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
Been thanked: 2 times

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.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9874
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Post #61

Post by Bust Nak »

theStudent wrote: So you guys are saying I collected all this information, to be told it's wrong? :?:
So this is wrong?
No, the text you quote is correct, it just does not say what you seem to think it says. Read it more carefully. It give rise to diversity of life, as opposed to give rise to life.

The information you are reading is correct, yet when you retell it, it is wrong. That's why we are calling your understanding into question.
Not proven.
True or False?
Depends on what you mean by "proven." I would say it is as proven as the atomic theory or germ theory.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 10038
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 1228 times
Been thanked: 1621 times

Re: What If...?

Post #62

Post by Clownboat »

theStudent wrote:
Clownboat wrote:
theStudent wrote:Do you have a problem with being challenged?
I was challenged?
I missed it then. Please relay your challenge again so that I can address it.
The challenge is general, not personal.
We are on a debate forum.
If a person says something, and someone opposes it, it can be considered a challenge. Which could amount to challenging a person, or their statements.
If you are debating, feel free to respond to anything I say.
What I say isn't (for the most part) to any one individual.
You have yet to challenge me, so I'm not sure why you would ask if I have a problem being challenged.

Now you mention being challenged yet again and then point out obvious facts about us being on a debate site and that we are free to respond to things you say.
:confused2:

These are things we already know, what we don't know is how you are going to disprove either the fact of evolution or the theory behind it.
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Banned
Banned
Posts: 20879
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 4093 times
Been thanked: 2573 times

Post #63

Post by JoeyKnothead »

theStudent wrote: [Replying to post 39 by JoeyKnothead]
JoeyKnothead wrote:What I can't understand is Christians frettin' on who's lyin' and who ain't whenever the word science, evolution, or ducks gets mentioned.
Who's fretting about who's lying and who isn't?
We need to look around for these guy.
Do you think if we started looking, we could perhaps find less than say 99.9%?
As the one asks about these 'lies', I propose it's on you to show the overwhelming data we have regarding the ToE ain't nothin' but it all a pack of 'em.

We can discard all the notions you present in the OP as "lies", and still be left with overwhelming support for the ToE.

That some ain't proud of it don't change a thing.
I might be Teddy Roosevelt, but I ain't.
-Punkinhead Martin

User avatar
theStudent
Guru
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:32 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #64

Post by theStudent »

Okay
Since it appears that I am a bit slow to understand, work with me, and go slowly with me.
Has the theory been proven that apes evolved to man?
If it has, please show me how it was proven, or a link that would show me how it was proven.
John 8:32
. . .the truth will set you free.

benchwarmer
Prodigy
Posts: 2510
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 2337 times
Been thanked: 960 times

Post #65

Post by benchwarmer »

[Replying to post 64 by theStudent]
Okay
Since it appears that I am a bit slow to understand, work with me, and go slowly with me.
Has the theory been proven that apes evolved to man?

Google to the rescue. Here is the first link that came up for me.

http://www.livescience.com/32503-why-ha ... umans.html

From this link
Humans did not evolve from apes, gorillas or chimps. We are all modern species that have followed different evolutionary paths, though humans share a common ancestor with some primates, such as the African ape.
So the current theory according to this site does not seem to state what I think you are asking. i.e. we didn't evolve from apes. So I guess the answer to your question is no because the theory doesn't state that to start with.

Can I ask where you got the idea that we evolved from apes? I'm not an expert on evolution so I will happily read some links that state the theory you are proposing and compare with others that I've found. Maybe we will both learn something :)

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

Post #66

Post by H.sapiens »

benchwarmer wrote: [Replying to post 64 by theStudent]
Okay
Since it appears that I am a bit slow to understand, work with me, and go slowly with me.
Has the theory been proven that apes evolved to man?
Science never "proves" anything, we just identify the most probable answer.
benchwarmer wrote: Google to the rescue. Here is the first link that came up for me.

http://www.livescience.com/32503-why-ha ... umans.html

From this link
Humans did not evolve from apes, gorillas or chimps. We are all modern species that have followed different evolutionary paths, though humans share a common ancestor with some primates, such as the African ape.
So the current theory according to this site does not seem to state what I think you are asking. i.e. we didn't evolve from apes. So I guess the answer to your question is no because the theory doesn't state that to start with.

Can I ask where you got the idea that we evolved from apes? I'm not an expert on evolution so I will happily read some links that state the theory you are proposing and compare with others that I've found. Maybe we will both learn something :)
Livescience has it wrong. Humans are apes, as are gorillas and chimps, etc., as was the common ancestor of humans, gorillas and chimps. There is no such single species as the "African Ape."

User avatar
theStudent
Guru
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:32 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #67

Post by theStudent »

benchwarmer wrote: [Replying to post 64 by theStudent]
Okay
Since it appears that I am a bit slow to understand, work with me, and go slowly with me.
Has the theory been proven that apes evolved to man?

Google to the rescue. Here is the first link that came up for me.

http://www.livescience.com/32503-why-ha ... umans.html

From this link
Humans did not evolve from apes, gorillas or chimps. We are all modern species that have followed different evolutionary paths, though humans share a common ancestor with some primates, such as the African ape.
So the current theory according to this site does not seem to state what I think you are asking. i.e. we didn't evolve from apes. So I guess the answer to your question is no because the theory doesn't state that to start with.

Can I ask where you got the idea that we evolved from apes? I'm not an expert on evolution so I will happily read some links that state the theory you are proposing and compare with others that I've found. Maybe we will both learn something :)
That's what I was referring to about the so-called educated using fancy words, that can be bent to confuse.
That suits them just fine.

Rather than making this easy, you guys are making it harder and harder - when in effect it's quite simple.
benchwarmer, do something for me.
Tell me if you agree with everything said on this link.
http://www.livescience.com/474-controve ... works.html

Then please answer two questions for me.
1. Does the theory of evolution teach that all "mammals" - I suppose that would include man, according to scientists - evolved from a four footed species, and then evolved into different species.
Man evolving from one of these, eventually standing upright, and evolving to what he is today?
2. Has these theories been proven to be factual, or are they still theories?
John 8:32
. . .the truth will set you free.

benchwarmer
Prodigy
Posts: 2510
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 2337 times
Been thanked: 960 times

Post #68

Post by benchwarmer »

[Replying to post 66 by H.sapiens]
Livescience has it wrong. Humans are apes, as are gorillas and chimps, etc., as was the common ancestor of humans, gorillas and chimps. There is no such single species as the "African Ape."
Thanks for the correction. I guess I should just have used wikipedia like usual:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolution

So I guess technically we didn't evolve from apes, we are apes. Is that more correct to say?

Are there any better links to use for info on this?

benchwarmer
Prodigy
Posts: 2510
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 2337 times
Been thanked: 960 times

Post #69

Post by benchwarmer »

[Replying to post 67 by theStudent]
benchwarmer, do something for me.
Tell me if you agree with everything said on this link.
http://www.livescience.com/474-controve ... works.html
Ok, I read it over. I'm not going to say I agree with everything since I didn't analyze it in fine detail, but I didn't notice anything I wouldn't agree with.
Then please answer two questions for me.
1. Does the theory of evolution teach that all "mammals" - I suppose that would include man, according to scientists - evolved from a four footed species, and then evolved into different species.
Man evolving from one of these, eventually standing upright, and evolving to what he is today?
The link you provide does not state that. I even searched for 'four' and didn't find anything. There is a diagram at the top of the page that shows how whales might have evolved from land animals and the top animal has four legs is that what you are referring to?

I'm not knowledgeable enough in the field to know the exact evolutionary chain from modern day humans back to life's origins (or even early apes apparently - see my previous gaffe)
2. Has these theories been proven to be factual, or are they still theories?
Well I would posit that all theories are just that. Theories. However the theory of evolution has a large body of evidence and facts behind it, so it's looking very valid (and has for a while). All scientific theory is subject to question/review/updating. Do you have a better theory to explain all the evidence?

User avatar
theStudent
Guru
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:32 pm
Been thanked: 2 times

Post #70

Post by theStudent »

[Replying to post 69 by benchwarmer]

Okay
I will collect some specific information for you.
John 8:32
. . .the truth will set you free.

Post Reply