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.

[man]

[Replying to post 556 by Neatras]

The problem with that is we would have no one to make fun of, which is why people like arian exist in the first place.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

deleted

[otseng]

This is dumb.

The problem with that is we would have no one to make fun of, which is why people like arian exist in the first place.

Moderator Final Warning

Please do not make uncivil comments.

Please review the Rules.


______________

Moderator final warnings serve as the last strike towards users. Additional violations will result in a probation vote. Further infractions will lead to banishment. Any challenges or replies to moderator warnings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[help3434]

[Replying to post 556 by Neatras]

Most of the niche subforums here are pretty inactive. We don't have enough posters here to sustain what you are talking about.

[Neatras]

[Replying to post 561 by help3434]

Sub-forums yes, but a Usergroup would be effective in indicating who does and does not understand the theory.

[RonE]

[Replying to post 530 by theStudent]

[Replying to post 514 by rikuoamero]

I was wondering...
Why does man have such a large nose, compared to tiny creatures, and yet he can't smell water, even when he puts his nose up close, but tiny creature can smell water for miles.
Wait a minute... The apes can smell water too. In fact, all the animals can smell water, and food over great distances. Why can't man? Did his nose get a serious harmful mutation?

I'm not really asking for an answer.
I'm already aware that the scientists still have a lot of unanswered question, and I doubt very much that they ever considered this one.
I just though about it, and decided I would mention it.

Actually science does have an answer for this question, and the answer is all wrapped up in evolution the very thing you are attempting to disprove/bash with this topic:

"One of the oldest beliefs about human perception is that we have a poor sense of smell. Not only is this a general belief among the public, but it appears to have a scientific basis. Recent genetic studies show a decline in the number of functional olfactory receptor genes through primate evolution to humans. Human evolution was characterized by the gradual ascendance of vision and reduction of smell, evidenced in the anthropological record by the progressive diminution of the snout as the eyes moved to the middle of the face to subserve depth vision (Jones et al. 1992). Concurrently, the use of an arboreal habitat and the adoption of an erect posture moved the nose away from the ground, with its rich varieties of odors.

However, some recent behavioral studies suggest that primates, including humans, have relatively good senses of smell. Resolution of this paradox may come from a larger perspective on the biology of smell. Here we begin by reassessing several overlooked factors: the structure of the nasal cavity, retronasal smell, olfactory brain areas, and language. In these arenas, humans may have advantages which outweigh their lower numbers of receptors. It appears that in the olfactory system, olfactory receptor genes do not map directly onto behavior; rather, behavior is the outcome of multiple factors. If human smell perception is better than we thought, it may have played a more important role in human evolution than is usually acknowledged."
http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ar ... io.0020146

This article goes on in some very interesting detail on the genetics, behaviorial, and physical attributes involved. And as you said

I love science!

maybe you should get some mice or rats and do your own experiments if you don't believe their results.

[Talishi]

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

After Karl Popper revolutionized the scientific method, we don't prove anything anymore. A scientist like Darwin makes a claim that animals replicate with changes, and their offspring compete in a niche, and over deep time this is sufficient to explain speciation. Then researchers go about trying to demonstrate a flaw in that theory.

[man]

Evolution is not something you believe in, you either understand it or you don't.

[theStudent]

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

After Karl Popper revolutionized the scientific method, we don't prove anything anymore. A scientist like Darwin makes a claim that animals replicate with changes, and their offspring compete in a niche, and over deep time this is sufficient to explain speciation. Then researchers go about trying to demonstrate a flaw in that theory.

I understand.
I would suggest though, that if all possibilities are not considered, it can be the tendency to conclde that it is a "fact", because they don't find any evidence that would prove it wrong.
In that regard, I would say that it is a claim - in the same way that they refer to religious beliefs as claims.

[man]

Here is the difference between science and religion made simple.

You are in a war, you have a cannon and your enemy has one too. You point your cannon in the general direction of your enemy fire it and pray like hell that your cannon ball hits him. Your enemy incorporates some science to calculate where his cannon ball will land and can land his cannon balls within inches of its target every time.

Which side do you want to be on, science or gods?