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.

[Clownboat]

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"?

I just couldn't bring myself to read this entire rant, but take a moment and consider that arian is the only person here offering you any support it seems.

Now ask yourself why? Is it really because we are Satanic, god hating, science worshipers, that rob graves like arian spews? Come on, I must assume that such words only make sense in arian's mind (up there with all his other conspiracy theories).

You continue to confuse evolution with abiogenesis, and the only person here that finds what you say as credible thinks that we are part of some Satanic grave robbing skull&bones worshiping religion.

What if we are not all Satanic grave robbers and we know what we know from study and not from digging up bones and worshiping a method like arian likes be all conspiracy about?

[Clownboat]

[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.

Please brake down what you found interesting so I can examine it more closely and see if I too can be made interested.

I know I'm just a Satanic, grave robbing, skull&bones worshiping religious person because arian said it, but you will give me a chance wont you?

[Kenisaw]

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!?

First thing I thought about when I saw you talking to Student is that two wrongs don't make a right. Given your post history and his, there is a pattern of intentionally or unintentionally misrepresenting the theory of evolution. This is no different.

Off the bat I will note that I have always found it interesting that cultists, in a vain attempt to discredit evolution, will try to lower it below the level of a scientific theory by calling it a "religion". The irony of that is rather delicious and always escapes your notice for some reason...

Anyway, your blustering about grave robbing ignored, your uninformed opinion above doesn't really mean much. If you think the theory of evolution is not a valid scientific theory, formulate one that better explains the billions of fossils and morphological, geological, and biological evidences that support it. Let's hear a better explanation for all the sequenced genomes and genetic research that show that all life is related and the tree of life is indeed an accurate. What are you waiting for? Don't your realize how famous you would be to find something that shows the theory of evolution cannot possibly be valid? Stun the world, starting right here on this humble website, and show us what you got...

Just make sure you guys don't try to call abiogenesis "evolution" though by the way. That wouldn't be a great way to start. Just an FYI.

"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?

There weren't rats billions of years ago. Rodents came from the Glires line. Glires and Primates split from the Euarchontoglires, so apes don't even descend from rodents. But wait, who am I kidding, surely a guy like yourself that is about to blow the lid off of the evolution conspiracy with your impending improved theory already knows all that, so why am I even bothering...

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?

You haven't seen it yet? We put in a big book and split it out into chapter and verse and even hired a guy to tell you what it says so all you have to do is repeat it. I thought you guys would gobble something like that up.

Since you missed that, try going to any public or educational institutional library in the entire country, or any university in the land. Maybe pick up any of the tens of thousands of books, or hundreds of thousands of journals, or millions of research papers. Or if you like, try any museum of nature. If you close your eyes and walk in any direction for about an hour you'll bound to run into something. The evidence is literally all over the place.

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

You're right, because that isn't what happened. But none of that matters now that your new and improved theory is just about ready to be revealed...

Observing the people around me, including myself verifies the Bible is right in EVERY claim, in every just law, in every suggestion.

So pi=3? Awesome. Please let every 6th grade math class know that they've been calculating the area of a circle wrong for the last 2000 years. I suppose you will start protesting outside barber shops now, since the "just law" about not cutting your hair should really be enforced. (Psst, don't forget to take off the mix fabrics before you do that though)...

So the Bible can be scientifically proven to be TRUE, and historically accurate.

I agree up the part where you said "so".

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"!?

And I thought it was just Student that brought the unrelated Big Bang theory into evolution discussions. Apparently that is a cultist mainstay. Just to let you know since I don't want to see you embarrassed in any way, a boson didn't lead to the Big Bang. You may want to learn about the Big Bang, and bosons, before commenting further of either of them.

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.

Still trying to claim that we should see a new species show up within a generation, eh arian? Nice to know you've continually ignored all the information passed your way that informed you that evolution doesn't work like that. I can t help but wonder why you continue to repeat the same tired mistakes over and over, expecting something to change. I believe they call that insanity.

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"!

Oh look, more non-evolution talk in an evolution thread. Thanks for sharing though...

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"?

Oh look, more non-evolution talk in an evolution thread. Thanks for sharing though...

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 91 by Clownboat]

Now ask yourself why? Is it really because we are Satanic, god hating, science worshipers, that rob graves like arian spews? Come on, I must assume that such words only make sense in arian's mind (up there with all his other conspiracy theories).

You continue to confuse evolution with abiogenesis, and the only person here that finds what you say as credible thinks that we are part of some Satanic grave robbing skull&bones worshiping religion.

Hi Clownboat,
All you have done is add your voice to a list of voices that say, "This guy does not know what he is talking about."
What has that accomplished?
That's like this scenario.
A 5 year old child comes to you, with a picture of a lion, and a picture of a domestic cat, and says to you, "Look. two cats."
And you say, "No, no, no dear. You got it all wrong. One is a cat. The other, a lion."
"But my mom told me they are both cats."
"Look. Don't get confused. I told you. You need to understand. One is a lion. One is a cat."

What's wrong with this picture?

[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.

Please brake down what you found interesting so I can examine it more closely and see if I too can be made interested.

I know I'm just a Satanic, grave robbing, skull&bones worshiping religious person because arian said it, but you will give me a chance wont you?

If you are satanic under the lock and key perhaps you lack enthusiasm to search further. I am Christian/evolutionist and i am very interested on the subject whether I agree or not.
I respect Arian and the Student endevour in researching and sharing. i am not sufficiently interested to research it myself but appreciate that others are and I can always learn something.

[Bust Nak]

All you have done is add your voice to a list of voices that say, "This guy does not know what he is talking about."
What has that accomplished?
That's like this scenario.
A 5 year old child comes to you, with a picture of a lion, and a picture of a domestic cat, and says to you, "Look. two cats."
And you say, "No, no, no dear. You got it all wrong. One is a cat. The other, a lion."
"But my mom told me they are both cats."
"Look. Don't get confused. I told you. You need to understand. One is a lion. One is a cat."

What's wrong with this picture?

I'll tell you what's wrong, the scenario doesn't reflect the length we went to in explaining the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. Here is what I submit, is a more accurate scenario:

A 5 year old child comes to you, with a picture of a lion, and a picture of a domestic cat, and says to you, "Look. two cats."
And you say, "No, no, no dear. You got it all wrong. One is a cat. The other, a lion. They are both members of the Felidae family. While one can argue that members of Felidae are all cats, when people say 'cat' outside of a specific context they are referring to the Genus Felis, or more typically just the domestic cat, Felis Catus."
"But my mom told me they are both cats."
"Look. Don't get confused. I told you. You need to understand. One is a lion, which is sometimes classified colloquially as a big cat, but you must not forget to say big cat. One is a domestic cat, which is what people think of when you just say 'cat.' If you actually want to refer to the whole Felidae family, consider using the term 'Feline.'"

If our explanation was too technical, as I expect that explanation of lions vs cats would be too technical for a 5 year old, ask us more questions.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 3 by SkyChief]

Sure, some folks accept the theory of evolution based entirely on the works of Darwin and Haeckel. But they really don't need to. Because the evidence for evolution is still present without the writings and drawings of embryos.

I accept the theory of evolution and I've never, not once, read Darwin. I don't see a point to me going out and buying a copy of his book and reading it. His book would be woefully out of date with modern information.
For one, even if Darwin lied, there's still the problem of genetics and DNA to contend with. Genetics is something that proves evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt, and Darwin didn't know about it. Genetics proves that for the Bible to true, there would have to have been a genetic bottleneck after Noah's flood...but that didn't happen.

[rikuoamero]

theStudent,
Can I ask of you one favour please? I'm reading through this thread, I'm on page 2 at the moment, and I notice (so far) that you make one giant mistake OVER AND OVER AGAIN.

You consistently refer to evolution as having to do with the origin of life.
It does not. The theory does not state at all where, how or why life started. It only deals with how life changes once it already exists.

So my favour that I really want you to do is
WHEN DISCUSSING EVOLUTION, DO NOT REFER TO IT AS HAVING ANYTHING TO DO WITH ORIGIN OF LIFE.

Please?

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 94:

:
...
A 5 year old child comes to you, with a picture of a lion, and a picture of a domestic cat, and says to you, "Look. two cats."
And you say, "No, no, no dear. You got it all wrong. One is a cat. The other, a lion."
"But my mom told me they are both cats."
"Look. Don't get confused. I told you. You need to understand. One is a lion. One is a cat."

Momma, being a creationist, sees their similarities, and thinks nothing more.

Daddy, being a scientist, wants to know how come they look so much alike, and yet so different.


Mommy, having been home schooled by her creationist mother, is unaware of the particulars of the ToE, and can only consider these two critters to be one "kind" of animal.

Daddy, having gone to public schools, is aware of at least some of the particulars of the ToE, and understands the need for precise language in scientific conversation, if not conversation in general.

[Prbag]

[Replying to post 1 by theStudent]

How many devil's can fit on a tip of needle?
,who today is wasting time training to find the answer,
There was a time in our history where greatest minds war wrap around this . Theologies scientists,priest,monks
Is it possible that this question has no answer,?And watt is important is the search! Watt is so small that can fit on tip of a needle and do us a harm? Invisible enemy that kill us in awful ways It must the 'devil' for sure ,so buck to question? How many devils can fit on a tip of needle now?
So what do you think? Did that interest you ,open a new door for you? Or maybe just light of dawn picking trough your window, now this is a good example word " window " ,in dictionary- an opening in the wall or roof of a building or vehicle that is fitted with glass or other transparent material in a frame to admit light or air and allow people to see out. And it may be used as a matador for all sorts of ideas, or maid be a program we all know ,so hot is a difference between windows XP and windows 10 ? Think abut it for a few seconds ,haw may apple can explain the difference? Not that easy? But now a real challenge do the same 50 years ego, 100,200,500,1000,2000, lets stop there 2000 years
Time of Christ ,the beginning
Just manage same priest facing the truth of microns, training to pass the working to future generations x Was Nostradamus having the same problems describing his visions?Training to describe unexciting things in his time ?
So back to original question How many devils can fit on a tip of needle ? And now few other questions ,Who was the first who ask that question? ?Hay? What kind of bevel we should look for., Who new how important is that question? Whom we own aura gratitude for string our civilization on a path of science ?In twain that message with a one of dominant religion? Harmony and cooperation between since, mother nature,and mystic power of Good . pl reply