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]

hypotheses

1. A proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations
2. A tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena
3. A message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence


If I said there must be an invisible fire burning somewhere in the earth's atmosphere, I think that would be a hypothesis - no matter how crazy it sounds.

No, you fail to grasp the difference between the lie/fable you propose and a real hypothesis (an educated guess).

[theStudent]

hypotheses

1. A proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations
2. A tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena
3. A message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence


If I said there must be an invisible fire burning somewhere in the earth's atmosphere, I think that would be a hypothesis - no matter how crazy it sounds.

No, you fail to grasp the difference between the lie/fable you propose and a real hypothesis (an educated guess).

It was just an example.
But I guess, a bad one, in the real world. Sorry.
But I hope you get the point I was trying to make.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 229 by Kenisaw]

Could you break this down for me please.

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...

I am totally clueless as to what you are saying.

You invoke, in the name of god, what he invokes in the name of materialism, you are just adding an extra level of the same thing, that just results in an infinite regress of causes.

You know, I am still trying to understand this.
The more I go over it, the more my head seem to hurt.

Is it possible for you guys to simplify this, for a five year old?

[arian]

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...

Hmm, .. just like a computer game-world programmer, he can create an earth, plants, jungles, forests and no sun or water anywhere in sight, and then to finish it all up throw in the sun, moon and stars.

Stars that make iron during supernovae events, really? How many samples have been taken from supernova events?

BB-theory? How many Big-bangs have there been observed so far? First you will need "nothing" with a quantum speck of whatever in it, and a Higgs boson to react on the quantum speck of whatever as soon as it Big-bangs. Then, have other scientists verify this event so it could be considered a theory.
problem is that if you have a quantum speck in "nothing", it is no longer nothing, instead it is space, and we know space is not nothing because there are an awful lot of "things" in space.

I can observe a car on the highway, even check out its engine and document how it all works, but that doesn't give me the right to claim it evolved from some primordial gasses millions and billions of years ago, right? I have to observe at least ONE thing that big-bangs and expands and evolves something meaningful, no?

You know, so I can say: "See, that's how the universe evolved, from a speck like that"

[Bust Nak]

What is this???
A joke? LOL.
...

No starting point huh?
From nothing to a single celled organism? Never happened - except in the minds of some.
Do the math.
Zero ones = zero (0 x 1 = 0), or one nothing is still nothing (1 x 0 = 0).
Zero millions equal zero (0 x 1, 000, 000 = 0), or one million nothing is still nothing (1, 000, 000 x 0 - 0).


Summary
No Common ancestor - No Root

It's still not clear what it is you are disagreeing with in the passages you quote. Why don't you think they offer a sufficient explanation of the root of evolution?

Most mutations are damaging or harmful.
Few mutations are neutral which is one that does not affect an organism's ability to survive and reproduce.

From a single celled organism to multi-cellular reproductive organisms with complex systems?

Never in a zillion years...

Same again here, you've bolded some text, that doesn't tell me why you disagree with them.

Notice how generous I am being - at the expense of my time.
I think I have already done enough to present my arguments though.

What argument? you've just quote a bunch of text on evolution, then says nah ah.

The info here is as clear as day.

They ARE clear as day, what isn't clear is why you quoted them, they should have helped you understand what the root of evolution is, instead you just say "no roots". They should have helped you understand how a single cell organism can evolve into a multi cell one, instead you just say "never in a zillion years." That made zero sense.

If what I say after the quotes is unfounded, highight it, and I will address it.

Start with the biggest two - you say evolution has "no root," then you say "never in a zillion years" could a single celled organism evolve to multi-cellular organism. These two are unfounded, made all the more weird when the stuff you quote explains exactly what the root is, explains exactly what the mechanism is for evolution. Was you whole argument based on the word hypothesis? It's merely a hypothesis therefore it isn't true?

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 272 by Bust Nak]

It's still not clear what it is you are disagreeing with in the passages you quote. Why don't you think they offer a sufficient explanation of the root of evolution?

What do you understand the root to be?

Same again here, you've bolded some text, that doesn't tell me why you disagree with them.

Mutations result from damage to DNA which is not repaired, errors in the process of replication, or from the insertion or deletion of segments of DNA by mobile genetic elements.
Most mutations are damaging or harmful.
Few mutations are neutral which is one that does not affect an organism's ability to survive and reproduce.

Never in a zillion years.

Mutations can never be responsible for the complexity of life.
Experiments on species of flies and cattle did not produce birds.
They produced mutant sick flies, mutant dead flies, and mutant living flies.
Same with the cattle.
Variation of a trait that is already there, is not evidence leading to imagined LUCA.
Evidence of a mutant bird man would be not nice, but acceptable.
Do it in a lab, and present the evidence to the public.

No Mutations to new species, or complex systems - No Branch

could a single celled organism evolve to multi-cellular organism.

If no paint exists, would you expect to see painted houses?

You claim there is a LUCA. Show me it.
You claim mutations are responsible for evolution of new species. Show me it.

[Bust Nak]

What do you understand the root to be?

The universal common ancestor, just like the text you quoted is telling you.

Mutations result from damage to DNA which is not repaired, errors in the process of replication, or from the insertion or deletion of segments of DNA by mobile genetic elements.
Most mutations are damaging or harmful.
Few mutations are neutral which is one that does not affect an organism's ability to survive and reproduce.

Never in a zillion years.

Mutations can never be responsible for the complexity of life.

You are just repeating what you said before. Why do you think most mutations are damaging or harmful?

Experiments on species of flies and cattle did not produce birds.
They produced mutant sick flies, mutant dead flies, and mutant living flies.
Same with the cattle.

Exactly, mutations produce variations. That's how evolution works. That is why I asked you, why you thought organism wouldn't evolve not in a zillion years.

Variation of a trait that is already there, is not evidence leading to imagined LUCA.

Now we are getting somewhere more specific. Why don't you think mutant flies aren't evidence of a universal common ancestor?

Evidence of a mutant bird man would be not nice, but acceptable.
Do it in a lab, and present the evidence to the public.

Why would a mutant man be acceptable, but a mutant fly wouldn't do?

No Mutations to new species, or complex systems - No Branch

But there IS a new branch, at least the non-sick, non-dead flies.

If no paint exists, would you expect to see painted houses?

No. But we HAVE paint.

You claim there is a LUCA. Show me it.

No can do, it's long extinct.

You claim mutations are responsible for evolution of new species. Show me it.

But that much you've already seen! You know the fruit flies experiments, you are talking about them right here!

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 274 by Bust Nak]

You are just repeating what you said before. Why do you think most mutations are damaging or harmful?

Why are you asking? Don't you already know?
The information is all over the place.

Now we are getting somewhere more specific. Why don't you think mutant flies aren't evidence of a universal common ancestor?

What do mutant flies have to do with a universal common ancestor?

Why would a mutant man be acceptable, but a mutant fly wouldn't do?

At least a mutant bird-man would give evidence of mutations producing new, and different species, not just flies mutating to flies, and cattle mutating to cattle.
Have you ever seen any evidence of a fruit fly mutating to a cockroach?

But there IS a new branch, at least the non-sick, non-dead flies.

If you call it a branch, that is fine.
As long as all the other branches are flies - that would show you are honest.
But if you tell me a rat, or a horse came from that branch, I would have to question your honesty.

No. But we HAVE paint.

The paint is LUCA.
So no. There is no paint.

But that much you've already seen! You know the fruit flies experiments, you are talking about them right here!

I have not seen any other species beside fruit flies.
Has the experience presented any evidence of new species that were not flies?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 275:

I have not seen any other species beside fruit flies.
Has the experience presented any evidence of new species that were not flies?

No, because what you're getting at here is the notion of a new species creating a new Order (Diptera 2.0?), skipping - no - running at a sprint past Genus along the way! It just ain't done in polite society.

New species have been observed, numerous times, and are well documented. Just because a new species doesn't create a new genus at your whim does not mean a new species ain't new.

The taxonomic ranks are fuzzy, we can concede that, and still not lose sight of what is observed.


What's life made up of?

Forgetting about the stuff that makes up atoms, we see that atoms make chemicals, and chemicals make life.

Nothing in this chain of events violates our senses - where the precursor to life is rationally seen to be the stuff that life is made of.

We see this played out over millions upon billions of lifeforms, such that it is indeed reasonable and rational to at least consider that life may have come from the stuff that life's made of. We have reams upon reams of scientific data in support of this almost spectacularly obvious notion.


What does the theist offer us?

"God made life".

That's fine to think about, but of what is God made?

Can we show God's made of anything other'n imagination?

Sentience. In order to think stuff into existence one needs a physical brain. Here again, we have reams upon reams of scientific data in support of this almost spectacularly obvious notion.

Only the theist can't see that in order to think a physical world into existence, one needs a physical world in order to do it.

Any of y'all ever just sit on the couch and think "I need me another beer", and poof, another beer magically pops into your hand? And we live in this physical world!

If you have, please tell us all your secret! Or just poof me one here into mine.


Conclusions?

To propose, within a scientific discussion that it's more rational to believe some magic being snapped his non-physical fingers and poofed us into existence is the least rational argument of the theist.

[Bust Nak]

Why are you asking? Don't you already know?

I am asking because the vast majority of mutations are neutral.

The information is all over the place.

Yes, which is why it is so weird for you to disagree with said information.

What do mutant flies have to do with a universal common ancestor?

It demonstrate reproduction, inheritance, variations and selection. i.e. The four features that makes up evolution. Simple really.

At least a mutant bird-man would give evidence of mutations producing new, and different species, not just flies mutating to flies, and cattle mutating to cattle.

But a mutant bird-man would just be man mutating to a man. How is that different to flies mutating to flies, and cattle mutating to cattle?

Have you ever seen any evidence of a fruit fly mutating to a cockroach?

None what so ever, which is why we are so sure evolution is true.

If you call it a branch, that is fine.
As long as all the other branches are flies - that would show you are honest.

Exactly, just like a mutant bird-man is a new branch, and yet a branch of man.

But if you tell me a rat, or a horse came from that branch, I would have to question your honesty.

Well no one is telling you that, no one on our side anyway.

The paint is LUCA.

Exactly, so we do have paint.

So no. There is no paint.

But you just affirmed what the paint is! What the hell is going on?

I have not seen any other species beside fruit flies.

But you have seen different species of fruit flies.

Has the experience presented any evidence of new species that were not flies?

Of course not. That's why we know evolution is true.