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.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 647 by theStudent]
Well there you go - you knew I provided solid, physical and scientifically verified observation, somehow that does not count as evidence for evolution. So much for fairness.

So according to Lenski, wouldn't that mean we should be able to observe, not bacteria + bacteria = bacteria, but some change in the oganisms - like fins growing?

No, you could get bacteria with fins, but it would still be bacteria.

According to this information, there is no solid, physical and scientifically verified observation for evolution on a macro level.

Where are you reading that from? The quote doesn't say that at all, nor was it anywhere else on that page. I think it's your double standard speaking again.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 647 by theStudent]

!

[center]theStudent seems to be shocked by the mere IDEA of evidence for evolution. [/center]

The evidence for evolution?

Denying a fact doesn't make it go away, yes, there is an enormous amount of evidence for evolution. So much so, that many call evolution "a fact".

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 649 by Blastcat]

Denying a fact doesn't make it go away, yes, there is an enormous amount of evidence for evolution. So much so, that many call evolution "a fact".

I understand.
I remember saying almost the same words concerning belief in God.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 648 by Bust Nak]

I think it's your double standard speaking again.

Thanks...
For continually demonstrating why the God hypothesis is the best one, and why evolution is a lie.
For showing of course, another reason why I have indeed clear evidence of God, and of course the Devil.

Our God doesn't allow for hypocrisy, you see. He doesn't condone it, tolerate it, or encourage it.
As an example, if it is uncivil to attack/insult another's character, our God would never tolerate his servants saying it's wrong, and doing it, and then feeling justified in doing it.
Our God hates hypocrisy, and so do his people.

There is no fairness in evolutionary thinking, as you're continuing to demonstrate.
Well, after all, it's survival of the fittest.

Another piece of strong evidence that God exists.

[Talishi]

Our God doesn't allow for hypocrisy, you see.

"Thou shalt not kill." -- God

And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them.

[theStudent]

CHAPTER 1
- Part 2
Rival species recast significance of first bird
Archaeopteryxs status is changing, but the animal is still key to the dinosaur"bird transition.

The first Archaeopteryx fossil specimens turned up in limestone quarries in Bavaria, southern Germany, in the early 1860s. Until recently, they were the only fossil specimens found to mix bird- and dinosaur-like features. On the one hand, they are small " the fossils show juvenile creatures about the size of a magpie, which as adults may have been raven-sized " and have broad feathered wings that look good for gliding; on the other, they have a jaw with sharp teeth, dinosaur-like claws and a bony tail. These features led to the idea of the first bird, and generations of scientists have treated the 145-million-year-old animal as a transitional species " the key piece of evidence linking birds and dinosaurs (Archaeopteryx is Greek for ancient feather, whereas its German name, Urvogel, means first bird).

Archaeopteryx had been generally accepted by palaeontologists and popular reference books as the oldest known bird (member of the group Avialae).
Similar in size to a Eurasian magpie, with the largest individuals possibly attaining the size of a raven the largest species of Archaeopteryx could grow to about 0.5 m (1 ft 8 in) in length. Despite their small size, broad wings, and inferred ability to fly or glide, Archaeopteryx had more in common with other small Mesozoic dinosaurs than with modern birds. In particular, they shared the following features with the dromaeosaurids and troodontids: jaws with sharp teeth, three fingers with claws, a long bony tail, hyperextensible second toes ("killing claw"), feathers (which also suggest warm-bloodedness), and various features of the skeleton.
These features make Archaeopteryx a clear candidate for a transitional fossil between non-avian dinosaurs and birds. Thus, Archaeopteryx plays an important role, not only in the study of the origin of birds, but in the study of dinosaurs.

Archaeopteryx: X-rays shine new light on mystery 'bird'
Is it a bird? Is it a dinosaur? Or something in between?

Archaeopteryx caused a major stir when the first fossil was unearthed in 1861 - just two years after Charles Darwin published On The Origin of Species.
With the claws and teeth of a dinosaur, but the feathers of a bird, it was immediately recognised as a transitional form - proof of Darwin's theory.
Hailed as "the first true bird", the discovery shook the scientific community. Not bad for an animal as small as a magpie - only 20 inches from head to tail.
In recent years, more primitive bird ancestors have been unearthed in Liaoning, China. But the fascination with Archaeopteryx has endured - driven by the unsolved mystery over its ability to fly.
Around 150 million years ago, the modern-day region of Germany where Archaeopteryx lived was an archipelago of islands in a shallow tropical sea, covered in lush vegetation.

Archaeopteryx: The Transitional Fossil

"Here, Archaeopteryx turned out to be a basal bird, again," Foth said. "Interestingly, we also found Anchiornis and Xiaotingia on the stem-bird branch, even more basal than Archaeopteryx. Per definition, these guys would [now] be the oldest representatives of stem-birds, but Archaeopteryx would be the first definitely fightable representative."

It's a bird. It's a dino. No it's Archaeopteryx.
A bird.
Get over it already - it's a bird.


I wish I could see its teeth. Don't they have a blowup of them?
Ah. Not even with this xray image... http://www.pnas.org/content/107/20/9060/F2.large.jpg

Mystery Why Birds Don't Have Teeth Finally Solved: Inactive Genes

Scientists did not exactly know what happened why the feathered animals developed edentulism, the condition of being toothless. Findings of a new study, however, shed light on what happened during the evolution of birds that could explains why they no longer have teeth.

For a new study published in the journal Science on Dec. 12, a group of researchers looked at the genes that play roles in tooth production. Six genes are involved in tooth formation among vertebrates and these govern the formation of the enamel, the tissue that coats and protects the teeth, and dentin, the calcified tissue covered by the enamel.

Study researcher Mark Springer, from the Department of Biology of the University of California, Riverside, and colleagues searched for mutation that could have inactivated these genes by using data from whole-genome sequencing of 48 species of birds that represent nearly every order of living birds and the American alligator to represent the order Crocodylia known to be the living relatives of the birds.

The researchers found that all of the bird species they looked at shared the same inactivating mutations in the dentin and enamel-related genes, which means that their common ancestor lost the capability to form teeth. The six genes, on the other hand, were all found to be functional in the American alligator.

The researchers said that the mutations played a role in the development of the bird's beak, which essentially plays the role of the teeth among avian species and contributed to the diversification of the species.

Some research on the snail might be a good experience. I'm sure this gene is there somewhere.
Do snails have teeth?
Snails have thousands of teeth which are used for scraping or cutting food.
Snail Teeth Found to Be Strongest Natural Material


Surely, that must mean a starfish has teeth... right? Wrong.
The mutant gene apparently was jumping around like crazy.

How Raptors Use Their Deadly Talons

Scientists have unraveled how the talons of birds of prey have evolved to help them kill victims.

The killing techniques range from dismemberment to squeezing prey to death. The findings could help researchers understand how the claws of extinct dinosaurs and birds helped them hunt.

As common as raptors are, the specifics of how they capture prey often remain poorly understood. Even with modern technology, actually closely witnessing how birds of prey deal with victims remains largely a matter of luck. As such, surprisingly little was known about how talons are employed during feeding.

Apparently these guys' Circadian clocks are out of wack, because they are still asleep, and dreaming hard.


Do birds have claws?

A claw is a curved, pointed appendage, found at the end of a toe or finger in most amniotes (mammals, reptiles, birds). However, the word "claw" is also often used in reference to an invertebrate. Somewhat similar fine hooked structures are found in arthropods such as beetles and spiders, at the end of the leg or tarsus for gripping a surface as the creature walks. Crabs', lobsters' and scorpions' pincers, or more formally, their "chelae", are sometimes called claws.

A talon is the claw of a bird of prey, its primary hunting tool. The talons are very important; without them, most birds of prey would not be able to catch their food. Some birds also use claws for defensive purposes.

Do birds have teeth?
No. But they have... Serration generally refers to a saw-like appearance or a row of sharp or tooth-like projections.


Fossils - the evidence?
Are they forcing the evidence to fit their theory?
Were Dinosaurs Warm-Blooded? New Study Fuels Debate
Scientists solve the mystery of whether dinosaurs were hot or cold blooded - and reveal they were somewhere in between

'Our results showed that dinosaurs had growth and metabolic rates that were actually not characteristic of warm-blooded or even cold-blooded organisms,' said University of Arizona evolutionary biologist and ecologist Brian Enquist.
'They did not act like mammals or birds nor did they act like reptiles or fish.
'Instead, they had growth rates and metabolisms intermediate to warm-blooded and cold-blooded organisms of today. In short, they had physiologies that are not common in today's world.'

There has been a long-standing debate about whether dinosaurs were slow, lumbering cold-blooded animals - as scientists first proposed in the 19th century - or had a uniquely advanced, more warm-blooded physiology.
As scientists unearthed remains of more and more fast-looking dinosaurs like Velociraptor, some championed the idea dinosaurs were as active and warm"blooded as mammals and birds.
The realization that birds arose from small feathered dinosaurs seemed to support that view.

University of New Mexico biologist John Grady said the idea that creatures must be either warm-blooded or cold-blooded is too simplistic when looking over the vast expanse of time.

Hmmmmm...
So much for the assumptions.

Facts

• Birds and reptiles are both oviparous.
• Birds are warm-blooded and among the most active of all earths creatures; they also have an unusually rapid heartbeat.
• Reptiles are cold-blooded, and often sluggish.
• Archaeopteryx had fully formed feathers.

The evolutionary view that reptilian scales and front limbs eventually developed into feathered wings is both fanciful and baseless
No intermediate specimens, exhibiting scales developing into feathers or front legs into wings, exist to give any semblance of support to the evolution theory.

The Bible tells us simply that, not all flesh is the same flesh, but there is one of mankind, there is another flesh of cattle, another flesh of birds, and another of fish.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megalosau ... and_naming
I have no idea why this was provided. I'll get back to this, if I figure out what it has to do with evidence for evolution.


End of Chapter 1

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 652 by Talishi]

"Thou shalt not kill." -- God

Unfortunately, I am signing off now, but I will look for the Hebrew expression, which more accurateky should be rendered "murder", not kill.
If the word was really correctly rendered kill, then even to kill a bear to protect yourself, your sheep (as did shepherds), or to protect another human, would be wrong.
That's not the case.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 651 by theStudent]

There's a certain brand of arrogance filtering through most of your recent posts, as if you can do no wrong. When someone points out double standards and hypocrisy that you are yourself committing, you bend over backwards and use some flimsy apologetics to gaslight everyone on the forum. You have unreasonable standards, and attempt to impose those standards on everyone else. Then, when others try to use academic sources, you politely avoid it.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 651 by theStudent]

Again, no substance to your respond, you having just straight up contradicted everything I said. I will take that as a win.

[Blastcat]

[Replying to post 650 by theStudent]

Denying a fact doesn't make it go away, yes, there is an enormous amount of evidence for evolution. So much so, that many call evolution "a fact".

I understand.
I remember saying almost the same words concerning belief in God.

I don't think you demonstrate an understanding at all, frankly.
Sorry to say.

I think that the only position that you can hope to understand is your own. Sorry.
Maybe if you tried reflecting on what we are trying to explain to you.

But I never see any of that.. what I see are statements of denial and rejection.
It's as if all the scientists who accept the TOE are wrong... silly, anti your religion, evil, conspirators... all of them are not doing good science but the creationists in churches are doing good science because they start off with a dogmatic belief in a religious text.

And somehow, you believe that the two groups are in any way similar.
I sometimes think that you are imagining that your kind of religiously motivated thinking is the ONLY way that people can think.

But it's not.
Religious thinking still exists, but we now have modern science. It's a different kind of thinking than religious thinking. It's apples and oranges.

But I have to say that by now.. the only conclusion that I can come from reading what you write is that you really don't care about scientific thinking.. you care about your particular kind of religious thinking. And you get the two hopelessly confused, I'm afraid.

I remember that you tried to demonstrate how science proves a creator god. I don't remember the success you had with that demonstration. I think you convinced yourself, and perhaps creationists. I don't know how many outsiders to your faith you managed to convince. Any thoughts about that?

From what I can tell, it seems to me that you don't fully understand the difference between subjective evidence, that only some people can agree on, and objective evidence that everyone can.

Not everyone arrives at the conclusion that there must be a creator god like the one you happen to believe in. A belief in a creator, taken to the extreme, means that some people find themselves in the unenviable position of having to deny much of modern science as if it never happened.

However, some outsiders to your faith as still asking you for some kind of objective evidence for your god concept you are holding on so dearly. I suppose the belief must make you happy in some way. I just can't agree that your reasoning is sound.

I'm concerned about how people reason.
From what I've read from you.. I would say you suffer from an extreme case of confirmation bias. Nothing is going to change YOUR world, is it?

It seems as if you have dug yourself into a way of thinking that you proudly do not want to get out of. Your reasoning seems so bad to the rest of us... and it really appears that you are convinced that your reasoning is the best.

The only thing that outsiders can do is to expose your fallacious reasoning in the hopes that others will catch on. You don't seem to be able to. What seems the most important thing for you to do seems to KEEP the faith at all costs.

Denying facts doesn't bother you at all.. apparently.
All those thousands of scientists are wrong... apparently.

Maybe you imagine that scientists are talking about SUBJECTIVE reality, the way that you are. If so, you literally do not know the science that you want to criticize. Your ignorance is understandable. Your arrogance is ... sad.

Religiously motivated reasoning sometimes goes very badly.
And you don't seem to be able to understand that part of the discussion.
You've really dug in your heels, haven't you?

The creationists are right, and all the rest are wrong... is that it?