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.

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2351
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 2007 times
Been thanked: 791 times

Re: What If...?

Post #741

Post by benchwarmer »

marakorpa wrote: [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.
I'm sorry, but it seems you are willfully ignoring my posts or maybe English is not your first language.

I clearly stated in the sentence before the one you quoted that reproduction is required for evolution.

Did you bother looking up what the scientific theory of evolution is about? It seems not.

I'll explain this as clear as I can once, then I'm done:

When we talk of evolution in this thread we are talking about the scientific theory of evolution as it relates to biology.

The scientific theory of evolution as it relates to biology is basically stated as:

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Evolution
Evolution is change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations
In other words, when your parents reproduced you inherited their genes along with some random mutations. This happens every time an organism reproduces.

When this process happens over a long time period (or more precisely over many generations) the organism in question will have evolved from the original parent organism(s).

If none of this is clear, I suggest some research in basic biology.

User avatar
Willum
Savant
Posts: 9017
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:14 pm
Location: Yahweh's Burial Place
Has thanked: 35 times
Been thanked: 82 times

Re: What If...?

Post #742

Post by Willum »

[Replying to post 733 by marakorpa]

The language is the language of "if I understand it, my beliefs will have to change."

I say go to it: When it was discovered that the Earth went 'round the Sun, people didn't stop believing in invisible powerful beings in the clouds, why should evolution not just change belief?

I am still concerned why no one but non-Christians commented on my "What if..."

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

Re: What If...?

Post #743

Post by marakorpa »

[Replying to post 737 by benchwarmer]

I was talking about the two remarks of one generation to the next, and the previous that indicated that changes were made in one generation.

Revise your criticism, please

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

Facts and Questions

Post #744

Post by marakorpa »

Fact: All scientific research indicates that life cannot spring from nonliving matter.

Q: What is the scientific basis for saying that the first cell sprang from nonliving chemicals?

Fact: Researchers have recreated in the laboratory the environmental conditions that they believe existed early in earths history. In these experiments, a few scientists have manufactured some of the molecules found in living things.

Q: If the chemicals in the experiment represent earth's early environment and the molecules produced represent the building blocks of life, whom or what does the scientist who preformed the experiment represent? Does he or she represent blind chance or an intelligent entity?

Fact: Protein and RNA molecules must work together for a cell to survive. Scientists admit that it is highly unlikely that RNA formed by chance. The odds against even one protein forming by chance are astronomical. It is exceedingly improbable that RNA and proteins should form by chance in the same place at the same time and be able to work together.

Q: What takes greater faith - to believe that the millions of intricately coordinated parts of a cell arose by chance or to believe the the cell is the product of an intelligent mind?

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

Re: What If...?

Post #745

Post by marakorpa »

[Replying to post 731 by benchwarmer]

There is no need to update the Bible, it is accurate throughout, whereas there are many theories of evolution and not ( I See) the origin of life that are continually argued back and forth with many sided coming up with a new theory, yet again.

However, there is a need to have a proper understanding of the Bible.

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

Re: What If...?

Post #746

Post by marakorpa »

[Replying to post 725 by benchwarmer]

Give examples of real time experiments and their conclusions.

Mutations require cells too, so where do these random cells appear. These random mutations could include any sort of growth and would have to be inherent in the parents.

Many scientists ignore Random Mutations, depending on which main thrust you believe of evolution. There is Natural selection. Mutation Survival of the fittest, and with a lot of scientific tautology, complicated cells arriving and combining to make the intricate structure of all life on the earth today.

Now that takes a lot of faith.

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

Re: What If...?

Post #747

Post by marakorpa »

[Replying to post 730 by benchwarmer]

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

The labeling of things is often left out in explaining evolution but t hat does not mean things are not labeled.

Why evolutionists do not like the word Kind, as used in the Bible when two of each animal according to their KIND was loaded onto the Ark, is that they want to be able to say that different Kinds can cross breed, so you can have a dog breed with a horse, or a cow with an elephant to show that evolution has been responsible for all life forms.

I wonder what crossed with a tree to make a feather duster?

User avatar
Neatras
Guru
Posts: 1045
Joined: Sat Dec 24, 2011 11:44 pm
Location: Oklahoma, US
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: What If...?

Post #748

Post by Neatras »

marakorpa wrote:
Why evolutionists do not like the word Kind [snip] is that they want to be able to say that different Kinds can cross breed, so you can have a dog breed with a horse, or a cow with an elephant to show that evolution has been responsible for all life forms.
This is a lie, a false claim. It is a misrepresentation of scientist statements, and does not actually frame any part of the theory of evolution correctly. It is entirely a manipulative tactic meant to make the opposition seem absurd.

marakorpa, I don't expect you to do better, because you're just another Creationist in a long string of them, and your techniques are tired examples of desperation on the part of anti-intellectuals trying to use whatever they can to maintain a footing in debate.

If you actually had a leg to stand on, would you really need to resort to such tactics? Doubtful.

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

Re: Facts and Questions

Post #749

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 741 by marakorpa]
Fact: All scientific research indicates that life cannot spring from nonliving matter.
False. We are made up of non-living matter. Ever hear of iron, phosphorus, oxygen, carbon, hydrogen, etc? These are all elements, each of them is non-living...yet here we are, alive.
I was talking about the two remarks of one generation to the next, and the previous that indicated that changes were made in one generation.
Any changes from parent to child are small, almost imperceptible. I'm guessing that you're thinking any genetic changes have to be obvious, noticeable at a first glance.

No, small almost imperceptible changes accumulate over many generations. Look at our toes. Very small right? They look like the long toes on tree dwelling monkeys. Our ancestors had long toes but as their descendants moved to the ground, the toes started shrinking over many many generations. Many many generations from now, our own descendants more than likely will not have toes, given there is no environmental pressure to keep them.
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 #750

Post by marakorpa »

[Replying to post 745 by Neatras]


Okay! Can different kinds cross breed? Which ones can you give as an example?

Does life come from Iron, Phosphorous,and etc. out of curiosity these are all elements of the earth from which man was made; however, we were debating the origin of life from the combining of cells from different parts of the primordial slime pond.

Don't you put more doubt on your story by bringing in the product you had in your post? To say that humans is made up of these other elements means that these elements would have to be around at the beginning of cell combination and fitted in just the right quantities, JUST BY CHANCE. Really!!!!!

Post Reply