Showing posts from May, 2012

If Schools Taught Evolution's Flaws

Casey Luskin considers evolution's top three flaws to be:  (1) Tell students that the fossil record often lacks transitional forms and that there are "explosions" of new life forms, a pattern of radiations that challenges Darwinian evolutionary theory. (2) Tell students that many scientists have challenged the ability of random mutation and natural selection to produce complex biological features. (3) Tell students that many lines of evidence for Darwinian evolution and common descent are weak The article itself is short, so I suggest that you click on the reference links and learn something. You can read "What Are the Top Three Flaws in Darwinian Evolution, as Taught Today in Public Schools?" , here.

Evolutionary Icons in Textbooks Still Fail

In late 2001, Creation Ministries International did an article about the 2000 book Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?  that showed how several of the "proofs" of evolution fail. Even in 2012, we encounter "proofs" of evolution that are outdated, discredited and even fraudulent. Some of these are the Peppered Moths, Haeckel's drawings (someone said to me, "Even though they were faked doesn't mean it's still not true"...agonizing), the Miller experiment and more. I maintain that some of Darwin's cheerleaders are victims of bad science and indoctrination, but they are also to blame for taking so much by faith and not investigating the flaws in evolution that so many of us are trying to get them to see. To be blunt, presenting bad information is indoctrination, not education. The educational system appears to be more interested in promoting a worldview and misotheistic biases rather than educating and training students to think critically

Evolutionary Propaganda in Textbooks Pushes Indoctrination

There have been times when I have been astonished at remarks from evolutionists about science. They have used outdated, spurious, discredited, tendentious and even dishonest evidence as "proof" of the "fact" of evolution. (One atheist called Matt Slick of CARM and actually presented discredited Lamarckism , or Lamarckianism, as proof of evolution!) Sometimes, this clinging to an unworkable worldview is simply the result of willful ignorance. But how often is the problem based on faulty textbooks , and they never learned the truth about evolutionism? Perhaps the problem is bad science indoctrination coupled with emotional attachment to a faulty worldview, but never mind about that now. Let's looks more closely at the textbook problem. Evolutionists are now formulating scientifically archaic teaching standards they want the states to follow “in whole, without alteration.” Our evolution-drenched science education in the U.S. is pathetic, with science literacy scr

No Transitional Forms in the Fossil Record

I’ve tried putting a simple question to various people and groups of people: “Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing that you think is true?” I tried that question on the geology staff in the Field Museum of Natural History, and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago … and all I got there was silence for a long time, and then eventually one person said: “Yes, I do know one thing. It ought not to be taught in high school.” — Colin Patterson   Fundamentalist evolutionists insist that the fossil record proves macroevolution is true. Creationists cite evolutionists who say that there are no transitional forms, then get accused of quote mining . Damage control! Then, the evolutionary faithful will trot out pictures of fossils, say that there are many transitional forms, and paste material from angry anti-creationist sites like (they should check out tru

Cuttlefish Fossil Puzzler

A fossil that is allegedly 34 million years old may contain some of the original hard biochemical material. That is no surprise. But the chitin is relatively fragile, and should have broken down long before the supposed millions of years.  Credit: Freeimages / John Boyer This is yet another example that the presuppositions of radiometric dating are flawed and should be overhauled to represent a much younger Earth. Cuttlefish are mollusks that look somewhat like squid. They have an internal, hard, supportive structure with soft organs around and inside it. This resilient "cuttlebone" is made of cleverly woven strands of a biochemical material called chitin and mixed with a hard biomineral called aragonite. A team of paleontologists found a supposedly 34 million-year-old fossil cuttlebone that still had both the original aragonite and chitin. This is significant, because one might expect the hard aragonite to persist in the fossil record, but not the  organic  chiti

Fossils and Backdating

Scientists generally take a straightforward, even common sense, approach to their theories. That is, they will see if evidence and observations fit their theories. If not, they abandon the theory and make a new one. Or adjust the original theory. stock.xchng/knightia How much adjustment is excessive? This is where the sensible approach fails evolutionary scientists. They start with the presuppositions that the world is ancient and that evolution happened. Then the data are interpreted within this worldview — sometimes even resorting to amazing extremes rather than abandon a faulty theory. When fossils do not fit the time frame, then the time frame is pushed back. This happens much more frequently than evolutionists want to admit. We are commonly challenged to explain the fossil order worked out by evolutionary scientists. Fossils are, of course, crucial to the evolutionary story; their sequences and placement in the evolutionary time scale are fundamental to the evolutioni

Carbon-14 Part 3: Data and Assumptions

This is the third in a three-part series on Carbon-14. Part 1 discussed the basics of Carbon-14 dating , and Part 2 pointed out a major dilemma for evolutionists : Carbon-14 is found where is should not be, according to their reckoning. This section points out that creationist models have to deal with date ranges that do not fit their  model, either. Also, there are assumptions that are made in all radiometric dating, and some greatly affect Carbon-14 dating. A Biblical creation model fitting the Noahician Flood geology is explored and offered as the best explanation. Evolutionists aren’t the only ones who run into challenges when trying to reconcile radiocarbon dating with their view of history. How do creationists explain dates of 50,000 years? Conventional geologists claim that fossils, coals, and diamonds are millions to billions of years old. Yet it has now been firmly established that they still contain measurable amounts of radiocarbon, which has a half-life (decay rate) of onl

Carbon-14 Part 2: Found Where It Should Not Be

Blue diamond by Kathy Reed This is the second of a three-part series on Carbon-14. Previously, the basics of the process were explained . This part brings up an interesting dilemma: Why is it found in rocks that are allegedly millions of years old? Carbon-14 should have vanished after 5,730 years. Excuses are made about bad measurements and  contamination , but those do not withstand scrutiny. If the radioactive element carbon-14 breaks down quickly—within a few thousand years—why do we still find it in fossils and diamonds? It’s a dilemma for evolutionists, who believe the rocks are millions of years old. Many people think that scientists use radiocarbon to date fossils. After all, we should be able to estimate how long ago a creature lived based on how much radiocarbon is left in its body, right? To finish reading "Carbon-14 in Fossils and Diamonds, an Evolution Enigma", click here . 

Carbon-14 Part 1: Basic Information

Mmmmm...Earth... This week, we will have a three-part series on Carbon-14 dating. This first part gives an overview of the basics: How Carbon-14 forms, is absorbed, is depleted as well as the determining the rate of decay. Then the way it is used for dating is discussed. Many people assume that rocks are dated at “millions of years” based on radiocarbon (carbon-14) dating. But that’s not the case. The reason is simple. Carbon-14 can yield dates of only “thousands of years” before it all breaks down. The most well-known of all the radiometric dating methods is radiocarbon dating. Although many people think radiocarbon dating is used to date rocks, it is limited to dating things that contain the element carbon and were once alive (like fossils). This is a good start, but to read the rest of "Carbon-14 Dating — Understanding the Basics", click here . Part 2 is here .

Flooding and a Fossil Graveyard

The tired old story that a critter dies, gradually gets covered up and turns into a fossil after huge amounts of time seems to be falling by the wayside. It was unrealistic and unscientific in the first place. No, fossilization requires rapid burial and the proper conditions. A flood will do the job nicely. Especially if it's a big one. / rosym / Deep in the Forest Some people believe that dinosaurs evolved into birds. It is annoying to them when birds and dinosaurs are swept up together in flood waters and end up in the mix at a fossil graveyard. According to Genesis, all creatures of the earth were created within days of each other—including dinosaurs and humans. A common question in response to this is "If dinosaurs and man lived at the same time, why aren't their fossils found together?" Bird bones and egg shell fossil fragments from a waterside bird colony are sending clues from the long-ago past to help solve this quandary. The f

Dinosaur Ex-stink-tion

BREAKING NEWS! Since evolutionists have no agreement about what went on to cause the extinction of the dinosaurs allegedly 65 million years ago, and none of the theories are satisfactory, they keep coming up with new ones. Some of these stories are pretty wild , but do not cause such a problem for creationists. Here is a theory that is a real blast. Dinosaurs may have farted themselves to extinction, according to a new study from British scientists. The researchers calculated that the prehistoric beasts pumped out more than 520 million tons (472 million tonnes) of methane a year -- enough to warm the planet and hasten their own eventual demise. Until now, an asteroid strike and volcanic activity around 65 million years ago had seemed the most likely cause of their extinction. Edit: Some clever person commented, "When did scientists get wind of this?" HA! Anyway, read the rest here:

Making Substantial Deposits

The deposition of rock strata is most commonly understood as gradual layers in isolated areas. What some people do not know is that the layers are not so isolated; some are spread out over huge areas — even entire continents. These strata contain evidence that they were   " deposited by large volumes of fast flowing water that covered a very large area".   At Echo Point west of Sydney, Australia, visitors have a panoramic view of The Three Sisters — spectacular remains of a huge sandstone outcrop, broken and teetering on the edge of a wide valley. In the distance you can see the same sedimentary strata in vertical cliffs that stretch as far as the eye can see. These sedimentary layers also travel out of sight under the earth—much further than many suspect, 100 km (60 miles) east to the Pacific Ocean, 200 km north and 200 km south. They form part of the Sydney basin, a geological structure where layers of sediments accumulated to a depth of 3 km. You can see the sa

Early Earth and Dinosaur Mobility

Kabacchi, It should be no secret that dinosaur fossils are found all over the world, including the Arctic and Antarctic regions. Yon beasties sure did get around! This can be a problem for evolutionists, as they attempt to explain the apparent mobility of the dinosaurs. Not much of a problem for creationists who believe in a worldwide flood, however. A spinosaur fossil found in the southeastern state of Victoria in Australia suggests dinosaurs were much more mobile than previously thought. The single fossil vertebra, unearthed in the 1990s, is identical to that of a spinosaurid called  Baryonyx walkeri  which was previously thought to only live in the northern European climes. Thus the original paper called it “the first Australian spinosaurid theropod dinosaur.” Most of this sounds like it is good, solid, scientific research. That is until the evolutionary explanation begins. To hear the tale of evolutionary explanation, read the rest of " Croc-nosed dinosa