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 #251

Post by theStudent »

Bust Nak wrote:
theStudent wrote: 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.
That's what some claim.
But you are forgetting a few things.
1. Mutations - Testing... Testing... Testing...
2. Fossils record - Testing... Testing... Testing...
And they are not done yet.

I'm quite sure if you were running the show, it would be all over. :)
John 8:32
. . .the truth will set you free.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9855
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Post #252

Post by Bust Nak »

theStudent wrote: That's what some claim.
Can you clarify what this is referring to? 1) Some claimed that reproduction, inheritance, variations and selection have been observed, but that's just a claim; or 2) some claimed that reproduction, inheritance, variations and selection together makes evolution, but that's just a claim; I have to ask because both of these claims are pretty easy to establish. Or perhaps are you saying something else altogether?
But you are forgetting a few things.
1. Mutations - Testing... Testing... Testing...
2. Fossils record - Testing... Testing... Testing...
And they are not done yet.
Well science is always on-going, is it so surprising that the testing is never done? How could you hold that against evolution?

The testing we have done so far be it on mutations or fossils, all points to evolution. We have been testing evolution for 150 years, that's far longer than we have in say special relativity. That's why we are so sure of it, the more test we do, the more sure of it we are.
I'm quite sure if you were running the show, it would be all over. :)
Well no, if I was running the show, it would gets lots more funding so we can do even more testing... testing... testing... That's what makes scientific theory such as evolution, well-substantiated explanation of the natural world. Testing, testing and more testing is what makes scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.

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

Post #253

Post by theStudent »

[Replying to post 249 by Bust Nak]
Bust Nak wrote:Can you clarify what this is referring to? 1) Some claimed that reproduction, inheritance, variations and selection have been observed, but that's just a claim; or 2) some claimed that reproduction, inheritance, variations and selection together makes evolution, but that's just a claim; I have to ask because both of these claims are pretty easy to establish. Or perhaps are you saying something else altogether?
Sorry.
I am getting ahead of myself, and probably you as well.
In my mind I was thinking that some claim that because these are observed, then that proves evolution.
Bust Nak wrote:Well science is always on-going, is it so surprising that the testing is never done? How could you hold that against evolution?

The testing we have done so far be it on mutations or fossils, all points to evolution. We have been testing evolution for 150 years, that's far longer than we have in say special relativity. That's why we are so sure of it, the more test we do, the more sure of it we are.
Of course it points to evolution. It is the only theory they are using this "evidence" to try to establish.
After all, they must first have a theory, and it isn't God so...
Bust Nak wrote:Well no, if I was running the show, it would gets lots more funding so we can do even more testing... testing... testing... That's what makes scientific theory such as evolution, well-substantiated explanation of the natural world. Testing, testing and more testing is what makes scientific theories are the most reliable, rigorous, and comprehensive form of scientific knowledge.
:)
Like I said, you seem to be an honest man, and I like that.
John 8:32
. . .the truth will set you free.

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

Post #254

Post by theStudent »

[Replying to post 227 by Kenisaw]
Kenisaw wrote:He can't (or won't) explain how one quote from one scientist equates to "many scientists do not accept the evidence"
I never said that, so why would I need to explain it.
Kenisaw wrote: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....
I don't find this to be truthful, because most of the time I post the information from the scientific source, and agree, oppose, or discard it as rubbish, if that's what I find it to be.
You have all the evidence behind you, if you want to check back.
John 8:32
. . .the truth will set you free.

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

Post #255

Post by theStudent »

[Replying to post 228 by Kenisaw]
Kenisaw wrote: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.
This is exactly what I am referring too, when I said, maybe you read my post, but Kenisaw, you don't seem to understand half the things I say.
Show me where I said
the phrase "chemical evolution" has replaced and stand in officially for the word abiogenesis
And is
the chemistry behind abiogenesis
called chemical evolution, or not?
Kenisaw wrote: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.
I know Kenisaw.
This is the reason I don't respond to some of your post, because clearly, you don't understand mine.
John 8:32
. . .the truth will set you free.

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

Re: What If...?

Post #256

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

User avatar
H.sapiens
Guru
Posts: 2043
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:08 pm
Location: Ka'u Hawaii

Re: What If...?

Post #257

Post by H.sapiens »

theStudent wrote: [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.

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

Post #258

Post by theStudent »

Kenisaw wrote:
theStudent wrote:
H.sapiens wrote: 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...
[Replying to post 230 by Kenisaw]
Kenisaw wrote:It claims that plants came before the Sun
No it doesn't.
Kenisaw wrote:that the sky was water at the top
No it doesn't.
Kenisaw wrote:calls the moon a light source, and that the iron laden Earth came before the stars that make iron during supernovae events
No it doesn't.
Kenisaw wrote:Falsified claims of the Bible...
That just like what you are saying about my post on this topic of evolution.

You haven't a clue about anything you read there in Genesis.
Whereas I can guarantee you that I am not doing that badly - if at all.
Look you got 0 out of 3 - not even 1. Failed.

If you need a little insight...
Matthew 7:7
Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you.
John 8:32
. . .the truth will set you free.

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

Post #259

Post by theStudent »

Is there no end to the speculation?
The evolutionary trees continue to grow out of thin air.
When are you going to post what we really want to see - a real tree with some roots?
John 8:32
. . .the truth will set you free.

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

Re: What If...?

Post #260

Post by theStudent »

[Replying to post 232 by Kenisaw]

Kenisaw wrote:We, the people that understand chemistry.
I am glad to see that you realize this time, that I am dealing with chemistry.
Kenisaw wrote:But please, by all means, tell us why evolution violates thermodynamics...
Entropy is the measure of disorder and randomness in a system.
The starting point is the most organized you can get.
So say you start at a point of randomness or disorder, you can never reach a point of order. You can only end up with more disorder.

So when you say this.
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.
That is wrong, because there are some laws that cannot be broken.

Thermodynamics, being one of them.
John 8:32
. . .the truth will set you free.

Post Reply