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 91 by Clownboat]

Now ask yourself why? Is it really because we are Satanic, god hating, science worshipers, that rob graves like arian spews? Come on, I must assume that such words only make sense in arian's mind (up there with all his other conspiracy theories).

You continue to confuse evolution with abiogenesis, and the only person here that finds what you say as credible thinks that we are part of some Satanic grave robbing skull&bones worshiping religion.

Hi Clownboat,
All you have done is add your voice to a list of voices that say, "This guy does not know what he is talking about."
What has that accomplished?
That's like this scenario.
A 5 year old child comes to you, with a picture of a lion, and a picture of a domestic cat, and says to you, "Look. two cats."
And you say, "No, no, no dear. You got it all wrong. One is a cat. The other, a lion."
"But my mom told me they are both cats."
"Look. Don't get confused. I told you. You need to understand. One is a lion. One is a cat."

What's wrong with this picture?

What it should accomplish is for a light bulb to click on in your brain and you begin to realize that your understanding on the theory of evolution is not accurate. What actually has happened is that you continue to promote misinformation about the scientific theory. Whether that promotion is deliberate or due to a failure of comprehension is the question...

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 87 by arian]

Arian and the Student, thank you both for very interesting posts.

Looking forward to further explorations on the topic.

Please brake down what you found interesting so I can examine it more closely and see if I too can be made interested.

I know I'm just a Satanic, grave robbing, skull&bones worshiping religious person because arian said it, but you will give me a chance wont you?

If you are satanic under the lock and key perhaps you lack enthusiasm to search further. I am Christian/evolutionist and i am very interested on the subject whether I agree or not.
I respect Arian and the Student endevour in researching and sharing. i am not sufficiently interested to research it myself but appreciate that others are and I can always learn something.

I think it is great that you are "very interested" in the subject, although it surprises me that you don't want to "research it" yourself given your level of interest. But I wonder how you can take a side on a matter that you have no interest in researching yourself? I would've thought you'd like to check up on the matter to verify the information from both sides, without taking anyone's word for it.

Maybe you are used to sitting back and having others tell you how to think and what things mean. Already happens on Sundays, correct?

[PghPanther]

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.

You are clueless in understanding the provisional process of the scientific method.

It doesn't matter for what reason and why a person might try to fake or lie their way into scientific data........the process of the scientific method will by default weed out all the nonsense and background noise over time..........

Science the process leveraged to establish provisional truth claims will always end up in the direction of where the evidence leads them.......not the other way around even if it manages to get side stepped temporarily by some humans lacking integrity in their research.

You are wasting your time putting Biblical absolute truth claims up against the earned provisional claims of science.

It the reason why for the past 500 years science has taken us out of the dark ages of centuries of a Biblical based world view and placed us on the path of human progress ever since while faith based view are left holding an empty jar of hope/promises..........

[H.sapiens]

[Replying to post 91 by Clownboat]

Now ask yourself why? Is it really because we are Satanic, god hating, science worshipers, that rob graves like arian spews? Come on, I must assume that such words only make sense in arian's mind (up there with all his other conspiracy theories).

You continue to confuse evolution with abiogenesis, and the only person here that finds what you say as credible thinks that we are part of some Satanic grave robbing skull&bones worshiping religion.

Hi Clownboat,
All you have done is add your voice to a list of voices that say, "This guy does not know what he is talking about."
What has that accomplished?
That's like this scenario.
A 5 year old child comes to you, with a picture of a lion, and a picture of a domestic cat, and says to you, "Look. two cats."
And you say, "No, no, no dear. You got it all wrong. One is a cat. The other, a lion."
"But my mom told me they are both cats."
"Look. Don't get confused. I told you. You need to understand. One is a lion. One is a cat."

What's wrong with this picture?

What it should accomplish is for a light bulb to click on in your brain and you begin to realize that your understanding on the theory of evolution is not accurate. What actually has happened is that you continue to promote misinformation about the scientific theory. Whether that promotion is deliberate or due to a failure of comprehension is the question...

I strongly suspect the former.

[theStudent]

I'm only asking a question.
If you want to prove that I don't understand, here is the opportunity.
Just answer the question.

Edit
Sorry guys.
I just realized I missed a whole page and a bit.

Sorry
I have been having some problems with my internet connection.
So when I got back on, I didn't realized I had missed your posts.
I realized that the question was addressed.

Okay
So I am going to sum everything up in a nutshell - which I hope will be final on the evolution bit, with regard to what I have been addressing.

[Monta]

[Replying to Kenisaw]


"Maybe you are used to sitting back and having others tell you how to think and what things mean. Already happens on Sundays, correct?"

Not so. I've been around for a long time, been there, everywhere, and come to the state of having my personal views with which i am content. This does not mean I close my brain and put it to sleep. I am sure I've missed far too many things and there's no end to refining my 'truth'.

[Kenisaw]

I'm only asking a question.
If you want to prove that I don't understand, here is the opportunity.
Just answer the question.

It's been answered, by multiple people in multiple different ways. If Darwin had lied then evolution would no longer be a valid scientific theory. If Darwin had lied, then the field of genetics would not have verified the tree of life and the claim that all life was related.

Darwin didn't lie.

You know what else Darwin didn't do? He didn't confuse scientific theories and try to lump questions about the origins of the universe or how life began into the theory of evolution. You and Arian could learn quite a lot from a guy that died 124 years ago...

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 106 by Kenisaw]

Okay
Note, I never said he did.
But, they are persons that claimed he did.
So why do you take his side, over theirs?
Do you have proof, that he didn't?

However, let me address the evolution theory.
I am going to sum everything up in a nutshell - which I hope will be final on the evolution bit, with regard to what I have been addressing.

Since I started on this evolution topic, I made... or tried to make one thing clear.
That is, that I was referring to

...the various teachings on the origin of life on earth

I sort of ran into a problem because some persons assumed that I was referring to one particular evolution.
Apparently, it seems that some still think that is the case.
However, despite my efforts to explain, it appears I am lousy at doing that - explaining.

I am not going to post all the information here again.
I already posted enough.
But for those who continue to push, and try to reveal the insane and confused mind of theStudent, I'm going to do this.

I earlier posted a definition for Organic Evolution, but since as I learned scientific theories do not remain the same - they change. I have no real proof to say that this definition is true, or was true - more correctly.
However, this is the definition I had, from 1993.
Organic Evolution is the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said, it changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately producing all forms of plant and animal life that have ever existed on this earth. All of this is said to have been accomplished without the supernatural intervention of a Creator.

So having no proof of this I will have to use the modern definition.
Since the definition of evolution isn't just one thing either, I will have to be specific... I guess.

Here are a few I found.

Organic evolution are the events involved in the evolutionary development of a species. It means that all life descended from other life, although features may have changed dramatically along the way
https://www.reference.com/science/organ ... 79f60f9d55#

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/organic+evolution

Noun 1. organic evolution - (biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms
phylogenesis, phylogeny, evolution
Scopes trial - a highly publicized trial in 1925 when John Thomas Scopes violated a Tennessee state law by teaching evolution in high school; Scopes was prosecuted by William Jennings Bryan and defended by Clarence Darrow; Scopes was convicted but the verdict was later reversed
biological science, biology - the science that studies living organisms
anamorphism, anamorphosis - the evolution of one type of organism from another by a long series of gradual changes
anthropogenesis, anthropogeny - the evolution or genesis of the human race
emergent evolution - the appearance of entirely new properties at certain critical stages in the course of evolution
macroevolution - evolution on a large scale extending over geologic era and resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups
microevolution - evolution resulting from small specific genetic changes that can lead to a new subspecies
biological process, organic process - a process occurring in living organisms
speciation - the evolution of a biological species

http://www.tutorvista.com/content/biolo ... ummary.php

Organic Evolution Summary
Organic evolution refers to the slow and gradual process by which living organisms have changed from the simplest unicellular form to the most complex multi-cellular forms that are existing today.
Organic evolution primarily involves modifications in the existing organisms and the inheritance of these modifications.
There are several theories that try to explain the mechanism of organic evolution.
Lamarckism is one of the earliest theories on evolution proposed by J.B.Lamarck. According to Lamarckism, organic evolution occurs due to the inheritance of acquired characters.
Darwinism is the theory proposed by Charles Darwin. Darwinism explains evolution in terms of over-production, struggle for existence, variations, survival of the fittest and natural selection.
Mutation theory proposed by Hugo DeVries attempts to find the sources of variations in mutation occurring in individual organisms.
Neo-Darwinism is the modern theory on organic evolution that combines the ideas of Darwinism and mutation theory.
Neo-Darwinism attempts to explain evolution in terms of genotypic variations, natural selection and isolation.
The occurrence of organic evolution is established by the innumerable evidences that are available from the different branches of biology.
The study of extinct organisms (palaeontology) provides direct evidences in favour of evolution.
Fossils indicate the relationships between different groups, of organisms. They also help in constructing the story of life's journey on this planet.
Indirect evidences are available from the branches like morphology, taxonomy, embryology, physiology and so on, by a comparative study of extinct organisms.
Variations: the differences that occur in the characteristics between members of the same species, form the raw materials for evolution.
Variations can be somatic or blastogenic. Somatic variations are non- heritable, while blastogenic variations are heritable.
Mutations: recombinations, genetic drift, natural selection and migration are the main sources of variation.
Origin of a new species from the existing one is called as speciation.
Speciation can be multiplicative involving splitting of one species into two or more or phyletic involving replacement of one species by another.
Instant speciation may occur due to hybridisation and polyploidy.
Isolation is the separation of populations by certain barriers, which prevent interbreeding.
Isolation may occur due to geographical barriers such as land masses, mountains and rivers.
Isolation may also be reproductive isolation. It may involve preventing of mating (pre-reproductive) or mechanisms that operate after mating (post-reproductive).

It's way past my bedtime, so...
:sleep:

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 106 by Kenisaw]

Okay
Note, I never said he did.
But, they are persons that claimed he did.
So why do you take his side, over theirs?
Do you have proof, that he didn't?

There is more evidence today then in Darwin's day. The entire field of genetics for one thing. Microscopic investigations, CAT scans, 3D morphological modeling, etc have unlocked secrets about fossils that he also could not have known about. I mention this because all this additional information, the volume of which could fill football stadiums full of supercomputers, has only verified the theory of evolution. If Darwin had lied it would have been discovered by now. Instead it only becomes more obvious how right he is.

I've mentioned this before, but I did not just assume that Darwin in particular, or science in general, is right about evolution. I participated in a fossil dig, I took Geology in college, I've read quite a few books and journal articles on evolutionary subjects. I was a rock hound as a kid and found thousands of different fossils in the creeks around where I grew up. I sometimes took them to the library to see if I could identify what animal it was from. Again, the sheer amount if evidence that supports the theory of evolution is overwhelming.

You have also heard me say that you shouldn't take my word for it. I encourage you to look into the matter yourself, and not just online. Go look and collect fossils, volunteer at a dig site, read published articles and books. Why did your science classes have labs in them? So that you could verify for yourself that what you are being taught is in fact true. You saw it with your own eyes, used your own hands to do it. Science is supposed to be verified by others, so go out and verify the theory of evolution.

However, let me address the evolution theory.
I am going to sum everything up in a nutshell - which I hope will be final on the evolution bit, with regard to what I have been addressing.

Since I started on this evolution topic, I made... or tried to make one thing clear.
That is, that I was referring to

...the various teachings on the origin of life on earth

I sort of ran into a problem because some persons assumed that I was referring to one particular evolution.
Apparently, it seems that some still think that is the case.
However, despite my efforts to explain, it appears I am lousy at doing that - explaining.

I am not going to post all the information here again.
I already posted enough.
But for those who continue to push, and try to reveal the insane and confused mind of theStudent, I'm going to do this.

I earlier posted a definition for Organic Evolution, but since as I learned scientific theories do not remain the same - they change. I have no real proof to say that this definition is true, or was true - more correctly.
However, this is the definition I had, from 1993.
Organic Evolution is the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said, it changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately producing all forms of plant and animal life that have ever existed on this earth. All of this is said to have been accomplished without the supernatural intervention of a Creator.

So having no proof of this I will have to use the modern definition.
Since the definition of evolution isn't just one thing either, I will have to be specific... I guess.

If I may interrupt here, I humbly recommend posting the source of your definitions in the future so that people can see for themselves where it comes from and what it says. Might help people like me understand where you are coming from. You did this below and it really helps.

Here are a few I found.

Organic evolution are the events involved in the evolutionary development of a species. It means that all life descended from other life, although features may have changed dramatically along the way
https://www.reference.com/science/organ ... 79f60f9d55#

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/organic+evolution

Noun 1. organic evolution - (biology) the sequence of events involved in the evolutionary development of a species or taxonomic group of organisms
phylogenesis, phylogeny, evolution
Scopes trial - a highly publicized trial in 1925 when John Thomas Scopes violated a Tennessee state law by teaching evolution in high school; Scopes was prosecuted by William Jennings Bryan and defended by Clarence Darrow; Scopes was convicted but the verdict was later reversed
biological science, biology - the science that studies living organisms
anamorphism, anamorphosis - the evolution of one type of organism from another by a long series of gradual changes
anthropogenesis, anthropogeny - the evolution or genesis of the human race
emergent evolution - the appearance of entirely new properties at certain critical stages in the course of evolution
macroevolution - evolution on a large scale extending over geologic era and resulting in the formation of new taxonomic groups
microevolution - evolution resulting from small specific genetic changes that can lead to a new subspecies
biological process, organic process - a process occurring in living organisms
speciation - the evolution of a biological species

http://www.tutorvista.com/content/biolo ... ummary.php

Organic Evolution Summary
Organic evolution refers to the slow and gradual process by which living organisms have changed from the simplest unicellular form to the most complex multi-cellular forms that are existing today.
Organic evolution primarily involves modifications in the existing organisms and the inheritance of these modifications.
There are several theories that try to explain the mechanism of organic evolution.
Lamarckism is one of the earliest theories on evolution proposed by J.B.Lamarck. According to Lamarckism, organic evolution occurs due to the inheritance of acquired characters.
Darwinism is the theory proposed by Charles Darwin. Darwinism explains evolution in terms of over-production, struggle for existence, variations, survival of the fittest and natural selection.
Mutation theory proposed by Hugo DeVries attempts to find the sources of variations in mutation occurring in individual organisms.
Neo-Darwinism is the modern theory on organic evolution that combines the ideas of Darwinism and mutation theory.
Neo-Darwinism attempts to explain evolution in terms of genotypic variations, natural selection and isolation.
The occurrence of organic evolution is established by the innumerable evidences that are available from the different branches of biology.
The study of extinct organisms (palaeontology) provides direct evidences in favour of evolution.
Fossils indicate the relationships between different groups, of organisms. They also help in constructing the story of life's journey on this planet.
Indirect evidences are available from the branches like morphology, taxonomy, embryology, physiology and so on, by a comparative study of extinct organisms.
Variations: the differences that occur in the characteristics between members of the same species, form the raw materials for evolution.
Variations can be somatic or blastogenic. Somatic variations are non- heritable, while blastogenic variations are heritable.
Mutations: recombinations, genetic drift, natural selection and migration are the main sources of variation.
Origin of a new species from the existing one is called as speciation.
Speciation can be multiplicative involving splitting of one species into two or more or phyletic involving replacement of one species by another.
Instant speciation may occur due to hybridisation and polyploidy.
Isolation is the separation of populations by certain barriers, which prevent interbreeding.
Isolation may occur due to geographical barriers such as land masses, mountains and rivers.
Isolation may also be reproductive isolation. It may involve preventing of mating (pre-reproductive) or mechanisms that operate after mating (post-reproductive).

It's way past my bedtime, so...
:sleep:

Me too...

[Bust Nak]

I earlier posted a definition for Organic Evolution, but since as I learned scientific theories do not remain the same - they change. I have no real proof to say that this definition is true, or was true - more correctly.
However, this is the definition I had, from 1993.
Organic Evolution is the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said, it changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately producing all forms of plant and animal life that have ever existed on this earth. All of this is said to have been accomplished without the supernatural intervention of a Creator.

So having no proof of this I will have to use the modern definition.

I don't think the definition of evolution has changed since 1993, I would go as far as to say it hasn't changed for the past 150 years. The part about "without the supernatural intervention of a Creator" stood out, and tells me you got that version from a non scientific site, as science doesn't explicitly rule out a supernatural creator.