Suppose evolution was refuted, then what?

[Krok]

French daily Le Monde reported the case of a paleontologist in India who “for 20 years . . . apparently deceived his colleagues concerning the origin of fossils that he submitted to them for their appraisal..

Found it! It was in The Case of the "Misplaced" Fossils. No wonder you gave such vague references! You need to do it to try and hide your lies. We're not as stupid as the other people in your church, rusra02. We can read!

A paleontologist, called John Talent, actually uncovered the fraud involving fossils! Why do you always have to lie?

It was fraud committed by a geologist, called Viswa Jir Gupta. The paleontologist discovered it. Paleontologists are trained in fossils!

And the way Gupta works, Talent claims, other scientists get drawn in as collaborators, unwitting participants in this extensive scheme

"

 

[Krok]

Martin A. C. Hinton, a zoologist, has also been implicated in this fake fossil scandal. Regardless of motivation, the fossil was faked and accepted for decades as proof of evolution. And evolutionists claim people who believe in Creation are gullible!

You're lying again, rusra02. Scientists don't do "proof", they do evidence. Proof is for maths and alcohol!

 

[camanintx]

Do you have a reference? w90 2/15 p.28 is not a reference. What is w? Can't find any reference to this. Only creationist sources refer to this, but none of them gives a traceable reference.

That's what happens when you cut & paste from unreliable sources.

 

[McBell]

And evolutionists claim people who believe in Creation are gullible!

You mean their not?
Really?
And what evidence do they bring to the table?

 

[McBell]

If evolution was refuted, then creationism would be the most viable option, especially if the refutation of evolution came from the fact that the DNA information could not have evolved. However, I would be open-minded to alternatives.

Based on what?
Creation isn't even science.
How would it even be in the running?

 

[DarkSun]

Fantome is correct.

Then again, refuting the Theory of Evolution is only slightly more likely than refuting the existence of matter.

E = mc^2

 

[johnhanks]

Martin A. C. Hinton, a zoologist, has also been implicated in this fake fossil scandal. Regardless of motivation, the fossil was faked and accepted for decades as proof of evolution.

Piltdown was never, ever presented by anyone as "proof of evolution", and as others have pointed out many palaeontologists were suspicious of it from the start. And its exposure as a forgery was through the work of other palaeontologists, not creationists!

And evolutionists claim people who believe in Creation are gullible!

Possibly, but more probably creationists are seen as people who willfully blind themselves to evidence that contradicts their beliefs - more culpable, arguably, than mere gullibility.

Still waiting for a link to that killer Tiktaalik debunk.

 

[PolyHedral]

E = mc^2

The Higgs field is staying right where it is, thank you very much.

 

[rusra02]

Found it! It was in The Case of the "Misplaced" Fossils. No wonder you gave such vague references! You need to do it to try and hide your lies. We're not as stupid as the other people in your church, rusra02. We can read!

A paleontologist, called John Talent, actually uncovered the fraud involving fossils! Why do you always have to lie?

It was fraud committed by a geologist, called Viswa Jir Gupta. The paleontologist discovered it. Paleontologists are trained in fossils!
"

Mr. Gupta is variously described as a geologist, paleontologist, and "fossil scientist" by various websites. The Hoax Archive: Paleontology Hoaxes

Your abusive posts and rants aside, reasonable people can see that fraud on a large scale has been committed to bolster the evolution theory, and the perpetrators were paleontologists and other scientific ToE faithful.

 

[rusra02]

Piltdown was never, ever presented by anyone as "proof of evolution", and as others have pointed out many palaeontologists were suspicious of it from the start. And its exposure as a forgery was through the work of other palaeontologists, not creationists!
Possibly, but more probably creationists are seen as people who willfully blind themselves to evidence that contradicts their beliefs - more culpable, arguably, than mere gullibility.

Still waiting for a link to that killer Tiktaalik debunk.

Boy, talk about revisionist history. "Like, no one really believed in Piltdown man."
Sure... On This Day: Piltdown Man, Supposed

 

[rusra02]

You're lying again, rusra02. Scientists don't do "proof", they do evidence. Proof is for maths and alcohol!

Evidence is to prove something. Try to calm down and stop calling people names.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to rusra02: In your opinion, do you have enough scientific knowledge about biology/biochemistry, geology, and physics ot have informed opinions about creationism, the global flood theory, and the young earth theory? Do you know enough about biology/biochemistry to adequately refute Dr. Ken Miller's article on the evolution of the flagellum at The Flagellum Unspun?

May I remind you that this is a science forum, not a theology forum. Scientific research methods do not start out by presupposing that the Bible is true, and then trying to make science agree with the Bible. That would be using science only as a convenience when it agreed with the Bible.

 

[rusra02]

Message to rusra02: In your opinion, do you have enough scientific knowledge about biology/biochemistry, geology, and physics ot have informed opinions about creationism, the global flood theory, and the young earth theory? Do you know enough about biology/biochemistry to adequately refute Dr. Ken Miller's article on the evolution of the flagellum at The Flagellum Unspun?

May I remind you that this is a science forum, not a theology forum. Scientific research methods do not start out by presupposing that the Bible is true, and then trying to make science agree with the Bible. That would be using science only as a convenience when it agreed with the Bible.

I take it from your questions you are inferring only the "high priests" of science should be free to have informed opinions? As to Miller's article, I refer you to
here.

May I remind you that this is a religious forum, not a science forum. One would think science would not start out by presupposing evolution is true, but often it does. Evolutionist Richard Lewontin stated that many scientists are willing to accept unproven scientific claims because "They have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism." "We cannot allow a Divine Foot in the Door." (The New York Review of Books, “Billions and Billions of Demons,” by Richard C. Lewontin, January 9, 1997, pp. 28-32) Many people, including many scientists, do not want there to be a God to whom they are accountable.
Add to that the propaganda tactics of the evolution faithful as exemplified in statements like the following: "Evolution is as much a fact as the heat of the sun." (Richard Dawkins)
Of course, that is utter nonsense and Dawkins knows it. So he stoops to name calling, calling persons who reject evolution 'ignorant, stupid, or insane. '
The adherents to Evolution seek to silence opposing voices by intimidation, bullying, endless propaganda ("evolution is true, evolution is a fact"), and ridicule of any who dare dissent from the evolution orthodoxy.
It is as stated in the Bible: "In accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories. (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

​

​

 

[johnhanks]

Boy, talk about revisionist history. "Like, no one really believed in Piltdown man."
Sure... On This Day: Piltdown Man, Supposed

From your source:

Though many had held doubts about the Piltdown man, few directly challenged its authenticity. German paleontologist Franz Weidenreich correctly predicted as early as the 1920s that the Piltdown man skull was a composite of orangutan and human skulls.

Few were able to challenge it directly because access was very limited until 1944, when Arthur Smith Woodward died. It didn't take long for the hoax to be exposed after that.

The link to the Tiktaalik debunk is getting seriously overdue. You do have one, don't you? I'd hate to think you were fibbing when you said there was material on the net demonstrating that it's not a transitional fossil.

 

[johnhanks]

I take it from your questions you are inferring only the "high priests" of science should be free to have informed opinions?

The key word, rusra, is 'informed'. In a society that values freedom of speech, anyone is entitled to have an opinion; but the rest of us reserve the right to treat that opinion with the respect that its espouser's expertise merits.

 

[outhouse]

May I remind you that this is a religious forum, not a science forum

\

May I remind you your in a section devoted to evolution/creation

One would think science would not start out by presupposing evolution is true

It never did, your wrong again.

It started out being discovered by creationist and a basis was created by observation. 150 years later there is no doubt about evolution and its not really even up for debate other then the information we are adding to individual species and fine tuning of the model.


Evolution is fact as gravity and taught in every major university around the world as higher learning. While creation is outlawed from poisoning our childrens minds.

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to rusra02: In your opinion, do you have enough scientific knowledge about biology/biochemistry, geology, and physics ot have informed opinions about creationism, the global flood theory, and the young earth theory? Do you know enough about biology/biochemistry to adequately refute Dr. Ken Miller's article on the evolution of the flagellum at The Flagellum Unspun?

I take it from your questions you are inferring only the "high priests" of science should be free to have informed opinions?

It depends upon how much you know about biology/biochemistry, geology, and physics. I assume that the majority of inerrantists do not have informed scientific opinions about those fields of science.

As to Miller's article, I refer you to here.

But I could easily post links that refute William Demski's claims in that article. What I want to know is whether or not you understand Dr. Ken Miller's article, and have enough knowledege about biology/biochemistry to adequately refute it point by point, not just post a link.

You must know that the majority of inerrantists do not know a lot about biology/biochemistry, geology, and physics.

As far as your comments about presuppositionalism are concerned, many Christians, including geophysicist Glenn Morton, originally presupposed that a global flood occurred, but do not accept that theory anymore.

Are you suggesting that all scientists around the world should presuppose that the Bible is literally true prior to conducting research? Isn't inerrancy an example of presuppositionalism?

When Charles Darwin wrote "On the Origin of Species," he was a theist, not a naturalist.

A global flood cannot account for the ways that fossils and sediments appear in strata.

 

[rusra02]

\

May I remind you your in a section devoted to evolution/creation




It never did, your wrong again.

It started out being discovered by creationist and a basis was created by observation. 150 years later there is no doubt about evolution and its not really even up for debate other then the information we are adding to individual species and fine tuning of the model.


Evolution is fact as gravity and taught in every major university around the world as higher learning. While creation is outlawed from poisoning our childrens minds.

Your claim that Evolution is fact as gravity is propaganda, pure and simple. If the ToE isn't up for debate, there wouldn't be serious debate. But scientists and millions of others who think for themselves, examine the evidence, and are not cowered by the endless propaganda from the ToE faithful do not accept this fraud. Your choice of words that "creation is outlawed from poisoning our childrens minds" reminds me of totalitarian thought control that "outlaws" all dissent from the party line.
You state "Evolution..is taught in every major university around the world." I wonder why? Who runs these universities? Any efforts to teach anything but evolution will certainly be met by intense and bitter opposition by ToE adherents.
Ben Stein's movie "Expelled" exposed the bullying and career damage done to any honest professor or scientist who dares question the ToE party line.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..You state "Evolution..is taught in every major university around the world." I wonder why? Who runs these universities?

Oh, come on! You're not trying to tell us that it's all a conspiracy, surely?

The problem, as I see it, is that satan is trying to divide mankind so as to create doubt about the existence of Almighty God .. it is NOT a simple case of one or the other is true.

It really depends on how we define "Evolution" .. in it's simplest form, it is taught in basic Biology, explaining about genetic inheritance..

Did you get your 'blue eyes' from your pa? :candle:

 

[rusra02]

From your source:
Few were able to challenge it directly because access was very limited until 1944, when Arthur Smith Woodward died. It didn't take long for the hoax to be exposed after that.

The link to the Tiktaalik debunk is getting seriously overdue. You do have one, don't you? I'd hate to think you were fibbing when you said there was material on the net demonstrating that it's not a transitional fossil.

According to this link, after Piltdown man was "discovered", "For the next 40 years, Piltdown Man remained a key member of the human family tree". This demonstrates how readily ToE faithful accept any crumb they can find. Tiktaalik is an example.

As to Tiktaalik, I thought I had responded that controversy surrounds this so-called link. Here is one source but there are many others. Again, you can Google as well as I can.