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.

[H.sapiens]

Tell me if you agree with everything said on this link.
http://www.livescience.com/474-controve ... works.html

Livescience is rather sloppy, many items I read were partially true, or contained some glaring error. They seem to be big on pushing various hypothesis concerning H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis hybridization.

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.

Yes, all mammals evolved from four-footed common ancestors.

Man evolving from one of these, eventually standing upright, and evolving to what he is today?

Man evolved from another ape, sharing a partially upright common ancestor with the chimp and bonobo. If you step back further you will eventually reach four-footed common ancestors.

2. Has these theories been proven to be factual, or are they still theories?

Science does not prove anything to "be factual." It proves things to be wrong and those things that science fails to prove to be wrong after many attempts are considered to have a high probability of being "factual."

[theStudent]

Tell me if you agree with everything said on this link.
http://www.livescience.com/474-controve ... works.html

Livescience is rather sloppy, many items I read were partially true, or contained some glaring error. They seem to be big on pushing various hypothesis concerning H. sapiens and H. neanderthalensis hybridization.

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.

Yes, all mammals evolved from four-footed common ancestors.

Man evolving from one of these, eventually standing upright, and evolving to what he is today?

Man evolved from another ape, sharing a partially upright common ancestor with the chimp and bonobo. If you step back further you will eventually reach four-footed common ancestors.

2. Has these theories been proven to be factual, or are they still theories?

Science does not prove anything to "be factual." It proves things to be wrong and those things that science fails to prove to be wrong after many attempts are considered to have a high probability of being "factual."

You say

Yes, all mammals evolved from four-footed common ancestors.

as though it's a fact, and then you say

Science does not prove anything to "be factual." It proves things to be wrong and those things that science fails to prove to be wrong after many attempts are considered to have a high probability of being "factual."

, which still sounds a bit confusing, but I'll leave it there.

Thanks for answering as honestly as you can.
I'm not exactly sure how to respond, since the questions weren't answered directly, but rather with additional statements.

Merely saying something is true does not make it true.
Saying something is probable is only a hunch or a guess, an assumption.

We as humans like to have proof.
Gullible people accept things, because it suits them, not because they believe it.

Nevertheless, thank you.

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 72 by theStudent]

The use of probable is a philosophical standpoint based on the concept that "proof" and "fact" as you assert would be impossible verify with 100% authenticity. Take a light bulb for example. We both would agree that running an electric current through a lightbulb is what turns it on. So we would say electricity powers the lights when asked, what makes a light bulb turn on. We cannot account for the unforeseen though, there could be a force acting upon the lightbulb we are completely unaware of working parallel to electricity causing the light to turn on.

Simply put proof is subject to the observer and their senses.


Aside from that your questions were answered directly.

1 your first question asked what evolution taught not whether it was a fact. It was answered directly with what evolution taught I.e. Evolution teaches man evolved from an ancestor the walked on all 4s.

2 your second question asked about whether scientific theories were facts. This was also answered directly. That science does not work in that framework. For example, heliocentric theory, the theory of gravity, etc.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 73 by DanieltheDragon]

The use of probable is a philosophical standpoint based on the concept that "proof" and "fact" as you assert would be impossible verify with 100% authenticity. Take a light bulb for example. We both would agree that running an electric current through a lightbulb is what turns it on. So we would say electricity powers the lights when asked, what makes a light bulb turn on. We cannot account for the unforeseen though, there could be a force acting upon the lightbulb we are completely unaware of working parallel to electricity causing the light to turn on.

Simply put proof is subject to the observer and their senses.

What this translates to is that nothing viewed from a scientific level can be proven, but that's not the case.
Take your example of a light bulb.
If we agree that running an electric current through a lightbulb is what turns it on - we all saw it demonstrated. We should say electricity powers the lights when asked, until we learn otherwise. It has been demonstrated.
To say that it is not factual, is in my opinion, looking for some thing to call a fact, that might not even exist.

If this philosophical standpoint is used by atheists, it would put them in a very awkward position also, because if a Christian says, "Well you can't see the "force acting upon the light bulb", because it's invisible, or you can't see the power behind that miracle...", then an atheist should accept that probability.
But that's not the case.
Do atheist actually use that philosophy? I would like to know.

2 your second question asked about whether scientific theories were facts. This was also answered directly. That science does not work in that framework. For example, heliocentric theory, the theory of gravity, etc.

It sound to me, in other words, like it's a fact, but at the same time, it's not a fact.
Is that what you are saying?

[DanieltheDragon]

[Replying to post 73 by DanieltheDragon]

The use of probable is a philosophical standpoint based on the concept that "proof" and "fact" as you assert would be impossible verify with 100% authenticity. Take a light bulb for example. We both would agree that running an electric current through a lightbulb is what turns it on. So we would say electricity powers the lights when asked, what makes a light bulb turn on. We cannot account for the unforeseen though, there could be a force acting upon the lightbulb we are completely unaware of working parallel to electricity causing the light to turn on.

Simply put proof is subject to the observer and their senses.

What this translates to is that nothing viewed from a scientific level can be proven, but that's not the case.
Take your example of a light bulb.
If we agree that running an electric current through a lightbulb is what turns it on - we all saw it demonstrated. We should say electricity powers the lights when asked, until we learn otherwise. It has been demonstrated.
To say that it is not factual, is in my opinion, looking for some thing to call a fact, that might not even exist.

The evidence would indicate that electricity powers the light bulb and indeed there are scientific theories that are sound on this. Much in the same way evolutionary theory is sound.

The problem you are running into is a semantic one. You are trying to shoehorn your use of the word facts into a scientific conversation. Science is not designed in such a way as explained earlier. This is bound to create language barriers between your understanding of the research and evidence.

If this philosophical standpoint is used by atheists, it would put them in a very awkward position also, because if a Christian says, "Well you can't see the "force acting upon the light bulb", because it's invisible, or you can't see the power behind that miracle...", then an atheist should accept that probability.
But that's not the case.
Do atheist actually use that philosophy? I would like to know.

You'll have to rephrase.

2 your second question asked about whether scientific theories were facts. This was also answered directly. That science does not work in that framework. For example, heliocentric theory, the theory of gravity, etc.

It sound to me, in other words, like it's a fact, but at the same time, it's not a fact.
Is that what you are saying?[/quote]

Nope I am saying the use of the word facts in this discussion is not helpful or useful.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 75 by DanieltheDragon]

You know, I think, like the Bible, so much of the confusion of evolution can be laid to rest if you stopped relying on Darwin's TRANSLATIONS of evolution, and looked back to the original Greek scriptures about evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... ry_thought

In 7th century BC or so, long before Christianity came to power and murdered anyone who believed in evolution, many many confusions around translating the true scripture can be clarified...

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 75 by DanieltheDragon]

Thank you for your patience.
It's okay.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 75 by DanieltheDragon]

You know, I think, like the Bible, so much of the confusion of evolution can be laid to rest if you stopped relying on Darwin's TRANSLATIONS of evolution, and looked back to the original Greek scriptures about evolution.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... ry_thought

In 7th century BC or so, long before Christianity came to power and murdered anyone who believed in evolution, many many confusions around translating the true scripture can be clarified...

It isn't just Darwin's theory...
Regardless of which theory is held, there should be at least some evidence to show that one kind of life turns into another kind. But the gaps between different types of life found in the fossil record, as well as the gaps between different types of living things on earth today, still persist.
Many scientists, uncomfortable with the idea that the universe was created by a higher intelligence, speculate that by some mechanism it created itself out of nothing.
Such speculations usually involve some variation of a theory (inflationary universe model) conceived in 1979 by physicist Alan Guth. Yet, more recently, Dr. Guth admitted that his theory “does not explain how the universe arose from nothing.� Dr. Andrei Linde was more explicit in a Scientific American article: “Explaining this initial singularity—where and when it all began—still remains the most intractable problem of modern cosmology.�

I think the confusion can be ended with honesty, all around.
If evolution is not a fact, don't complicate things with scientific escape routes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory = Variation of a theory...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientifi ... _evolution

If experts cannot really explain either the origin or the early development of our universe, should they not look elsewhere for an explanation?

I believe honesty will compel us to do so.

[Kenisaw]

Hi all
Let me start by clarifying a few things.

I have never writen a dictionary in my life.

But you sure have tried to redefine things, eh? For example, trying to say that the theory of evolution includes the changes in living things over time AND how life began (abiogenesis) AND how the universe came to be (Big Bang)...

When I want to know what something means, that's where I go.
I was taught that from school days, and I have learned it's the right thing to do.
The definitions I posted came directly from a dictionary - copy -> paste.

Evolutionists
A person who believes in organic evolution

Evolutionism
(biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals

So please do not quarrel with me about definitions. If anything, take it up with th dictionary producers.

However, I appreciate any updated information. Thanks.

Sorry, but I'm going to have to quarrel. Neither of these words are "evolution". This is important to note given your claims below. "Evolutionism" in particular is a word used by creationists. As per the Wikipedia entry on evolutionism: "Since the overwhelming majority of scientists accept the modern evolutionary synthesis as the best explanation of current data, the term is seldom used in the scientific community; to say someone is a scientist implies acceptance of evolutionary views, unless specifically noted otherwise. In the creation-evolution controversy, creationists often call those who accept the validity of the modern evolutionary synthesis "evolutionists" and the theory itself as "evolutionism." Some creationists and creationist organizations, such as the Institute of Creation Research, use these terms in an effort to make it appear that evolutionary biology is a form of secular religion."

So you should appreciate the updated information, since your definitions aren't for "evolution"...

The following definition is copy and paste from a dictionary, as well.
Science
1. Study of the physical and natural world using theoretical models and data from experiments or observation.
(Oh, I just love that one.)
2. A particular branch of scientific knowledge.
(Very nice. Right up your alley, Divine Insight.)
3. Ability to produce solutions in some problem domain.
(Wonderfull! Thank you, scientist, for helping with medicine, and other important things.)
4. Research into questions posed by scientific theories and hypotheses.
(Ooh. My, my, my. Isn't this a beauty?)

There's the positives.
Here comes the negatives.

Searching... searching...
scientific evolution - results: no such thing.
Searching... searching...
science of evolution - results: evolution.
Who called it "science of evolution"?
Google it and see.
It's evolution, full stop.

There we go.
Conclusively...
science is not evolution, nor is evolution science.
So why am I constantly seeing these ?

Utter nonsense. I google "scientific evolution" and at the top of the results it states "Evolution by natural selection is one of the best substantiated theories in the history of science, supported by evidence from a wide variety of scientific disciplines, including paleontology, geology, genetics and developmental biology."
Then I google "science of evolution" and the top website found is evolution.berkelly.edu and it says at the top of the page:

"The science of evolution

At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time.

Overwhelming evidence supports this fact. Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a long history or not was answered in the affirmative at least two centuries ago.

The history of living things is documented through multiple lines of evidence that converge to tell the story of life through time. In this section, we will explore the lines of evidence that are used to reconstruct this story.
These lines of evidence include: •Fossil evidence •Homologies •Distribution in time and space •Evidence by example"

Evolution isn't science? I find this part of your post to be a failed attempt at misdirection. You really didn't think anyone would take the time to google and verify your baseless claims? And you still haven't googled "evolution" in all this either. So we will keep quarreling with your definitions until you get them right...

[Kenisaw]

You know.
It's a bit sad, and disturbing, but at the same time a bit funny.
Sad and disturbing to see how a man's thinking can so warp his understanding, and cloud his mental vision.
Funny that, for some strange reason, you just have to laugh.

Guys, please quit.
I love science!

You may love it, but you don't understand it. You own words will prove it.

Please, read my earlier posts. Read the other two threads in the Rambling section.
I said it many times. Science is not the problem.
However, if even up to this point, that hasn't sunk in. I'm done with that.

You mean where your quote mining was discovered and pointed out, and you said you'd look at the information provided, and haven't posted since then? Yep, I've read the posts in the Rambling section all right...

So lets get back to the definition of science,
and I'm going to focus primarily on number 4.
Research into questions posed by scientific theories and hypotheses.

Let's get a definition for that before we go on.
hypotheses
1. A proposal intended to explain certain facts or observations
2. A tentative insight into the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena
3. A message expressing an opinion based on incomplete evidence

While scientists are doing their research into whether the theory/theories of evolution are true.
While scientists are doing their research into the proposals, the concepts, the opinions, etc. etc., they are also doing somthing else.

Scientists are learning stuff. Great!
They learn how the different parts of living, and non-living things works, the cells etc. etc.
But what they are learnig is, what's already there,

What they are learning from is evidence and empirical data. And they can learn not only about what is already there, but what used to be there and is now gone. Evidence and empirical data offer up information from past and present. As someone who "loves science" you should already be aware of that...

and functioning according to how they were designed to function.

Prove it. You've been asked for this every time you've tried to claim a creator, and you've ignored the question repeatedly. You claim there is a creator, so prove that it exists. Then prove that it actually created anything. We look forward to your splendid and comprehensive list of evidence...

Then they can use what they learn to fix things, and even make fantastic things - destructive things as well.

Those aren't scientists, those are engineers. Engineers don't do science, engineers apply science into everyday applications.

There's a word for that though - it's called DISCOVERING.
1. Determine the existence, presence, or fact of
2. Get to know or become aware of, usually accidentally
3. Make a discovery, make a new finding
4. Determine following investigation
5. Find unexpectedly
6. Make known to the public information that was previously known only to a few people or that was meant to be kept a secret
7. See for the first time; make a discovery
8. Classify or apply the appropriate name to, e.g. in botany or biology

That's a lot, of what scientist are doing right there - discovering.
It's sort of like Columbus.
He traveled the seas, and he made discoveries.
But you didn't hear Columbus say, "When I went here, I found an island. When I went there, I found an island. So the islands must be evolving."
Duh. The island were there already. Before Columbus came and found them.

How long were they there? Where did they come from? How have they changed over time, or have they remained the same? All that can also be discovered when you collect and analysis all the data. Science does that. It did it with life, and found out a process of change over time we know call the theory of evolution.

By the way, it's funny you mention Columbus, because he and his crew brought various viral infections that New World natives had no immunity to which decimated their populations. The viruses had evolved in Europe to something that they had acclimated to in the western hemisphere. Evolution is in everything, Student...

Columbus! Mr. Scietist.
The processes you are discovering existed long before you came.
So you found out that cells have the ability to do some amazing stuff, as though they have an intelligent mind.

It doesn't take intelligence to do what cells do. It takes chemistry, physics, and liquid water...

You are making some amazing discoveries. give credit where it's due.
I believe that credit is due the creator of all life - a truly awesome God.

Which you will no doubt be proving to us with gobs of evidence in your next post...

Some scientists however, are continuing there search for the hypotheses, the scientific theories, such as the theory of evolution.
Thus far according to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis
on Abiogenesis

Eugene Koonin said, "Despite considerable experimental and theoretical effort, no compelling scenarios currently exist for the origin of replication and translation, the key processes that together comprise the core of biological systems and the apparent pre-requisite of biological evolution. The RNA World concept might offer the best chance for the resolution of this conundrum but so far cannot adequately account for the emergence of an efficient RNA replicase or the translation system. The MWO [Ed.: "many worlds in one"] version of the cosmological model of eternal inflation could suggest a way out of this conundrum because, in an infinite multiverse with a finite number of distinct macroscopic histories (each repeated an infinite number of times), emergence of even highly complex systems by chance is not just possible but inevitable."

At the time of the Miller–Urey experiment, scientific consensus was that the early Earth had a reducing atmosphere with compounds relatively rich in hydrogen and poor in oxygen (e.g., CH4 and NH3 as opposed to CO2 and nitrogen dioxide (NO2)). However, current scientific consensus describes the primitive atmosphere as either weakly reducing or neutral (see also Oxygen Catastrophe). Such an atmosphere would diminish both the amount and variety of amino acids that could be produced, although studies that include iron and carbonate minerals (thought present in early oceans) in the experimental conditions have again produced a diverse array of amino acids. Other scientific research has focused on two other potential reducing environments: outer space and deep-sea thermal vents.

Chemical evolution was followed by the initiation of biological evolution, which led to the first cells. No one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components with the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to focus on chemosynthesis. However, some researchers are working in this field, notably Steen Rasmussen and Jack W. Szostak. Others have argued that a "top-down approach" is more feasible. One such approach, successfully attempted by Craig Venter and others at J. Craig Venter Institute, involves engineering existing prokaryotic cells with progressively fewer genes, attempting to discern at which point the most minimal requirements for life were reached.

Bruce Damer and David Deamer have come to the conclusion that cell membranes cannot be formed in salty seawater, and must therefore have originated in freshwater. Before the continents formed, the only dry land on earth would be volcanic islands, where rainwater would form ponds where lipids could form the first stages towards cell membranes. These predecessors of true cells are assumed to have behaved more like a superorganism rather than individual structures, where the porous membranes would house molecules which would leak out and enter other protocells. Only when true cells had evolved would they gradually adapt to saltier environments and enter the ocean.

Not evolution. I find it intellectually dishonest of you to continue trying to mash separate fields of scientific inquiry into one thing. If you can't properly debate the theory of evolution on its own merits than I recommend choosing a different topic that you have at least a rudimentary understanding of...

http://www.britannica.com/topic/big-bang-model

The big-bang model is based on two assumptions. The first is that Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity correctly describes the gravitational interaction of all matter. The second assumption, called the cosmological principle, states that an observer’s view of the universe depends neither on the direction in which he looks nor on his location. This principle applies only to the large-scale properties of the universe, but it does imply that the universe has no edge, so that the big-bang origin occurred not at a particular point in space but rather throughout space at the same time. These two assumptions make it possible to calculate the history of the cosmos after a certain epoch called the Planck time. Scientists have yet to determine what prevailed before Planck time.

No proof have been presented that can be considered fact on how life started on earth.
So again.
Science follows the evidence wherever it leads, is not alway the principle of some.
Blind faith, seem to be the crutch of those believing in the theory that life is a product of evolution, or blind chance.

Not evolution. I find it intellectually dishonest of you to continue trying to mash separate fields of scientific inquiry into one thing. If you can't properly debate the theory of evolution on its own merits than I recommend choosing a different topic that you have at least a rudimentary understanding of...

This is not just the words of those whom have been labeled "fundamental Christians".
https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_life

The origin of life is a scientific problem which is not yet solved. There are plenty of ideas, but few clear facts.

The scientific magazine Discover - October 1980, p. 88

Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists

Evolutionist Loren Eiseley

After having chided the theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found itself in the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its own: namely, the assumption that what, after long effort, could not be proved to take place today had, in truth, taken place in the primeval past.

Oh lookie, quote mines again. Was being called out for this in Random Ramblings not enough for you?