What If...?

Creationism, Evolution, and other science issues

Moderator: Moderators

Post Reply
User avatar
theStudent
Guru
Posts: 1566
Joined: Fri May 20, 2016 6:32 pm

What If...?

Post #1

Post by 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.
John 8:32
. . .the truth will set you free.

marakorpa
Banned
Banned
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 3:21 am
Location: Coffs Harbour, NSW Australia

Post #731

Post by marakorpa »

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases

This link will take you to the works of two credible scientists that argue the theory of the Wikipedea list of Dinosaurs that are supposed to be meat eaters.

Even with the detailed study these scientists are not overly convinced that any dinosaur was a predator or meat eater.

http://dinosaurs.findthedata.com/d/a/Herbivorous

Have a look here for the list of Herbivores of the dinosaur clan.

With the scientists arguing to and from on which animal ate what, and the fact written in the Bible about meat not eaten before the Flood the circumstantial evidence finds the defendant guilty, and no dinosaurs ate meat.

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: What If...?

Post #732

Post by rikuoamero »

marakorpa wrote: [Replying to post 721 by rikuoamero]

So here is another version, romantic even. However, I am annoyed that you should consider yourself so well educated to say that I do not know what I am talking about. That is a direct insult.

I do know what I am talking about, it is just t hat I have no clue as to what you are talking about.
Does gravity explain the origin of life? No. Does germ theory explain the origin of life? No. So wouldn't you think it odd if someone said that gravity is false because it gets the origin of life wrong?
Evolution is concerned with the variation in lifeforms once life already exists . It has NOTHING to do with even trying to explain how life first started.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2354
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 2015 times
Been thanked: 794 times

Re: What If...?

Post #733

Post by benchwarmer »

marakorpa wrote: [Replying to post 725 by benchwarmer]

All I can see from this statement is that you are doing what Christendom has done, you break the theories up into different isms to confuse the masses. I should imagine that survival of the fittest, natural selection and mutation all have their 'clergy' and adherents as well.
What I'm doing is explaining that there are different theories/explanations for different things. Is that so hard to comprehend? When someone asks you where orange juice comes from do you hand them a book on anatomy?
marakorpa wrote: I have asked this question in other forums on evolution, and it seemed to create a fair bit of fuss, but do you recognize what 'Kind' means in regards to the worlds animal, insect and plant population?

Can you accept that Kind means that the different families are called bovine, ovine, porcine, equine, canine feline and etc. and that there are many species of these kinds.
I will leave the word games alone and defer to scientists who have an entire field devoted to labeling things: taxonomy

Here is a handy link:

https://www.cbd.int/gti/taxonomy.shtml

I should point out that the labeling of things also has no direct effect on what evolution or abiogenesis are about.

Why do theists like to jumble everything into one pile? Are perhaps they not the ones trying to 'confuse the masses'?

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2354
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 2015 times
Been thanked: 794 times

Re: What If...?

Post #734

Post by benchwarmer »

marakorpa wrote: [Replying to post 725 by benchwarmer]

"Life changing from one generation t o the next": Please explain, a generation for man is around 20 years, what changes happen in that instance.
Well, if you actually go look at what the scientific theory of evolution actually states you will understand. In short, evolution requires reproduction. I said 'from one generation to the next" not "during a generation".
marakorpa wrote: Something we must not overlook is that the Creation Story has been around since 1513BCE, around 3500 years, the many theories of the origin of life and evolution has only been bandied around since Darwin's time, a couple of hundred years.

During the consequent writings of different men, inspired by God, there has been no contradiction to the creation event as told by Moses.
So your point is that older theories are better? Are you a flat earther too? Demons/spirits/etc cause disease instead of germs? Earth is the center of the universe?

Science is not afraid to update information based on new observations. Religion prefers to stick with the oldest pieces of parchment/tablet/carving it can find. Good luck with that.

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Post #735

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 728 by marakorpa]
With the scientists arguing to and from on which animal ate what, and the fact written in the Bible about meat not eaten before the Flood the circumstantial evidence finds the defendant guilty, and no dinosaurs ate meat.
We have fossils of dinosaurs that have their last meals in their stomachs. Those last meals are animals.
http://www.livescience.com/22809-diinos ... tents.html
Dinosaur fossils found with the bones of birds and small dinosaurs in their stomachs
Scientists investigated two specimens of a carnivorous dinosaur from Liaoning, China, known as Sinocalliopteryx gigas.
One of the Sinocalliopteryx specimens, a complete and remarkably well-preserved skeleton, apparently dined on a birdlike, cat-size feathered dinosaur known as Sinornithosaurus, judging by the partial leg found in its gut.
The other Sinocalliopteryx specimen, an incomplete skeleton, held the remains of at least two primitive crow-size birds known as Confuciusornis, as well as acid-etched bones from a dinosaur.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

marakorpa
Banned
Banned
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 3:21 am
Location: Coffs Harbour, NSW Australia

Re: What If...?

Post #736

Post by marakorpa »

[Replying to rikuoamero]


You speak in language from another planet, I am sorry but I don't understand your thinking.

marakorpa
Banned
Banned
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 3:21 am
Location: Coffs Harbour, NSW Australia

Re: What If...?

Post #737

Post by marakorpa »

[Replying to post 731 by benchwarmer]

Something that has been around for so many years, and the telling of the facts have not changed, and that other fact that many non-connected races and tribes have a flood theory would lend itself to very strong circumstantial evidence of an event written about 1513 years BCE.

The flat earth and your other stuff is purely a snide remark and holds no weight in a debate; however, the Bible itself long ago disproved the flat earth concept, and from what I wrote, you cannot possibly say that your rubbish is derived from my words.

marakorpa
Banned
Banned
Posts: 84
Joined: Sat Nov 26, 2016 3:21 am
Location: Coffs Harbour, NSW Australia

Re: What If...?

Post #738

Post by marakorpa »

[Replying to post 731 by benchwarmer]


I said 'from one generation to the next" not "during a generation".


Excuse me! From one generation to the next, so is that from the birth of one to the death of the same one? No, I will leave it to you, it is too complicated for me to find your intent.

User avatar
rikuoamero
Under Probation
Posts: 6707
Joined: Tue Jul 28, 2015 2:06 pm
Been thanked: 4 times

Re: What If...?

Post #739

Post by rikuoamero »

marakorpa wrote: [Replying to rikuoamero]


You speak in language from another planet, I am sorry but I don't understand your thinking.
Why say this? Why pretend that I'm not speaking English, the language you also speak?

Anyway, I'll explain it for you anyway. You have made the claim that dinosaurs were herbivores, that they didn't eat meat. I countered by showing evidence of dinosaur fossils with their last meals still in their stomachs, those meals being other animals.
Image

Your life is your own. Rise up and live it - Richard Rahl, Sword of Truth Book 6 "Faith of the Fallen"

I condemn all gods who dare demand my fealty, who won't look me in the face so's I know who it is I gotta fealty to. -- JoeyKnotHead

Some force seems to restrict me from buying into the apparent nonsense that others find so easy to buy into. Having no religious or supernatural beliefs of my own, I just call that force reason. -- Tired of the Nonsense

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2354
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 2015 times
Been thanked: 794 times

Re: What If...?

Post #740

Post by benchwarmer »

rikuoamero wrote:
marakorpa wrote: [Replying to rikuoamero]


You speak in language from another planet, I am sorry but I don't understand your thinking.
Why say this? Why pretend that I'm not speaking English, the language you also speak?

Anyway, I'll explain it for you anyway. You have made the claim that dinosaurs were herbivores, that they didn't eat meat. I countered by showing evidence of dinosaur fossils with their last meals still in their stomachs, those meals being other animals.
Honestly, this is starting to smell like willful ignorance. We explain clearly what we mean, the retort is always along the lines of "I don't know what you mean". This seems to be a common creationist tactic.

How complicated is it to understand that we found remains of dinosaurs with remains of other animals in their stomachs? If I was going to debate that I would ask for evidence not claim I don't understand the meaning of your words.

Post Reply