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 Haeckels 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.

[Talishi]

I think Darwin was fairly open to the potential problems of the theory, long before those problems were borne out by science. If he were alive today I think he would be skeptical of the theory by his own standards- whether or not it was academically fashionable, he was a pioneer, not afraid of controversy.

His basic theory was merged with Medellian genetics, he'd recognize the basic outline but not the details.

[theStudent]

I don't know what the man is at heart.

What I do know about him is that he was easily bored at lectures, and seemed more interested in activities - He preferred riding and shooting to studying.
He was exposed to a lot of philosophy, especially from people promoting natural theology which provides arguments for the existence of God based on reason and ordinary experience of nature. My feeling is that he probably got bored of that too.
Darwin questioned the preditor-prey, and survive-or-expire, pattern in nature, and therefore reasoned that nature was not so beneficent, and the distribution of species did not support ideas of divine creation. He therefore conceived his theory that natural selection, rather than divine design, was the best explanation for gradual change in populations over many generations.
He said, "It has recently been objected that this is an unsafe method of arguing; but it is a method used in judging of the common events of life, and has often been used by the greatest natural philosophers ..."

What he goes on to say here imo, says a lot to me. He said,

Although I did not think much about the existence of a personal God until a considerably later period of my life, I will here give the vague conclusions to which I have been driven. The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly seemed to me so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows. Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws.

What this says to me, is that Darwin made a argument against intelligent design, on the basis of a self-proposed idea/belief, with no scientific evidence. I suppose that was because Philosophy was doing exactly that, and so, a counter argument that could pass as a valid argument, could in effect become the more popularly accepted.

In a changing society, that is exactly what happened, and science - particularly in the doctrine of evolution - followed this same trend - present ideas that oppose/challenge religious beliefs, and establish those ideas.

However, there was a problem - where did these "laws of nature"/"fixed laws" come from?
So Darwin propose another idea.

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

Confusing - So now God is needed... partly. But it worked.
Liberals - that is, "liberal Christians"/"liberal theologians" - "the so-called freethinkers", imo made it quite easy for more persons to accept Darwin's evolutionary ideas.
By the time Darwin published his theory, liberal theologians were already supporting such ideas, and by the late 19th century their modernist approach was predominant in theology. In science, evolution theory incorporating Darwin's natural selection became completely accepted.

Overall, my conclusion is that the evolution theory started with ideas based on the vantage point of an individual, and it continues allong that same vein.
To me that is philosophical, not scientific. It is no different to those who make observations of the natural world and conclude that it owes its existence to an omnipotent, benevolent creator.
The one difference is that those who choose to believe in God, do so based not only on what nature tells them, but based also on the fact that what the Bible tells them, harmonizes completely with what nature reveals. Hence their faith in the Bible's promises, is based on two complimenting lines of evidence.

In my book, two or three witnesses agreeing completely on a matter seems to be the reasonable choice to make.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 636 by Blastcat]

1. We can't see what takes longer to happen than our own lives. So, you can't be demanding to see something that can take one day longer than your own life. Correct?

If you are not demanding to see

• something that existed long before we existed.
• something that happened long before we existed.
• something that is a higher form than we are.

2.In your opinion, what are scientists who believe the TOE is true in the micro and the macro are "seeing"?

The website you posted has some simple examples of love flies of different species, demontrating changes through reproduction. No examples are given for macroevolution... because they can't demonstrate one.

3. I don't understand what you mean by "see". For example, the Big Bang Theory has been demonstrated true by way of the "Background Microwave Radiation" ... We don't actually SEE the Big Bang, but a possible effect that was predicted by the BB theory. In the same way, we can't go back in time and actually SEE "macro" evolution.. but it's results.. and test a theory like evolution by making predictions and seeing if they match what we CAN see. This has been done to the satisfaction of MANY scientists.. if not most, who are knowledgeable in the relevant fields of study.

Anything is possible... including God created. You don't need to see that... Or do you?

4. I suspect that you are making a case for strong skepticism.. If you don't see it, you wont believe it... and you don't see it, so...... you don't believe it. If that's your point, then I have to agree with it. But skepticism doesn't mean "supporting a bias". I'd watch out for bias confirmation. You may have found a way for you to not believe in some scientific theory that has wide acceptance in the scientific community, but I have to wonder if you have really made the effort to find out WHY these people believe the theory is true. It seems that your research so far has been ONE SIDED. At least, that's what I can observe. And being ONE SIDED isn't good skepticism. So, although I applaud your wanting to be skeptical, I think that you aren't being SKEPTICAL ENOUGH. Is your demand to "see" macro-evolution reasonable?

Okay. So take everything you said there, and in the most honest way you possibly can, apply it to yourself and your constant demands for proof of the existence of God, creation, miracles, and the Bible being "God breathed".

5. If all you really want to do is to PRESERVE your religious conviction that the book of GENESIS is literally true... then one good way would be to deny everything that might tend to refute the book. You seem to have accomplished that already. If you want to know the truth about the theory of evolution.. I'd say.. you have to go to the actual SCIENCE... and not the critiques from your religious organizations. You seem to have the critiques down pat. So, as far as I'm concerned, you're done. IF you wanted to convince OUTSIDERS to your faith, you have not.

Thank you. We both seem to be well informed by someone, and about something.

6. Your demand for evidence is challenging due to the fact that no evidence for the TOE seems to ever be satisfying to you. It's almost as if we don't have the same kind of criteria for what "evidence" should be like. Would you agree, for example, that the scientific method has good criteria to sort out truth from opinion?

Likewise, no evidence for God, or the reliability of the scriptures seem to ever be satisfying to you. It's almost as if we don't have the same kind of criteria for what "evidence" should be like.
I have never heard of a scientific method that includes the supernatural, miracles, reasons for dreams, emotions, awareness, sex, spirituality, etc... etc... etc... No.
Would you agree that the Bible gives practical answers, and is ahead of it's time in matters only now being discovered?

7. I'd really like to know how you think. It's important that we think well, and to me, learning how others form their beliefs ( any kind ) is a very interesting and vital subject of study. Your seemingly almost absolute denial of the TOE in the face of a veritable tsunami of data and scientific study by thousands of people who spend their lives on all the related topics involved in the TOE really quite fascinates me.

You have seen my posts B.
If you can't determine from them how I think, then I can't help you in that area.
Furthermore, you can see it's not just a lone wolf stubborn critter situation. You saw the websites I linked to, the individuals I quoted, and the videos that are all opposed to the theory of evolution. There are millions of people who have been told the same things I have.
Your questions should be, not focused on me, but directed at all those millions, and then ask yourself seriously, "Why?"
Here's one made just for the humor of it. Have a light moment.
[youtube][/youtube]

In my opinion, of course, as are most non-creationists, I believe that your inability to believe in the TOE is due to your prior religious commitments. But maybe it's not quite that. I'd like to explore that with you. I think a public exploration of HOW you reason is even more important for people to learn that WHAT you conclude.

Not everyone who has, as you put it, an "inability to believe in the TOE" [italics mine], had a prior religious commitment, or background.
Because it seem strange to you does not mean it is right.
In the same way you believe that believing in TOE is straightforward and right, People who believe in God and the Bible, believe that it's straightforward and right.
In the same way you believe that those who believe in God are not rational thinkers, People believe that those who believe in TOE are not thinking rationally.
It's as simple as that - a matter of how we think, and in my opinion - who or what is affecting our thoughts. I'm sure you would agree with that suggestions.

As regard "a public exploration of HOW reason", that seems quite a strange proposition, since I have been posting for almost a year now, and I try to be very precise in where I am coming from, and what I am saying, and at times where I am leading to.
So it would seem inevitable that one would know how I reason.
If not, then it's a suggestion that puts me in a poor light, which I am quite willing to accept.

Hope you decide to engage me on that level.

Have we not been there? I suggest we have.
Or I am mistaken what you mean.

[Bust Nak]

It's almost as if we don't have the same kind of criteria for what "evidence" should be like.

I have commented on this before and that's was exactly my point - our side has one criteria for what "evidence" should be like - we demand empiricism; you on the other hand, have a double standard, any old argument qualify as evidence for God, where as solid, physical and scientifically verified observation does not count as evidence for evolution.

That is entirely unreasonable.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 641 by Bust Nak]

you on the other hand, have a double standard,

Wow. Am I hearing what I think I am hearing?
I shall be as harmless as a dove.

Correction. I have one standard. Some basic ptinciples are involved.

1. Fairness. You have not provided any solid, physical and scientifically verified evidence. And you know it.
2. Reasonableness. We probably should debate what reasonableness is, because someone here doesn't seem to understand what it means.
3. Truthfulness. The truth shall be told, my brother.

Sleep well. :sleep:

[help3434]

The website you posted has some simple examples of love flies of different species, demontrating changes through reproduction. No examples are given for macroevolution... because they can't demonstrate one.

Different species. How is that not marcoevolution?

[Talishi]

The website you posted has some simple examples of love flies of different species, demontrating changes through reproduction. No examples are given for macroevolution... because they can't demonstrate one.

Different species. How is that not marcoevolution?

Marcoevolution is when I manage to get Marco to change his position on a point he previously held.

[otseng]

[Replying to post 641 by Bust Nak]

you on the other hand, have a double standard,

Wow. Am I hearing what I think I am hearing?

because someone here doesn't seem to understand what it means.

Moderator Comment

Do not comment on what you think another doesn't understand.

As a general comment about evidence, it is true empirical evidence is the best form of evidence. But, on this forum, it is not the only form of evidence allowed. Please see Presenting evidence.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator comments do not count as a strike against any posters. They only serve as an acknowledgment that a post report has been received, but has not been judged to warrant a moderator warning against a particular poster. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[theStudent]

Hello Bust Nak.
I hope you slept well.

You know, I was reflecting the morning of October 1st, on what a wonderful gift sleep is, because it does affect our minds in such a positive way.

For example...
Something became clear to me that morning, that wasn't so clear previously, espcially after that vile comment made about theStudent having a double standard - a vile accusation, to say the least.
It dawned on me that, you know what... it may not be the case that Bust knows within himself that he hasn't provided solid, verifiable evidence, but he may actually believe that what he provided is solid, and verifiable.
So rather than thinking how someone could be so unfair, unreasonable, and untruthful in defending what some consider foolishness, I realized - you know, the person is actually sincere in what they believe. They actually believe their evidence is irrefutable.
Depending on each person's perspective, one view or another something we believe can appear very foolish, to another person.
However, it's a fact. A person can honestly believe in what one considers foolishness.

And so, that affected my plans for today... a little.

So I put away my bandana, but ahem...
There remains a few things to clear up.

Oh, before I get to that...
Why do living organisms sleep? Do trees sleep?

Here's what I found.

Sleep is a naturally recurring state of mind and body characterized by altered consciousness, relatively inhibited sensory activity, inhibition of nearly all voluntary muscles, and reduced interactions with surroundings.

Sleep in non-human animals is observed in mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and some fish, and, in some form, in insects and even in simpler animals such as nematodes. The internal circadian clock promotes sleep daily at night in diurnal organisms (such as humans) and in the day in nocturnal organisms (such as rodents). However, sleep patterns vary among individual humans and even more widely among other species. In the last century, artificial light has in many areas of the world substantially altered sleep timing among both humans and many other species.

The circadian clock, or circadian oscillator, in most living things makes it possible for organisms to coordinate their biology and behavior with daily environmental changes in the day-night cycle. The term circadian derives from the Latin circa (about) diem (a day), since when taken away from external cues (such as the day-night cycle), they do not run to exactly 24 hours. Clocks in humans in a lab in constant low light, for example, will average about 24.2 hours per day, rather than 24 hours exactly. Hence the term circadian.
The normal body clock oscillates with a period of exactly 24 hours, it entrains, when it receives sufficient daily corrective signals from the environment, primarily daylight and darkness. Circadian clocks are the central mechanisms that drive circadian rhythms.
The clock is reset as an organism senses environmental time cues of which the primary one is light.

Maybe my neighbor's dog's circadian clock needs adjusting. It seems to sleep all hours of the day... and night.

Do Trees Sleep at Night?

It depends on how you define "sleep," but trees do relax their branches at night, which might be a sign of snoozing, scientists said.

It's unclear if the sun "woke up" the trees or if they relied on their own internal circadian rhythm, the researchers said. But "the fact that some branches started returning to their daytime position already before sunrise would suggest this [internal circadian clock] hypothesis [is right]," the researchers wrote in the study, which was published online on Feb. 29, 2016, in the journal Frontiers in Plant Science.

The finding isn't too surprising, but oddly enough it hadn't been studied until now, the researchers said. Most living organisms have day and night circadian rhythms, and any gardener will notice that some plants open their flowers in the morning and that some trees close their leaves at night, the researchers said.

The tree study didn't address why the branches and leaves drooped at night, but it's likely related to the turgidity, or the internal water pressure within the tree, the researchers said.

I'll remember this the next time I see my plants drooping during the day, and not give them any water, for fear I wake them.
You know, that might just explain why they lift up during the night.
Maybe they are closely related to my neighbors dog.

Oh, so that explains why scientists believe that plants have consciousness, an can detect when they are about to be harmed.
I also learned that our stomach has a brain. Our gut actually thinks. Nice - two brains are better than one.

Hey. That must mean that trees also dream... And my gut.
Or am I just speculating?

[theStudent]

...you on the other hand, have a double standard, any old argument qualify as evidence for God, where as solid, physical and scientifically verified observation does not count as evidence for evolution.

The evidence for evolution?

From the beginning...
Ppost 27

Sure, start with the most famous observed instance of evolution, Lenski and co's long term evolution experiment:
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2 ... real-time/

Fossils discovered in situ, and a transitional one to boot:
http://www.nature.com/news/rival-specie ... bird-1.164...

As for the discovery of fossils coming before the concepts of dinosaur, outside of the discovery of bones of dragons etc. in antiquity, the first modern discovery was in 1676, and it wasn't until over a century later was "dinosaurs" is a thing in 1841:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalosau ... and_naming

CHAPTER 1
- Part 1
Evolution in real time - 59,000 generations of bacteria, plus freezer, yield startling results

After 26 years of workdays spent watching bacteria multiply, Richard Lenski has learned a thing or two.

Hes learned that naturalist Charles Darwin was wrong about some things. For one, evolution doesnt always occur in steps so slow and steady that changes cant be observed.

Lenski has watched E. coli bacteria multiply through 59,000 generations, a span that has allowed him to observe evolution in real time.

Researchers periodically froze samples of E. coli, and because the frozen bacteria remained viable, scientists interested in particular evolutionary developments could directly compare modern populations against their ancestors.

Sounds exciting.

Though the bacteria were originally genetically identical, they have evolved. Todays populations grow roughly 80 percent faster than the original lines, a development that Lenski called a beautiful example of adaptation by natural selection.

In further testing to determine if the new bacteria were different enough to qualify as a new species, Lenskis researchers found that beyond changes to the genes responsible for glucose and citrate consumption, other changes had occurred in the organism that had made it less fit to survive in a glucose-only environment,

We find they are getting less fit in the ancestral niche over time, Lenski said. I would argue that citrate users are " or are becoming " a new species.

Lenski said hed like to see the experiment continue in the future, even after he has retired, because the bacteria continue to surprise.

I call this the experiment that keeps on giving, because the bacteria continue to do interesting things, Lenski said. Id like this experiment to continue long after Im gone.

That's disappointing.
No one is arguing against reproduction, and small changes. Not that they don't know this.

What is macroevolution?
Macroevolution generally refers to evolution above the species level. So instead of focusing on an individual beetle species, a macroevolutionary lens might require that we zoom out on the tree of life, to assess the diversity of the entire beetle clade and its position on the tree.

Yet microevolution is provided as evidence, when they know full well the evidence being asked for is macro.

I mean, where are the fins?
Were we not expecting to hear that the bacteria developed fins, and were swimming around?

Didn't Lenski say

evolution doesnt always occur in steps so slow and steady that changes cant be observed

So according to Lenski, wouldn't that mean we should be able to observe, not bacteria + bacteria = bacteria, but some change in the oganisms - like fins growing?

The ability of organisms to reproduce, and have offspring with varying characteristics, is evolution!
That's the evidence solid, physical and scientifically verified observation.

According to this information, there is no solid, physical and scientifically verified observation for evolution on a macro level.

Microevolution happens on a small time scale " from one generation to the next. When such small changes build up over the course of millions of years, they translate into evolution on a grand scale " in other words, macroevolution!

The four basic evolutionary mechanisms " mutation, migration, genetic drift, and natural selection " can produce major evolutionary change if given enough time. And life on Earth has been accumulating small changes for 3.8 billion years " more than enough time for these simple evolutionary processes to produce its grand history.

There is nothing solid, physical, or verifiable about this. And yet I am accused of presenting

any old argument qualify as evidence for God

preceding with an baseless insult

you on the other hand, have a double standard

This is what theStudent gets for debating the topic, on a debate forum.
And it's all good.

[Lenski] learned that naturalist Charles Darwin was wrong about some things. For one, evolution doesnt always occur in steps so slow and steady that changes cant be observed.
Yet, microevolution happens on a small time scale " from one generation to the next. When such small changes build up over the course of millions of years, they translate into evolution on a grand scale " in other words, macroevolution! 3.8 billion years.