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]

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]

It's not wrong, your understanding of it is. Does it say anywhere in there about how that first life form arose? No. It states that life forms have changed over time, and all of those changes can be traced back to one common ancestor. It says NOTHING about where that common ancestor came from.

If any of this confuses you or is difficult to understand please post a question about it and I will be happy to continue explaining it. Because until you get past your incorrect understanding of the scientific theory of evolution you aren't going to be able to intelligently converse on the subject...

[Kenisaw]

[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?

Apes did not become man. This has been pointed out to you multiple times now. The apes, of which humans are one, came from a common ancestor...

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

Your problems list contains two separate topics. If you want to discuss abiogenesis, start a new thread on the subject...

[Kenisaw]

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.

And yet you continue to claim that a creator being exists and that it made everything, despite repeatedly failing to provide any proof to substantiate your claim....

[Kenisaw]

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.

But there is enough information available to show how various creatures changed over time to become modern animals. And you ignore the field of genetics which independently verified the entire tree of life, including descent from a common ancestor, long after the theory of evolution had already described it...

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.

No scientist is uncomfortable with the idea of higher intelligence creating anything. There just isn't one single spec of data or empirical evidence that points to the existence of creator beings or to anything being "designed". There's no reason to consider the concept plausible.

The universe is not something out of nothing. It's nothing out of nothing. This has been explained to you before...

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.�

It's entirely true that science has no conclusive answers about the origins (if there is one) of the universe. What this is doing in a thread you started about evolution is a bit puzzling however...

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.

Why are you talking about evolution in one paragraph and then the origin of the universe in another paragraph? Since they obviously aren't the same thing, one has to wonder why we are constantly bouncing around from topic to topic in a thread that is suppose to be about evolution...

[theStudent]

Like Wow dude.

From where I am sitting, it doesn't appear to me as though I am the one confused, if not only because everyone else seems to be confused about the whole subject.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Evolution and abiogenesis
Often brought up in the origins debate is how evolution does not explain the origin of life. Let's get something abundantly clear: abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life. It merely describes the processes which take place once life has started up. There may also be multiple pathways to producing naturally occurring "life". Depending, of course, on the definition of life. This is something that Ben Stein is apparently willfully ignorant of.

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

There is still no "standard model" of the origin of life. Most currently accepted models draw at least some elements from the framework laid out by Alexander Oparin (in 1924) and J. B. S. Haldane (in 1925), who postulated the molecular or chemical evolution theory of life.[80] According to them, the first molecules constituting the earliest cells "were synthesized under natural conditions by a slow process of molecular evolution, and these molecules then organized into the first molecular system with properties with biological order.

The chemical processes that took place on the early Earth are called chemical evolution. Both Manfred Eigen and Sol Spiegelman demonstrated that evolution, including replication, variation, and natural selection, can occur in populations of molecules as well as in organisms.

Chemical evolution was followed by the initiation of biological evolution, which led to the first cells.[43] 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.

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

Chemical evolution may refer to:
Stellar nucleosynthesis, the creation of chemical elements by stellar thermonuclear fusion or supernovae
Abiogenesis, the transition from nonliving elements to living systems
Molecular evolution, evolution at the scale of molecules
Gas evolution reaction, the process of a gas bubbling out from a solution
Oxygen evolution, the process of generating molecular oxygen through chemical reaction
Cosmochemistry (or astrochemistry), the study of the chemical composition of matter in the universe, including complex organics, and the processes that led to those compositions.

However, I don't see why the confusion exists here.
To me, the solution is quite simple.

It's either evolution or it's not. Isn't it?
Siamese, Bengal, Burmese... They are all cats. Aren't they?

I posted some videos, of which I am not sure if anyone took the time to examine, but yet, I am the one confused.
I asked two questions - which didn't require a whole lot of explanation, just a simple yes or no, and from what I gathered from the replies, it's only proving more confusing than what I already know.

A simple explanation that certain processes of evolution are considered fact, whereas others are speculations, which we hope will become factual, as scientists continue their research...
would have been good enough.
No big deal.

I already explained if anyone was reading, that I have no problem with the ability of living things to adapt, and I referred to the immune system, for example.
I don't call it evolution, but if scientists prefer the term, they must have a reason.
I don't consider certain changes in characteristics in offspring, during breeding to be evolution, but they prefer the term. To me, it a natural process, because the gene in each living thing was designed to produce variety - the spice of life.

I already mentioned the evolution theories that have not been proven to be a fact, which your own documents already stated.
Speculation until proven - no problem.

Or would you like me to pull them specifically and post them?

[Kenisaw]

Like Wow dude.

From where I am sitting, it doesn't appear to me as though I am the one confused, if not only because everyone else seems to be confused about the whole subject.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Evolution and abiogenesis
Often brought up in the origins debate is how evolution does not explain the origin of life. Let's get something abundantly clear: abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life. It merely describes the processes which take place once life has started up. There may also be multiple pathways to producing naturally occurring "life". Depending, of course, on the definition of life. This is something that Ben Stein is apparently willfully ignorant of.

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

There is still no "standard model" of the origin of life. Most currently accepted models draw at least some elements from the framework laid out by Alexander Oparin (in 1924) and J. B. S. Haldane (in 1925), who postulated the molecular or chemical evolution theory of life.[80] According to them, the first molecules constituting the earliest cells "were synthesized under natural conditions by a slow process of molecular evolution, and these molecules then organized into the first molecular system with properties with biological order.

The chemical processes that took place on the early Earth are called chemical evolution. Both Manfred Eigen and Sol Spiegelman demonstrated that evolution, including replication, variation, and natural selection, can occur in populations of molecules as well as in organisms.

Chemical evolution was followed by the initiation of biological evolution, which led to the first cells.[43] 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.

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

Chemical evolution may refer to:
Stellar nucleosynthesis, the creation of chemical elements by stellar thermonuclear fusion or supernovae
Abiogenesis, the transition from nonliving elements to living systems
Molecular evolution, evolution at the scale of molecules
Gas evolution reaction, the process of a gas bubbling out from a solution
Oxygen evolution, the process of generating molecular oxygen through chemical reaction
Cosmochemistry (or astrochemistry), the study of the chemical composition of matter in the universe, including complex organics, and the processes that led to those compositions.

However, I don't see why the confusion exists here.
To me, the solution is quite simple.

It's either evolution or it's not. Isn't it?
Siamese, Bengal, Burmese... They are all cats. Aren't they?

I posted some videos, of which I am not sure if anyone took the time to examine, but yet, I am the one confused.
I asked two questions - which didn't require a whole lot of explanation, just a simple yes or no, and from what I gathered from the replies, it's only proving more confusing than what I already know.

A simple explanation that certain processes of evolution are considered fact, whereas others are speculations, which we hope will become factual, as scientists continue their research...
would have been good enough.
No big deal.

I already explained if anyone was reading, that I have no problem with the ability of living things to adapt, and I referred to the immune system, for example.
I don't call it evolution, but if scientists prefer the term, they must have a reason.
I don't consider certain changes in characteristics in offspring, during breeding to be evolution, but they prefer the term. To me, it a natural process, because the gene in each living thing was designed to produce variety - the spice of life.

I already mentioned the evolution theories that have not been proven to be a fact, which your own documents already stated.
Speculation until proven - no problem.

Or would you like me to pull them specifically and post them?

Everything you quoted from the various wikis supports everything I said to you. I can only assume you've finally admitted that the Big Bang, abiogenesis, and the evolution of life on Earth are all separate things. I'm glad we finally got there.

It has already been explained to you that the adaption of your immune system over your lifetime is not evolution. Unless your DNA changes in your germline (sperm or egg) you do not pass on any mutation.

Genes are not designed to produce variety. They aren't designed first of all. Second of all the variety that you see if offspring is a combination of what genes each parent pass along (not every sperm or egg contains the exact same DNA), as well as any mutations that might have occurred.

But you "love science"!

There aren't "evolution theories". There is the theory of evolution, which is well supported by facts and verified countless times. You also incessantly rambled about abiogenesis and the Big Bang, which are NOT theories involving evolution. My my apparently we haven't got there after all...

I noticed you failed to post your evidence for gods again. At this point there is nothing else to do but note your inability to do so and conclude you have none. Your belief system about creative critters is baseless conjecture then, to no one's surprise.

[arian]

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?

Hello The Student.

You have no idea what a victory Evolutionists have claimed for finally having people refer to their religious items, fossils, dug-up skull&bones, 3-D graphic art by Peleoartist's of half human half ape renderings and clay sculptures as "scientific claims of evidence."

Right there we succumb to this God hating religion by saying what they programmed us to say, evolution=science, and NOTHING could be further from the truth.

We cannot allow a Satanic grave robbing skull&bones worshipping religion to replace science. Once we do that, no matter what our argument, they win because we have raised their religious beliefs to the level of science, and actually argue about their fairytale claims as if it was science!?

"Science doesn't know everything", .. we hear them say that all the time right, .. I mean what, the claim that millions and billions of years ago humans were rats? Or that if you just wait 4.2 billion years the single celled bacteria will evolve into a human and 8 million other species? Really? Where, .. show me? You need more time, or what?

Science observes humans and rats, the claim that the human was a rat millions and billions of years ago is NOT science.

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.

Observing the people around me, including myself verifies the Bible is right in EVERY claim, in every just law, in every suggestion. So the Bible can be scientifically proven to be TRUE, and historically accurate.

But let me see someone video a quantum speck of boson get denser and hotter IN nothing, and then Big-bang?? If it happened once, those quantum-bosons should be Big-banging all the time, 13.75 billion years later, .. and nothing yet, and they say them bosons are "Everywhere"!?

Just like single celled bacteria, there they are, yet they aren't even looking for any of them speciating. They did speciate at least 8 million times long, long time ago, but after brewing for 4.2 billion years, yet not one spotted so far speciating.

I mean come on, if evolution was even remotely true, no one would have to force this idea down our throats, it would be "naturally" accepted just as everything else in nature is. But no, as if the Evolution stories were not enough, now they try to force us to believe that a man is really a woman, and not just ANY woman, but that this man can become Woman of the Year"!

Yep, she can share all her life experiences she had as a woman to educate other women, .. naturally. Why else would she be "The Woman of the Year"?

[Bust Nak]

However, I don't see why the confusion exists here.
To me, the solution is quite simple.

It's either evolution or it's not. Isn't it?
Siamese, Bengal, Burmese... They are all cats. Aren't they?

Sure, but Siamese are not Bengal, are they? So if a person start to talk about Siamese in a thread about Bengal as if they are the same, do you think it justified to say to the guy, "you seemed confused about Bengals?"

[Monta]

[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.

[Clownboat]

Like Wow dude.

From where I am sitting, it doesn't appear to me as though I am the one confused, if not only because everyone else seems to be confused about the whole subject.

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Evolution and abiogenesis
Often brought up in the origins debate is how evolution does not explain the origin of life. Let's get something abundantly clear: abiogenesis and evolution are two completely different things. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing about the origin of life. It merely describes the processes which take place once life has started up. There may also be multiple pathways to producing naturally occurring "life". Depending, of course, on the definition of life. This is something that Ben Stein is apparently willfully ignorant of.

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

There is still no "standard model" of the origin of life. Most currently accepted models draw at least some elements from the framework laid out by Alexander Oparin (in 1924) and J. B. S. Haldane (in 1925), who postulated the molecular or chemical evolution theory of life.[80] According to them, the first molecules constituting the earliest cells "were synthesized under natural conditions by a slow process of molecular evolution, and these molecules then organized into the first molecular system with properties with biological order.

The chemical processes that took place on the early Earth are called chemical evolution. Both Manfred Eigen and Sol Spiegelman demonstrated that evolution, including replication, variation, and natural selection, can occur in populations of molecules as well as in organisms.

Chemical evolution was followed by the initiation of biological evolution, which led to the first cells.[43] 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.

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

Chemical evolution may refer to:
Stellar nucleosynthesis, the creation of chemical elements by stellar thermonuclear fusion or supernovae
Abiogenesis, the transition from nonliving elements to living systems
Molecular evolution, evolution at the scale of molecules
Gas evolution reaction, the process of a gas bubbling out from a solution
Oxygen evolution, the process of generating molecular oxygen through chemical reaction
Cosmochemistry (or astrochemistry), the study of the chemical composition of matter in the universe, including complex organics, and the processes that led to those compositions.

However, I don't see why the confusion exists here.
To me, the solution is quite simple.

It's either evolution or it's not. Isn't it?
Siamese, Bengal, Burmese... They are all cats. Aren't they?

I posted some videos, of which I am not sure if anyone took the time to examine, but yet, I am the one confused.
I asked two questions - which didn't require a whole lot of explanation, just a simple yes or no, and from what I gathered from the replies, it's only proving more confusing than what I already know.

A simple explanation that certain processes of evolution are considered fact, whereas others are speculations, which we hope will become factual, as scientists continue their research...
would have been good enough.
No big deal.

I already explained if anyone was reading, that I have no problem with the ability of living things to adapt, and I referred to the immune system, for example.
I don't call it evolution, but if scientists prefer the term, they must have a reason.
I don't consider certain changes in characteristics in offspring, during breeding to be evolution, but they prefer the term. To me, it a natural process, because the gene in each living thing was designed to produce variety - the spice of life.

I already mentioned the evolution theories that have not been proven to be a fact, which your own documents already stated.
Speculation until proven - no problem.

Or would you like me to pull them specifically and post them?

I know! Rather than having people continue to try to explain evolution to you, which is proving really challenging... you just pretend that evolution has been proven false and supply us with what you find to be the best explanation for the variety of life we see on this planet now and in the fossil record.

This way, those that do understand the ToE can evaluate each on their own merits.

Your turn: The best explanation for the variety of life we see on this planet now and in the fossil record is?: (Don't forget to supply the evidence that supports this mechanism your going to propose).