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

Re: What If...?

Post #751

Post by marakorpa »

[Replying to post 745 by Neatras]

Are you saying that evolution scientists do not claim that kinds cross breed during evolutionary changes?

Examples: Fish turning into reptiles. Bats into birds. Gorillas into mankind etc.

Evolutionist scientists need this invented cross breeding to explain the diversity of creatures. The one cell pantomime cannot cater for all living species and kinds, can it?

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

Re: What If...?

Post #752

Post by marakorpa »

[Replying to post 745 by Neatras]

"marakorpa, I don't expect you to do better, because you're just another Creationist"

And you are just another evolutionist that because you can say monkey you think you are superior to other humans.

You amongst a lot of other poor souls, are being lied to daily, and you do not have the basic intelligence to notice.

Of course, it depends on the depth you head is in the sand.

Bust Nak
Savant
Posts: 9858
Joined: Mon Feb 27, 2012 6:03 am
Location: Planet Earth
Has thanked: 189 times
Been thanked: 266 times

Re: What If...?

Post #753

Post by Bust Nak »

marakorpa wrote: What is the scientific basis for saying that the first cell sprang from nonliving chemicals?
There is lots of evidence, include the fact that cells are made up of nonliving chemicals.
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?
He represent what you called "blind chance" or more accurately, he represent nature.
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.
Where are you getting this so called fact from? Nature is not just random.
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?
It takes far greater faith to believe the cell is the product of an intelligent mind.
Why evolutionists do not like the word Kind as used in the Bible?
Because the word "kind" is not precise enough.
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.
Why would a evolutionist say "a dog breed with a horse, or a cow with an elephant to show that evolution has been responsible for all life forms?"
Okay! Can different kinds cross breed?
Some can, depends on how closely related the two kinds are.
Which ones can you give as an example?
Lions and tigers are a good 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.
The very fact that life is composed of elements of the earth support the claim that life originated from "primordial slime pond."
Don't you put more doubt on your story by bringing in the product you had in your post?
No, why would you think that? The more we know, the more we are sure.
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!!!!!
Sure, is that so surprising?
Are you saying that evolution scientists do not claim that kinds cross breed during evolutionary changes?

Examples: Fish turning into reptiles. Bats into birds. Gorillas into mankind etc.
Those are not examples of cross breeding. And for the record "bats into birds, gorillas into mankind" are not what evolutionists have suggested. It's falsehood created by creationists to mock us.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9381
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1260 times

Re: Facts and Questions

Post #754

Post by Clownboat »

marakorpa wrote: 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?
What takes greater faith!?! Put some thought into it man!
Life started somehow. Evolution does not care how. No faith is required.

Just to help poor ol marakorpa out, let's pretend that the Christian god implanted the first life on this planet. Now he can have his god and we should be able to talk about evolution like adults.

Marakorpa, no need to discuss how life arose, we can assume your god did it if it will help you to stay on topic about evolution.

If you want to disprove evolution, all you need to do is find a fossil that is out of place. This need to think evolution is the start of life is just nonsensical and you should stop.

Never argue with a fool, they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience. - Mark Twain
You can give a man a fish and he will be fed for a day, or you can teach a man to pray for fish and he will starve to death.

I blame man for codifying those rules into a book which allowed superstitious people to perpetuate a barbaric practice. Rules that must be followed or face an invisible beings wrath. - KenRU

It is sad that in an age of freedom some people are enslaved by the nomads of old. - Marco

If you are unable to demonstrate that what you believe is true and you absolve yourself of the burden of proof, then what is the purpose of your arguments? - brunumb

User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 20520
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 197 times
Been thanked: 337 times
Contact:

Post #755

Post by otseng »

marakorpa wrote: And you are just another evolutionist that because you can say monkey you think you are superior to other humans.

You amongst a lot of other poor souls, are being lied to daily, and you do not have the basic intelligence to notice.

Of course, it depends on the depth you head is in the sand.
:warning: Moderator Warning

Please do not make comments about other posters.

Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

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

Re: What If...?

Post #756

Post by rikuoamero »

[Replying to post 747 by marakorpa]
Okay! Can different kinds cross breed?
This is a mal-formed question, because 'kinds' is not a valid term when discussing evolution. The term quite simply is not used. Talk to an evolutionary biologist and they will use terms like 'clade, genus, species, family', etc.
They will not use 'kind'.
If you persist on using the word 'kind', here's an analogy. It's as misplaced a term as using the word 'stuff' when discussing what elements a particular molecule is composed of.
Does life come from Iron, Phosphorous
We are composed of those elements and others, yes. So in a sense, yes to your question.
however, we were debating the origin of life
No we are not. Please get this...this thread is titled 'What if...?' with the subtitle being 'What if they have lied about evolutionary theory?'
At no point in the opening post (scroll your screen up to see it, it's in a different colour to the rest of the posts) does theStudent even mention the origin of life.
The more you continue to mention the origin of life in a thread that is talking about evolution, the more you will annoy those of us on the opposite side of the debate. They are two different topics.
from the combining of cells from different parts of the primordial slime pond.
The primordial slime pond is actually but ONE hypothesis proposed for abiogenesis, which is the actual term used for the origin of life. There are a few other hypotheses, with the slime pond being but one of them.
I thought you said before that you had studied this?
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
Yes. Human cells are made up of elements. Did you not study basic atomic theory in high school? The periodic table of elements?
and fitted in just the right quantities,
pretty much
JUST BY CHANCE.
Oh of course, the old creationist canard of 'chance'. I totally have not seen that before...
Are you saying that evolution scientists do not claim that kinds cross breed during evolutionary changes?
Correct, because evolution scientists do not use the term kind. Also cross breed is the wrong term to use here as well, I think you're looking for the term 'evolve'.
Examples: Fish turning into reptiles. Bats into birds. Gorillas into mankind etc.
Who said gorillas turned into mankind, bats into birds, fish into reptiles? None of the evolutionary scientists, I can say for sure.
I'm betting you got that list from a creationist website, and it used the term kinds. Ya see...they have it wrong. Their (and your) insistence on not using the correct terminology and not actually studying the subject matter means they insist on seeing only lifeforms that exist today, and mis-interpreting the subject e.g. seeing gorillas existing today and insisting that evolution scientists say gorillas evolved into humans...when those scientists say nothing of the sort.
Evolutionist scientists need this invented cross breeding to explain the diversity of creatures.
They didn't invent it.
The one cell pantomime cannot cater for all living species and kinds, can it?
I take it you never took high school biology either, then? Never extracted skin cells or onion cells in a class experiment? Cells exist.
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

Donray
Guru
Posts: 1195
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2011 8:25 pm
Location: CA
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: What If...?

Post #757

Post by Donray »

marakorpa wrote: [Replying to post 745 by Neatras]

Are you saying that evolution scientists do not claim that kinds cross breed during evolutionary changes?

Examples: Fish turning into reptiles. Bats into birds. Gorillas into mankind etc.

Evolutionist scientists need this invented cross breeding to explain the diversity of creatures. The one cell pantomime cannot cater for all living species and kinds, can it?
You evidently know nothing about the theory of evolution so why are you writing anything about it?

You could at least read some books about the subject.

Why don't you explain where you think Neanderthals fit into your idea of evolution or creation? Remember that anyone with Europe ancestry has some percent of Neanderthal DNA.

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

Re: What If...?

Post #758

Post by marakorpa »

[Replying to Neatras]

There is another forum that has discussed evolution V Creation, and I can tell yu that thee was over 100 posts that argued the word KIND, saying that scientists do not accept the word to mean anything related to evolutionary process.

Another reason given was that it came from the Bible, which Shock Horror, promoted creation.

So please do not scream false claim every time you do not agree with something. You indicate that I am telling lies.

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

Re: What If...?

Post #759

Post by marakorpa »

[Replying to post 754 by Donray]

Please tell me where the evidence of your statement about European Neanderthals
might come from, especially when the Neanderthals have been proved to not exist.

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 #760

Post by Neatras »

marakorpa wrote: [Replying to post 745 by Neatras]
Are you saying that evolution scientists do not claim that kinds cross breed during evolutionary changes?
I'm not saying that at all, and neither are scientists claiming that.

What they actually claim is that discrete organisms will breed and produce offspring with genetically viable members of their "species," where species is an arbitrarily defined taxonomic label applied to groups of animals with distinct characteristics.
marakorpa wrote: Examples: Fish turning into reptiles. Bats into birds. Gorillas into mankind etc.
No, animals will breed with animals that are genetically similar, that allow for the production of offspring. That offspring will have varied characteristics, and can potentially stretch the boundaries of what its inherited genetic blueprints carried to allow for potentially more variation as successive generations pass on their traits.

I will construct a crude analogy that breaks down on the more technical level, but should get the idea across:
Consider a special length of chain. Each link can only interconnect with a similar link if they have at least a 99% similarity, meaning that two links that are too distinct will not match.

Well, according to the Creationist arguments, such a scenario would mean that there could never be a "macro"-level change in the "chain" population. After all, they can't change "too much," or they cease being able to breed among themselves.

The theory of evolution has an explanation for this, however Creationists have distorted it and made the insinuation that "for evolution to be true, that must mean different chain populations must have had some kind of crossbreeding to produce a new chain population!" Except this is a falsehood. No scientist claims that this is how evolution takes place.

Instead, the chains will continue to only link up with other links that are viable "mates." The thing here is that the 1% of variation allowed can easily add up over successive generations. A 1% difference in one place will carry over, then another 1% change in a different location in the chain link's "genome." Continuous modifications until the links look entirely unique. There is no reason why a link at the end of a chain must be identical to a link at the start of the chain, so long as it was successfully able to link with its predecessor, and that predecessor was able to connect to its predecessor, with only the most minute variations piling up over time.

You may question how evolution accounts for unique traits spreading to an entire population. But remember that a single modification may not impair the organism's ability to mate with similar organisms without the modification. The trait persists in one individual, then is passed to the next generation, slowly filtering throughout the population until it is commonplace. Once it is commonplace, that is the new "standard" for the population, and becomes the shared trait of the species.

A "kind" is an arbitrary label that Creationists came up with, and is only superficially useful. Even the "species" moniker is entirely taxonomic. It is not prescriptive of how a population behaves.

Under Creationist ideas, you would have to argue that a rabbit born today must be able to successfully mate with a rabbit born millions of years ago, or a rabbit born millions of years from now. THAT is the magical thinking that defies logic; that there is some kind of supernatural force compelling all species to remain distinct and immune to selective forces.

Has it ever occurred to you that Creationists are incapable of describing the theory of evolution correctly? And has it also ever occurred to you that biologists often do a magnificent job of describing Creationism? Because the bias is obvious: Creationists are motivated by non-scientific agendas to reject evolution, and are left to scrabble together flimsy arguments that attempt to stand against real data.
marakorpa wrote: Evolutionist scientists need this invented cross breeding to explain the diversity of creatures. The one cell pantomime cannot cater for all living species and kinds, can it?
This is a false claim. A lie. You are misrepresenting scientists and the theory of evolution, because you are unwilling/unable to represent the theory with any kind of intellectual honesty. You have every opportunity available to you to learn about what the theory actually states, from people who are not inherently biased against it. I don't expect you to.

If you ask us questions that aren't loaded, malformed, or strawmen, we are extremely excited to share our knowledge and assist you in the rigors of scientific literacy. But if you are unwilling to listen to the "evolutionists" and refuse to address our actual arguments, and instead run to the pulpit to be force-fed strawmen by anti-intellectuals, be my guest.

You have once again made a concerted effort to misrepresent scientists and their theories, and this demonstrates that intellectual honesty is not your objective.
If you actually had a leg to stand on, would you really need to resort to such tactics? Doubtful.

Post Reply