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.

User avatar
OnceConvinced
Savant
Posts: 8969
Joined: Tue Aug 07, 2007 10:22 pm
Location: New Zealand
Has thanked: 50 times
Been thanked: 67 times
Contact:

Post #51

Post by OnceConvinced »

theStudent wrote:
benchwarmer wrote:A theory derived from studying data. i.e. Using the scientific method, a theory called evolution has be postulated. As more data is collected and studied it seems to be holding water. Is it 100% conclusive fact? No, I don't think any theory really is, but it sure seems to provide a lot of answers that make sense and continue to match the observed world around us. Do you think it's wrong? Great, do some research (I don't mean using google, I mean some actual scientific study) and either refine the theory, show that it is wrong, and/or come up with a better theory.
:-s
Since you are new, I'll be kind.
theStudent wrote:
benchwarmer wrote:Evolution has nothing to do with how life started. It only tries to explain how life evolves.
:-s
I'm being nice... Be kind Student. Be kind...
As you are ALSO new here, the rest of us are trying to be kind to YOU.

Benchwarmer has made a point here that many others on this thread are also trying to make. ie, That evolution has nothing to do with how life started.

It seems to me this is a point that needs to be cleared up. Do you acknowledge that abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things?

Society and its morals evolve and will continue to evolve. The bible however remains the same and just requires more and more apologetics and claims of "metaphors" and "symbolism" to justify it.

Prayer is like rubbing an old bottle and hoping that a genie will pop out and grant you three wishes.

There is much about this world that is mind boggling and impressive, but I see no need whatsoever to put it down to magical super powered beings.


Check out my website: Recker's World

User avatar
RonE
Scholar
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:27 pm
Location: Alaska

Post #52

Post by RonE »

[Replying to post 40 by theStudent]
To be clear - not
whether evolution is a correct theory.
but rather I wanted to make it clear that evolution has not been established as a fact, regarding the origin of life on earth.
That's all I was dealing with - the origin of life.
.
I'm surprised no one has pointed this out to you but the The Theory of Evolution is not about "the origin of life on earth". TOE is only concerned with the changing, over time, of life on earth.
*"On the other hand, we have people who are believers who are so completely sold on the literal interpretation of the first book of the Bible that they are rejecting very compelling scientific data about the age of the earth and the relatedness of living beings." Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D.
*The Atheist has the comfort of no fears for an afterlife and lacks any compulsion to blow himself up.
* Science flies to you the moon.... religion flies you into buildings.
* Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.

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

Post #53

Post by theStudent »

So you guys are saying I collected all this information, to be told it's wrong? :?:
So this is wrong?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Evolution
Evolution is change in the heritable traits of biological populations over successive generations.[1][2] Evolutionary processes give rise to diversity at every level of biological organisation, including the levels of species, individual organisms, and molecules.[3]

All life on Earth shares a common ancestor known as the last universal ancestor,[4][5][6] which lived approximately 3.5–3.8 billion years ago,[7] although a study in 2015 found "remains of biotic life" from 4.1 billion years ago in ancient rocks in Western Australia.[8][9]
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 #54

Post by benchwarmer »

[Replying to post 50 by theStudent]
Sorry I missed your post - I just noticed it.


No worries. I have trouble keeping track of what's going on and I'm only in a few threads.
To be clear - not
Quote:
whether evolution is a correct theory.
but rather I wanted to make it clear that evolution has not been established as a fact, regarding the origin of life on earth.
That's all I was dealing with - the origin of life.


Ah, thank you for clearing that up. However, as far as I understand it, and I don't claim to be an expert, the theory of evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life on earth.

Maybe this is why I was so confused and you were confused why I was confused.

I think (and I'm sure you will correct me if I'm wrong, please do) that you want to debate abiogenesis. i.e. how did life originate from non living matter.

User avatar
RonE
Scholar
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:27 pm
Location: Alaska

Post #55

Post by RonE »

[Replying to post 53 by theStudent]

The information you are linking to looks okay, your just not understanding the difference between evolution & abiogenesis.
*"On the other hand, we have people who are believers who are so completely sold on the literal interpretation of the first book of the Bible that they are rejecting very compelling scientific data about the age of the earth and the relatedness of living beings." Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D.
*The Atheist has the comfort of no fears for an afterlife and lacks any compulsion to blow himself up.
* Science flies to you the moon.... religion flies you into buildings.
* Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.

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

Post #56

Post by theStudent »

RonE wrote: [Replying to post 53 by theStudent]

The information you are linking to looks okay, your just not understanding the difference between evolution & abiogenesis.
No
I understand the difference - read my earlier posts to see where I mentioned the difference.

Question
Does the theory of evolution present the hypothesis that
All life on Earth shares a common ancestor known as the last universal ancestor
If that is the case, is the evolution theory presenting the hypothesis that that common ancestor is what branched/evolved into different species, including the continuous evolving until the ape became a man?

Well add that to my problem list.
Abiogenesis to evolution theory on various species.

Not proven.
True or False?
John 8:32
. . .the truth will set you free.

User avatar
RonE
Scholar
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:27 pm
Location: Alaska

Post #57

Post by RonE »

[Replying to post 56 by theStudent]

You say you understand the difference but your comments show otherwise.

Please review this info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
*"On the other hand, we have people who are believers who are so completely sold on the literal interpretation of the first book of the Bible that they are rejecting very compelling scientific data about the age of the earth and the relatedness of living beings." Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D.
*The Atheist has the comfort of no fears for an afterlife and lacks any compulsion to blow himself up.
* Science flies to you the moon.... religion flies you into buildings.
* Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.

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

Post #58

Post by theStudent »

RonE wrote: [Replying to post 56 by theStudent]

You say you understand the difference but your comments show otherwise.

Please review this info: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
Which comments.
Could you post the comment please.
John 8:32
. . .the truth will set you free.

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Post #59

Post by Willum »

[Replying to post 56 by theStudent]

Proven, true.
As proven as a round Earth.

The theory is the driver, the fact is that it occurs.

Evolution has been accepted as fact since 1986.
Scientific understanding requires both facts and theories that can explain those facts in a coherent manner. Evolution, in this context, is both a fact and a theory. It is an incontrovertible fact that organisms have changed, or evolved, during the history of life on Earth.
Even though you disparage THEORY, you must understand that Relativity, and much other science we use everyday is theory.

And remind you again, that Christianity, et&al doesn't justify theory, maybe, model or just plain, hope.

User avatar
RonE
Scholar
Posts: 464
Joined: Wed Jun 19, 2013 1:27 pm
Location: Alaska

Post #60

Post by RonE »

[Replying to post 56 by theStudent]

[Quote] Abiogenesis to evolution theory on various species. [\quote]

There is no conflict between this transition, evolution is the evolving over time of life forms, abiogenesis is how the first life form came into being. You see that, right?
*"On the other hand, we have people who are believers who are so completely sold on the literal interpretation of the first book of the Bible that they are rejecting very compelling scientific data about the age of the earth and the relatedness of living beings." Francis S. Collins, M.D., Ph.D.
*The Atheist has the comfort of no fears for an afterlife and lacks any compulsion to blow himself up.
* Science flies to you the moon.... religion flies you into buildings.
* Faith isn’t a virtue; it is the glorification of voluntary ignorance.

Post Reply