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.

[ttruscott]

Again with the edit coming in as a double post...sigh.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

Hi Divine Insight,

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.

Evolutionists
A person who believes in organic evolution

Evolutionism
(biology) a scientific theory of the origin of species of plants and animals

When you say

how evolution works

are you referring to how life on earth began, or are you referring to the functions, and adaptable processes of different species?

Most people understand that scientists are continually learning from their experiments, how things work.
That's called scientific studies.

When it comes to evolution, however - let me first give my personal opinion.
I think when some people get to a certain level of education, they think that they have a big advantage over "less educated" or "common" people.
So they feel they can use terminology that they believe people will not understand, or even misunderstand. And they feel this gives them the advantage, because they can twist or bend these fancy words to deceive or confuse people.
But they fail to realize one thing - We don't live in the dark ages no more. We live in an age where knowledge is available to the youngest child, who can read.

I have all the written information on evolution I think possible to find on the internet.
I've collect all the definitions to the fancy terms as well.
I can use these, if that's preffered.
However, I find video, easier to watch, and these ones I find are explained in a simple "down to earth way" not above your head scientific terms.










Here is what I get in a nutshell on evolution being responsible for life on earth.
(I'm not interested in the evolution that involves adaption - this is evident even in what we know as our immune system. We understand adaptation.)

All life on earth may have originated from a common ancestor.
That common ancestor - chemistry, or chemical reaction.
Where did this chemistry come from? Probably outer space.
A living cell somehow made it through the turbulent atmosphere and survived to reach earth and survive in that atmosphere as well.
And get this - the common ancestor that gave life to all life on earth, is a four footed land animal, but where did the chemical reaction take place? In water.

All guess work - unreliable guess work. And they are still guessing.
I can come up with a theory, and then try to fit what is evident around me to my theory.
Someone asked what I consider to be two reasonable questions.
If all life on earth originated from a common ancestor
1. What do humans and plants have in common in order to say that they are related?
2. How did humans develop morals - which is clearly lacking in animals, and plants?
Wow!
I could actually imaging a teenager without a degree asking such questions.

Conclusion:
They have not found out, how life came into existence.
That is a fact.

Yet persons here are telling me that the evidence is there.
What evidence?

That every living thing produces according to it's kind?
I know little children who already know that, and they did not learn it from science.

The Bible said it.
When God told Noah to take two of every animal into the ark, what could one possibly think he was doing - make manure?
No.
Genesis 7:2, 3

. . .the male and its mate; and of every animal that is not clean just two, the male and its mate; also of the flying creatures of the sky by sevens, male and female, to preserve their offspring alive over all the earth.

Children observe.
When their pet fish produces little baby fish, they know that there are not sharks, or whales swimming around in their aquarium.
When their pet dog, or cat, gives birth, they know there are not elephants or hippos.

Evoluton, which is being challenged, has nothing to do with how living things function. They function because their designer made them to function, in the way they do.
Evolution that is being challenged is

the theory that the first living organism developed from lifeless matter. Then, as it reproduced, it is said, it changed into different kinds of living things, ultimately producing all forms of plant and animal life that have ever existed on this earth. All of this is said to have been accomplished without the supernatural intervention of a Creator.

the theory in biology postulating that the various types of plants, animals, and other living things on Earth have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations. The theory of evolution is one of the fundamental keystones of modern biological theory.

A theory that I cleary stated was not proven to be factual, but yes is considered factual, even though those who promote it use such terms as, possibly, may have, are not certain.
And the research I have done now has not changed that.
It has only verified it.

Evolution has not provided any evidence for the origin of life on earth.

Take this one for example:
Miller–Urey experiment

it was conducted in 1952 by Stanley Miller, with assistance from Harold Urey, at the University of Chicago and later the University of California, San Diego and published the following year.

After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life. More-recent evidence suggests that Earth's original atmosphere might have had a different composition from the gas used in the Miller experiment. But prebiotic experiments continue to produce racemic mixtures of simple to complex compounds under varying conditions.

Does this make sense to you?
55 years!
A whole 55 years to discover that the experiment produced more than the 10 amino acids produced in Miller's experiment.
In fact, according to those who made the discovery 55 years later, the amino acids were little above the amount needed for life (20).
Well, of course, after running a few more experiments, and putting in just what is needed, it is possible to get it right after 55 years.

But did they mention that those amino acids still did not meet the requirements for life, even if they were 100 of them?
No. Of course, they left that part out.
How could they ever accomplish this?
In real life, nearly all amino acids found in proteins are left handed, almost all polymers of carbohydrates are right handed, and the opposite type can be toxic to the cell.
In Miller's experiment, equal quantities of both right- and left-handed organic molecules always were produced.

Now why would that piece of information be so important?
Life cannot exist, if they don't get it right.
And that is just one of the hundreds of problems evolution has failed to solve.

No wonder Fred Hoyle, English astronomer, cosmologist, and mathematician, compares the likelihood of life appearing on Earth by chemical reactions "as equivalent to the possibility that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein".

It's the same story with the big-bang theory.
http://www.britannica.com/topic/big-bang-model

The big-bang model is based on two assumptions.

Thanks guys I have done (and I am not finished all) the research.
If the above information in the videos is wrong, please let me know.

However, the fact remains, believing in scientific theories is still a matter of faith in what another says, without substantial evidence.
It also takes faith to believe that life on earth originated by pure chance, and without having any substantial evidence.

[ttruscott]

Especially this: "There is also genetics and actual observed instances of evolution. "
Which pretty much is the evidence you are looking for.

Calling the micro changes of living things that we can see and breed for by intelligent intervention to be the same thing as the un-proven random change from one species to another is not yet acceptable. afaIk

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

I have no problem in a person believing what they want to believe.
As I said before, we have the right to exercise our freedom of choice.

However, when things like this are said,

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.

I also will make statements.

The Bible makes perfect sense.
It says that God created the heavens (the universe), and the earth, and all life on earth.
It says that God's qualities, can be seen in the creation around us that his hands made these things.
It says he made the earth for humans to live, and gave them every perfect gift.

Do these things sound like lies.
Just because one does not understand the Bible, that does not make its statements untrue.
Just because one doesn't feel close to God, or doesn't want to know, or get close to himm, does not make him non-existent.
If one wants to make an excuse not to believe the Bible, and therefore exchange the truth, and faith in God, for the lie, and faith in evolution - a myth, that's their choice.
The Bible says that too.
Romans 1:25

. . .They exchanged the truth of God for the lie and venerated and rendered sacred service to the creation rather than the Creator, who is praised forever. Amen. . .

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.

As I said before, "What evidence?"
I must be blind then, because all I see is, assumed, could be, may have been, still testing these theories.
Evidence does not fit any of those.

If you went to court, with what you call "evidence", and said, "Well, Your Honor, this item, probably ...", the just would throw both you, and the "evidence out.
From what I have seen, millions of people - including myself do the same, where evolution is concerned.

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.

Imagine lying about something that is proven, or that is a fact.
Can you see that being possible, DivineInsight?

Imagine me saying, "Hens lay eggs." or "The eggs will hatch tomorrow." and they do, and someone calls me a liar.
What would you call that person. Well, he would probably be a double liar.

Did Jesus lie?

Jesus did not lie, nor would he.
John 14:14 If you ask anything in my name, I will do it.
John 15:16 . . . You did not choose me, but I chose you, and I appointed you to go and keep bearing fruit and that your fruit should remain, so that no matter what you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you.
John 16:23 . . .In that day you will ask me no question at all. Most truly I say to you, if you ask the Father for anything, he will give it to you in my name.
Jesus meant exactly what he said.
It doesn't mean that if someone asked the father for six wives, they would be granted, does it?
Be reasonable.

Again no. He did not lie. His followers did do greater works.
Acts 1:8 . . .But you will receive power when the holy spirit comes upon you, and you will be witnesses of me in Jerusalem, in all Ju·deʹa and Sa·marʹi·a, and to the most distant part of the earth.�
Acts 2:41 So those who gladly accepted his word were baptized, and on that day about 3,000 people were added.

That's just what I was saying about understanding.

but thus far in over 2000 years we haven't seen a single solitary person being recognized for having done greater works than Jesus.

And speaking about recognizing...
Do you recognize that God exist?
So how would you recognize any of his works?

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.

The alternative to evolution is all there in black and white.
Why, it's right there in front of your eyes too. Just look in the mirror, at your design, and if you have a cat, take time to observe that too.
There's too much to mention.

If evolution makes perfect sense to you, how can I make that choice for you?
If you preferred whiskey over water, pastries over fruit, what can I say?

Creation makes sense to me - the Bible supports it too.
The Bible has opposition - it's competitors are not even close.
Estimated total sales of over 5 billion copies.
Widely considered to be the best-selling book of all time.
Estimated annual sales of 100 million copies.
A major influence on literature and history - not to mention lives.

The choices are ours to make.
Each one has decided on their faith.
Evolution - a faith in scientific theories.
Creation - a faith in a creator, as is represeted in the Bible.

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 4 by Bust Nak]

Hi Bust Nak,
You keep saying, "Not true."
Would you like to produce some evidence? Where is your evidence?

[theStudent]

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?

Notice, the dinosaur bone situation isn't the only one I presented.
Can you be certain that this

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.

is true.
How many times have we been lied to?
Perhaps you should read about some of the excavations taking place in China.
This fake fossils situation is huge.

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

Could you make yourself clear on this one, please?
I don't understand the question.

[Willum]

[Replying to theStudent]

Yes, I am sure.
That's what the dude confessed to in his notes.

No, I can't make the analogy more clear. You don't have a steak, so you must sell the sizzle.

[Kenisaw]

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?

Ken Miller from Brown University has done some work on how clotting evolved actually. So has R Doolittle among others. So we do, in fact, have a "bit of understanding" about it.

I would like to note, by the way, that it took me all of three minutes to find that information at millerandlevine.com as well as at an answer.yahoo question. About the same amount of time as it took you to type up your cut and bleed paragraph followed by the "what about that proves that evolution was responsible" question.

Sorry if that seemed a little pissy by me, but I sometimes tire of answering questions by people that they could have answered themselves in about the same amount of time that it took to ask the question in the first place.

To answer your last paragraph, we do observe things everyday. And it we want to know why we are seeing those things, we look into them. We don't form an opinion based on some belief though, we try to answer why through a systematic investigation of the phenomena via the scientific method. It may surprise you that blood clotting would be looked at in an evolutionary viewpoint, but hemophiliacs certainly care why their DNA dropped blood clotting, don't you think?

This is yet another good example of the tremendous volume of information generated my several fields of investigation that have all concluded that evolution is a sound scientific theory...

[theStudent]

[Replying to post 6 by Kenisaw]

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.

I do not have a problem with fossils.
I do have a problem with fossils, of which I have no evidence, as to whether they were edited or not.
Do you deny that possibility?

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.

You can see Post 12 for my reply to this.

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.

There are also scientist who do not accept the theory of evolution, being responsible for life on earth.
There are also scientists who oppose the idea that it has been proven.
You are not going to tell me these aren't scientist, are you?

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?

Yes, let us be accurate.
If the police came to your home, which is an isolated home, perhaps in the mountains.
The officers smell the odor of marijuana. Let's not even mention the police dog, because it will be sure to find the stash.
Does the officers have evidence that someone in or around the house is using marijuana?
I would think so.

Just because one has not seen a creator, does not mean that he does not exist, if one has the evidence of a creator.
It seems more reasonable to accept an intelligent creator, than to reject that notion for a chance occurrence, being responsible for complex life on earth.
Isn't it true that a unreasonable person is the one that goes by his feelings, and emotional attachment to his beliefs?
I prefer to be the reasonable person.
Darwin himself admitted

To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.

http://www.darwins-theory-of-evolution.com/

Sir Fred Hoyle, [Astronomer, Cosmologist, and Mathematician, Cambridge University]

The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it ... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution ... if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.

The scientific magazine Discover - October 1980, p. 88

Evolution . . . is not only under attack by fundamentalist Christians, but is also being questioned by reputable scientists. Among paleontologists

About the Bible
Writings found to be over 100 centuries old, confirm that the Bible which has been copied, and recopied, as well as translated into hundreds of languages, for over a thousand years, has not changed. Amazing!
That translates to me, as divine intervention.

So if we are being accurate, honest, and reasonable, we would accept that the Bible is reliable, and that the possibility of an intelligent creator is very real.

Check out all the data and see for yourself.

I have done so, as you probably saw in Post 12.

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....

Here we go again...
Why is communication so difficult?
Could it be because we have a mindset toward our own belief, so we are not really interested in what another person believes?

Let me repeat it for the last time hopefully.
I... Do... Not... Have... A... Problem... With... Science...
I... Have... A... Problem... With... The... Claim... That... EVOLUTION... Is... Responsible... For... Life... On... Earth.

Please, I hope you understand that. I'm tired repeating it.
Evolution is a theory.
Science is a study.
There is a difference.

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.

Thank you.
See Post 12.

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

If I studied cars, and how they function, I'm sure I would find, an engine, spark plugs, radiator, ect., and I would learn they run off of diesel, or gasoline, etc.
If you studied science - physics, biology, chemistry, the human body, plant life, animal life, living cells, etc., what would you expect to find?

[theStudent]

[Replying to theStudent]

Yes, I am sure.
That's what the dude confessed to in his notes.

No, I can't make the analogy more clear. You don't have a steak, so you must sell the sizzle.

No problem.
That's quite okay.