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.

[Divine Insight]

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

I don't know who "evolutionists" are, but I am personally well enough educated in physics, chemistry, and biology to understand how evolution actually works. The fossil record is only a small part of understanding how evolution works.

This is far different from believing in a "book". Especially if you are comparing this will believing in something like the Bible. The Bible is filled with self-contradictions, utter absurdities, and immoral barbaric behavior attributed to a supposedly super intelligent God who would have no rational reason to become "wrathful" toward mere mortal humans that he himself created.

In short, Evolution makes sense, the Bible doesn't.

And what if Darwin, and others lied?

It wouldn't matter who lied. The evidence and mechanism for evolution stands on its own once you understand the physics and chemistry behind it.

Also, what if the authors of the Bible lied? Something I find far more likely. We know for a fact that Jesus lied (at least if we accept everything that has been attributed to him in the New Testament Gospels). Jesus promised to do everything we ask in his name, that's not happening for anyone, not even the most devout believers. Mother Teresa is a prime example. Jesus also proclaimed that anyone who believes in him would be able to do even greater works then he had done, but thus far in over 2000 years we haven't seen a single solitary person being recognized for having done greater works than Jesus. In fact, ironically most Christians would have a fit if anyone even claimed that anyone could do greater works than Jesus even though the Gospels have Jesus himself proclaiming that anyone who believe on him should be able to do this.

It would seem to me that the lies told in the Bible are quite obvious.

So what's the alternative to Evolution?

Evolution makes perfect sense in terms of physics and chemistry.

What other theory is there that makes as much sense for the origins of the species on planet earth?

Certainly the Bible is no competition for Evolution.

[SkyChief]

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?

IMO, No. Lets assume for arguments sake that Darwin and Haeckel are liars.

There is compelling evidence to support evolution even if we toss all the "lies" by these two individuals.

We can observe that during the course of mating and offspring, DNA is not always replicated 100% faithfully. Slight differences in the code work their way in. These differences get amplified with successive generations, and these differences are irreversible. This is a fundamental axiom for the evolution theory. This is the mechanics of evolution. We can turn our heads and ignore it, but it doesn't make it go away.

Evolution happens. Its difficult to observe because it takes a very long time for even the minutest changes to manifest in a species.

Consider:
Christians accept the Bible, as the word of God.

Okay. So what? That doesn't mean that the bible IS the word of god. It just means they accept that it is.

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.

[Bust Nak]

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?

It would be the case if all we have to go by is the scientists claims, but that's not all we have to go by so the question is moot. Instead we go by the empirical evidence of evolution.

No one, to this day have seen them recreate the theories.

Not true.

Any data they give you on species, is usually what already existed (at least what I have come across so far).

Great. So the data fits the theory, were you expecting anything else?

As regards other claims, all we have are pictures, and claimed fossils, which could have been edited.

There is also genetics and actual observed instances of evolution.

So evolutionists are really believing what men claim - without any substantial proof of their claim.

Not true.

How is this different to believing a book?

We have empirical evidence and you don't.

And what if Darwin, and others lied?

We don't really care if they lied or not, we go by the evidence. What people say is irrelevant.

Here is a nice short video of someone's opinion. Reasonable too.

Sounds reasonable enough, but it is a case of garbage in garbage out. Dinosaurs were result of discovering fossils, not the other way round as she claimed; fossils are not pulverized rocks, if I gave you a jumbled up pile of bones from say a cow, even if you were untrained in anatomy would be able make a reasonable stab at reconstructing the skeleton, the same way you will have a easier time building a puzzle than rebuilding a picture that's torn up into tiny pieces; finally fossils pieces are often discovered in situ, which means we know the relative position of each piece.

[Willum]

Well, aside from your premise being the comparison of two different lies...

The opportunistic mis-matching of bones should provide you insight into the origin of religion.

One case of bone mis-matching was because, the dinosaur hunter KNEW, that if he had a skeleton without a head, it wouldn't sell too many tickets.

Bringing the analogy to religion. How many tithes do you think you would sell without an all-appealing God?

[Kenisaw]

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.

Good for you, well done sir.

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?

It does not put them in the same position as Christians.

I freely admit that it is entirely true that fossils can be faked, and those things have happened in the past. Individuals have made fraudulent claims, lied, concocted fabrications, etc. Even in science people are tempted to lie or cheat to make themselves famous, or through frustration, or to take the easy way out, or whatever. It's happened, and I guarantee it will happen again, because humans are not perfect.

But when those things have happened, who caught it? Science did. That is why the scientific method has verification and validating and independent confirmation as part of the process. Science expects there to be mistakes, whether intentional or accidental, and has a process in place to account for those things.

But despite these things, the evidence for the theory of evolution is staggering. 2 billion fossils. There's no way someone faked all of them! I used to go down to the creek behind my house when I was a kid and found all kinds of different fossils. What kid hasn't done something like that? We all know that fossils are real things, and that they reside in most of the sedimentary rocks on Earth. Do you really doubt that fossils are real, Student?

There is also geological evidence, morphological evidence, biological evidence. The entire tree of life was constructed on this information. Then a brand new field of study - genetics - came along and verified the whole thing! It's an incredible independent confirmation by a totally separate field of research, and it just added another layer of verification to the theory of evolution.

So yes, there have been lies and fabrications. But that is the exception, not the norm. The data available is overwhelming, and it all points to evolution as being true.

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.

The Bible is certainly a success book, no question about it. But it's in interesting dichotomy. You have billions of believers, based on one book. Yet there are thousands of different sects based on that one book. The theory of evolution has billions of pieces of evidence for it, and that is the basis for one scientific theory that tens of thousands of scientists have verified and validated as being accurate.

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?

Let's be accurate. There isn't one single piece of data or empirical evidence that supports the claim that any god creature or supernatural entity exists. Not one. As it specifically relates to your particular belief system, you have a book shown to be edited and changed over time, which makes claims about the natural world that are now known to be completely wrong, written by mostly persons unknown after the supposed date of composition. It can be found in 20 different "versions". Why shouldn't it be considered make believe?

You don't have to believe anything about the theory of evolution, Student. You think I did? I went on a paleontological dig, and I've read quite a few books and journals, and I did my own research. That's how science works. No one ever has to take the word of anyone. Everything is open for review and checked by others. Even though I am not a professional scientist doesn't mean I accept what others tell me. Check out all the data and see for yourself.

Let's not pretend, though, that you don't trust science every day of your life. Every time you drive over a bridge (mechanics of materials) or step on the brake (fluids) or take medicine when you're sick (germ theory) or use a computer (quantum mechanics) or use a GPS system (relativity) you are not only trusting that science got it right, you are proving they got it right because all that stuff works. The big difference is that all that stuff doesn't directly contradict the very first part of your religious book, whereas evolution does.

If you don't want to believe scientists for JUST that particular theory of evolution, then go look at all the data and come up with a better explanation....

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.

Right. Billions of fossils, including the ones in the creek behind my house, and sequenced genomes of most living things, and hundreds of layers of sedimentary rocks, worked on by tens of thousands of scientists for over 150 years, and they just all made it up. Are you listening to yourself? Over half the scientists in America are religious or believe in a personal god, and yet they are still all in on the great conspiracy? What an insane suggestion...

Please take off your blinders, get away from the creationist indoctrination, and go look at all the data yourself. You owe yourself the opportunity to make your own decision, to think about the evidence yourself, and to satisfy your own intellectual curiosity.

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

No, for all the reasons outlined above.

And what if Darwin, and others lied?

If they lied then the data and evidence wouldn't agree with the scientific theory of evolution.

[ttruscott]

No one, to this day have seen them recreate the theories.

Not true.

So evolutionists are really believing what men claim - without any substantial proof of their claim.

Not true.

I read your answer and thought, how and why is this not true? What are you referring to? Can you have a one-liner in the middle of a longer post???

[Clownboat]

No one, to this day have seen them recreate the theories.

Not true.

So evolutionists are really believing what men claim - without any substantial proof of their claim.

Not true.

I read your answer and thought, how and why is this not true? What are you referring to? Can you have a one-liner in the middle of a longer post???

I'm curious as to your response to the rest of his post.
Why single out these while ignoring everything else? No thoughts on the rest of it, or is it due to there being agreement?

Especially this: "There is also genetics and actual observed instances of evolution. "
Which pretty much is the evidence you are looking for. Do you not understand the genetic and observed instances of evolution? Are you looking for this understanding, or were you just not aware?

No one, to this day have seen them recreate the theories.

Not true... There is also genetics and actual observed instances of evolution.

So evolutionists are really believing what men claim - without any substantial proof of their claim.

Not true... There is also genetics and actual observed instances of evolution.

[OnceConvinced]

If evolution was all lies, then I would just have to accept that its lies and settle for the fact that I don't know how life got here. Which basically is the case anyway when it comes to how it all started.

One thing I would not do is give into ignorance and say "Goddidit". It would be absurd to claim life got here due to magic.

[theStudent]

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?

IMO, No. Lets assume for arguments sake that Darwin and Haeckel are liars.

There is compelling evidence to support evolution even if we toss all the "lies" by these two individuals.

We can observe that during the course of mating and offspring, DNA is not always replicated 100% faithfully. Slight differences in the code work their way in. These differences get amplified with successive generations, and these differences are irreversible. This is a fundamental axiom for the evolution theory. This is the mechanics of evolution. We can turn our heads and ignore it, but it doesn't make it go away.

Evolution happens. Its difficult to observe because it takes a very long time for even the minutest changes to manifest in a species.

Consider:
Christians accept the Bible, as the word of God.

Okay. So what? That doesn't mean that the bible IS the word of god. It just means they accept that it is.

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.

Hi
Would you tend to agree that when you get a cut, you bleed?
Would you also agree that when you bleed, if the cut is not extreme, that after some time, you notice the blood congeal?

Is this not a natural function that we humans have come and found, and after scientific research, learned about it, and got a bit of understanding as to how it works, and why it works?

So, what about that proves that evolution was responsible?

We observe things every day don't we? But, we don't form an opinion about it, based on a belief we have, do we?