What If...?

[theStudent]

Currently, I am doing what was suggested by some on these forums.
I am researching information both for, and against evolution, and trust me - I am doing so objectively.
While I am still researching, I want to put this out, to hear the different views on it.

During my research I discovered that lately, just over the last decade or so, a lot of informations has been surfacing about fake fossils.
In fact it has now become common place for fossils sold at museums to be checked for genuineness.
I find this interesting.

Why now, is this happening?
Could it be that evidence as it always does, is now surfacing?

For example
Remember the dinosaur hoax - the one that was said to be put together using different bones?
It has recently been found out that it wasn't a hoax after all.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/02/ ... ecies.html

That is quite interesting.

The fossils aren't the only things that were/are claimed to be fake.
There are the drawings, and pictures as well.
Right now, I am going through a very long document considered a case against some of Darwins picture illustrations.
But have you ever come across this one?

Pictures from the past powerfully shape current views of the world. In books, television programs, and websites, new images appear alongside others that have survived from decades ago. Among the most famous are drawings of embryos by the Darwinist Ernst Haeckel in which humans and other vertebrates begin identical, then diverge toward their adult forms. But these icons of evolution are notorious, too: soon after their publication in 1868, a colleague alleged fraud, and Haeckels many enemies have repeated the charge ever since. His embryos nevertheless became a textbook staple until, in 1997, a biologist accused him again, and creationist advocates of intelligent design forced his figures out. How could the most controversial pictures in the history of science have become some of the most widely seen?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Haeckel
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Haec ... eks4-6.jpg
English: The pictures illustrate Ernst Haeckel's biogenetic law. In the beginning embryos of different species look remarkable similar, later different characteristics develop. The images initiated controversies and charges of fraud.

All of this lends to a possibility.
Consdering the fact that fossils can be faked, we must accept the fact that Darwin, and other scientists could have lied.

My question here, isn't whether he did lie or not, but rather, Does this not place evolutionists in the same position as the Christians they claim are believing in fables?

Consider:
Christians accept the Bible, as the word of God.
Here are just a few facts about the Bible.
With estimated total sales of over 5 billion copies, the Bible is widely considered to be the best-selling book of all time.
It has estimated annual sales of 100 million copies.
It has been a major influence on literature and history, especially in the West where the Gutenberg Bible was the first mass-printed book.
It was the first book ever printed using movable type.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible

Archaeological findings of the Dead Sea Scrolls, also called the Qumran Caves https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Sea_Scrolls

The evidence is there however, that the book we hold in our hand today (the Bible), contains information written centuries ago.

Atheist call the book fables - the reason I have yet to find out.
Maybe one of the reasons is that they have not seen God, or seen him write any book - whatever.
So they claim that Christians' belief in them and what they present is blind faith, and belief in stories.

However, is this not the case with those who accept the theory of evolution, where all they have to go by, is what scientists claim to be evidence?

By the way...
No one, to this day have seen them recreate the theories.
Any data they give you on species, is usually what already existed (at least what I have come across so far).
As regards other claims, all we have are pictures, and claimed fossils, which could have been edited.

So evolutionists are really believing what men claim - without any substantial proof of their claim.
How is this different to believing a book?

And what if Darwin, and others lied?


I'm just interested in you different opinions and thoughts, on the above.
Here is a nice short video of someone's opinion. Reasonable too.

[Willum]

[Replying to Bust Nak]

Ah, BN, remember what Mark Twain said about arguing with certain kinds of people.
They'll beat you with experience.

Go back and look at your own posts. You won't believe what you are writing, in defense!

Anyway, in another post I mentioned evolution has provided every possible example anti-evolutionists could want at well.

We watch as eels change into frogs.
Plankton turn into crabs.
Fish turn into reptiles.

Etc..
But the scientist in us this "proof" for evolution is a result of evolution, not spontaneous comic book man turns into wolf man.

It really is immature to want to see that kind of thing - just imagine if one life for couldn't tell what it's offspring would look like and under what conditions it would survive.

Anyway, look at the random mutations of clouds everyday.
With just water and air random chance puts together, dragons, ducks, flowers, all from random mutation.

Imagine what you could do with an Earth full of chemicals and all the time in the world.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 277 by Bust Nak]

So, I'm trying to understand what you are saying.
Are you agreeing that a branch of flies can only produce species of flies?
So if evolution starts, say, with a species of bacteria, how can it produce any other species other than bacteria?

[help3434]

[Replying to post 274 by Bust Nak]

You are just repeating what you said before. Why do you think most mutations are damaging or harmful?

Why are you asking? Don't you already know?
The information is all over the place.

Now we are getting somewhere more specific. Why don't you think mutant flies aren't evidence of a universal common ancestor?

What do mutant flies have to do with a universal common ancestor?

Why would a mutant man be acceptable, but a mutant fly wouldn't do?

At least a mutant bird-man would give evidence of mutations producing new, and different species, not just flies mutating to flies, and cattle mutating to cattle.

Well that "evidence" would contradict the theory of evolution because the theory of evolution says that evolution is the change in the genetic makeup of a population over time. OVER TIME. The change is gradual, one step at a time. This fantastical notion that one generation could have offspring that are part of a different order in the taxonomic rate has nothing to do with the actual theory of evolution.

Have you ever seen any evidence of a fruit fly mutating to a cockroach?

No, and such evidence would contradict the theory of evolution. You know, that theory you keep trying to refute, but in almost every statement you make about the subject you show you don't understand.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 277 by Bust Nak]

So, I'm trying to understand what you are saying.
Are you agreeing that a branch of flies can only produce species of flies?
So if evolution starts, say, with a species of bacteria, how can it produce any other species other than bacteria?

Gradual change over a LONG period of time. There isn't going to be this sudden, drastic change that skips over a bunch of steps like you seem to think.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 280 by help3434]

Okay.
So I don't understand.
Explain to me

change in the genetic makeup of a population over time.

and your last post... Change from what?

[help3434]

[Replying to post 280 by help3434]

Okay.
So I don't understand.
Explain to me

change in the genetic makeup of a population over time.

and your last post... Change from what?

Change from what it was from whatever point in time you are looking at. Before in the thread you kept making these ridiculous strawmen claims about evolution like saying we should be seeing animals giving birth to offspring that are radically different than themselves.

[Bust Nak]

So, I'm trying to understand what you are saying.
Are you agreeing that a branch of flies can only produce species of flies?

Yes. Evolution can only ever produce variations of the parent branches, a branch of flies can only produce variations of flies.

Now we might name the new variations something else other than flies, but a name is just that, a name. Fundamentally they are still flies.

So if evolution starts, say, with a species of bacteria, how can it produce any other species other than bacteria?

If evolution started with bacteria, then it CANNOT produce anything thing other than more variations of bacteria.

Which is why we can safely conclude that evolution didn't start with bacteria, because there are lots more species besides bacteria.

[theStudent]

So, I'm trying to understand what you are saying.
Are you agreeing that a branch of flies can only produce species of flies?

Yes. Evolution can only ever produce variations of the parent branches, a branch of flies can only produce variations of flies.

Now we might name the new variations something else other than flies, but a name is just that, a name. Fundamentally they are still flies.

So if evolution starts, say, with a species of bacteria, how can it produce any other species other than bacteria?

If evolution started with bacteria, then it CANNOT produce anything thing other than more variations of bacteria.

Which is why we can safely conclude that evolution didn't start with bacteria, because there are lots more species besides bacteria.

Thanks
Is it guessed that evolution started with Archaea?
Then there is no evidence, nor observed experiment that proves this is true. Correct?

[Bust Nak]

Thanks
Is it guessed that evolution started with Archaea?

No, Archaea are already some where up, away from the root of the evolutionary tree. Evolution started with just "life" itself. Which is why I grumbled about species only becoming relevant after the first split in the tree of life.

Then there is no evidence, nor observed experiment that proves this is true. Correct?

Depends on what you mean by "prove." Does checking if the path of a planet matches up with the mathematical model prove astronomy? When we rewind the model back in time, it shows us how things ought to be in the past. Is that enough to prove that gravity played a major part in the formation of the solar system? If you answer yes to both then the same applies to evolution. What we do observe matches up with the evolutionary model; rewinding the model and we get back to the root of the evolutionary tree.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 286 by Bust Nak]

I take it

just "life" itself

is just an idea or a guess.

Depends on what you mean by "prove." Does checking if the path of a planet matches up with the mathematical model prove astronomy? When we rewind the model back in time, it shows us how things ought to be in the past. Is that enough to prove that gravity played a major part in the formation of the solar system? If you answer yes to both then the same applies to evolution. What we do observe matches up with the evolutionary model; rewinding the model and we get back to the root of the evolutionary tree.

I can't answer yes, because men make errors in their checking systems, and their judgment, and their understanding, and their theories...
For example, there is evidence that some scientists have questioned the theory of gravity, and this article shows, there is still a question mark against it.
http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/fo ... rk-energy/

Moreover, just because I have a theory, does not mean my theory is right.
Just because species have similar materials and makeup, does not mean we evolved, according to the theory of evolution.

Why dismiss creation?
How can it be ruled out, when it fits.
To my mind, that's leaning toward a preferred explanation.