.