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.

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

Re: What If...?

Post #761

Post by Donray »

marakorpa wrote: [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.
I and many other have had our DNA tested by both ancestry and 23and me. Everyone has some percent of Neanderthal DNA.

Again, why don't you think that Neanderthals did not exist? There is evidence upon evidence that they existed and had religions and mated with our human ancestors.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal and then give me all your evidence that thy did not exist.

Are you really that uneducated?

agnosticatheist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:47 pm

Post #762

Post by agnosticatheist »

ATTN marakorpa:

Question: What is a "kind"? Is it the same as the modern classification "species"?

Are lions and tigers the same kind?

Are lions, tigers, and wolves the same kind?

Are lions, tigers, and crocodiles the same kind?
If it turns out there are one or more gods, then so be it.

If it turns out there are no gods, then thank reality that no one is going to suffer forever.

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

Post #763

Post by Donray »

[Replying to post 759 by agnosticatheist]

The reason Christians use kind ins because of the ark flood myth. They realized some time ago that two of every animal would never fit in the ark. Therefore they determined if was two of each kind. Thus only two hooved animals were needed and God evolved all species from this pair. EVOLUTION.

So that is why kind is used. It is a bible thumping thing needed to explain part of there bible. Yet they cannot explain what a KIND is.

agnosticatheist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:47 pm

Post #764

Post by agnosticatheist »

Donray wrote: [Replying to post 759 by agnosticatheist]

The reason Christians use kind ins because of the ark flood myth. They realized some time ago that two of every animal would never fit in the ark. Therefore they determined if was two of each kind. Thus only two hooved animals were needed and God evolved all species from this pair. EVOLUTION.

So that is why kind is used. It is a bible thumping thing needed to explain part of there bible. Yet they cannot explain what a KIND is.
That might be the case with some theists, but I think the Bible said kind long before creationists started trying to use it the way you described.
If it turns out there are one or more gods, then so be it.

If it turns out there are no gods, then thank reality that no one is going to suffer forever.

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

Post #765

Post by Donray »

agnosticatheist wrote:
Donray wrote: [Replying to post 759 by agnosticatheist]

The reason Christians use kind ins because of the ark flood myth. They realized some time ago that two of every animal would never fit in the ark. Therefore they determined if was two of each kind. Thus only two hooved animals were needed and God evolved all species from this pair. EVOLUTION.

So that is why kind is used. It is a bible thumping thing needed to explain part of there bible. Yet they cannot explain what a KIND is.
That might be the case with some theists, but I think the Bible said kind long before creationists started trying to use it the way you described.
So can you define what KIND is according to the bible?

agnosticatheist
Banned
Banned
Posts: 608
Joined: Tue Mar 04, 2014 9:47 pm

Post #766

Post by agnosticatheist »

Donray wrote:
agnosticatheist wrote:
Donray wrote: [Replying to post 759 by agnosticatheist]

The reason Christians use kind ins because of the ark flood myth. They realized some time ago that two of every animal would never fit in the ark. Therefore they determined if was two of each kind. Thus only two hooved animals were needed and God evolved all species from this pair. EVOLUTION.

So that is why kind is used. It is a bible thumping thing needed to explain part of there bible. Yet they cannot explain what a KIND is.
That might be the case with some theists, but I think the Bible said kind long before creationists started trying to use it the way you described.
So can you define what KIND is according to the bible?
I cannot.

I'm not trying to defend the concept.

I asked marakorpa to explain what a kind is, and also made a thread asking creationists to explain what it is. I'd like to know myself. They are probably just going to pick some random, arbitrary cut off point...Lol. I really wish people could see how absurd and intellectually dishonest they are sometimes. I was a theist once too, but even then, I had major problems with how God did stuff, and a lot of it seemed absurd, and more importantly, unfair and unjust...
If it turns out there are one or more gods, then so be it.

If it turns out there are no gods, then thank reality that no one is going to suffer forever.

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

Re: What If...?

Post #767

Post by marakorpa »

[Replying to post 2 by Divine Insight]

I missed all the contradictions, barbaric and immoral behavior,(Apparently favored by the Christians) Could you please quote the scriptures that back you statement?

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

Post #768

Post by marakorpa »

[Replying to post 763 by agnosticatheist]

I cannot see where the Bible says only hoofed animals were mustered on to the Ark, but I do see where it says every animal two by two according to its kind. There were 7 sheep and some other animals were more than two by two.

The “kinds� of animals selected had reference to the clear-cut and unalterable boundaries or limits set by the Creator, within which boundaries creatures are capable of breeding “according to their kinds.� It has been estimated by some that the hundreds of thousands of species of animals today could be reduced to a comparatively few family “kinds�—the horse kind and the cow kind, to mention but two. The breeding boundaries according to “kind� established by Jehovah were not and could not be crossed. With this in mind some investigators have said that, had there been as few as 43 “kinds� of mammals, 74 “kinds� of birds, and 10 “kinds� of reptiles in the ark, they could have produced the variety of species known today. Others have been more liberal in estimating that 72 “kinds� of quadrupeds and less than 200 bird “kinds� were all that were required. That the great variety of animal life known today could have come from inbreeding within so few “kinds� following the Flood is proved by the endless variety of humankind—short, tall, fat, thin, with countless variations in the color of hair, eyes, and skin—all of whom sprang from the one family of Noah.

User avatar
Clownboat
Savant
Posts: 9374
Joined: Fri Aug 29, 2008 3:42 pm
Has thanked: 906 times
Been thanked: 1258 times

Post #769

Post by Clownboat »

marakorpa wrote: [Replying to post 763 by agnosticatheist]

I cannot see where the Bible says only hoofed animals were mustered on to the Ark, but I do see where it says every animal two by two according to its kind. There were 7 sheep and some other animals were more than two by two.

The “kinds� of animals selected had reference to the clear-cut and unalterable boundaries or limits set by the Creator, within which boundaries creatures are capable of breeding “according to their kinds.� It has been estimated by some that the hundreds of thousands of species of animals today could be reduced to a comparatively few family “kinds�—the horse kind and the cow kind, to mention but two. The breeding boundaries according to “kind� established by Jehovah were not and could not be crossed. With this in mind some investigators have said that, had there been as few as 43 “kinds� of mammals, 74 “kinds� of birds, and 10 “kinds� of reptiles in the ark, they could have produced the variety of species known today. Others have been more liberal in estimating that 72 “kinds� of quadrupeds and less than 200 bird “kinds� were all that were required. That the great variety of animal life known today could have come from inbreeding within so few “kinds� following the Flood is proved by the endless variety of humankind—short, tall, fat, thin, with countless variations in the color of hair, eyes, and skin—all of whom sprang from the one family of Noah.
Hahahahahaha!
You believe in an accelerated form of evolution unlike what evolution would even suggest. Gotta love the irony.

Evolution is false! Unless of course we are talking about after some global flood where all the cow kinds evolved into the 800 breeds of cows we now have in only a few thousand years. To expect that to happen over a few million years is just crazy though.

#-o
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

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

Post #770

Post by Donray »

marakorpa wrote: "[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."


I and many other have had our DNA tested by both ancestry and 23and me. Everyone has some percent of Neanderthal DNA.

Again, why don't you think that Neanderthals did not exist? There is evidence upon evidence that they existed and had religions and mated with our human ancestors.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal and then give me all your evidence that thy did not exist.

Are you really that uneducated?

marakorpa did you just make up a lie about Neanderthal not existing or are you going to offer some form of proof?

Post Reply