Search This Blog

Sunday, January 02, 2011

Darwinist lies keep being told and displayed, so let's expose some of them

Creationism.org has a large section of pictures concerning origins and Creation versus Evolution issues.  Many lies and myths are promoted by Darwinists.  Let's start by showing some images from the Denver Museum of Nature & Science.

The Peppered Moth Myth:


Why are these lies being told?
This is the long-falsified myth of the Peppered Moth.   The Darwinist story goes that the whitish peppered moths were being eaten at prodigious rates by birds during the British Industrial Revolution when the widespread burning of coal caused tree trunks to be smudged and darkened, so that the moths would stand out like sore thumbs.   However, a mutation that caused dark moths saved the day!   Darker moths were selected and so the moth population became mostly dark moths, as the moths were not as easy to spot.

This story is flawed for several reasons.   First, the moths do not tend to land on tree trunks.   The embarrassing truth of that famous peppered moth picture is that moths needed to be glued to the tree trunks to take the pictures.  


Second, the moth population already had both light and dark varieties within the gene pool.   So a dark version did not "mutate" into existence, it was already there.   Third, all through the entire process of studying these moths, researchers saw that the moths landed in places where the dark or light version was not a significant advantage to them.   A fouth point?   Creationists believe in natural selection, in fact a creationist thought of the concept first (Blyth) and considered it part of the design of created beings so that they might adjust to changing conditions.   Both dark and light versions of the Peppered Moth are found in England, just as they were one hundred and fifty years ago and fifty years ago. 

For many years scientists have known that the story of the Peppered Moth does not in any way support the Darwinist hypothesis, so this display and the words of the display are blatant lies.   No surprise, the entire hypothesis is based on flawed and mistaken observations of a 19th Century "scientist" whose observations were, we know now, fueled largely by his worldview.   Charles Darwin was determined to figure out a mechanism by which evolution could happen, he was not convinced by evidence that evolution was a likelihood.   

The myth of abiogenesis:

Take a look at these simplistic and completely imaginary pictured words!


Now it just so happens that research tells us that both of these announcements prominently displayed in the Denver museum are complete falsehoods.   Every test done by scientists trying to figure out a path for abiogenesis runs into insurmountable barriers.   At the molecular level there are too many challenges for abiogenesis to have been an undirected process.   In fact, with all their scientific machines and devices and test tubes and chambers, science is no closer to finding a natural cause for life than it was after the Miller-Urey experiments were done...Unless you consider a long series of failed attempts to be success?

The Miller-Urey Fairy Tale:

Strangely, the Miller-Urey experiments were presented as some kind of success when in fact they were the first in a series of attempts to produce life artificially that simple identified the hopelessness of the concept.


As explained in previous posts, the Miller-Urey experiments produced "building blocks of life" that were actually only products of a very controlled environment, were not of a type that actually is found in living things and were not capable of being released into a natural environment.   There are all sorts of chemical reactions that defeat various steps needed to go from goo to you or even to a one-celled organism.   Again, Denver Museum is presenting lies as facts...It is propaganda rather than science.

Explosion of life? 





One of the few things they get right is that the lowest levels of sedimentary rock there are all sorts of varieties of living things.  But while the museum calls it "an explosion" with no real explanation for how such an explosion could take place, creationists call it the bottom layer of the flood remains.   Since the "Precambrian" rock layers have been found to yield all major forms of life, even vertebrates (which is a dirty Darwinist secret) and is most likely just those organisms that were located in the lowest areas of the Prediluvian planet and that many of them are very advanced (check out trilobite eyes) the "explosion" does more to falsify Darwinism that explain it!

The Museum also has fables about wing morphology that genetic studies have falsified and other rather hilarious assertions.   But you have to wonder how they can present an underwater animal giving birth and not understand that it would require an amazingly quick catastrophic process to bury and preserve an animal in the process of birth!




Another common myth that most of us ran into in school textbooks....because over 100 years after the Haeckel Embryo Chart was exposed as a fraud many school textbooks either pictured it or referenced it as part of the curriculum,

Haeckels Embryo Chart.   


Haeckel used the following chart to show that we resemble these animals. This is how he drew the embryos of each. Haeckel used deception to convince others that Evolution was true.

But Haeckel changed the drawings of each animal to make them look like they were similar.



At the top of this chart you will see how Haeckel drew each embryo. But at the bottom you will see a real picture of what each embryo really looks like:

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny was embraced by many people because they could use it to justify things like abortion. But the main reason people believed it, was because the only alternative to believing in Evolution, was to believe in God.


Why do school textbooks still use Ernst Haeckel's "evolutionary recapitulation" model though proven a fraud?
"Why do school textbooks still use Ernst Haeckel's 'evolutionary recapitulation' model though proven a fraud? Like Darwin, Haeckel claimed that the developmental stages of an embryo retrace its evolutionary past. In other words, the human embryo supposedly goes through a fish stage, an amphibian stage, a reptile stage, and so on. Countless students have therefore been taught, Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.? Support for this notion came, not from scientific research and observation, but solely from Haeckel's own diagrams.

Ernst Haeckel was a professor of zoology in Germany from 1865 until 1909. In 1868, he fabricated the embryologic evidence for evolution by fraudulently producing the diagrams to prove? the theory. Reputable German scientists immediately began refuting his evidence, demonstrating that Haeckel had falsified his pictures. Notwithstanding, these diagrams have been taught in biology textbooks at the high school and university levels as recently as the 1990s and the idea they purport to prove is still presented in textbooks today.

The so-called gill slits of a human embryo have nothing to do with gills, and the human embryo does not pass through a fish stage or any other evolutionary stage. The development of the human embryo reveals steady progress toward a fully functional human body. Never in the course of development does a human embryo absorb oxygen from water as fish do with gills. (The human embryo is fully supplied with oxygen through the umbilical cord.) In fact, these gill slits? are not even slits.

So what are these misnamed structures? Actually, they are nothing more than folds in the region of the tiny embryo's throat. These folds are called pharyngeal arches, since they are arch-shaped folds near the throat. (Pharyngeal is the scientific word for things having to do with the throat. When you say you have a sore throat, your doctor says you have pharyngitis.) The creases between the folds are called pharyngeal clefts, and the undersides of the folds are called pharyngeal pouches."

[Elizabeth M. Mitchell, M.D., wife of AiG speaker Dr. Tommy Mitchell, received a bachelor of science in chemistry from Furman University in 1980, graduating summa cum laude. She graduated from Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in 1984 and completed her residency training in obstetrics and gynecology at Vanderbilt University Affiliated Hospitals in 1988. She earned fellowship in the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology and practiced medicine in Gallatin, Tennessee, until 1995, when she retired from private practice to devote herself more fully to the needs of
her three children.]



Darwinist websites tend to post lies like the ones exposed above.   For instance, I commend to you this link that takes you to several good pictures of Acambaro figurines.   Acambaro figurines have been investigated and tested and have proven to be genuine artifacts made by long-dead men who evidently lived at a time when dinosaurs were not uncommon.   I have made many posts on the subject...only one person of low character hired to proclaim the figurines fakes has been often credited with "falsifying" the artifacts, while Mexican authorities and several American scientists and also detective novel writer and expert Earl Stanley Gardner all did tests and experiments and went so far as to dig under the local sheriff's own house only to find figurines buried there as well.  The figurines were genuine, being buried in undisturbed ground, having the patina typical of long burial and with no local kilns capable of making them found.   In fact the figurines were at first being sold for practically nothing by natives unaware of their historic value, so modern production of the figures would not be practical.  

Lies are part and parcel of the Darwinist story.   Morphology is being falsified by DNA study.  Careful study of reproduction has revealed hardened systems in place to conserve the kind.   The mother lays the framework for the child.  Meta-information is included in the information passed from the parents that is specific to the kind (baramin) so that, while speciation can happen and in fact there are pre-existing switches that can aid speciation, there is no evidence in the study of organisms that supports macroevolution.   Facilitated Variation studies show us how organisms are designed with information that provides for contingencies and redundancies.   Organisms have sophisticated, complex, highly efficient systems that make human factories look primitive.  Organisms are now being studied by engineers so that mankind can try to copy the superior designs of organisms.   I would say that the study of organisms leads one to believe in a Creator.  I would also say that real science agrees with me.   Looking forward to the day Darwinism hits the dustbin...

20 comments:

Jon Woolf said...

"Many lies and myths are promoted by Darwinists."

No. Scientists don't need to lie, when the facts are on our side. But creationists do. For example:

Yes, the pictures of peppered moths on tree trunks are staged. Most pictures of wildlife are staged to some degree. But the essential points of the peppered-moth story are true. Prior to about 1800, the melanistic morph was extremely rare. After 1800 it became gradually more and more common, and it became common faster in heavily polluted areas of England, until in many areas it outnumbered the light morph. After the English started paying attention to pollution and cleaning things up a bit, selection slanted the other way, and the light morph came back. By the mid-20th century, it was almost impossible to find a dark-morph peppered moth in the wild.

"Since the "Precambrian" rock layers have been found to yield all major forms of life, even vertebrates "

Absolutely one hundred percent false. There are no known vertebrates, or even chordates, known from "Precambrian" rocks. The oldest known maybe-vertebrates appear in the Early Cambrian. The oldest known definite vertebrate is from the Middle Cambrian.

There aren't any known Precambrian trilobites either. So that claim is another lie by you, Radar.

Hey, I've got a crazy idea! New Year's is the traditional time for making self-improvement resolutions, right? Well, why don't you resolve to learn the bloody facts before you start ranting about "lying darwinists"?

Hawkeye® said...

Radar,
Darwinists ARE the apes that they choose to be descended from. Just listen to their rants. Christians ARE created in the image of GOD (whom they love and serve). Just watch how they glorify the Creator.

'Nuff said: That oughta stir up a hornet's nest.

Happy New Year good sir. I will be out of touch for awhile. Packin' up and movin' to Tennessee... the Bible Belt! Whoopee! No atheists allowed!

(:D) Will try to keep tabs on ya,
Hawkeye

Anonymous said...

The moths did not evolve from moths to anything else. People come in different colors too.

The reason that Precambrian rocks do not contain vertebrates is because if they find a vertebrate in that rock layer they say the rock layer cannot be Precambrian. They use the fossils to identify rock layers.

Facts don't get in the way when you can redefine the evidence. DebB

radar said...

Hawkeye, have a safe trip! Let us know where you wind up down there, have a couple of friends down that way.

Jon Woolf, you are the liar. I know that fossils are found where Darwinism claims they cannot be and you know it, too. You also know of paraconformities and fossils that extend through "millions of years" and you also know that the geological column is based on myth. Anyone who has read my posts over the years has seen the pictures and read the evidence that tells us that the uniformitarian storyline is preposterous, the rock layers are catastrophic, that ancient man lived in the presence of dinosaurs, that life cannot come from non-life and one kind of organism cannot become another kind. There are no actual transitional forms.

Yep, even in rocks expected to be Precambrian or Cambrian, if a vertebrate fossil is found the geologist ignores it or relabels the formation. One of the biggest scams that Darwinists pull on the public is the fossil record. Anyone who buys the cover story is ignorant of the actual evidence or has accepted false information as truth. Also, scientists will label the exact same organism with differing names if found in differing layers to support the Darwinist storyine.

Readers, do the research. Don't just believe me and don't by all means believe Woolf. Do your own research. Read the claims of both sides and check out the actual evidence. No need to be propagandized when you have a brain.

Jon Woolf, you are totally wrong about the Peppered Moth. Observers have found plenty of the dark moths amongst the population now and there have always been both light and dark moths. Their population has NOTHING to do with Darwinism. I had heard that the lighter moths have become more common than the dark but recently it seems that was an urban myth. Since the moths do not often land on tree trunks, the entire premise was completely wrong.

radar said...

Haeckel was completely wrong, purposely. Some misleading scientists still try to peddle his snake oil. There is no form that all vertebrates take that is common to all. Evolutionary recapitulation, like morphology, is a fraud.

Abiogenesis is completely ridiculous. All who spend time trying to find a way to prove it have no respect for science. When a law is established you respect it until you discover it has been falsified. Biogenesis has not been falsified.

There are not great teams of scientists trying to overturn the gravitational laws or seeking desperately to rewrite the table of elements. There is no hint in the evidence we see on Earth that would lead one to follow evidence that would lead to abiogenesis. It is all driven by religious zealotry as Darwinists desperately try to find some concrete basis for their beliefs. On one hand, the public is told that Darwinism is "a basic fact of science that all accept" while on the other Darwinists realize they have no proof for their belief system. Everything they assert can be falsified.

Jon Woolf said...

"I know that fossils are found where Darwinism claims they cannot be and you know it, too."

GIVE US SOME EXAMPLES.

Name a fossil that was found completely out of sequence. What was it called? Where was it found? When was it found? In what rock layer was it found? Why was this fossil in this rock layer inconsistent with conventional geologic theory?

If you can't answer those questions, you're just blowing smoke.

On the peppered moth: in the mid-1800s, England saw a fad of moth-collecting. England has something like 300 species of native moths, some common, some rare. That number made 'a complete collection of the Moths of England' a difficult but achievable challenge, so a lot of amateur naturalists went out and caught and preserved moths. Many built good collections. Many of those collections were donated to museums. As a result, it's possible to tell the relative numbers of melanistic and normal peppered moths over time. Yes, the ratio of dark to light moths really did change, and yes, it does correlate with industrial pollution. Your creationist sources have lied to you, Radar. Again.

Anonymous said...

"I know that fossils are found where Darwinism claims they cannot be and you know it, too."

Proof or be called a liar.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Abiogenesis is completely ridiculous. All who spend time trying to find a way to prove it have no respect for science. When a law is established you respect it until you discover it has been falsified. Biogenesis has not been falsified."

1. There is no scientific law that says that abiogenesis is impossible. If you are claiming that the law of biogenesis has proven the impossibility of abiogenesis by natural means, you are not speaking the truth. If you insist on making this claim, then specify the testable, falsifiable claim that has been tested to confirm the impossibility of abiogenesis by natural means.

2. How can abiogenesis be ridiculous when we are all agreed that it took place, including you and your precious religious text?

3. Re. "respect for science", "respecting the law", you seem to be confusing scientific laws with religious or political laws. Scientific laws can not be "disrespected"; either they are valid or they are not, and if they are valid they can not be broken. They are not meant to be "obeyed" by humans; humans discover that nature obeys these laws.

And if scientific laws are not valid (or not valid in all conditions), then "breaking them" is not disrespectful, but advancing scientific understanding. Albert Einstein was not "disrespecting science" when his discoveries showed that Newton's scientific laws of motion did not apply in each and every case; instead, he greatly advanced scientific understanding. The same would be true if a path to abiogenesis by natural means were discovered.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Everything they assert can be falsified."

And yet you haven't come up with any such falsifications, just a series of tired old logical fallacies and special pleading. Where's the beef?

Paul Pavao said...

Nice to see your name, Jon Woolf. I always know there will be good info when I see it.

There's a lot of evidence establishing that modern life evolved from a common ancestor.

None of the things mentioned in the post qualify as that. The peppered moth is used as an indication of how evolution happens, something even creationists agree with. It's not evidence that we all descended from a common ancestor, so even if it was a complete fabrication, it wouldn't change anything.

Basically, everything mentioned in this blog post is irrelevant to those that actually want to know whether "macroevolution" happened.

The one exception is the Cambrian explosion. However, even if the fossils from the Cambrian explosion were the very first original life forms, then the evidence would indicate that we all descended from those few forms, none of which remotely resemble today's fish, reptiles, amphibians, or mammals (our lineage). None of those things exist in the Cambrian fossils.

But, as usual, scientists who want the truth, and are looking to find out whether there was life before the Cambrian explosion are finding more and more fossils, while creationists sit around praying and hoping that no one will look, or, if they do, that they'll find nothing.

I'm a Christian, by the way, who believes God created everything and is involved in everything, including our every day lives and the progress of evolution.

But I don't like pretending evidence isn't evidence. The fossil record is getting remarkably complete, and it's been convincing for a very long time.

DNA should have put the nail in the coffin for arguments against evolution, since it provides an obvious mechanism, but alas, truth is not always popular!

radar said...

I have already given proofs of everything I have written in previous posts. Nevertheless tonight I will present a fossil that would be impossible if the Noahic Flood was not a real event.

Every one of you that defends the Peppered Moth should be ashamed. They had to GLUE those moths on tree trunks because they habitually land on branches and leaves up higher and away from trunks. Quit defending old lies.

How about Haeckel? How about Miller-Urey? How about the simplistic fairy tale jive presented to the public about abiogenesis. The Denver Museum is a collection of lies.

radar said...

I would love to see on "fact" in support of Darwinism. The reason that no one challenged Dr JM is because the court of law is used in the challenge. Only factual evidence can be presented. So the Darwinist just-so stories are not valid in a court of law. Therefore no one like Jon Woolf would dare take on Mastropaolo in court.

Anonymous said...

Radar, I can imagine that the truth hurts for you. But sticking your fingers in your ears and singing 'lalalalala I can't hear you' won't make it go away.

In fact, I wonder why you allow comments here. You keep on repeating the same old arguments and they'll keep on getting thrashed.
Why not save yourself the frustration and disable comments? Then you can spout your arguments as much as you wish, you won't be confronted with those nasty people who take them apart, and you can feel all good about being right.

I mean, if you're not interested in listening to arguments from the other side, why expose yourself to them? In the best case, people are wasting your time on you. In the worst case you might actually start getting doubts...

Wouldn't want that to happen, would you? ;-)

Anonymous said...

"The reason that no one challenged Dr JM is because the court of law is used in the challenge. Only factual evidence can be presented. So the Darwinist just-so stories are not valid in a court of law. Therefore no one like Jon Woolf would dare take on Mastropaolo in court."

There are plenty of good reasons why no one in his right mind takes Dr. J up on his challenge, but here is the short version:

Never wrestle with a pig; you both get dirty, and you soon discover that the pig enjoys it.

Nuff said.

Gloat about it all you want, Radar. But the fact alone that you need something like that to gloat about reveals the scientific bankruptcy of creationism.

Jon Woolf said...

Hi Paul, and thanks for the kind words. Your name sounds familiar -- have our paths crossed before?

Radar: "They had to GLUE those moths on tree trunks because they habitually land on branches and leaves up higher and away from trunks. "

And this proves ... what, exactly? The data that Kettlewell and Majerus collected are still valid, so the argument that Biston betularia demonstrated industrial melanism is still valid too.

Radar, you really need to get away from this idea that if a photo or video used to illustrate a study is not completely "natural," then the entire study is completely staged and scientifically worthless. The sad truth is that most photographs and videos of wildlife are staged to some extent. But as long as they're used only for illustrative purposes, and no one tries to claim they're literally accurate, that's not a problem.

I'm still waiting for your examples of grossly out-of-sequence fossils. If you've posted about them before, then give me a link to the post(s) where you did. If you got the information from another website, then post a link to there. If you got it from a book, then tell me the title, author, and ISBN.

Or admit that you were blowing smoke.

Anonymous said...

You guys are all freaking idiots!!! There is way too much evidence to support Darwinism. Finding loopholes won't change any of the fundamental facts. The belief that there is a superior being that created us all is something that comes from deep within the human character because of some need to latch on to something bigger. Fine do that, go to church and have morals, that is not the issue. However there is no proof. There is no evidence. But there is one thing that creationists have on those evil Darwinists: evolution is just a theory and yes it has not been proven without a doubt so it is not law. Oh, but wait, now that you mention it gravity is also a theory...did God create that too? Look at the facts, not your emotions to "create" theories, then come back and play with the big boys.

Anonymous said...

You make the worst possible arguments it's not even funny. Debating with a creationist is like playing chess with a pigeon; I can make all the correct moves, but all you're going to do is make loud noises and knock everything down.

radar said...

Now see, that is what you get from Darwinists. The "pigeon" line has been used before. But you Darwinists have no explanation for existence or scientific laws or life or information, according to you it was all statistically impossible uncaused spontaneous generation. You call that science? Ha!

Anonymous said...

"But you Darwinists have no explanation for existence or scientific laws or life or information, according to you it was all statistically impossible uncaused spontaneous generation."

Randomness is not a fact of nature that disproves the well-trod theories of today. A few hundred years ago we couldn't understand lightning, and Martin Luther thought he was favored by God simply because he didn't get killed in a lightning storm. We now know the processes behind lightning much better than we did back in the day. Just because science hasn't definitively explained it just yet doesn't mean it never will, and saying so is an exercise in futility. The generation of amino acids from abiotic materials and a natural stimulus does not definitively prove that life generated from completely abiotic means, but in no way are the conditions in the experiment truly random; it happens all the time, and given the parameters, surely did at the time we believe life began on early Earth, it was just very unlikely that any one of these reactions would result in life. Future experimentation will prove whether or not these molecules could combine in such a way that they would develop into self-replicating organisms. And on the topic of randomness, please keep in mind that this only has to happen once... in the entire universe, for this to happen. Many people now believe that living organisms could survive on asteroids and that life on Earth could very well have originated on Mars.

What I'm seeing from your argument, Radar, is a lot of dirt-kicking without a lot of substance. Provide some evidence to back up your claims and we can have a good discussion about it. No dirt-kicking needed.

radar said...

No, actually it is chemically impossible for the building blocks of life to be produced naturally AND chemical reactions would destroy them if they magically appeared. If they DID magically appear, they would be racemic, i.e. half right-handed and half left-handed. DNA uses all left-handed components.

But it gets worse, you need the information for the DNA to be a massive library of information rather than just random components. Furthermore, you need a cell to contain the DNA and within which it can operate.

But DNA has the instructions to build the cell.

But the cell is powered by ATP synthase.

But DNA has the code to build the ATP synthase system.

This is far worse than chicken and egg. There are literally millions of miraculous and statistically impossible events to produce even one cell randomly if it could happen at all.

But you are still in trouble. Where do you get the life from the power the cell? Do you think you can purchase a petri dish with life held within? Can you open a sealed beaker of life and pour it on a lifeless cell?

No, anyone who wastes their time trying to make life from non-life is using up space and resources a real scientist could be using instead. Send them to Hollywood to make another Frankenstein movie instead?