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

They never existed

Post #771

Post by marakorpa »

[Replying to post 767 by Donray]

What about those “ape-men� depicted in schoolbooks, encyclopedias and museums?

“The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination. . . . Skin color; the color, form, and distribution of the hair; the form of the features; and the aspect of the face—of these characters we know absolutely nothing for any prehistoric men.�—The Biology of Race (New York, 1971), James C. King, pp. 135, 151.

“The vast majority of artists’ conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. . . . Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.�—Science Digest, April 1981, p. 41.

“Just as we are slowly learning that primitive men are not necessarily savages, so we must learn to realize that the early men of the Ice Age were neither brute beasts nor semi-apes nor cretins. Hence the ineffable stupidity of all attempts to reconstruct Neanderthal or even Peking man.�—Man, God and Magic (New York, 1961), Ivar Lissner, p. 304.

ME: As with the Peking Man, and the Java man, and other fossil bits that were reconstructed,on an artists sheet and the others such as that midget human found on an island in Asia, and Mungo man and woman of Western Australia, they all seem to be "discovered" around the time re-allocation of funds are being made available for this "Valuable" Research.

You would have no trouble finding the headline on the discovery, but finding the retraction is a different matter.

On the facts of the above, it would appear that your DNA comes from something that never existed.

You are educated, but your education in such matters of where you came from is presented to get your money, not to supply you with facts. You have been indoctrinated to a point where you mind is in the control of the Magi of evolution.

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

Post #772

Post by Donray »

marakorpa wrote: [Replying to post 767 by Donray]

What about those “ape-men� depicted in schoolbooks, encyclopedias and museums?

“The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination. . . . Skin color; the color, form, and distribution of the hair; the form of the features; and the aspect of the face—of these characters we know absolutely nothing for any prehistoric men.�—The Biology of Race (New York, 1971), James C. King, pp. 135, 151.

“The vast majority of artists’ conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. . . . Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.�—Science Digest, April 1981, p. 41.

“Just as we are slowly learning that primitive men are not necessarily savages, so we must learn to realize that the early men of the Ice Age were neither brute beasts nor semi-apes nor cretins. Hence the ineffable stupidity of all attempts to reconstruct Neanderthal or even Peking man.�—Man, God and Magic (New York, 1961), Ivar Lissner, p. 304.

ME: As with the Peking Man, and the Java man, and other fossil bits that were reconstructed,on an artists sheet and the others such as that midget human found on an island in Asia, and Mungo man and woman of Western Australia, they all seem to be "discovered" around the time re-allocation of funds are being made available for this "Valuable" Research.

You would have no trouble finding the headline on the discovery, but finding the retraction is a different matter.

On the facts of the above, it would appear that your DNA comes from something that never existed.
So, you have no evidence just your wild imagination. Why can't you face the truth? You are afraid that your god might not exist and that you will not have an afterlife after all,

You have absolutely no proof, why don't you point to some study that points out how everything in the Wikipedia I gave you the link is false info.

You are most likely brainwashed since birth in your beliefs and I know that it must be difficult to face facts. This is why the more educated the more likely you will nonreligious. It is the uneducated that must defend there beliefs with stupid lies.

I will ask again where I your proof that they did not exist? Saying we don't have a video or picture of them is sort of a dumb response. Why don't you at least point to all these drawing that you say are all different. Bet you cannot do that even do that.

You have stated that Evolution created all the current animals from just a few kinds and yet don't believe in evolution. Isn't that dumb?

Again, point use to all this evidence that disputes the facts in the Wikipedia article I Delete repeated word you the link. Do you believe that your great great grand mother existed? If you do could you please provide a good picture of her and not a drawing.

Are you a young earth creationist?

The original Christin church believes in an old Earth and Evolution.

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

Post #773

Post by marakorpa »

[Replying to post 769 by Donray]

Outrage, such as you have portrayed, is not debate. I know there is a loving God, the creator of all things, and I have no problem with that one concept as against the many concepts of the origin of live,evolution, survival for the fittest, mutation, natural selection, and the different concepts that are derived from all of the above individually or in tandem with other invented concepts.

You state that you whole DNA experience is supported by a Wikipeadia article, well isn't that wonderful. No wonder you are insulting me, and raving and ranting, you have some desire to believe in something, but you know nothing about what you believe.

Neanderthal Hoax Exposed
image A sensational archaeological hoax has been exposed in Germany. It's been revealed that Professor Reiner Protsch von Zieten, a professor at a University in Frankfurt, has been systematically lying about the ages of skulls he found, claiming that they were far older than they actually were. In one instance he said that a skull was 21,300-years-old, although it was only 1300-years-old. As the Guardian reports:

"Anthropology is going to have to completely revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago," said Thomas Terberger, the archaeologist who discovered the hoax. "Prof Protsch's work appeared to prove that anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals had co-existed, and perhaps even had children together. This now appears to be rubbish."

Apparently Prof. Protsch began his career as a forger when he returned from studying in America decades ago and discovered that he was unable to work a carbon-dating machine. So he just started making up the ages of things.

Posted on Sun Feb 20, 2005


Australopithecus AfarensisafarensisHuman Ancestral Frauds
Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!

Nebraska Man from the Illustrated London NewsNebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.

Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link"). (source: Hank Hanegraaff, The Face That Demonstrates The Farce Of Evolution, [Word Publishing, Nashville, 1998], pp.50-52)

Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: "Skull fragment may not be human", Knoxville News-Sentinel, 1983)

Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle-dragging, much of the evidence now suggests that Neanderthal was just as human as us, and his stooped appearance was because of arthritis and rickets. Neanderthals are now recognized as skilled hunters, believers in an after-life, and even skilled surgeons, as seen in one skeleton whose withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (source: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man", Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20)

.straightdope.com/sdmb/archive/index.php/t-232696.html

Neanderthal man, another deliberate fraud by evolutionist scientists.

Neanderthal fraud man.

Neanderthal fraud man.

“If it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is.� Most of us have heard this piece of advice on more than one occasion. Yet, this was exactly the case with a famous Neanderthal fossil discovered in a peat bog near Hamburg, Germany. Prior to its discovery, the evolutionary timeline of ape-like creatures remained extremely “fuzzy� as it approached modern man. There simply were not any fossils that shed light on this period. But a single discovery dated by Professor Reiner Protsch cleared up the picture. Many years ago, he was invited to date the famous skull, which he later pronounced to be the vital missing link between Neanderthals and modern humans. He dated the skull at 36,000 years old, allowing it to fall neatly into the evolutionists’ timeline between Neanderthals and modern man. Finally, thanks to Protsch, the gap had been filled. All the pieces were in place.

For evolutionists, it was too good to be true. And indeed, it was. On February 18, 2005, Protsch was forced to retire in disgrace after a Frankfurt University panel ruled he had “fabricated data and plagiarized the work of his colleagues� (see “Anthropologist Resigns in ‘Dating Disaster,’ � 2005). Once believed to be a world-renowned expert on carbon dating, Protsch’s entire professional career is now being questioned. The university noted: “The commission finds that Prof. Protsch has forged and manipulated scientific facts over the past 30 years� (“Anthropologist Resigns…�).

Protsch’s work first attracted suspicion when scientists at Oxford wanted to double-check the authenticity of his dates and verify the ages of many previously reported fossils using modern techniques. Oxford officials insist that this “dating disaster� was discovered during a routine examination, and was not an attempt to discredit Professor Protsch. The fossils he had dated were just in a long line of others that were being rechecked. According to Thomas Terberger, the archaeologist who discovered the hoax: “[A]nthropology is going to have to completely revise its picture of modern man between 40,000 and 10,000 years ago� (as quoted in Harding, 2005). He continued: “Prof. Protsch’s work appeared to prove that anatomically modern humans and Neanderthals had co-existed, and perhaps even had children together. This now appears to be rubbish� (emp. added).

But the Neanderthal skull was not the only forgery Oxford discovered. Protsch also had paraded “Binshof-Speyer� woman before the public, stating that she was 21,300 years old. Yet the new Oxford date puts this woman living at 1,300 B.C. Protsch also claimed that “Paderborn-Sande Man� walked the Earth 27,400 B.C., and yet the corrected figure reveals that he died only a couple hundred years ago—in A.D. 1750! Futhermore, Protsch also is being investigated for a scandal in which he allegedly tried to sell 280 chimpanzee skulls to individuals in the United States for $70,000.

Evolutionists are quick to point out that this is how science works—that it is self-correcting. And there is a great deal of truth to that statement. However, one must question how such scientists can continue to support evolution being taught as “fact,� knowing that much of what we believe to be true today will have to be “self-corrected� in the future. Why not allow students to “examine the controversy� and discuss possible problems with evolutionary theory? How many students did Professor Protsch affect with his forged information? Likely, that number is in the thousands. After all, his dates “looked good� and “fit the evolutionary timeline,� which meant textbooks would be quick to pick them up. Never mind that the material was a complete hoax.

According to the World Net Daily Web site, Rudolf Steinberg, Frankfurt University’s president, “apologized for the University’s failure to curb Protsch’s misconduct for decades. ‘A lot of people looked the other way,’ he said.� But what good does that apology do when it comes to unraveling the lie that was sold to the public for so many years? The article went on to report: “Chris Stringer, a Stone Age specialist and head of human origins at London’s Natural History Museum, said: ‘What was considered a major piece of evidence showing that the Neanderthals once lived in northern Europe has fallen by the wayside. We are having to rewrite prehistory’ � (2005). How many times must we rewrite evolutionary history? Don’t students deserve better? Don’t we all deserve better?

Neandethal man, just a modern human with disease.

After discovering the first Neanderthal skullcap in 1856 in the Neander Valley near Dusseldorf, Germany, German anatomist Ruldolph Virchow said in essence that the fossil was the remains of a modern man afflicted with rickets and osteoporosis. In 1958, at the International Congress of Zoology, A.J.E. Cave stated that his examination of the famous Neanderthal skeleton established that it was simply an old man who had suffered from arthritis. Francis Ivanhoe authored an article that appeared in Nature titled “Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?� (1970). Virchow had reported that the Neanderthal’s ape-like appearance was due to a condition known as rickets, which is a vitamin-D deficiency characterized by overproduction (and deficient calcification) of bone tissue. The disease causes skeletal deformities, enlargement of the liver and spleen, and generalized tenderness throughout the body. Dr. Cave noted that every Neanderthal child’s skull that had been studied up to that point in time apparently was affected by severe rickets. When rickets occurs in children, it commonly produces a large head due to late closure of the epiphysis and fontanels.

Even though Ivanhoe was an evolutionist, he nevertheless went on to note that the wide distribution of Neanderthal finds in various parts of the world explained the differences seen in bone configuration. The extreme variation in locations of these Neanderthal discoveries probably played a role in the diversity of the fossils assigned to the Neanderthal group. The differences likely were a result of different amounts of sunlight for a given area, which prevented or retarded vitamin D production (vitamin D is manufactured in the skin upon exposure to sunlight). In adults, a lack of vitamin D causes osteomalacia, a softening of the bones that often results in longer bones “bowing� (a condition reported in many Neanderthal fossils).

Scientists have debated long and hard concerning whether there exists any difference between Neanderthal specimens and modern humans. One of the world’s foremost authorities on the Neanderthals, Erik Trinkaus, concluded:

Detailed comparisons of Neanderthal skeletal remains with those of modern humans have shown that there is nothing in Neanderthal anatomy that conclusively indicates locomotor, manipulative, intellectual or linguistic abilities inferior to those of modern humans (1978, 87[10]:58).

REFERENCES

Harding, Luke (2005), “Another Day, Another ‘Science’ Fraud,� MedKB, [On-Line], URL: http://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/alt ... ence-Fraud.

“Anthropologist Resigns in ‘Dating Disaster’ � (2005), World Net Daily, [On-line], URL: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/print ... E_ID=42940.

apologeticspress.org/articles/491


There you go, ancestor of the brutish ape like fraud by evolutionists. Have a bit of a rant over that.

Rufus21
Scholar
Posts: 314
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 5:30 pm

Post #774

Post by Rufus21 »

marakorpa wrote: REFERENCES

Harding, Luke (2005), “Another Day, Another ‘Science’ Fraud,� MedKB, [On-Line], URL: http://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/alt ... ence-Fraud.

“Anthropologist Resigns in ‘Dating Disaster’ � (2005), World Net Daily, [On-line], URL: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/print ... E_ID=42940.
Those links aren't working for me. Anyone else?

benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2341
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 2005 times
Been thanked: 781 times

Post #775

Post by benchwarmer »

Rufus21 wrote:
marakorpa wrote: REFERENCES

Harding, Luke (2005), “Another Day, Another ‘Science’ Fraud,� MedKB, [On-Line], URL: http://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/alt ... ence-Fraud.

“Anthropologist Resigns in ‘Dating Disaster’ � (2005), World Net Daily, [On-line], URL: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/print ... E_ID=42940.
Those links aren't working for me. Anyone else?
No, they point to nothing in particular. I imagine this was just an error in pasting the link address rather than any form of deception.

Regardless, all that long post proved was that science is self correcting and fraud will eventually be discovered. How that somehow debunks the actual theory of evolution is a mystery.

I could make a long post about crack pots in Christianity and it would be equally useless in showing what actual Christianity is supposed to be about.

When one can't actually refute verifiable evidence, ones only recourse is smoke and mirrors it seems.

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

Post #776

Post by rikuoamero »

Rufus21 wrote:
marakorpa wrote: REFERENCES

Harding, Luke (2005), “Another Day, Another ‘Science’ Fraud,� MedKB, [On-Line], URL: http://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/alt ... ence-Fraud.

“Anthropologist Resigns in ‘Dating Disaster’ � (2005), World Net Daily, [On-line], URL: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/print ... E_ID=42940.
Those links aren't working for me. Anyone else?
The first link doesn't work. All I see is a grey page. The second link just goes to the home page, and not an actual specific article. By the way, the site for the second link must have been altered because it's no longer worldnetdaily . com but wnd . com
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

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

Post #777

Post by Bust Nak »


benchwarmer
Guru
Posts: 2341
Joined: Mon Jun 06, 2016 8:40 am
Has thanked: 2005 times
Been thanked: 781 times

Post #778

Post by benchwarmer »

Which if you look at the top of the page (or read the home page) it's clear this is just another anti science rant page.

Maybe someone should inform all the biologists in the world that the work they are doing in the lab that seems to line up with the theory of evolution is actually lining up with the much better predictive power of the Genesis account :roll:

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

Post #779

Post by Donray »

[Replying to post 770 by marakorpa]

Lets follow your logic that something does not exist if anyone every had hoax associated with the subject.

The Bible contains forgeries (example some of Paul's letters) and therefore using your logic the Bible is a complete hoax and should be discarded.

Some Christians are pedophiles and therefore all Christians are pedophiles. Are you a pedophile?

Many Cristian relics are hoaxes like the shroud therefore we assume that Christianity is a fraud. Is this the why your logic works.

Plagiarizing some rants by a Christian blogger does not prove Neanderthals did not exist. You seem to think that few people that commit fraud means the whole study is bad.

Thus far you have no proof that Neanderthals did not exist. All you proved is some people are dishonest. So, do you have any proof?

Use this link and give me your proof that this article is false. Bet you don't since you don't seem to have and education on the subject. http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/gen ... erthal-dna

User avatar
H.sapiens
Guru
Posts: 2043
Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2014 10:08 pm
Location: Ka'u Hawaii

Post #780

Post by H.sapiens »

[Replying to Rufus21]

The links were, most likely, pilfered without checking from: http://espanol.apologeticspress.org/articles/2711

The second can be found here: http://www.wnd.com/2005/02/29004/

The first is from a now defunct website.

Post Reply