Welcome to the home of The Question Evolution Project. Presenting information demonstrating that there is no truth in minerals-to-man evolution, and presenting evidence for special creation. —Established by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

Showing posts sorted by relevance for query textbooks. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query textbooks. Sort by date Show all posts

Saturday, October 13, 2018

The Joy of Rewriting Textbooks?

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen

A while back, someone sent me a link to a short article in Forbes, "Why Do Scientists Get Excited About 'Rewriting The Textbooks?'", which I last accessed on October 13, 2018. It was written by contributor Carmen Drahl, an evolutionist. She had some enthusiastic things to say about the idea, but they were a mix of both realistic and idealistic concepts.


Some people may get excited about rewriting textbooks.
Credit: Freeimages / Zsuzsa N.K.
First of all, the title tells us that scientists write textbooks. Mayhaps that's why they keep getting their atoms-to-author evolutionary research fouled up, as they spend so much time writing textbooks? Do a search and you'll find that many different kinds of people can write and publish textbooks, then committees review them. Some scientists write them, many do not.
I’m one of the lucky folks who was trained to see science as a process, as a way of looking at the world. And when you see science that way, you realize that while the concepts and definitions that emerge from research may eventually be proven wrong, the process for gaining new knowledge — the scientific method — is the best way we have of learning about the world around us. That’s what’s wondrous to a scientist— to know that we understand the periodic table, or our solar system, or the animal kingdom, a little bit better, because someone has come up with a new idea that’s a better fit for all the data points that have been gathered over the years.
It sure is nice to have a sense of wonder about science and knowledge. Many of us do. I wonder about the first part of that quote, where she's "one of the lucky ones who was trained to see science as a process". How are other people trained, then? Also, she said that science is "a way of looking at the world". That sounds to me like an empirical worldview, which is rather sterile. As many creationists (and others) have said numerous times, people interpret data according to their presuppositions.

She went on to give an illustration about "scientists getting excited" and discussed chemist Neil Bartlett. He made an important discovery, so textbooks had to be rewritten. Well, yes. When real discoveries are made, textbooks need to be rewritten. Not so much with evolutionary "discoveries" — certain examples of fraud, such as Haeckel's fraudulent drawings, are still in the textbooks. Other examples of bad evolutionary science are frequently found in textbooks.

We keep hearing about new discoveries that frustrate believers in deep time and evolutionists:
There are many more on this site alone.I reckon the reasons folks might get excited about rewriting textbooks is that they can get paid for it. Another is that secularists can cover their tracks and try to hide their embarrassment. Of course, some evolutionists will still manage to lie outright, since the end justifies the means as a long as people can be made to believe in evolution.

Science is exciting and fun. When used to appreciate and understand the work of our Creator, the sense of awe deepens. Biblical creationists in scientific disciplines often say that they are motivated to know how God created something. Being excited about EvolutionDidIt and evosplaining with "it evolved" is fatuous. If textbook writers are excited about updating real science, good for them.




Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, May 30, 2012

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. These ideas are reinforced when we see that these icons of evolution are still present in textbooks.

“I think that the most important factor moving us toward a secular society has been the educational factor. Our schools may not teach Johnny how to read properly, but the fact that Johnny is in school until he is sixteen tends toward the elimination of religious superstition. The average American child now acquires a high school education, and this militates against Adam and Eve and all other myths of alleged history.”— P. Blanchard, The Humanist, 1983


What follows is a brief overview of current problems in textbooks, with links to more in-depth analysis.
In his 2000 book Icons of Evolution, Jonathan Wells reviewed ten then-current biology textbooks for their treatment of what Dr. Wells calls the "icons" of evolution, well-known lines of evidence commonly used to support evolution...Now, in 2011, we present an updated 2011 textbook review that applies Wells's evaluation criteria to 22 recent biology textbooks, all published since 2005... 

This 2011 textbook evaluation also adds two new icons that have grown in popularity over the past decade. A series of fossils purportedly showing the evolution of whales from land mammals is now presented uncritically in many biology textbooks as an alleged "poster child" for macroevolution. Another new icon is "junk" DNA, with some textbooks claiming that noncoding DNA is functionless junk.


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, February 25, 2019

Christian Textbooks — Not Entirely

This post is courtesy of the "Through the Side Door" department. That is, I wanted to post this on Fazebook (which is linked to Twitter) "as is", but they were unable to validate the link. I already did that. No, I am not going to claim censorship or anything because that is not warranted.

Whether homeschooling or at Christian schools, parents and administrators who believe in biblical creation need to be careful of textbooks. Just because it has the name "Christian" is no guarantee of actual Christian content.
School Teacher by Jan Steen, 1668
Many Christian parents do not want their children attending the state-run indoctrination centers (often called "schools"), so they opt for alternatives. Those of us who reject evolution and millions of years because of both theology and science do not want to deprogram children and teach them the truth. After all, the government has control of them for several hours a day most of the year. Anti-creationists get furious when we undermine their indoctrination that is, in many cases, falsely called education.

Christian schools? Possibly, if they are affordable. Unfortunately, having Christian in the name does not guarantee Bible-believing content.

How about homeschooling? That is actually a very old method of instruction, but secularists keep a close watch on attendance and educational materials. Ironically, people who criticize homeschooling parents as "fundamentalists" (using it as an emotive epithet) often do not know what a fundamentalist really is. Also, homeschooling was popular with leftists before Christians began partaking; they wanted to fight The Establishment, man! Now those people are the establishment. (To borrow a line from Blue Öyster Cult, "I am the one you warned me of". Well, they are!) Also, fundamentalism has not been especially friendly to biblical creation!



So anyway. Christians must be careful about the textbooks they select. Sure, we can use secular books and then provide better information when the textbooks get highfalutin about origins and leftist ideas, but wouldn't it be better to simply use Christian textbooks? Not necessarily.  

Again, just because something has the word "Christian" on it is no guarantee that is good to use. Many publishers, music distributors, and so on are owned by secular companies. Not only do they want to make a few grotzits, but many support leftist and other anti-Christian causes. This is why you find formerly reliable Christian publishers releasing drek that needs to be analyzed and refuted by people who actually believe the Bible.
It is no secret that evolutionary teaching and the religion of naturalism run rampant in public education. The idea that life has been evolving on earth for millions of years is taught as fact from the earliest ages. Kindergarteners are taught that dinosaurs never lived with man, and high school biology courses teach that we evolved from single-celled organisms. What is the solution for parents who strongly disagree?

For many, the plan is to homeschool their kids from kindergarten through senior high and then send them to a Christian college.

Easy enough, right?

Not quite.

Christian parents have good intentions. Unfortunately, the reality is that Christian curricula and colleges that teach a literal 6-day creation around 6,000 years ago are the exception, not the norm.
To finish reading or to download the audio version, click on "Hidden Dangers of Christian Textbooks".



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, June 7, 2012

Removing Evolution from Textbooks: Good for the Seoul?

Hilarious! The Republic of Korea (also called South Korea) is correcting evolution in textbooks [1]. They are removing the same kinds of things that we point out that do not belong in American textbooks.

Fundamentalist evolutionists are having a hard time dealing with this development. Note the loaded terminology: "It appears that the United States is not the only country having a hard time accepting evolution" [2]. "Evolution Under Assault in South Korea’s Schools" [3]. "South Korea outlaws evolution: Publishers remove examples from school textbooks after protests from creationists" [4]. "...South Korea, where the anti-evolution sentiment seems to be winning its battle with mainstream science" [5].

Note not only the hysteria, but the loaded terminology and propping up evolution as a victim. Further, they commit the fallacy of equivocation [6] by elevating evolution (philosophical historical science, beliefs about the past) with actual, practical science. Here is a real winner:
Until now, says Dayk Jang, the scientific community has done little to combat the anti-evolution sentiment. “The biggest problem is that there are only 5–10 evolutionary scientists in the country who teach the theory of evolution in undergraduate and graduate schools,” he says. Having seen the fierce debates over evolution in the United States, he adds, some scientists also worry that engaging with creationists might give creationist views more credibility among the public [5].
That is something that I have encountered several times before: If we engage creationism and ID, we'll give it credibility. Some of maintain that if there is no credibility to creationism and ID, then let fly with the debates, publicly humiliate them and make us all go away. Actually, evolutionists and atheists decline scientific debates with creationists because they keep losing them! [7, 8] An excuse is that the evolutionists are scientists and the creationists are expert debaters, but that is dishonest because the creationists have other things to do than try to be full time debaters; many are full-fledged scientists doing real science stuff [9].

This may come as a shock to orthodox evolutionists, but most of us who are creationists and ID proponents are not interested in eradicating evolution from public schools! No, we want the evidence properly presented for both sides, strengths and weaknesses. Then people could learn to think scientifically, critically, and make their own decisions.

Evolutionists are not willing to relinquish their hold on education in the United States [10]. Deception is permissible in propaganda as long as evolutionism is accepted [11]. Perhaps their deception is why they consider creationists a threat [12] ?


Addendum: Did any of you see what I saw? The emotional tone (an "evolution is doomed!" tone) and the biased reporting in the articles made me suspicious. How much was being changed in the textbooks? Readers might get the impression that all evolution was being removed, but that is not the case. Dr. Georgia Purdom gives us some more information [13].


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, September 11, 2013

Bill Nye Almost Debates

Bill "I Play A Scientist On TV" Nye, poster boy for evolutionism propaganda, probably came as close to meeting the debate challenge from Answers In Genesis as he ever will. 



Nye has been badmouthing creation science, showing his lack of understanding of it, displaying ignorance of science itself (ironic, because he did observational science on television), creating straw man arguments about creationists and generally making a fool of himself — to thunderous applause from the bigoted Evo Sith.

A forum was aired on Al Jazeera America discussing the inclusions of criticism of evolution in Texas textbooks. Judging from Dr. Georgia Purdom's account, Bill Nye acted like a typical evolutionary ideologue who must protect "science" from scrutiny. He expressed his opinions, but they were without actual substance. Much like so many others who attack creation science.
Bill Nye the Science Guy and Kathy Miller from the Texas Freedom Foundation represented the evolution side, and Don McLeroy, former chairman of the Texas State Board of Education, and I represented the creation side. The topic to discuss was the possible inclusion in Texas textbooks of criticisms of evolution. Since Texas is one of the largest buyers of textbooks in the nation, their decisions impact textbooks offered by publishers for many other states as well. 
The hosts of the show The Stream were very gracious and fair. It’s not easy to keep four people on topic on such a heated issue. In fact, McLeroy informed me that according to his timing of the dialog, the creationists got 30 more seconds than the evolutionists! Overall I thought the conversation went well, and I was able to get most of the points in that I wanted to make. I thought I would highlight just a few things here that I thought were especially interesting and relevant (sorry, but the show was not archived on the Internet).
You can finish reading "Bill Nye, Texas, Al Jazeera, and Me", here.


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Thursday, October 22, 2020

Another Failed Darwin Theory Still Taught

Not only did Papa Darwin plagiarize other people and hijack Edward Blyth's idea of natural selection in his presentation of evolution, but he also tinkered with the formation of atolls, which was based in incomplete science. It is malarkey, but still taught to students.

Darwin's failed atoll formation theory is still in textbooks, along with other discredited ideas.
Palmyra Atoll, NOAA photo by Erin Looney
Secular science indoctrination centers (schools) are famous for providing false and outdated information regarding evidence for evolution and the age of the earth. Indeed, they use fraud. (This is "education".) We've covered Haeckel's drawings that are used to support both abortion and evolution already, and the Miller-Urey experiment has been thoroughly refuted. Darwin's ideas on atoll formation is known to be junk science, but that and the others are still in the textbooks. Maybe it's because it makes secularists feel good, and they need to make the books bigger?
Darwin investigated other questions than evolution, such as the nature of barnacles, pigeons and things, but they all attempted to promote views of long ages and the gradual accumulation of small changes. His theory on coral atolls has now been criticized as “fatally flawed” – i.e., dead. Schools, however, are still teaching this dead yet “deeply ingrained” theory.

Marine geologist and oceanographer André Droxler knows Charles Darwin’s theory about atolls is incorrect. But Droxler, who’s studied coral reefs for more than 40 years, understands why Darwin’s model persists in textbooks, university lecture halls, natural science museums and Wikipedia entries.

To read the rest, see "Darwin’s Flawed Atoll Theory Still Taught". You may also be interested in "Coral Reefs and the Young Earth".



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, February 27, 2016

Stromatoporoids and Oil?

It's one thing for the Darwinistas to argue among themselves about what happened when and what is responsible for evidence that is being examined. But they are not in agreement, despite what deep time and evolution proponents may say. It's bad enough that false science gets into the textbooks, but worse when textbooks don't get the story straight.


Not only do evolutionists contradict each other, but wrong stories get into the textbooks. Dr. Walker shows how the Genesis Flood model is the best explanation for oil reserves in Alberta, Canada.
Stromatoporoid reef in Alberta, Canada.
Image credit: Georgialh / Wikimedia Commons CC BY-SA 4.0
Stromatoporoids were creatures that were fond of building ocean reefs, and are considered to be closely related to sponges. A secular science book got it wrong when the owlhoot author wrote that stromatoporoids were responsible for the oil reserves in Alberta, Canada, millions of years ago. Yes, they were involved, but it's implied that they turned into oil. A better secular explanation has a few things right (inadvertently paralleling the creation science model), but the comparatively recent Genesis Flood is a far better explanation as to what went on back yonder.
Today’s feedback comes from J.H. of Canada who asked for help with evolutionary ideas in a book their children were reading.
In a book I was reading to my children about Alberta, Canada, it gave credit to the stromatoporoids for our oil wealth. There was a definite evolutionist agenda to the chapter, so I wondered if this was true. Their claim being:
Stromatoporoids lived in the water and grew by continually discharging a hard calcium based substance which formed huge reefs in the Bearpaw Sea that attracted other ancient sea creatures. When the seas disappeared the reefs were buried under rock. As ‘millions more’ years passed the weight and heat of the earth turned the remains of the reef creatures into oil.
Can you offer me a young earth explanation that I can give my children?
CMI geologist Tasman Walker responds:
To see Dr. Walker's response, click on "Stromatoporoids and the oil resources of Alberta, Canada", eh?



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, October 14, 2013

Don't Contaminate My Textbooks


Darwin's Cheerleaders are continually on patrol to protect their material from serious scrutiny. Ironically, they use all sorts of logical fallacies to do this. These include equivocating "evolution" with "science, saying that "Intelligent Design" is religion, and using emotionally-loaded terminology such as, "We don't want textbooks contaminated by creationism", or, "Ray Comfort's video is biblical porn". We had a troll at The Question Evolution Project use a fake name on a recently acquired account, telling us that creationists are stupid and dishonest. Uh, yeah...

What would happen if people were trained to think critically and honestly examine the evidence without evolutionary assumptions and presuppositions? They might see that "proofs" of evolution still fail, Haeckel's fraudulent drawings are still used, outdated and fraudulent materials are used in evolutionary indoctrination, lying to students for the purposes of evolutionary indoctrination is acceptable, that there are indeed peer-reviewed papers supporting Intelligent Design, that creationist scientists publish in journals and much more. Nope, can't have any facts that are contrary to evolutionism creeping into textbooks, can we?

No, it is much easier to malign the opposition and protect evolutionism from examination.
Some evolutionists see anything less than 100% pure Darwinism as a kind of contamination, like unpasteurized milk, a threat to public health.
Andy Coghlan wrote for New Scientist, “Texas Creationism Showdown May ‘Contaminate’ Textbook.”  It appears that the only changes proposed by the textbook committee are to “cast doubt on the scientific validity of evolution.”  Coghlan is worried, however, that a decision by the 15-member Texas State Board of Education “may contain creationist arguments.”  He did not provide any examples.
You can read the rest of "Creationism As 'Contamination'", here



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Sunday, June 30, 2013

Haeckel, Fraud, Deceit and Evolutionary Education

We have already shown that textbooks contain bad and even fraudulent material. Although the secret is out, it is still happening: Junk is still in textbooks (as you can see in the articles here). Worse, people like Eugenie Scott and others encourage "educators" to lie to their students. The end justifies the means, ja mein herr? One of the perpetually perpetrated propaganda pieces is the use of the Haeckel drawings that have been known to be fake for years.


Let's not let false similarities deceive us.
And yet, the topic is still controversial; not only is the subject a huge embarrassment to evolutionists, but some are still trying to defend the fraud! (One guy Tweeted to me that it didn't matter that the drawings were fake, they were still true — *facepalm*). While creationists may make mistakes, we do not resort to defending, rehabilitating and excusing outright fraud.

It would help curtail the embarrassment if they did not keep putting this nonsense in the textbooks!

I learned about the following article and video from a friend of the ministry. It is by E. van Niekerk, who has studied zoology and completed a degree in engineering.
For more than a century, one of the foremost bastions of Darwinian evolution has been that embryos of different animals pass through a similar stage in which they resemble one another very closely. Although embryologists had long known this to be false, a bomb exploded in 1997 when an embryologist actually published real photos of embryos, showing many more differences than previously thought. The embarrassment to the evolutionary community was severe. But now a historian has made a serious attempt to rehabilitate Haeckel by revising both the history and the science around his claims.
You can finish reading "Countering revisionism—part 1: Ernst Haeckel, fraud is proven", (Part 2 about Haeckel is here if you wish to see it now) and then see this video:
 


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, May 29, 2012

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 scraping the bottom the barrel. And now evolutionists are prescribing more scientific lies mandating evolutionary dogma. For a century evolution has corrupted science and science education alike, teaching a bizarre, upside-down version of the facts and suppressing the true science. Evolutionists have literally filled textbooks with unabashed lies that have left students without a clue about the real biology involved. And now they have just raised the ante, mandating the same old lies for the states to adopt “in whole, without alteration.”
Read the rest of "Evolutionists Now Formulating Teaching Standards That States Should Adopt 'In Whole, Without Alteration'", here.


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, January 20, 2012

Wilfull Ignorance Is Not Science

Time and again, I get hit with the plaintive bleating of fundamentalist evolutionists that, "All the facts support evolution", "Creation and Intelligent Design do not have facts", "There are no facts for creation" and similar nonsense. News flash: It is not a case of "my facts are better than your facts" because nobody owns the facts. A fact is a fact, evidence is evidence. It is the interpretation of the facts that are at issue. For that matter (brace yourselves now), goo-to-you macroevolution and creation are equally religious and equally scientific. They are both belief systems about the past, interpreted through science frameworks based on worldviews.


When evolutionists insist that "scientists start with the facts and follow where the evidence leads", they are either misled or dishonest; nobody is unbiased. That flies in the face of human nature, Nellie.
Phylogenetic Tree (modified)


However, evolutionists are so passionate about being "right", they are threatened by honest inquiries and disagreements about their interpretations of the evidence (such as "Question Evolution Day"). I do not know if actual scientists in the field resort to this behavior, but uninformed, undereducated troll-thugs will call someone a "liar" who dares to question the "fact" of evolution — especially the alleged proofs.


Many of these proofs are fundamentally flawed, with glaring, stupid mistakes as well as outright fraud [1, 2]; perhaps they use fakery because they do not have real evidence? Bad ideologies need bad "evidence" to support them, while true science is willing to examine the evidence.

If you had asked me during my years studying science at Berkeley whether or not I believed what I read in my science textbooks, I would have responded much as any of my fellow students: puzzled that such a question would be asked in the first place. One might find tiny errors, of course, typos and misprints. And science is always discovering new things. But I believed — took it as a given — that my science textbooks represented the best scientific knowledge available at that time.
It was only when I was finishing my Ph.D. in cell and development biology, however, that I noticed what at first I took to be a strange anomaly. The textbook I was using prominently featured drawings of vertebrate embryos — fish, chickens, humans, etc. — where similarities were presented as evidence for descent from a common ancestor. Indeed, the drawings did appear very similar. But I’d been studying embryos for some time, looking at them under a microscope. And I knew that the drawings were just plain wrong.
I re-checked all my other textbooks. They all had similar drawings, and they were all obviously wrong. Not only did they distort the embryos they pictured; they omitted earlier stages in which the embryos look very different from one another.
Dare to read the rest of "Survival of the Fakest" here, and download the PDF for a more colorful presentation.


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Friday, September 23, 2016

Interfering with Brain Cells

Not too long ago, it was reported that scientists learned of something unthinkable: white blood cells working in both the brain and the immune system. Now this. Ever hear of interferon gamma? It would make for a lousy name for a horse, sounding like something from a Transformers movie. Researchers have unbridled a long-standing belief about the immune system that involves interferon gamma, so textbooks will have to be rewritten.

Yet another surprise with brain cells doing work that was previously unknown. Darwinists try to give credit to evolution for having wisdom and foresight, and are also wondering how this molecule evolved. It didn't, it was put there by the Creator.
Image assembled from graphics at Clker clipart
Interferon gamma changes from a giant robot into a yellow Camaro — I mean, this molecule has a purpose that was previously unknown. Scientists did some genetic interfering and engineered mice without this molecule (a pretty impressive bit of work). Turns out that the molecule affects social interaction as well as the immune system. What do evolutionists do? Not only do they wonder how it evolved, but they gave evolution that puny god status again: it can make decisions and foresee the future! But wait, that's goes against the nature of evolution. Instead, what they discovered and are trying desperately to avoid admitting is that this shows the foresight and wisdom of the Creator.
Until 2015, anatomy textbooks generally taught that the human immune system doesn't penetrate brain tissue. But that same year, University of Virginia neuroscientist Jonathan Kipnis and his team discovered immune system cells working in the brain after all. They immediately wanted to know why. The team's 2016 research revealed an unexpected additional role for molecules historically known only to target invading cells. They then speculated on ways this dual-function molecule may have evolved.

Kipnis' group tracked the immune system molecule, called interferon gamma, in mouse brains. They found that immune system cells produce the interferon, which travels through the meninges—three membranes enclosing the brain and spinal cord—to directly interact with brain cells.
To read the rest, click on "New Dual-Function Brain Cell Found".



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, August 15, 2016

Evolutionists Find Early Man Troubling

Proponents of spores-to-spectroscopist evolution like to tell biblical creationists how wrong we are, and they cite "evidence" from textbooks and the popular press. Those of us who have ridden the trail for a spell have seen numerous occasions where new discoveries in human origins cause turmoil for the hands at the Darwin Ranch.

More discoveries regarding human origins are very troubling to evolutionists. In one case, they found out that they had just about everything dead wrong.
Modified from an image at Openclipart
Time and again, there are troubles in evolutionary dogma where we read, essentially, "This changes everything, and we have to rewrite the evolutionary timeline". Even so, outdated and even false material shows up in textbooks, on documentaries, and especially on Internet posts by Darwinistas. They wouldn't have this problem if they didn't cling to their rebellion against the Creator and keep concocting false origins fantasies. Some of the latest problems involve Homo naledi, Homo floresiensis, and a really disturbing bit of news on Homo sapiens in Borneo, where they had just about everything dead wrong. To read about these bothersome things, click on "More Early Man Troubles (Again)".

 

Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Tuesday, July 21, 2015

Does the Genesis Flood Explain Order in the Geologic Column?

The geologic column exists in many textbooks, but is not found in nature. It is presented in a nice, tidy order where simple life forms are at the bottom, with more complex evolving up to the top. However, the geologic column and index fossils are constructs of the imagination. Some owlhoots have trolled, "The geologic column proves evolution, and there are no fossils out of order". They don't know what they're talking about, there are fossils "out of order" according to evolutionary timelines. So, it exists, but not in the way microbes-to-mechanic evolution want us to think.


The geologic column exists in textbooks but not in reality. While there is a general order, many fossils are out of place. Can biblical creationists explain the geologic column more accurately than uniformitarian geologists? Yes.
Modified from an image from the US Geological Survey
Do biblical creation models do a better job of explaining what we find in the fossil record? That's a mite difficult. There is a general order to be had in the fossil record, and the Genesis Flood models explain a great deal. Yes, there are disagreements among Flood geologists as to the details — which is not much of a surprise, scientists disagree about details and put forward differing models all the time. More research is needed in this are, but the basics are agreed upon.
Order in the fossil record is one of the most popular arguments for evolution. If the fossil record has a consistent vertical order it’s claimed the fossil record reflects eons of evolution. Evolutionists also think it’s a powerful argument against the Bible and young-earth creationism. If most of the fossils formed catastrophically during Noah’s Flood, then that supposedly means that the Flood would produce a random order in the fossil record.

However, flood geologists have long rejected this caricature of Noah’s Flood as physically unrealistic. Even large catastrophes need not produce completely random patterns. Creationists have developed several explanations for that order in the context of Noah’s Flood.

In today’s correspondence, CMI’s Shaun Doyle explores some of these factors to show how they might forge an explanation of fossil order consistent with the Bible.
To read the rest, click on "Order in the fossil record — How can Noah’s Flood explain it?"
  


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, August 16, 2014

Makes a Compelling Case

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen



In yesterday's post, points were made that atheists and evolutionists blatantly misrepresent the biblical creationist position in their efforts to control education. They present evolution as indisputable scientific truth. One of the main problems with this is that people will simply accept such statements as accurate, and then expect creationists to defend positions that we do not hold.




Educators present only the good side of evolution, often including (sometimes from ignorance) outdated and inaccurate information from textbooks. Indeed, some textbooks also contain fraudulent material. Creation science and Intelligent Design materials are actively suppressed, and evolution is sometimes required to be presented with no contrary information. Add this indoctrination to the additional problems that people tend to "think" with their emotions, and that students are not taught to think critically. Then we have Darwinoid Drones arguing with creationists using bad information and worse logic, not even knowing what creationists teach!




There are many testimonies of people who did not know anything about creation science, and when they investigated the information for themselves, they realized that they had been misled. (Of course, there are others who will read creationist material and chant their mantra, "Creationists are liars", so there is little hope for their minds.) The majority seems to have little chance of learning or thinking, since they get the material presented in the biased evolutionary way.


I remember an old cartoon.

A big dumb hound dog that is hunting a fox so he can cut its tail off, so Bugs Bunny puts on a fox costume. Later, he's using an ink pad and rubber stamp to make fox tracks. We see the dog sniffing along and comes across the stamped tracks. He says, "Fox tracks!" and follows them, sniffing along. 
Suddenly the fox tracks stop and train tracks begin. The hound says, "Train tracks!", sniffing along again. He finds Bugs in the fox costume leaning against the entrance to a train tunnel, grabs and shakes him. "Daaaah, now I gotcha, ya little old fox! I'm gonna cut your tail off!" 
Bugs slaps the hound's hands away from him. "Just a minute there, Bub! Just what type o' tracks was you followin'? 
"Uh...uh...uh...train tracks!" 
"Now then. If yer followin' train tracks, you must be trying to catch a train. Right?" 
"Yahyuh, yahyuh, dat makes good sense!" 
"Then if it's a train you're after, he went thataway!", pointing into the tunnel. 
"He did?", the dog says. Then he shakes Bugs' hand. "Gee, thanks a lot, pal, thanks a lot!" He "catches" the train and is extremely pleased with himself.
(If the embed works below, you can see this cartoon. The bit I'm quoting starts at the four minute mark.)

My point with this fun stuff is that people will learn "evolution", then go try to cut off the creationist's tail, use bad reasoning and then think they've done something spectacular. Learning only the evolutionists' skewed and false views will give them an unrealistic sense of accomplishment when they attack creationists.


Many of us have similar experiences when someone is given one side of a story by a biased presenter, then learns that there is more to the story after all. For instance, the cultist "creationist" that I wrote about was railing about me, and someone simply accepted the cultist's account without bothering to see my side of the story:

Translation: Yahyuh, yahyuh, dat makes good sense!

Evolution "education" is biased indoctrination. That's right, I said it! They suppress contrary evidence, misrepresent opponents and even present false information. (The logical conclusion of their evolutionary "we're all just bundles of chemicals that happened by chance anyway", so almost anything goes.) The rest of us will strive to present the truth (I'm doing so from behind my unregistered assault keyboard), hoping and praying that people will examine the evidence that we present and realize that the things that seemed to make sense about evolution do not withstand scrutiny. God is the Creator, the evidence supports this conclusion, he makes the rules, we are accountable. And that is something the Evo Sith fear.


Merrie Melodies - Foxy by Proxy (1952) by Cartoonzof2006


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Saturday, July 19, 2014

Another Uniformitarian Geologic Icon Evaporates


Once again, secular scientists have used their presuppositions to force-fit information, then proceed to do a half-hearted job at explanations — then leave it. The explanation is accepted and then put into textbooks with a truckload of other semi-investigated findings. Later, some other scientists decide that something needs another look, and the whole thing needs to be retooled. Given the track record of evolution and old-earth devotees, bad information is likely to remain uncorrected in textbooks for many years, if ever.

In this case, the so-called Messinian salinity crisis. This involved having the Mediterranean Sea dry up repeatedly over millions of years, but the evidence does not support the claims. Also, the scientists partially left their own presuppositions to invoke the word "catastrophe", which was not well received by other uniformitarian geologists. Further investigation is warranted, and biblical creationists need to give this project serious examination as well.
Researchers on the deep-drilling ship Glomar Challenger made a startling discovery back in the early 1970s. They discovered that the Mediterranean Sea is underlain by a thick ‘evaporite’ below hundreds of metres of sediments or sedimentary rock. This ‘evaporite’ is around one kilometre thick and covers about 2.5 million km2, based on seismic data. In the middle of the deeper basins, it could be as thick as 1.5 to 1.8 km. This ‘evaporite’ is one of many examples of ‘saline giants’ that have long been a problem for uniformitarian geology because of the lack of a modern analogue. For a while, there was considerable controversy over the meaning of Mediterranean deposits, but Kenneth Hsü and colleagues concluded that the ‘evaporites’ were formed when the Mediterranean Sea dried up in the past. This is called the late Miocene Messinian salinity crisis. It is very well accepted by uniformitarian scientists today. Hsü has even bragged that future generations of school children will be taught the Messinian salinity crisis as gospel truth.
You can read the rest of this hard geologic truth by clicking on "The Messinian salinity crisis questioned".



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Monday, December 16, 2013

Evolution, Age of the Earth and Deceitful Education

Evolution requires an old earth. Most of the scientific evidence supports a *young* earth, but evolutionary propaganda ignores that. Worse, they put bad science in textbooks and deceive students.The good folks over at Creation Ministries International (easy to remember the site, creation.com)
have thousands of articles to help people see that microbes-to-microbiologist evolution is not supported by actual science. Actually, the science supports biblical creation. Regular readers know that it is one of my regular "go to" sites for information on these subjects.

It is vital that organizations like this exist, because the Evo Sith are doing their best to obfuscate the facts, "spin" their interpretations of observable evidence, and even resort to deceit. (This is natural for their worldview, since it is rooted in materialism, time, random chance and mutations; they have no consistent moral standard and fight evidence for the Creator.) Textbooks are inaccurate, and evolutionist organizations actually tell people what and how to teach, and to tell the students what to think and believe. Sorry, Skippy, that is not education, it is indoctrination.

The book Refuting Evolution by Dr. Jonathan Sarfati can be read online. It was written as a response to the indoctrination handbook Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science by the US National Academy of Sciences. But I want to focus on one particular aspect: The age of the earth. Proponents of the General Theory of Evolution require huge amounts of time, mistakenly believing that given enough time, anything can happen. So they ignore or excuse away all of the abundant evidence for a young earth and propagate the bad "science" used to establish their article of faith that the earth is very old.
For particles-to-people evolution to have occurred, the earth would need to be billions of years old. So Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science presents what it claims is evidence for vast time spans. This is graphically illustrated in a chart on pages 36–37: man’s existence is in such a tiny segment at the end of a 5-billion-year time-line that it has to be diagrammatically magnified twice to show up.
On the other hand, basing one’s ideas on the Bible gives a very different picture. The Bible states that man was made six days after creation, about 6,000 years ago. So a time-line of the world constructed on biblical data would have man almost at the beginning, not the end. If we took the same 15-inch (39 cm) time-line as does Teaching about Evolution to represent the biblical history of the earth, man would be about 1/1000 of a mm away from the beginning! Also, Christians, by definition, take the statements of Jesus Christ seriously. He said: ‘But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female’ (Mark 10:6), which would make sense with the proposed biblical time-line, but is diametrically opposed to the Teaching about Evolution time-line.
This chapter analyzes rock formation and dating methods in terms of what these two competing models would predict.
If you're willing to drop your uniformitarian presuppositions and learn something, take a look at "Refuting Evolution chapter 8: How old is the earth?" If you're a biblical creationist, this information should prove very useful when dealing with Darwin's Cheerleaders.



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, March 7, 2012

Retractions in Science

To continue with our bad science education focus, today's article will discuss how the number of retractions has escalated dramatically. As I said before, people want the grants and prestige with being the one to discover or make up a new theory, so they rush their work to market. This results in some retractions. But even so, bad "science" is still in the textbooks.
The number of retracted scientific papers has skyrocketed in the last decade. In 2010, two science editors started Retraction Watch, a blog dedicated to tracking science paper retractions. So far, the site has tracked about 200 papers.
Retractions can occur for different reasons. About 73 percent of retracted papers in 2010 had errors, either in the research methods used or in the writing, and about 27 percent contained fraud, according to a recent presentation on the blog.
But just because a retraction occurs doesn't mean that the flawed report goes away. Nature reported that 235 papers retracted between 1966 and 1996 were cited in 2,000 later studies, and only 8 percent of those acknowledged the retractions.
To read the rest of "More Transparency Needed in Science Textbooks, Museums", click here.



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, February 29, 2012

Lack of Morality in Evolution "Education"

When the cause is "right", then it does not matter how one goes about achieving a goal, yes? Misleading people, outright lying, shading the truth — those are acceptable, yes? For the most part, the philosophy of "the end justifies the means" is frowned upon. But apparently, indoctrination in evolutionism is an exception. In that case, go ahead and lie to students; they must be compelled to believe in evolution (and use the equivocation fallacy to refer to this philosophy about the past as "science") at all costs. Don't forget to leave the mistakes, frauds, errors and reclassifications in the textbooks! When these sidewinders lie, they are being consistent with their fundamentally flawed worldview.
There have been many examples of evolutionary falsehoods used to indoctrinate students into evolution. The list includes
  • Forged Haeckel embryo pictures, still used in many textbooks
  • Staged photos of peppered moths which wouldn’t even prove goo-to-you evolution anyway but merely the creationist-invented theory of natural selection.
  • Misleading analogies that cars and airplanes evolved when of course they were designed (Intelligent Design leader Phillip E. Johnson calls this ‘Berra’s Blunder’, and Ian Plimer committed this blunder too).
  • Claiming that creationists believe that God must have created cave fish as blind.
  • Insinuating that creationists deny natural selection and variation.
  • Piltdown Man, an obvious forgery not exposed for 40 years, and the peccary tooth dubbed ‘Nebraska man’
  • Archaeoraptor , the Piltdown Bird.

Teaching lies to kids is OK!

But at least one evolutionist is happy to use falsehood, as long as the end result is more students believing in evolution. An evolutionary True Believer and educator, one Bora Zivkovic, Online Community Manager at PLoS-ONE, proudly stated:
You can find out what was stated and read the rest by clicking on "Evolutionist: it’s OK to deceive students to believe evolution".



Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Wednesday, November 23, 2011

Cut Down the Fake "Tree of Life"

CreationWiki (modified)
You know that "tree of life" thing that is in all the school textbooks? You know, it shows everything branching out, tracing back to the alleged "common ancestor"? Darwin's tree of life was wrong. Well, some of us knew it all along, but evolutionists are finally admitting it. Oh, but getting the word to the textbook publishers? We'll see. It will probably be misleading information in textbooks for decades yet.
Charles Darwin drew his first "evolutionary tree" in his "B" notebook in 1837, with the words "I think" scrawled above it, to illustrate his idea that all of today's species arose from a single common ancestor. This concept lies at the heart of evolutionary thinking, and the tree-like images that often accompany its instruction have been effective indoctrination tools. 
However, if today's creatures evolved from some other creature millions or billions of years ago, then the Bible's history must be abandoned. This is because Scripture does not leave any room for eons of time. Where and why would one add "millions of years" to an account that consists of tight chronologies that lead back to a creation week in which "in six days the LORD made heaven and earth" (Exodus 20:11)? Second, Scripture consistently refers to living creatures as belonging to basic "kinds" or forms (Genesis 1:21, 24-25), not as having descended from totally different kinds. Either evolutionary history is correct, or biblical history is. There is no middle ground.
Read the rest of "Darwin's Withering Tree of Life" here.


Looking for a comment area?
You can start your own conversation by using the buttons below!

Labels