Search This Blog

Tuesday, March 01, 2011

Teachers deliberately teach lies, and a few interesting comments

 

They are teaching lies to our kids

Textbook full of mistakes, misinformation, bias and … lies?

From Whalley, et al., ref. 1.
Fig 7-4-2
Powerful, emotionally charged images win young students to the atheistic materialistic philosophy. 

A friend recently showed me a copy of his teenage son’s new science text book. He’s studying in a government high school in Queensland, Australia, and there’s a whole unit on evolution.
It made my blood boil.

Kid’s have great text books these days—colourful, attractive, well laid out, and interesting. But the treatment of evolution by this text was ill-informed, erroneous, one-sided, bigoted and doctrinaire.

But they are just following the state syllabus. The book is called Science Focus 41 and was written for the science syllabus, stages 4 and 5 in the adjoining state of New South Wales.

The evolution unit tells the students in plain and simple language that they have evolved ‘From bacteria to humans’. It reinforces its message with images that powerfully influence even those kids who don’t read. The pictures also bypass the critical faculties of those who do read.

One image was of a naked human with a cute ape. Message to students: you were not created in God’s image but you evolved; you are just an animal.

Another image was the series of naked primates changing from stooped apes into upright humans. It’s an iconic image that featured on the cover of Jonathan Wells’ exposé of such classical ‘proofs’ of evolution in his ‘Icons of Evolution’. It's a racist image too, but I've dealt with that in another article.

I wonder if any of those who wrote that unit have read Wells’ book. Their unit draws heavily on the age-worn icons that Wells decisively discredited. Have they deliberately ignored his scientific critiques? Does it worry them that they are feeding the kids wrong information? The words that came to my mind were ‘ignorant, stupid, insane, or wicked—but I’d rather not consider that’, a saying of Richard Dawkins, who was referring to creationists.

As I looked through the unit I found it was full of out-dated information and scientific errors. You could write a whole book refuting the stuff, but there already are books that do that (See for example: Refuting evolution 1 and 2).

Here’s some of the wrong information presented.
You could write a whole book refuting the stuff, but there already are books that do that.

Darwin’s finches (p. 228) These do not support evolution in the way the text book defined it—‘From bacteria to humans’. They are an example of natural selection but that does not generate any of the new genetic information needed for evolution to work. (See: Darwin’s Eden.)

The giraffe’s neck (p. 228) A popular icon of evolution but with no fossil evidence and no plausible mechanism. (See: The giraffe’s neck: another icon of evolution falls.)

Natural selection (p. 232) This goes the wrong way for evolution. It only sorts and removes genetic information that’s already there. (See: Clarifying the confusion about natural selection.)

Peppered moths (p. 233) Even if the experiments are valid, they would only demonstrate natural selection, and that is not evolution. Even evolutionists recognize that. (See: Goodbye peppered moths.)

Speciation (p. 234) Again, speciation is not evolution—new biological species form without any new genetic information. Speciation won’t turn ‘bacteria to man’. Actually, the creation model explains speedy speciation, but evolutionists are surprised at how quickly it works. (See: Too dry for a fly.)

Convergent evolution (p. 235) A name invented to explain similarities in characteristics of animals that are unexpected and improbable. Sometimes it’s called homoplastic evolution. Such characteristics are powerful evidence for design. (See: Are look-alikes related? and Could the mammalian middle ear have evolved twice?)

Miller-Urey experiment (p. 240) Shame! It used the wrong atmosphere, produced the wrong chemicals, and did not produce anything remotely like life. No one knows how life could possibly have arisen by naturalistic processes, but the students are not told that. (See: Why the Miller Urey research argues against abiogenesis.)

Transitional forms (p. 243) There are no examples of transitional forms for which one could make a watertight case—just a handful of disputable ones. (See: Refuting evolution 2.)

From Whalley, et al., ref. 1.
Fig 7-4-1
Colourful diagram lies to students. The intermediate lines should be dotted, indicating that the fossil links are missing. 

Comparative anatomy (p. 243) Sometimes evolutionists claim similar body plans support a common ancestor but at other times they don’t. It’s obviously subjective and there are many features in embryonic development that contradict the claim. Similar designs are good evidence for a common designer. (See: ‘Not to Be Used Again : Homologous Structures and the Presumption of Originality as a Critical Value and Does homology provide evidence of evolutionary naturalism?)

Embryonic development (p. 244) Shame! Shame! This has long been abandoned as evidence for evolution. Haeckel’s drawings are blatantly fraudulent.

Distribution of plants and animals (p. 245) A circular argument. Evolution is assumed to explain the distribution and then the distribution is taken to prove evolution. To the evolutionist everything is evidence of evolution, but there are other explanations.

Gene duplication (p. 246) If you submit two copies of your assignment you won’t get double the marks. Copying does not produce new genetic information—it simply replicates what is already there. How did the information arise in the first place? (See: Do new functions arise by gene duplication?)

Human evolution (p. 249) The hominid evidence can be sorted into human and ape fossils. The transitional claims are belief-driven interpretations based on cases where the evidence is scanty and ambiguous. (See: The non-transitions in human evolution on evolutionists terms.)
  • Lucy (p. 250) Human eyes, hands and feet drawn onto an ape do make it look half ape and half human. But Lucy was just an ape, as ‘her’ name, Australopithecine (‘southern ape’), indicates. (See: No more love for Lucy.) 
  •  
  • Homo Habilis (p. 251) A jumble of human and ape fossils, now widely regarded as an invalid taxon. The text book even includes a picture of this imaginary creature. (See: Homo habilis hacked from the family tree.) 
  •  
  • Homo erectus (p. 251) Nothing outside of the range of human variation. (See: Skull wars.)
  • Neandertal (p. 251) Used to be drawn as primitive cave men but now regarded as fully human. (See: Thumbs up for Neandertals.) 
  •  
  • Cro magnon (p. 251) Not a club wielding brute but fully human. 
  •  
  • Cultural evolution (p. 252) Simply a belief-driven interpretation that really doesn’t make sense of the evidence. (See: Axing evolutionary ideas stone dead!
  •  
  • Mungo man (p. 255) The remains of an aboriginal. The whole claim is based on the extreme radioactive dating result, which is based on assumptions and hotly disputed. As a result of Mungo man and other evolutionary stories people tend to view the aboriginal people as ‘primitive’. These speculations should not be taught this way as it fosters racist thinking.
The treatment of evolution in the textbook is shameful. It presents itself as scientific but this unit is scientifically wrong on the central evidences it presents and woefully out-of-date. It’s misleading, uninformed, one-sided and erroneous. It takes a condescending swipe at creation and insults those who hold a different view.
It’s an Australian example but a world-wide problem.

Textbooks, it seems, are just one part of a strategy to censor information available to children, similar to what has been exposed in the movie Expelled? The entire evidence has been presented within the secular, atheistic, materialistic, humanistic worldview.

This textbook brings to my mind the tragic statement by Darrell Scott, whose daughter Rachel was shot dead on 20 April 1999. Along with 12 others, she was gunned down by two young male students at a high school in Columbine, USA. One was wearing a tee shirt with ‘natural selection’ emblazoned on it.
Darrell said:
‘If children are taught that they came from slime, that they evolved from a lower form of life, and that there's no future after death, then their views of life are affected by that … life really doesn't have the meaning that it does to children who believe they are created in God's image and that they have not only this life but a future life as well.’
It’s time these educational establishments stopped teaching deadly lies to our kids. Down the track the same governments that finance this despicable, destructive indoctrination will be employing more police, building bigger gaols and enacting more draconian laws to try to cope with the fallout. It’s just plain crazy.

Related articles

Further reading

References

  1. Whalley, K., Neville, C., Robertson, P., Rickard, G., Phillips, G., Jeffery, F. and Ellis, J., Science Focus 4, Pearson Educational Australia, Melbourne, pp. 222–261, 2005. 40 of the 300 pages were devoted to evolution. Return to text.
Published: 1 April 2008(GMT+10)
 
It is no wonder then that young people are confused and ill-informed about the actual evidence.

Evolutionist debater fails to understand young-earth arguments

17 June 2006
A young supporter asks some questions about young-earth evidence raised by an evolutionary debater. Dr Jonathan Sarfati responds and points out some of the evolutionist’s misunderstandings and even outright errors, and the role of axioms in the debate.

My name is Nathan Powell. I am 16 years old, and have just recently debated an evolutionist on the Internet on the age of the earth. He raised some very intriguing answers to my young-earth arguments. These are the arguments I used, the exact wording used in the debate:
Internet debates can waste a lot of time, but you express yourself clearly and with accurate information, especially for one so young. I’ve just put additional supporting links for the benefit of our readers. I would also advise learning not only the science, but even more importantly some of the meta-science issues underlining the debate, e.g. the article Presuppositionalism vs evidentialism and other articles hyperlinked therein.
1. Helium in the rocks.
“…most of the helium on earth is produced by radioactive decay in rocks. The small atoms of helium gas have no trouble escaping from the rocks into the atmosphere…we can also measure the rate at which helium escapes from the rocks. This process is faster in hotter rocks, and the deeper one goes into the earth, the hotter the rocks become.
The creationist physicist Robert Gentry was researching deep granite as a possible way of safely storing dangerous radioactive waste from nuclear power stations. Safe storage requires that the elements should not move too fast through the rock.
Granite contains mineral crystals called zircons (zirconium silicate, ZrSiO4), which often contain radioactive elements. Thus they should produce helium, which should be escaping.
But Gentry found that even the deep, hot zircons (197°C or 387°F) contained far too much helium—that is, if it had had billions of years to escape. However, if there had really been only thousands of years for this helium to escape, then we shouldn’t be surprised that there is so much left.” 1
Dr Russell Humphreys has updated this argument considerably, including quantitative measurements of helium diffusion. See our summary, Dr Humphreys’ technical paper, his chapter in Radioactive Isotopes and the age of the Earth 2 ch. 2 (technical), and his responses to critics.
Picture of a comet.
2. Short-period comets.

Comets lose mass when they pass by the sun on their orbits. If this had been going on for billions of years, there would be no comets. The only way to explain it with evolution is to have something to replenish them, such as the Oort Cloud or Kuiper Belt, both of which have scientific flaws.
See Comets—portents of doom or indicators of youth?
3. Dinosaur blood cells and tissue.

A recent find (2005) of blood cells and tissue that was still pliable was found in a T. Rex bone. It could not last more than a few thousand years, but the bone was supposedly 70 million years old. Maybe it isn’t?
See Still soft and stretchy: Dinosaur soft tissue find—a stunning rebuttal of “millions of years” and “Ostrich-osaurus” discovery?: Shedding more light on the new startling find of soft tissue in a T. rex bone), which comment on discoveries after your sources were published, and this response to critics. A more recent article addresses the desperate claims about biofilms: Doubting doubts about the Squishosaur.
4. Lunar recession.

The moon is leaving the earth about 4 cm (1½ in.) per year. Even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth it would’ve reached its present position in 1.37 billion years. Not compatible with an old-earth scenario.
See How long has the moon been receding?, although Ref. 2 updates this argument and answers some objections.
5. Radiohalos in coalified wood.

“Dual spherical/elliptical polonium halos in coalified wood are indications that much wood was catastrophically uprooted and compressed, and by the same catastrophic flood, although the layers are “dated” at millions of years apart. Also, uranium radiohalo centers in the same wood have so much uranium that they undermine the “established” millions of years of the layers they are in.” 2
See also The collapse of ‘geologic time’: Tiny halos in coalified wood tell a story that demolishes ‘long age’ . For a different argument about radiohalos, supporting accelerated nuclear decay, see Polonium Radiohalos: The Model for Their Formation Tested and Verified.
6. Carbon-14.

Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5,730 years. If the earth were very old, nothing should have any C-14 left in it. The RATE (Radioactive Isotopes and the age of the Earth ) team did a study with 12 diamond samples, and found that they all contained some C-14. Why? Maybe the earth is young.
The most up-to-date work is in the book RATE 2 ch.8, while the main technical paper (mainly on C-14 in coal) is online. Ref. 2 includes one of the researchers’ updates on diamonds, while the September 2006 issue of Creation magazine had a summary article, not long after this feedback was first published, ‘Diamonds: a creationist’s best friend: Radiocarbon in diamonds: enemy of billions of years’.
  1. J. Sarfati, Blowing old-earth belief away.
  2. Sarfati, J. 2004. Refuting Compromise, Master Books, Green Forest , Arizona , p. 358

[Nathan Powell] The following are some of the arguments he used throughout the debate against mine:
1. Helium in the rocks? — the entire universe came from hydrogen and helium. The ratio of helium (which helium are we speaking of, btw? He-3?)
No, He-4 of course, from alpha decay.
in the rocks does nothing to prove the age of the Earth. Helium is normally not used as an aging marker because, although it is not produced naturally on Earth,
Come off it! It is definitely produced naturally; it is extracted from natural gas!
there are many different ways for it to be produced, leaving too many variables to discount in order for the He signal to accurately stand out above the noise.
No, this misses the point. Helium on earth is produced by alpha decay. The first ‘radiometric’ measurement was proposed by Lord Rutherford, who thought that he could determine age accurately from the amount of helium it contained and the measured alpha decay (previously measured by Sir Frederick Soddy and Sir William Ramsay). But Rutherford assumed helium did not escape from the rock over time (and that the rate of decay was accurate). But this is known to be false, because helium is a small, hard, inert atom and can easily slip through crystal lattices.

Dr Humphreys’ research quantified how fast this escape was—helium diffuses so rapidly out of zircon that it should have all but disappeared after about 100,000 years. And according to the amounts of uranium and lead in zircons in biotite, 1.5 billion years’ worth of decay has occurred, assuming current rates. But much of the helium has been retained, and very little is in the surrounding material. Given the now-known diffusion rate, this puts an upper limit to the age as 5,680 ± 2,000 years. To produce this much helium before it leaks out seems to require an episode of accelerated alpha decay.
…I’m saying that measuring the helium levels in zircon in order to determine the age of the Earth is an inaccurate and incomplete method. It would be like assigning physical age to people based on height or metabolisim rates — it is irrelevant. There are dozens of more accurate ways to date the Earth, especially when these different ways are cross-corroborated. You’ve singled out one old-fashioned disproven way to date the Earth.
Not at all. Rather, the research takes on board the reason why it was ‘disproven’ and draws important conclusions from it, adding to the power of the argument.
Why do you ignore all the other, modern, accurate methods?
Why do you resort to leading questions and elephant hurling?
2. [re Oort cloud reservoir of comets, etc.] There is observational support — the discovery of Sedna, for example.
This is nonsense. Sedna (a Trans-Neptunian Object) is over 100 times the diameter of a typical comet (which means a million times the volume and mass). Really, this is as illogical as the following explanation for mice in an Indian farmhouse:
‘They came from a field.’
‘But I don’t see any mice in the field.’
‘But there is an elephant. And if we see an elephant, there must be mice.’
Similarly, it is silly to point to objects like Sedna and Quaoar as proof of a reservoir of comets that are tiny by comparison.
There’s also the tracing of orbits which puts a _______ of stuff coming from the region of the Oort cloud. It is a valid scientific theory, first hypothesized in 1950 by Jan Oort.
This was actually a plot of number of comets against 1/a0, where a0 is the semi–major-axis of the comet’s orbit (the larger axis of the ellipse). The reason it is a reciprocal is that gravitational potential energy is proportional to the reciprocal of distance. As there was a cluster near 1/a0. Oort thought that they represented an original source of comets at a huge distance. However, Danny Faulkner, full professor of astronomy at a secular university, points out that the plot could be the result of a sort of ‘natural selection’ of high energy comets. This is because lower energy comets are more likely to pass more often by the sun and lose materials, and also lose energy by interactions with other planets. Thus they are more likely to be lost and disappear from the plot.

We should also realize that the Oort Cloud still hasn’t been observed, so it is rather an ad hoc device to explain the existence of long-period comets over the alleged billions of years.
For more than fifty years it has been tested; the latest results are close to confirming that the Oort Cloud contains more mass than the rest of the solar system, excepting the Sun.
This is simply not true. It is very doubtful that there is more than one earth mass of comets. See more information on this and other problems with the Oort cloud hypothesis.
3. Dino blood cells — the scientists were as amazed as everyone to discover soft tissue in a fossilized bone. But that does not mean that the bone is young, it just means that the inside of the bone never fossilized.
I.e. that soft tissue could remain after 65 million years!
It’s not like these were soft, moist tissues…
They didn’t have to be. Rather, they were the flexible tissues that remained after the hard bone matrix was removed chemically.
And if the bone is so young, then why was the DNA in the tissues degraded just like all the other old DNA studied? It wasn’t 7000 year old DNA; geneticists determined through studying said degradation that it was millions of years old.
Really? I wasn’t aware that any DNA had been found, but that would strengthen the creationist case even further! DNA is quickly broken down by water and oxygen, so under favorable conditions, DNA might last tens of thousands of years at the most, according to secular researchers. Polar temperatures might extend this to 100,000 years, and this is based on real chemical kinetic studies—see The Real ‘Jurassic Park’ and Dino proteins and blood vessels: are they a big deal?
The only people questioning the age of the tissue are creationists. The scientific community is thankful for such a well preserved specimen.
Nowhere in your text do you show that the scientists denied that the bone could be that old. Why? Because they didn’t.
“ scientists who challenge the paradigm find it very difficult to obtain research grants or get papers published. ”
Of course not: the paradigm is too strong. The philosopher of science Imre Lakatos points out that the core theory is usually not challenged; instead the holders of the paradigm merely alter or discard the protective auxiliary hypotheses. This is illustrated by the lead researcher Mary Schweitzer when she first found what appeared to be blood cells in a T. rex specimen, she said:
It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician: ‘The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?’ [Science 261(5118):160–162, 9 July 1993]
I.e. she preferred to question the evidence she actually saw in her lab rather than deny the paradigm of millions of years that she can’t see. But she could see the contradiction: the presence of such features in bones does not gel with their supposed age.
Again, they were surprised … but why didn’t you mention that they had already theorized that some old fossils could contain soft tissue inside? Why did you not bring up the fact that they had been cutting bones open looking for this very thing.
More leading questions, and arguments from silence to boot! Actually, they were not looking for soft tissue—they never expected to find this; the bones were cut up because they were too big to carry, and at that point the researchers saw the state of preservation and then took it further in the lab. Just look at the surprise in the above!
If you ask any of the researchers involved, none of them would state that this brings the age of the bone into question. The only think it brings into question is the limitations of the fossilization process.
As said, they will tweak the auxiliary hypothesis of fossilization rate, without any independent evidence, because the long-age paradigm must at all costs be preserved even better than the fossil! And anyone who dared to question the long ages would not get their work published in a mainstream (evolutionary) journal. Note that secular historians of science such as Evelleen Richards agree that scientists who challenge the paradigm find very difficult to obtain research grants or get papers published. [Update: see Creationism, Science and Peer Review.]
4. Lunar recession — this is the amazing phenomenon that has only been observed by creationists.
Utter nonsense, not that it would be a bad thing if creationists discovered it! In any case, this commits the genetic fallacy. Ironically, it was a creationist, Lord Kelvin, who first realized that the moon would be receding because of conservation of angular momentum. That is, the earth is losing angular momentum because the tides, caused by the moon, are ‘braking’ the earth’s rotation. So this angular momentum must be gained by the moon, which means that it moves further away. The actual transfer works as follows: the moon causes the tides that the earth must ‘wade’ through, so the earth is slowed down. Nevertheless, the earth’s rotation pushes the tidal bulge a little bit forward, and so this tugs the moon forward, causing it to move faster and thus lift its orbit.
The delta between aphelion and perihelion (right terms? Remember, I’m trying to do this without research…)
That shows. These terms refer to distance from the sun (Greek ‘ήλιος hēlios sun); the corresponding terms to earth are apogee and perigee (Greek γή gē earth). The general terms for furthest and closest points around a body are apoapsis/apapsis (plural ­–apsides), or apocentre; and periapsis or pericentre.
is somewhere over thirty thousand miles, or about 4.82 trillion centimeters.
Try 4.83 billion cm! The easiest way to convert units nowadays is probably typing 30,000 miles to cm (or almost any other units you could want) in the Google toolbar.
I find it remarkable that creationists know the moon’s distance within 4 centimeters over that distance.
Then you need to inform the Lunar and Planetary Institute, which is hardly a hotbed of creationism since they are a ‘focus for academic participation in studies of the current state, evolution, and formation of the solar system’. This states:
The Laser Ranging Retroreflector experiment has produced many important measurements. These include an improved knowledge of the Moon’s orbit and the rate at which the Moon is receding from Earth (currently 3.8 centimeters per year) and of variations in the rotation of the Moon.
Or maybe the researchers themselves at APOLLO (the Apache Point Observatory Lunar Laser-ranging Operation) need instruction from you as well since they write:
In addition to characterizing the shape of the lunar orbit, we will be able to follow the slow recession of the lunar orbit by 3.8 cm (1.5 inches) per year due to tidal friction.
[Emphasis added in the above]
Heck, we couldn’t even accurately measure the distance to that level until we put mirros on the moon and shot lasers at them. Those wacky YECs, holding back this important scientific knowledge!
Rather, we are trying to educate you into real science, as above.
… Provide me evidence that the moon’s distance can be objectively measured to within 4cm from Earth,
As above.
and show that this information has been available in this same extremely accurate model for the length of time you claim. And please don’t try confusing tidal force theories with lunar recession and distance.
No danger of ‘confusing them’. Rather, tidal forces are the cause, lunar recession and distance are the effects. The mathematics is not in dispute either, merely some assumptions about the past, common to all dating methods. Ref. 2 explains both points further.
5. Polonium halos — c’mon, do you think I would argue that most wood, or most life for that matter, on this planet didn’t go through a serious challenge to existence that would include tremendous temperatures and pressures responsible for the radioactive halos? …maybe you could share with us the significance of this, because I don’t see it.
Just hand waving, ignoring the actual argument: the age is constrained by the amount of uranium still remaining in the radiocentres (i.e. there hasn’t been time for much to decay), and the rapid decay rate of polonium constrains the time for compression of the wood to form dual halos; that is, it had to have happened very quickly.
Funny how you can take a cross-section of a tree and use it for your proof, but when that same cross-section is offered with old age proof you deny that cross sections are accurate.
I know of no creationist scientist who says such things. For one thing, how can a cross section be ‘accurate’ or ‘inaccurate’? It just is. Calibrations with 14C dating and correlations with tree-ring counts are another matter. See Tree ring dating (dendrochronology).
6. If carbon 14’s half-life is 5,730 years, and the Earth is about 6,000–10,000 years old (according to you), then that would mean that over half of all the Carbon-14 has decayed. In anything. Not just rocks, or petrified wood, or caveman footprints, everything! And reams of collected data show otherwise.
And the point is what? The point of our argument is that even a lump of 14C as massive as the earth would have all decayed in only about half a million years. So if any 14C is present, then it cannot be millions or billions of years old. Yet almost all samples of coal and diamonds tested have 14C above background levels, so the assigned huge ages for them are wrong.

[Nathan Powell] The most interesting ones to me were the “Dino blood cells”, “Lunar recession”, and “Carbon-14”.
I wasn’t expecting those kind of arguments, and it kind of caught me off guard.
Although the debate is over, I would like you to please provide me with some answers to these.
Thank you very much!
Hope the above helps.
Sincerely,
Nathan Powell
USA
Sincerely
Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D.
CMI–Australia

Related articles

Further reading

 
 
From Creation.com - comments by early church fathers about Genesis and the creation:
‘For in six days as the world was made, in so many thousand years shall it be concluded. … For that day of the Lord is a thousand years; and in six days created things were completed: it is evident, therefore, that they will come to an end at the sixth thousand year.’ — Irenaeus (125–202), a disciple of Polycarp, who in turn was a disciple of the Apostle John.

‘On the fourth day the luminaries came into existence. Since God has foreknowledge, he understood the nonsense of the foolish philosophers who were going to say that the things produced on earth come from the stars, so that they might set God aside. In order therefore that the truth might be demonstrated, plants and seeds came into existence before the stars.’—Theophilus, To Autolycus 2:15, AD 181

“However, the sun and the moon did not yet exist, in order that those who live in ignorance of God may not consider the sun as the origin and the father of light, or as the maker of all that grows out of the earth. That is why there was a fourth day, and then God said: “Let there be lights in the firmament of the heaven.”—Basil the Great on Day 3 of Creation Week.

Now some Darwinists commenting on Darwinists?

‘Imagine someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject is the “Book of British Birds”, and you have a rough idea of what it feels like to read Richard Dawkins on theology.’ — atheistic and Marxist philosopher Terry Eagleton on Dawkins’ on “The God Delusion” 

“When [ID people] say that some proponents of evolution are blind followers, they’re right. … I met dozens of people there who were dead sure that evolutionary theory was correct though they didn’t know a thing about adaptive radiation, genetic drift, or even plain old natural selection. They came to their Darwinism via a commitment to naturalism and atheism not through the study of science.”—evolutionist Gordy Slack

 CMI Scientists comment:

“[Evolution] entails that God used enormous amounts of disease, bloodshed, suffering and death (‘the last enemy’ 1 Cor. 15:26) to bring about a creation He called ‘very good’ (Gen. 1:31). Jesus the Creator said ‘blessed are the meek’, yet evolutionism involves the strong grinding the meek underfoot.”

CMI-Au Ph.D. scientists defeating Australian Skeptics in a debate in Australia's largest newspaper.

“It’s silly when some, including Gould and the NAS (USA), claim that creation is not scientific because it’s not falsifiable or testable, then turn around and claim that creationist claims have been examined (i.e. tested) and proven false (i.e. falsified).”—CMI–Australia Ph.D. scientists defeating Australian Skeptics in a formal written debate.

Claims made by two of the biggest evolutionists in the past:

Haeckel (The fraudster evolutionist who's books sold more than that of Darwin at some stages): "This is the science of rudimentary or useless organs ; I have given it the name of " dysteleology " in view of its philosophic consequences. Nearly every organism (...apart from the very lowest), and especially every highly developed animal or plant, including man, has one or more organs which are of no use to the body itself, and have no share in its functions or vital aims." - The Evolution of Man Vol 1 p. 86 5th Ed.
Darwin himself:


"He [man] passes through the same phases of embryological development. He [man] retains many rudimentary and useless structures, which no doubt were once serviceable. " The Descent of man Vol 1 p. 179 1st Edition

So, were these evolutionists correct? How do their statements add up to our current knowledge? Do vestigial organs (in the classical definition) exist in humans? Has evolutionary theory made correct predictions in this regard? The answer to the questions is an astounding 'no'. enjoy our page with numerous articles about so called 'vestigial organs'.

See More

“I actually believe that the earth is old—*very old*. It is thousands of years old—as many as six thousand, in fact. Does that angle surprise you? My point is to make us aware of how we have allowed our culture to condition us into thinking that a thousand years is a very short time, and that ‘old’ always means millions or billions of years.”—Dr Carl Wieland

 

 

 
 

32 comments:

Anonymous said...

Since everything you copy/pasted here comes from Creation.com, a website that has been proven to spread lies, your article can just be ignored.

Have a nice day!

Jon Woolf said...

[snicker.wav]

Since the copied article is from Creation.com, a site that is known to publish lies, it's not worth a load of fetid dingo's kidneys.

Not to mention the fact that most of its claims are simply wrong.

What's the YEC explanation for the no-young-isotopes phenomenon, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for fossiliferous strata in Large Igneous Provinces, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for age-specific trace molecules in crude oil, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for fossils in marble and slate, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for broken, weathered, and scavenged fossils, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for ecological ghosts, Radar?

What's the YEC explanation for index features such as the K-T clay layer, Radar?

Why aren't dolphins and ichthyosaurs ever found together, Radar?

Why aren't rhamphorhynchoids and neornithines ever found together, Radar?

How did dogwoods and sycamores outrun brontosaurs and allosaurs to higher ground, Radar?

How do we get fossil formations that preserve multiple layers of dinosaur and bird nests, obviously nesting colonies from several different years, in the middle of the geologic column?

How did we get magmatic intrusions -- that is, underground lava flows that took time to occur and more time to cool and solidify -- in between layers of fossil-bearing sedimentary rock?

Most important of all, why do YECs find it necessary to lie about the evidence, Radar?

As always, no answer was the sad reply...

Young-earth creationism is a lie, perpetrated by evil men as a means of controlling innocent, well-meaning folks like you.

University Assignment Format, Help and Guideline said...

Informative blog. Thanks for sharing. We are also sharing our website http://www.university.solvewin.com. This site help and guide to create a examination assignment for your University, College, School, Medical related program BBA, MBA, MBM, Finance and Accounting, Computer Science, Marketing, Human Resource Management, Insurance and Capital Management, Medicine, Economics, Statistics, Strategy, etc. A good guideline with format for how to create a assignment. More web link, journal, book, pdf file, document file, publication reference to here. If you click here www.university.solvewin.com, then you are learning for easily assignment creation with assignment format.

Anonymous said...

This copypasta post from the guy that willfully teaches YEC lies to his own "students". Lies that have been pointed out to him countless times. Polystrate fossils anyone? In fact, our blogger host won't even expose these "students" to counter arguments, ala the whole "Kevin" debacle. Healthy open debate indeed.

I mean, Radar, you even recently denied censoring arguments on this blog, in yet another flat out (and obvious) lie being spread here. When you delete comments and repost with comments disabled, in order to get the "last word" on a subject, that is called censorship.

The long spiral continues...

- Canucklehead.

Anonymous whatsit said...

Too much here to fisk in the time it would take until Radar pastes the next pile of erroneous statements. Here's a few:

"The evolution unit tells the students in plain and simple language that they have evolved ‘From bacteria to humans’."

Since that's what current scientific understanding indicates, that's what we should find in a science textbook.

"One image was of a naked human with a cute ape. Message to students: you were not created in God’s image but you evolved; you are just an animal."

The evidence that we are closely related to apes is overwhelming, supported by anatomical similarities as well as DNA evidence, e.g. endogenous retroviruses. Again, no surprise that a science textbook should reflect current scientific understanding.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Darwin’s finches (p. 228) These do not support evolution in the way the text book defined it—‘From bacteria to humans’. They are an example of natural selection but that does not generate any of the new genetic information needed for evolution to work. "

They're an example of natural selection and microevolution, and that's all they're intended to illustrate. The theory of evolution is not confined to macroevolution.

"Natural selection (p. 232) This goes the wrong way for evolution. It only sorts and removes genetic information that’s already there."

No evidence for this claim whatsoever. Something YECs could chew on.

"Peppered moths (p. 233) Even if the experiments are valid, they would only demonstrate natural selection, and that is not evolution."

Natural selection is a part of the theory of evolution.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Even evolutionists recognize that."

Link?

"Speciation (p. 234) Again, speciation is not evolution—"

Speciation is quite literally the origin of species. It's part of macroevolution. It's evolution. "Speciation is not evolution" is simply a lie.

"new biological species form without any new genetic information."

Evidence please.

Anonymous whatsit said...

"Speciation won’t turn ‘bacteria to man’."

Not in our lifetime, because it takes billions of years. But the evidence indicates that bacteria developed into eukaryotes, which developed into all the flora and fauna we see today.

"Actually, the creation model explains speedy speciation, but evolutionists are surprised at how quickly it works."

There's a mildly interesting trend at work here. Creationists are gradually forced to acknowledge certain aspects of the theory of evolution (e.g. natural selection, microevolution), but then start claiming that that's no longer part of the theory of evolution. They don't swallow macroevolution, so that must be all that the theory of evolution is.

Maybe y'all could read up on the theory of evolution sometime if you want to keep yammering on about it. Start with Origin of Species and work your way up to the present day.

Anonymous whatsit said...

And lest we forget: creation.com does post demonstrable lies, as do the other creationist sites Radar has praised as the "Big Three" creationist websites.

Why do they do this? Could any of the creationists visiting this site explain that one?

And why does Radar praise these sites to high heaven, yet dismisses another website that he hasn't even demonstrated as having lied, without ever looking at their arguments and evidence?

The reasons are obvious to most of the commenters here. Radar's hypocrisy is breathtaking.

radar said...

Genetics was "invented" by a creationist named Mendel.

Natural Selection was first observed and named by a creationist named Blyth who correctly perceived it as a design mechanism meant to preserve the kind.

Canucklehead, I don't censor comments so quit lying. I could make an exception in your case as you are consistently wrong and yet I do not do it. All of you commenters need to understand that Blogger has a spam filter and if your comment looks like spam to Blogger it blocks it. I don't.

Woolf, you will never drag me into your trivial side issues when you cannot even begin to answer the big questions. You are simply annoying yourself. Most of your questions are already answered in blogposts on this blog in the past and I won't keep going back, since there is a thing called a search feature.

Woolf cannot point out Creation.com posting any lies. The only uncertainty is the Hartnett equation and he was a guest poster. Kevin has those equations and as soon as he gets around to telling me what he thinks I will post his reply.

If Kevin is sure Hartnett is wrong I will call Creation.com myself to ask them to debunk the article. If he finds you are wrong I will post his explanation. If he agrees with Cecil that it was a notational error not worth squabbling about then I will post that. Kevin is an honor student and a brainiac so he will be able to speak with authority to the equations. If he doesn't answer before he comes home on spring break I will corner him and remind him to "just do it" and get it over with. You can be patient, the guy is taking about 20 hours of highly specialized studies at one of the most prestigious schools of it's kind in the world.

radar said...

...and finally I have detailed talkorigins deliberate lies in the past. They are determined to be apologists for Darwinism and truth be D****d so I have long ago quit trying to change their minds and simply ignore them. It is only fair to point out that I did identify Dr. Dino on "my side", so to speak, as also being untrustworthy so it isn't just a matter of worldview, it is a matter of honesty.

Speaking of which, when you accuse me of lying you just make yourselves look like tinfoil-hatters. Those who know me know better and longtime readers surely know that I am opinionated and passionate but I do not post lies. So every time you point at me and call me a liar there are several fingers pointing right back at you. You are just making yourselves look bad.

Bring evidence to the table instead of opinionated assertions bereft of evidence. That is the only way the world will take you seriously.

Jon Woolf said...

"Woolf cannot point out Creation.com posting any lies."

[snork] Oh, really?

The copypasta that forms the bulk of this post is from Creation.com. So, if I can point out even one obvious lie in it, your claim above is disproved. Here you go, then:

Embryonic development (p. 244) Shame! Shame! This has long been abandoned as evidence for evolution. Haeckel’s drawings are blatantly fraudulent.

There's much, MUCH more to the embryonic-development topic than just Haeckel's borderline-fraudulent drawings. For example, the matter of aortic arches, which I posted in a comment some months back. An entire subfield of evolutionary biology, known formally as evolutionary development and informally as "evo-devo," has developed around the study of embryos, and how their growth patterns reflect the organism's evolutionary history in some ways. A simple example would be horses, which develop four toes in utero (digits II, III, IV, and V of the primitive mammal foot) and then reabsorb three of them, leaving nothing visible from digits II and V, and only the chestnuts as external evidence of digit IV.

So no, evolutionary biologists have not abandoned embryo development as evidence for evolution. Thus, yes, Creation.com publishes lies.

Jon Woolf said...

"Woolf cannot point out Creation.com posting any lies."

[snork] Oh, really?

The copypasta that forms the bulk of this post is from Creation.com. So, if I can point out even one obvious lie in it, your claim above is disproved. Here you go, then:

Embryonic development (p. 244) Shame! Shame! This has long been abandoned as evidence for evolution. Haeckel’s drawings are blatantly fraudulent.

There's much, MUCH more to the embryonic-development topic than just Haeckel's borderline-fraudulent drawings. For example, the matter of aortic arches, which I posted in a comment some months back. An entire subfield of evolutionary biology, known formally as evolutionary development theory and informally as "evo-devo," has developed around the study of embryos, and how their growth patterns reflect the organism's evolutionary history in some ways. A simple example would be horses, which develop four toes in utero (digits II, III, IV, and V of the primitive mammal foot) and then reabsorb three of them, leaving nothing visible from digits II and V, and only the chestnuts as external evidence of digit IV.

So no, evolutionary biologists have not abandoned embryo development as evidence for evolution. Thus, yes, Creation.com publishes lies.

Anonymous said...

...and finally I have detailed talkorigins deliberate lies in the past.They are determined to be apologists for Darwinism and truth be D****d so I have long ago quit trying to change their minds and simply ignore them.

I believe there was one "lie" of TO you spoke of before. Not plural. And that "lie" was their non-response to an email you wrote them providing a link to a website about those dinosaur figurines from mexico? Is that right? And the website you sent them conflicted with TO's post on the figurines?

Did you provide TO with reasons to find your website more credible than TO's sources? If Nature, Science (the journal), or National Geographic doesn't retract an article because of an email of yours that includes a link to a creationist website that contradicts their article will you consider them liars? Won't anyone be considered a liar by this logic if they disagree with you?

For anybody interested, I believe this was the website:
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-acambaro.htm#photo

Please correct any of the information above if it is wrong, Radar. But, this is what you consider a lie? Or lies?


lava

Anonymous said...

...and finally I have detailed talkorigins deliberate lies in the past.They are determined to be apologists for Darwinism and truth be D****d so I have long ago quit trying to change their minds and simply ignore them.

I believe there was one "lie" of TO you spoke of before. Not plural. And that "lie" was their non-response to an email you wrote them providing a link to a website about those dinosaur figurines from mexico? Is that right? And the website you sent them conflicted with TO's post on the figurines?

Did you provide TO with reasons to find your website more credible than TO's sources? If Nature, Science (the journal), or National Geographic doesn't retract an article because of an email of yours that includes a link to a creationist website that contradicts their article will you consider them liars? Won't anyone be considered a liar by this logic if they disagree with you?

For anybody interested, I believe this was the website:
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-acambaro.htm#photo

Please correct any of the information above if it is wrong, Radar. But, this is what you consider a lie? Or lies?


lava

Anonymous said...

hmmm....keeps deleting my comment. I'll removing the link.



...and finally I have detailed talkorigins deliberate lies in the past.They are determined to be apologists for Darwinism and truth be D****d so I have long ago quit trying to change their minds and simply ignore them.

I believe there was one "lie" of TO you spoke of before. Not plural. And that "lie" was their non-response to an email you wrote them providing a link to a website about those dinosaur figurines from mexico? Is that right? And the website you sent them conflicted with TO's post on the figurines?

Did you provide TO with reasons to find your website more credible than TO's sources? If Nature, Science (the journal), or National Geographic doesn't retract an article because of an email of yours that includes a link to a creationist website that contradicts their article will you consider them liars? Won't anyone be considered a liar by this logic if they disagree with you?

For anybody interested, I believe this was the website:
just google: mexico dinosaur figurines --- it should be the first link

Please correct any of the information above if it is wrong, Radar. But, this is what you consider a lie? Or lies?


lava

scohen said...

"If Kevin is sure Hartnett is wrong I will call Creation.com myself to ask them to debunk the article. If he finds you are wrong I will post his explanation. If he agrees with Cecil..."

So, you're not going to foster any communication between Kevin and I, be it in comments or over email. How on earth am I supposed to make my case?

And at any time, you'll just post something that we'll have to take on faith is Kevin's. I'm afraid that's not good enough Radar, you're still acting as a filter.

How are you on the side of openness again?

Anonymous said...

hmmm....keeps deleting my comment. I'll removing the link. (now I'll try yet again by cutting it in half- blogger is a pain).



...and finally I have detailed talkorigins deliberate lies in the past.They are determined to be apologists for Darwinism and truth be D****d so I have long ago quit trying to change their minds and simply ignore them.

I believe there was one "lie" of TO you spoke of before. Not plural. And that "lie" was their non-response to an email you wrote them providing a link to a website about those dinosaur figurines from mexico? Is that right? And the website you sent them conflicted with TO's post on the figurines?

Anonymous said...

Did you provide TO with reasons to find your website more credible than TO's sources? If Nature, Science (the journal), or National Geographic doesn't retract an article because of an email of yours that includes a link to a creationist website that contradicts their article will you consider them liars? Won't anyone be considered a liar by this logic if they disagree with you?

For anybody interested, I believe this was the website:
just google: mexico dinosaur figurines --- it should be the first link

Please correct any of the information above if it is wrong, Radar. But, this is what you consider a lie? Or lies?


lava

Anonymous said...

Did you provide TO with reasons to find your website more credible than TO's sources? If Nature, Science (the journal), or National Geographic doesn't retract an article because of an email of yours that includes a link to a creationist website that contradicts their article will you consider them liars? Won't anyone be considered a liar by this logic if they disagree with you?

For anybody interested, I believe this was the website-- search for-- mexico dinosaur figurines --- it should be the first link.

Please correct any of the information above if it is wrong, Radar. But, this is what you consider a lie? Or lies?


lava

Anonymous said...

Did you provide TO with reasons to find your website more credible than TO's sources? If Nature, Science (the journal), or National Geographic doesn't retract an article because of an email of yours that includes a link to a creationist website that contradicts their article will you consider them liars? Won't anyone be considered a liar by this logic if they disagree with you?

Please correct any of the information above if it is wrong, Radar. But, this is what you consider a lie? Or lies?

lava

Anonymous said...

Did you provide TO with reasons to find your website more credible than TO's sources?

If Nature, Science (the journal), or National Geographic doesn't retract an article because of an email of yours that includes a link to a creationist website that contradicts their article will you consider them liars?

Won't anyone be considered a liar by this logic if they disagree with you?

Please correct any of the information above if it is wrong, Radar.

But, this is what you consider a lie? Or lies?

Anonymous said...

If Nature, Science-- the journal, or National Geographic failed to retract an article if you sent them an email with a link to a creationist website with information that contradicts their article, would you then call them liars?

By this logic, everyone who disagrees with you is a liar.

I'm not sure you understand what a lie is.

lava

Anonymous said...

It never let me post the link. Try searching for Mexico dinosaur figurines. It should be the first result.

Blogger is really cranky with posting comments tonight. I had to try a bunch of times to post those two previous comments.

Anonymous said...

It's simple. YEC withers when one focuses on any particular subject in an open discussion and examines the evidence. That's why Radar can't permit ongoing discussion on any one subject. That's why he can't allow Kevin to come to the table. That's why Radar has to flit from one subject to the next, and why he has to shut down discussion while pouring derision over opposing arguments without trying to address them.

What're you scared of, Radar? The answer to the GA issue doesn't even affect your worldview - at all.

Anonymous said...

Is it this link?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CH/CH710_2.html

Anonymous said...

Here is the website I spoke of above:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-acambaro.htm


lava

Anonymous said...

What kind of Godly man are you? God teaches you to open your mind and be accepting of others. If you don't like it then be it so but you don't need to be insulting others just because your views clash with theirs. And another thought. If Adam & Eve did give rise to the human race then why are we all not mutants because of the amount of interbreeding that had to take place to get us to the 6 billion people that inhabit the earth today?

Anonymous whatsit said...

I just waded deep enough into this latest bit of copypasta to see that the receding moon lie is repeated here yet again:

"4. Lunar recession.

The moon is leaving the earth about 4 cm (1½ in.) per year. Even if the moon had started receding from being in contact with the earth it would’ve reached its present position in 1.37 billion years. Not compatible with an old-earth scenario.
See How long has the moon been receding?, although Ref. 2 updates this argument and answers some objections."

Previously debunked on your own blog by Jon Woolf. See here: http://radaractive.blogspot.com/2010/05/difference-between-science-and.html?showComment=1274233386423#c7425589954519747336

Was the math too complicated for you? It was pretty simple.

Why do creationists insists on spreading this nonsense? Seriously.

Retraction or counter-argument please.

Anonymous whatsit said...

Incidentally, since you were claiming that Jon Woolf couldn't point out any of creation.com's lies (a reckless claim - why bother making it?), this moon thing is another one. Not the first time this has been brought up on your blog - you should read the comments on your blog more often... and try to understand them, y'know?

Anonymous said...

"What kind of Godly man are you? God teaches you to open your mind and be accepting of others."

Radar does seem to be lacking in one or two Christian virtues.

"If you don't like it then be it so but you don't need to be insulting others just because your views clash with theirs."

Not just that, they're liars. Automatically.

"And another thought. If Adam & Eve did give rise to the human race then why are we all not mutants because of the amount of interbreeding that had to take place to get us to the 6 billion people that inhabit the earth today?"

Not Adam and Eve - most of their descendants (all but two and their immediate offspring) perished in Noah's Flood, apparently. Same question though. There is no scientific explanation for this, only a mythological one. Something about the Fall.

Anonymous said...

About those Acambaro figurines - aside from the various arguments presented on TO that Radar is clearly unable to address, the diPeso/Gardner thing seems to amount to he said/she said at this point. But there's a simple way to settle the matter, right?

There are lots and lots of these figurines still around. Why not date some of them using the most recent dating methods?

Could be a coup for creationists, no?