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.

[H.sapiens]

As soon as I see an actual scientific "theory" on evolution (speciation, .. one species turning into a completely different specie where they can no longer reproduce) Then there would be something to criticize, like if a scientists observation of a crocodile turning into a duck was not properly documented or something.

You are looking for something that no one claims and that never happened. When you fail to find it you think that falsifies the TOE, when in fact what it does is simply reveal your lack of knowledge concerning the TOE.

One species does not turn into another overnight, there is no single mutational event that creates a new species, a species does not pass through a mid-point where half of it resembles the parent and half the daughter species (e.g., crock-a-ducks are worse than stupid, the idea (and all similar) is willfully ignorant).

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 222 by theStudent]

Oh sweet god...the 'it's just a theory!" line? I thought you said before you had studied all this! Try looking up next what a scientific theory is, NOT what the common parlance of theory is. These are two different things.
Do you reject gravity because what we have is a 'theory of gravity'? A theory is the highest status one can get to in science.

Pleaase note, I did not say scientific theory.
I am already aware that it is a scientific theory.
I said theory.

I'm sure you know the difference, but just in case you forgot regular English, due to scientific indoctrination.

Scientific theory

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.

It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from, and in contrast to, the common vernacular usage of the word "theory". As used in everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" implies that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, or hypothesis; such a usage is the opposite of a scientific theory. These different usages are comparable to the differing, and often opposing, usages of the term "prediction" in science (less ambiguously called a "scientific prediction") versus "prediction" in non-scientific vernacular speech, the latter of which may even imply a mere hope.

So to be clear...
The theory of Evolution is still nothing more than a theory - an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, or hypothesis - a story, left unfinished - from beginning to somewhere.
It hasn't even gotten halfway through the scientific method.

See Evolution as fact and theory for more clarification.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 223 by rikuoamero]

I've put 'the Student' on ignore - is he denying that Creationism, deism, Christianity, et&al, don't even merit being a theory, only, what we'd call in the field, a "virtual model," a model that can not be reproduced based on physics or reality, but something like a cartoon, where if you can draw it, it can happen?

I'm in about the same place.

Here's wiki on scientific theory:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[1][2] Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.[3]

It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from, and in contrast to, the common vernacular usage of the word "theory". As used in everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" implies that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, or hypothesis;[4] such a usage is the opposite of a scientific theory. These different usages are comparable to the differing, and often opposing, usages of the term "prediction" in science (less ambiguously called a "scientific prediction") versus "prediction" in non-scientific vernacular speech, the latter of which may even imply a mere hope.

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (see Occam's razor). As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g., Newton's laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities that are small relative to the speed of light).

Scientific theories are usually testable and make falsifiable predictions.[5] They describe the causal elements responsible for a particular natural phenomenon, and are used to explain and predict aspects of the physical universe or specific areas of inquiry (e.g., electricity, chemistry, astronomy). Scientists use theories as a foundation to gain further scientific knowledge, as well as to accomplish goals such as inventing technology or curing disease.

As with most, if not all, forms of scientific knowledge, scientific theories are both deductive and inductive[6][7] in nature and aim for predictive power and explanatory capability

The same goes for the rest of you who are thinking I am using scientific indoctrination.
Not me.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 222 by theStudent]

Oh sweet god...the 'it's just a theory!" line? I thought you said before you had studied all this! Try looking up next what a scientific theory is, NOT what the common parlance of theory is. These are two different things.
Do you reject gravity because what we have is a 'theory of gravity'? A theory is the highest status one can get to in science.

Pleaase note, I did not say scientific theory.
I am already aware that it is a scientific theory.
I said theory.

I'm sure you know the difference, but just in case you forgot regular English, due to scientific indoctrination.

Scientific theory

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.

It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from, and in contrast to, the common vernacular usage of the word "theory". As used in everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" implies that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, or hypothesis; such a usage is the opposite of a scientific theory. These different usages are comparable to the differing, and often opposing, usages of the term "prediction" in science (less ambiguously called a "scientific prediction") versus "prediction" in non-scientific vernacular speech, the latter of which may even imply a mere hope.

So to be clear...
The theory of Evolution is still nothing more than a theory - an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, or hypothesis - a story, left unfinished - from beginning to somewhere.
It hasn't even gotten halfway through the scientific method.

See Evolution as fact and theory for more clarification.

This is a bald faced lie. Hasn't gotten halfway? So I suppose then that all the scientific papers that have been published supporting it are just imaginary?

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 226 by Bust Nak]

But the text in bold is agreed upon by all of science, even the part that you accused of being biased. The problem is with the un-bolded part. Creation is not an explanation, let alone an acceptable one.

"It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."

You should know this, you've quoted it yourself.

Thank you.
You strike me as an honest man.
I like honesty.

Regarding my question on origin of species, I don't know if you picked it up, or not, but I was not interested in anything about Darwin's book.
I was seeking to highlight the facts.
Origin of species, is the same thing as origin of life.

According to Darwin, a single celled, living organism gave birth to all living species.
I don't care what biological name he gives them. If he called them species, taxon, whatever.
They are a group of life forms. A kind of, or form of life.

So whether the species is a team, or a book, containing players or pages, they all make up the whole.
So as the theory goes, so does the book - all life descended with modification from a putative single primitive source.

Or maybe I should give Darwin a break, because it may well be the men that came after him that made some altercations, since theories don't often stay the same.

Darwinism

...all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.

Britannica

Evolution, theory in biology postulating that thevarious types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types...

Wikipedia

All life on Earth shares a common ancestor known as the last universal ancestor...

Yes. I think I will do that.
Currently I have downloaded, and started to look at his book.
So I will see how far adjusted his theory is - if it has been.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 222 by theStudent]

Oh sweet god...the 'it's just a theory!" line? I thought you said before you had studied all this! Try looking up next what a scientific theory is, NOT what the common parlance of theory is. These are two different things.
Do you reject gravity because what we have is a 'theory of gravity'? A theory is the highest status one can get to in science.

Pleaase note, I did not say scientific theory.
I am already aware that it is a scientific theory.
I said theory.

I'm sure you know the difference, but just in case you forgot regular English, due to scientific indoctrination.

Scientific theory

Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.

It is important to note that the definition of a "scientific theory" (often ambiguously contracted to "theory" for the sake of brevity, including in this page) as used in the disciplines of science is significantly different from, and in contrast to, the common vernacular usage of the word "theory". As used in everyday non-scientific speech, "theory" implies that something is an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, or hypothesis; such a usage is the opposite of a scientific theory. These different usages are comparable to the differing, and often opposing, usages of the term "prediction" in science (less ambiguously called a "scientific prediction") versus "prediction" in non-scientific vernacular speech, the latter of which may even imply a mere hope.

So to be clear...
The theory of Evolution is still nothing more than a theory - an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, or hypothesis - a story, left unfinished - from beginning to somewhere.
It hasn't even gotten halfway through the scientific method.

See Evolution as fact and theory for more clarification.

This is a bald faced lie. Hasn't gotten halfway? So I suppose then that all the scientific papers that have been published supporting it are just imaginary?

Prove the lie then.
So far, these are the theories that has been observed.

• Adaptation: Any heritable characteristic of an organism that improves its ability to survive and reproduce in its environment. Also used to describe the process of genetic change within a population, as influenced by natural selection. Alternatively, some heritable feature of an individual's phenotype that improves its chances of survival and reproduction in the existing environment.
• Variation or diversity (or genetic diversity): A measure of the possible choices of different information at a gene. For example, whether it codes for brown or blue eyes.
• Over-reproduction: organism populations tend to reproduce beyond the environment's ability to support them ultimately encountering a limit on population size.
• Natural selection: The differential survival and reproduction of classes of organisms that differ from one another in one or more usually heritable characteristics. Through this process, the forms of organisms in a population that are best adapted to their local environment increase in frequency relative to less well-adapted forms over a number of generations. This difference in survival and reproduction is not due to chance.
  

None of them prove ToE - never observed.
Otherwise show me.

[Bust Nak]

So to be clear...
The theory of Evolution is still nothing more than a theory - an unsubstantiated and speculative guess, conjecture, or hypothesis - a story, left unfinished - from beginning to somewhere.
It hasn't even gotten halfway through the scientific method.

See Evolution as fact and theory for more clarification.

Why are you pointing at an article that says evolution is a scientific theory in a post that tries and paint evolution as mere speculation? That's the very opposite of clarification surely.

Evolution is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. Scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.

[Bust Nak]

Regarding my question on origin of species, I don't know if you picked it up, or not, but I was not interested in anything about Darwin's book.
I was seeking to highlight the facts.
Origin of species, is the same thing as origin of life.

So you kept insisting, but that's not true. Origin of species is a different thing to origin of life. The former is about varieties of life, the latter is life itself. With just one kind of life, there is no variety. Surely that much make sense?

According to Darwin, a single celled, living organism gave birth to all living species.
I don't care what biological name he gives them. If he called them species, taxon, whatever.
They are a group of life forms. A kind of, or form of life.

So whether the species is a team, or a book, containing players or pages, they all make up the whole.
So as the theory goes, so does the book - all life descended with modification from a putative single primitive source.

Right, okay so far, but how exactly are you concluding that origin of species, is somehow the same thing as origin of life? Everything you said here should have lead you to the very opposite conclusion. I don't understand how you go through all the right steps but ended up in the wrong place.

Darwinism

...all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce.

Britannica

Evolution, theory in biology postulating that thevarious types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types...

Wikipedia

All life on Earth shares a common ancestor known as the last universal ancestor...

Yes. I think I will do that.

Seems perfectly normal, so how exactly lead you to say the origin of life is the same thing as the origin of species?

[Bust Nak]

So far, these are the theories that has been observed.

• Adaptation: Any heritable characteristic of an organism that improves its ability to survive and reproduce in its environment. Also used to describe the process of genetic change within a population, as influenced by natural selection. Alternatively, some heritable feature of an individual's phenotype that improves its chances of survival and reproduction in the existing environment.
• Variation or diversity (or genetic diversity): A measure of the possible choices of different information at a gene. For example, whether it codes for brown or blue eyes.
• Over-reproduction: organism populations tend to reproduce beyond the environment's ability to support them ultimately encountering a limit on population size.
• Natural selection: The differential survival and reproduction of classes of organisms that differ from one another in one or more usually heritable characteristics. Through this process, the forms of organisms in a population that are best adapted to their local environment increase in frequency relative to less well-adapted forms over a number of generations. This difference in survival and reproduction is not due to chance.
  

None of them prove ToE - never observed.
Otherwise show me.

But those observation: reproduction, inheritance, variations and selection are the very things that makes up the theory of evolution. How can you say these features have been observed, then in the same breath says evolution has never been observed? There is a common theme with your posts - you seem to agree with all the premises but ends up with a completely counter-intuitive, illogical even, conclusion.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 227 by Kenisaw]

Student, I read all of your posts. I read all of the posts by everyone.

Thanks for clarifying.

Everyone will notice that once again Student fails to address specific points of my reply. He can't (or won't) explain how one quote from one scientist equates to "many scientists do not accept the evidence". He fails to discuss specific fields of research and the findings within them. But he did recently post a link to an article at the institute for creation research as if that is a scientific source....

Why do I have to go into all of that, when I can just kick at the root - if there is one - and everything crumbles.

Note. Again...

Have sufficient fossils been found to draw a sound conclusion?
No.

Is there any hard evidence?
Not yet.

Let's wait then.
While I provide some against.