Search This Blog

Tuesday, July 08, 2008

Physician, heal thyself!


Evoutionists believe that Haekel's obviously forged embroyo drawings aren't still being presented as fact. But it is still being presented as fact even today. The likelihood is that most people in America today have had these drawings presented to them at some time in their school experience and could well think they represent evidence. One popular textbook being used today is "Biology" by Miller & Levine. Propaganda in place of science, in my opinion.

You think that Miller-Urey is either still relevant or not being taught? Heck, I saw a National Geographic program on cable this year that referenced that failed experiment! This pdf illustrates several lies being presented in school textbooks, including Miller-Urey as being a proof for realistic abiogenesis, as recently as 2000.

You want to accuse me of making a blog post without scrupulously checking every assertion and formula? How about you evolutionists getting the textbooks right before you worry about me! I let you comment about everything I post and I don't erase disagreements. But in schools, the creationist side of things is censored before it ever even gets started.

An evolutionist is like a man walking along the beach that finds a replica of the Statue of Liberty and comments on how amazing it is that the random workings of wind and water could have produced a thing that looks so obviously designed. Then he goes back to his evolutionist buddies with the thing and they begin thinking up just so stories for how the torch happened to be formed and by what means the proportions seem to have come out just right - by random chance.

You realize that the eye must have, by current neo-darwinist thought, had to have evolved in ten separate lines of beings? How ridiculous is that? How much more absurd than the idea that someone would use an integral as a constant.

I will tell you evolutionists what I really think. The rock layers of the world have all the earmarks of being formed by one or more catastrophic hydrological events. Life itself is so complex that the more we find out, the more obvious it is to the neutral observer that it had to have been designed. Both the Universe and the Solar System are remarkably fine-tuned to allow for life and, as it happens, the criteria to allow for life are quite specific. There are thousands of systems and behaviors found in living beings that evolutionists cannot even begin to plausibly explain. Let me give you one example-The Cuttlefish! (From Apologetics Press).


Apologetics Press :: Decisive Designs
The Cause of Cuttlefish by
Eric Lyons, M.Min.

Two colorful, eight-legged cephalopods, known as cuttlefish, recently graced the cover of the journal New Scientist. With bluish-green blood, iridescent skin color, feeding tentacles that shoot from their mouths like birthday party blowers, and eyes like something from a Batman movie, it is no surprise that the editors of New Scientist used the term “alien” in its description of the cuttlefish; the animals do look bizarre—plain and simple. Make no mistake, however, these creatures are anything but simple. In fact, just above the cuttlefish was the cover title, “Alien Intelligence: Secret Code of an Eight-Legged Genius” (Brooks, 2008, emp. added). Michael Brooks, author of the feature article, declared that the cuttlefish is “the world’s most inventive mollusk” (2008, 198[2653]:31, emp. added) with a “sophisticated system for talking to one another” (p. 28, emp. added). Scientists have documented “around 40 different cuttlefish body patterns, many of which are used to communicate with other cuttlefish” (p. 29). At other times, cuttlefish send “tailor-made” signals to predators (p. 29, emp. added).



Even more incredible than their communication skills, is the cuttlefishes’ ability to blend in to their surroundings. Brooks described them as having “the world’s best camouflage skills” (p. 29). Similar to how these mollusks (cuttlefish have an internal shell called a cuttlebone, thus, scientists classify them as mollusks) communicate with other animals via a variety of body patterns, they also move their bodies into a variety of positions in hopes of staying hidden. For example, while swimming next to large seaweed, a cuttlefish can mimic the grass’s motion by positioning and waving its eight arms in a similar way that the seaweed sways in the water. This makes it very difficult for both attackers and possible prey to locate the cuttlefish. In a recent study, scientists placed either horizontal or vertical stripes on the walls of cuttlefish tanks. How did the cuttlefish react? According to Dr. Roger Hanlon, “If the stripes were vertical they would raise an arm. If the stripes were horizontal they would stretch their bodies out horizontally” (as quoted in Brooks, p. 31). Amazing! Cuttlefish can even change the texture of their skin to mimic the shape of certain barnacle-encrusted rocks or corals.

Finally, what must give other sea life more problems than anything is the cuttlefish’s ability to change color—and to do it so quickly. A cuttlefish can change the color of its entire body in the blink of an eye. If this mollusk wants to change to red, it sends signals from its brain to its “pigment” sacs (called chromatophores) to change to red. Cuttlefish can hide from other sea life by changing to the color of sand or seaweed. They can also appear as a strobe lights, blinking “on an off” very quickly. So extraordinary are these “masters of camouflage” (p. 28) that government researchers are even “looking into the possibility of copying cuttlefish camouflage for use in the military” (p. 31). Researchers are enamored with “how cuttlefish achieve their quick and convincing camouflage” (p. 30). Nevertheless, “[i]t’s highly unlikely that anyone could achieve that same level of camouflage” (p. 30). Scientists admittedly find it difficult “mimicking the colour-matching abilities of the cuttlefish...and its texture-matching ability, which utilizes the muscles beneath it” (p. 30). In fact, “[n]o one knows exactly” how cuttlefish match their backgrounds so effectively, especially since “[e]xperiments have shown that cuttlefish don’t look at their skin to check how well it matches the background” (p. 31, emp. added). What’s more, if, as scientists believe, this animal is colorblind, only seeing in shades of green (p. 31), how does it always choose the color most helpful (like changing to the color of sand when on the ocean floor)?



Cuttlefish are remarkable creatures. Evolutionists have called the animal a “genius.” Scientists admit that cuttlefish are “sophisticated,” “intelligent,” “tailor-made” creatures with a “secret code.” Yet the very first word Michael Brooks used in his New Scientist article to explain the existence of cuttlefish is “evolution” (p. 29). But how can intelligence arise from non-intelligence? How can something “tailor-made” have no tailor? No one would suggest that Morse code is the product of time and chance, yet Brooks and other evolutionists would have us believe that the cuttlefish’s “secret code” is the product of millions of years of mindless evolution (p. 31)? Preposterous! Nature cannot explain the cuttlefish. The real Code-Giver, the Intelligent Designer Who “tailor-made” the cuttlefish, is God. He “created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind” (Genesis 1:21).

REFERENCES

Brooks, Michael (2008), “Do You Speak Cuttlefish?” New Scientist, 198[2653]:28-31, April 26.

Copyright © 2008 Apologetics Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

We are happy to grant permission for items in the "Decisive Designs" section to be reproduced in their entirety, as long as the following stipulations are observed: (1) Apologetics Press must be designated as the original publisher; (2) the specific Apologetics Press Web site URL must be noted; (3) the author’s name must remain attached to the materials; (4) any references, footnotes, or endnotes that accompany the article must be included with any written reproduction of the article; (5) alterations of any kind are strictly forbidden (e.g., photographs, charts, graphics, quotations, etc. must be reproduced exactly as they appear in the original); (6) serialization of written material (e.g., running an article in several parts) is permitted, as long as the whole of the material is made available, without editing, in a reasonable length of time; (7) articles, in whole or in part, may not be offered for sale or included in items offered for sale; and (8) articles may be reproduced in electronic form for posting on Web sites pending they are not edited or altered from their original content and that credit is given to Apologetics Press, including the web location from which the articles were taken.

15 comments:

Anna Lemma said...

I have only one question for you Radar. Why are you going to bible and Christian religious sites for your science news and not scientific sites? If I wanted to study religion I would go to religious sites and if I want to learn science I would go to sites run by scientists. If you want to really learn something, you go to the experts, not those who share your biases.

PoLiTiCaL AnImAl said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Anonymous said...

Anna- let me answer for Radar. The atheist/evolutionist/darwinist/ heathen/anti-god movement has taken control of "Science" (note the capital S). Their primary agenda, which outweighs any sense of credibility, honesty, or honor in their profession, is to remove god from society. Thus, you cannot trust "Science". Religious sites are the only places not censoring the truth. And not peer reviewing for basic math.

~lava

radar said...

I primarily go to science sites that are not darwinist, much like people behind the Iron Curtain once tuned in Radio Free Europe.

Keeping Haeckel in schoolbooks for decades after it was exposed as a fraud trumps a math mistake by so far as to not even be in the same league, lava. Seriously.

Anna Lemma said...

Well, I don't see AIG or the DI engaging in cutting edge research. I suffer from an inherited genetic condition and the only places that I see getting any results done is "darwinist" (whatever the hell the term means) research centers. Evolutionary biology and genetics are getting results, ID and creationism are not.

You guys are just like the anti-vaccine people. They don't accept that diseases can be caused by virus and bacteria and find crank sites to support their views. You guys are doing the same thing for evolution and genetics.

Are there any reputable biologists who don't support evolutionary biology and genetic? I think not.

Anna Lemma said...

P.S.
Anna- let me answer for Radar. The atheist/evolutionist/darwinist/ heathen/anti-god movement has taken control of "Science" (note the capital S). Their primary agenda, which outweighs any sense of credibility, honesty, or honor in their profession, is to remove god from society. Thus, you cannot trust "Science". Religious sites are the only places not censoring the truth. And not peer reviewing for basic math.

~lava


Sounds like classic conspiracy theory thinking to me. Some nebulous, all-powerful group "hiding" the real truth that somehow you guys just know is true. You should go visit some websites that show how this type of thinking arises. Do a search on "conspiracy generator" and plug in your conspiracy theory.

If you substitute Jews for the atheists and banking industry for science,you will have the classic Nazi theory about the Jews. Think about this.

Anonymous said...

Anna,

I guess my sarcasm wasn't blatant enough.

Lava

radar said...

Guess the only problem is that you are the Nazis and creationist are the Jews...otherwise you are maybe on to something. Some of you that post are so far from having a clue I am continually amazed.

The fact that you are all wrong on Haeckel and Miller-Urey didn't make one of you bat an eye, did it? The fact that there are darwinist idealogues out there making stuff up is probably offset by creationist/ID idealogues making stuff up. But that isn't the issue. There are always people who will make things up or guys like Dawkins who make no bones about the fact that they hate the idea of creation or ID on religious grounds.

The issue is that the evolutionists or naturalistic materialists or whatever you want to call them censor what is even considered or taught. It then is no longer only science, it is also propaganda. If you cannot see this, well, I have done my job and pointed it out. Your children will not get all the evidence if you have your way, they will be defrauded and it will be, to some extent, your fault.

I believe Jesus Christ came to earth do live and die and rise again to save mankind. I am telling you that this is true and you can believe it or not. I will be glad to discuss it in detail. If you don't believe it, and you are wrong, then you and I will both be sorry for you but I will at least have taken the time to tell you the truth.

I am telling the truth about science. There is a terrible flaw in science now known as worldview censorship. It was originally driven by philosophical and religious views and not by science and it is now sustained by the same.

Honestly, Anna, do you think that scientists all believe that evolutionist garbage? Plenty of them, even members of the Human Genome Project group, are ID/Creation believers but don't go around saying much about it because it tends to keep them from getting tenure/published and also because it has nothing to do with actual research. No one trying to work on genetic disease is worried about abiogenesis or whether a robin used to be a T-Rex, they are simply down there in the trenches where the genes are trying to find a way to reverse/prevent/cure what is happening to you.

Microengineers basically take it for granted that the wonderful miniature machines found in nature were designed and go about trying to copy the designs for new applications. They frankly don't give a rip, in practical terms, whether the NCSE believes in ID or not.

Animal farmers understand that microevolution (variation within kind) follows rules and can help them make cattle or whatever that better meets their expectations. They also know they will never get a cow from a horse or vice versa.

Evolution versus creation doesn't even come up in most day-to-day scientific endeavors. The danger and sorrow is that, whenever it might, it won't because it is verboten. God is the namethatmustnotbenamed and creation is a concept that gets you in trouble for mentioning.

Anna Lemma said...

Sorry Lava, it's pretty funny that I took your sarcasm seriously. Perhaps I've been visiting too many places on the Internet where people really hold those types of views. Scary isn't it.

Anna Lemma said...

Wow Radar do you really believe all of what you posted in your last comment? There is so much that is so removed from reality in your comment that I'm going to rebut each paragraph in this comment.

Guess the only problem is that you are the Nazis and creationist are the Jews...otherwise you are maybe on to something. Some of you that post are so far from having a clue I am continually amazed.

No, the fact that you are claiming an invisible conspiracy of atheists taking over science is the direct parallel of Nazis claiming that an invisible conspiracy of Jews were taking over the banking industry.

The fact that you are all wrong on Haeckel and Miller-Urey didn't make one of you bat an eye, did it? The fact that there are darwinist idealogues out there making stuff up is probably offset by creationist/ID idealogues making stuff up. But that isn't the issue. There are always people who will make things up or guys like Dawkins who make no bones about the fact that they hate the idea of creation or ID on religious grounds.

Where do these school books use Haeckels diagrams? Please show me an example. Also what do these schoolbooks have to to with current scientific research? They are usually written by scientists but then are edited by the publisher to be noncontroversial.

What does not being religious have to do with studying nature? There are plenty of scientists who are Christians who accept modern scientific findings as regards evolution and the age of the earth. They work side by side with non-religious scientists with no problems.

The issue is that the evolutionists or naturalistic materialists or whatever you want to call them censor what is even considered or taught. It then is no longer only science, it is also propaganda. If you cannot see this, well, I have done my job and pointed it out. Your children will not get all the evidence if you have your way, they will be defrauded and it will be, to some extent, your fault.

This is really backwards thinking here. State school boards determine what is taught,not research scientists. If anything, topics like geology and evolutionary biology are commonly censored by school boards for religious reasons. As far as science being based on material evidence,so is law.

How could anything be studied if any old supernatural reason is given for behavior? I could posit that the invisible dragon in my garage is the reason the sun comes up in the morning. There is no way that you could prove me wrong. There is also no way that I could prove that it is right. This hypothesis cannot be proven false, so it is not considered science.

I believe Jesus Christ came to earth do live and die and rise again to save mankind. I am telling you that this is true and you can believe it or not. I will be glad to discuss it in detail. If you don't believe it, and you are wrong, then you and I will both be sorry for you but I will at least have taken the time to tell you the truth.

Like most atheists I'm agnostic on the existence of the supernatural. Perhaps there is something after we die, but there is no way to determine if this is so. So I prefer not to assume there is. This makes my life and those I care for much more precious.

If there is something afterwards, then that would be great. After all, I've been a good person and try to help those I see need help. If I were God, then everyone would eventually end up in heaven, though some would have plenty of work to do before they got to go there. What sort of God would punish those for being the skeptical person he created them to be?

I am telling the truth about science. There is a terrible flaw in science now known as worldview censorship. It was originally driven by philosophical and religious views and not by science and it is now sustained by the same.

Where is your evidence of this conspiracy? Remember what I have said about conspiracy theories. They are very seductive and allow one to scapegoat those they disagree with.

Honestly, Anna, do you think that scientists all believe that evolutionist garbage? Plenty of them, even members of the Human Genome Project group, are ID/Creation believers but don't go around saying much about it because it tends to keep them from getting tenure/published and also because it has nothing to do with actual research. No one trying to work on genetic disease is worried about abiogenesis or whether a robin used to be a T-Rex, they are simply down there in the trenches where the genes are trying to find a way to reverse/prevent/cure what is happening to you.

Again with the conspiracy theories. 99.99% of scientists accept the scientific evidence for evolution and an old earth. The vast majority of people accept modern theories of the earth and biology. You refuse to move beyond Paley's watchmaker argument from 150 years ago. You are like the flat earth people, whose organization finally shutdown in the 1970s.

The strongest evidence for evolution lies in genetics, not fossils. You need to read more science. Genetics are making large strides in our knowledge of how life is interrelated here on earth. Unlike ID or creationism, actual results and predictions can be made.

Microengineers basically take it for granted that the wonderful miniature machines found in nature were designed and go about trying to copy the designs for new applications. They frankly don't give a rip, in practical terms, whether the NCSE believes in ID or not.

You need to get as subscription to Science to see how actual microengineering and molecular biology is done. Microengineers do not regard cells as "engines".

Animal farmers understand that microevolution (variation within kind) follows rules and can help them make cattle or whatever that better meets their expectations. They also know they will never get a cow from a horse or vice versa.

This is artificial selection,not natural selection. Even most farmers know the difference. The farm animals are the results of artificial selection and the drug resistant bacteria are the result of natural selection. The two are quite different.

Also of course you can't get a horse from a cow. This shows a basic misunderstanding of evolution on your part. Natural selection works on populations over vast amounts of time, not on individuals.

Evolution versus creation doesn't even come up in most day-to-day scientific endeavors. The danger and sorrow is that, whenever it might, it won't because it is verboten. God is the namethatmustnotbenamed and creation is a concept that gets you in trouble for mentioning.

If you don't believe in the work that has been accomplished by evolutionary biology and genetics, then why did you have your children vaccinated? Do you use fossil fuels like gasoline and plastics? If you do, then you are being hypocritical. You want to cherry pick the science that does not conflict with your religious views and try to ignore or tear down that which does.

Anna Lemma said...

PS
That was quite possibly the longest comment that I have ever posted on Blogger. :)

Taxandrian said...

One popular textbook being used today is "Biology" by Miller & Levine. Propaganda in place of science, in my opinion.

And this comes from someone who links to articles from the Disco Institute. Oh, the irony!

PoLiTiCaL AnImAl said...

My freshman science book was Miller and Levine. And wow is that book wrong, and the sad thing is the teachers teach it as fact. http://www.millerandlevine.com/narrow-cover-shadow.png

Anonymous said...

Radar, the first link in your post doesn't work for me.


lava

radar said...

Guys, I will be back in the game soon, hang on. Out of hospital and recovering...