Evolution - Lies in the Textbooks

Lies in the textbooks - If you want to get straight into the science with loads of interesting info, then i suggest you jump straight to 15mins 15secs on this video. video.google.co.uk...

Did you know that the geological column was devised before carbon dating, rubidium dating or other methods used for dating rocks. Fossils were placed in time periods such as Cretaceous, Jurassic, Triassic etc. The dates of these time periods were just pulled out of thin air.

Eminent evolutionary scientists admit that there is no evidence for evolution in the fossil record - see quotes and other info in the video.

See how a boot, a hat and even a pickle in a jar have become petrified (stonelike) in days, months or years - not millions of years - just years. Wood can become petrified in days.
www.johnpratt.com...

See how kids are being lied to in an effort to perpetuate the myth of evolution.

I really don't get the debate over evolution. You can't prove or disprove it. I accept it as a theory. One of many.

I'd like to say thats wrong.
The dates are of course an estimation, but based on fact.

Imagine say, the delta of the River Nile. Sediment is being slowwwwwly deposited there, just as it has for the last few thousand years. Constantly the same, but not - just changing very slowly.
Anyways - within this sediment, every now and again, maybe a leaf, or a small creature, like a shellfish, will die and its body become encased in sediment.

The only way this sediment will turn into rock is through compaction over millions of years. Squashed, subjected to enormous pressures, heat, et al. Eventually it will become rock, deep within the earths crust.

Tectonic activity, and things related to densities of surrounding rock/landmass/ocean could mean that a few million years later the rock is back at the surface (this process is called uplift).
And if the right bit of rock becomes exposed to the elements, someone might find the fossil.

Obviously, we don't know how long that has taken. What we can look at though, is the rate at which sediment is being deposited today - and from the composition of this fossil we just found, we can have a good go at deciding the environment in which it was deposited.
Find a similar environment in existance today, look at the rate of deposition. Do a few sums, work out how much mass would need to be above it for the relevant compaction to work, then look how much rock is visible above and below the fossil - and how similar compositions are being deposited today and at what rate.

Then take your data, and trace back, very carefully, and you get a reasonable estimation at the age of the rock.
Fossil formation is something that takes a long time - very little, if any, organic material remains, it has instead been replaced by certain minerals contained within the sediment (that turns into the rock.. eventually).
Some of this is guesswork, but it doesnt take a genius to figure out that for a rock to get heavy enough to sink into the earth, then move to an area of denser material to allow for uplift to occur, then exposation of the rock and subsequent discovery of the fossil - it won't happen in less than 6,000 years, I promise you that.

Its impossible for a fossil to be formed in anything less than a few million years... and all this is the same reason for gaps in the fossil record - not all of them make it back up to the surface.


Read through that again, slowly. It makes sense. Its based on scientific fact (I can't be bothered finding sources - I learned it myself by slogging out a long, tedious geology course - and also have a basic understanding of physics, which helps) - but, of course, if you believe a 2000 year old book thats been fiddled constantly over the ages as opposed to reason and verifiable fact, then feel free.


EDIT TO ADD:
PS - Carbon dating can't tell you how old a rock is. It tells you how long since something died. However, if theres not enough carbon left for that to work, then other radioactive methods can be used - but on something completely fossilised, or mineralised if you prefer (as the original material has been replaced in the same structure by non-organic minerals), it is impossible, and you have to work back as described above, to figure out how old the rock could be.

[edit on 10/8/09 by selfisolated]

You scared me at first, I thought I'd made a thread and not remembering it !

I am glad more people see this grose lie,scam and coverup by the Powers that rules..

I say this here also, the evolutionists are hiding behins this 'we will find the missing link' deception, which ofcourse they will not find.

Simple reason for this; the link is in Iraq and near the river Tigris and in S.Africa etc..

Even the religions around the world reviels the 'link', it is only to be accepted as history and not religion...

AND THEN!!

Petrification and fossilisation are NOT the same thing.
I could go on and explain, but if your that stuck in religious fanaticism, then you're not going to listen anyway.

I won't waste my energy, look up the two words yourself.

It's not taught as fact hence why it's still called the theory of evolution.

Near enough everything they teach you at school is total bull. I know cos I'm a product of our educational system, been working a few years and I've barely had to use any of it.

Funny thing is, 'religious education' was the most boring, unwarranted, unprovable lesson out of all of em yet it was rammed down your throat.. much as still goes on now

Carbon-14 is a very flawed dating method. Scientists have a good idea of how much carbon-14 can be expected in normal living tissue TODAY, but have no way of knowing what a normal amount was, say, 5,000 years ago. There are many factors that can affect how much carbon-14 is found in organic material from different periods of time.

About 99% of the carbon found on Earth today is carbon-12, about 1% of it is carbon-13, and just a fraction of a percent is carbon-14. Carbon-14 is produced in the atmosphere by atomic radiiation from the sun. Has the atmosphere on Earth always been exactly as it is today? No, the Bible says that there was a firmament that separated the waters from the waters. The waters below the firmament was the water here on Earth, and the water above the firmament (sky) was in orbit around the Earth, which was a very effective shield against the suns atomic radiation, therefore there was VERY little if any carbon-14 being produced. Therefore, when scientists find fossils of an animal that lived before the flood of Noah and find almost no traces of carbon-14, due to it's half-life, make the assumption this fossil must be millions of years old because they assume it once contained as much carbon-14 as would be expected today.

If we put a fraction of an ounce of carbon-14 in a jar, and tell someone it originally contained half a pound, they would then believe the jar must have been there for millions of years.

reply to post by ItsallCrazy

---

The defintion of theory when it comes to science is a tad different than what most people think when it comes to the word theory...drop an apple from a height and the *theory* of gravity is in action.Point is...there has never been any evidence brought forward to refute the theory of evolution.Yet mountains upon mountains to support it.Does it mean it is fact? no...but it makes sense and all the evidence points towards it.The only thing in school i can think of that is whitewashed by the state is political history.

reply to post by Solomons

---

Ye I understand, don't get me wrong I know evidence does point in favour of evolution I was just making the point as the OP seems to believe evolution is being taught as a solid fact.

We don't get taught squat about politics over here at school I've had to pick that one up for myself. But as for the rest of my lessons.. R.E was total bull, as was english, geography was pointless as they only taught us about boring stuff like types of cloud. And then there was history... Suffice it to say they missed out quite a bit from the history lessons.

Did you know jews built the pyramids?

Has anyone watched the video 'Lies in the textbooks' that I posted (OP).

I am aware that evolution is only a theory, but what is taking place in schools regarding evolution is 'indoctrination', not education. Evolution may only be a theory, but when you hear many people talk about it, they do so in a manner that suggests they believe evolution is fact.

By the way, I'm not convinced that god exists or that god is responsible for the creation of everything. What I'm saying is that the video provides lots of evidence that the scientific data on which the theory of evolution is based is mainly lies and deception.

Fossils and their formation are covered in the video, so I'll remind people once again to take time to watch the video.

reply to post by BetweenMyths

---

call me a traditionalist, but teaching accepted scientific theory in science text books seems fairly reasonable to me,



EDIT: and i'm not even a fan of accepted scientific theory.

[edit on 10/8/09 by pieman]

[edit on 10/8/09 by pieman]

Yes. Kent Hovind has been roundly shown to be full of it. he has only his "faith" to sustain him, nand he rejects anything that is scientific if it conflicts with his "beliefs". I don't think the man has any credibility, and it's not just my opinion, there are plenty of others who have made videos refuting him point-by-point.



Please, not that same old canard, again.

Gravity is "onlya theory", electricity is "only a theory", etc, etc. It would be useful to, once again, research the word theory in the scientific context. It does NOT mean "guess"!!!



No! The teaching of religion, THAT is 'indoctrination'. Teaching a well-established concept that has been repeatedly demonstrated to be consistent IS education.



Because, evolution as a principle and a fact is indisputable. Its status as a "theory" simply means that it is not COMPLETELY described, in every aspect, down to the last detail. Probably never will be. Like the "theory" of star formation. Or plate tectonics.

They should teach both evolution and creation or teach none of them in school. That way their will be a choice at school.

reply to post by texastig

---

It's not about giving kids a choice, it's about teaching science and factual information.

The video that the OP published is complete BS. The formation of the Grand Canyon HAS NOTHING to do with Evolution. There is no reason to watch this video.

Also, Kent Hovind is currently serving 10 years over 58 federal counts.

[edit on 10-8-2009 by PieKeeper]

That's not entirely true. The effects of gravity can be measured and re-created over and over in any setting. Give a toddler a rock and tell him to drop it and gravity is demonstrated. The "what" of gravity is still debated: is it a particle...is it a wave...what are "gravitons" et al.

Its a bit disingenuous to list the theory of evolution with that of gravity as if they are even remotely similar.

Evolution is a theory of what may have happened over the course of 4.5 billion years. There are a feck all alot of "what"s to that one that have not been explained.
Adaption can be documented through years of observational science (btw, so can UFOs) but not recreated in a lab. Per my first example, a toddler cannot reproduce the effects of "evolution". We cannot point to a single (recent) undisputed evolutionary event. Scientists cannot recreate in a laboratory "life" spontaneously emerging from primordial soup because they can only guess as to the soup's ingredients. Using meteorites as the basis of the theory is still throwing darts when you are talking about what happened 4.5 billion years ago.

I'm fine with the theory of evolution as long as it doesn't prevent questions and investigations. Evolution has become the sacred cow of aetheists in the same way the resurrection has for Christians. Both should welcome questions regarding their beliefs, nothing should be left off the table. When you begin to rule out something because it seems improbable you are heading dangerously into the realm of dogma.

Science has no place for dogma. Understand who we are, what we came from, etc may help us develop medical treatments, etc. Therefore, it is wrong to shut the door on possibility by saying: well, this is our best most logical guess so lets base all future research on this.

No, no. Leave the door open, I say.

reply to post by A Fortiori

---

Not really.Christians seem to think abiogenesis and evolution are one in the same...which they are not.Most atheists i know just don't like a sound theory with no other evidence to refute it being perverted for ideological reasons.Evidence doesn't care what you believe,it simply is...and it all points towards evolution.

"Christian" encompasses a diverse group of individuals. Some Christians and Muslims, btw, believe the world was created 6,000 years ago. Some believe in evolution. Some in intelligent design,etc.

As aetheists don't believe in God, the Wholly Other, the Big Cheese, the Great Spirit, etc. they don't believe in creationism or intelligent design. They have in their heads only one "choice". In all my travels I've yet to meet an aetheist that said the jury's still out on evolution.

I'm not for limiting choice, I'm for asking questions.

Second, some of us are older *cough cough* and remember when abiogenesis was stuffed under the aegis of "evolutionary theory" as it was the "first step" in how everything got it's start.

Third, I agree. Evidence does not care what you believe. It just is. However, I could go in a room and mess it the hell up and leave ten minutes later and there is tons of evidence that I was in the room. If I did this 4.5 billion years ago there is not a lot of evidence remaining, so speculation must occur. Did one person mess up the room? Did two people? Maybe the room was already messy and the person did nothing in the room? Was the mess there and the room fall on top of it?

There are many types of research (observational, experimentation, metrics and measurement, computer generation, etc). You are still talking about figuring out a highly complex, mind-bendingly ancient series of events and telling us not just that it happened, but how, why, and what else.

All I am saying is that this is not like gravity. The origins of life deserve more investigation than we've given before we even think to compare it. Saying: this is probably "it" limits investigation.

In my opinion.

reply to post by A Fortiori

---

Its not about 'choice' its about evidence, there is absolutely nothing to support creationism.
Just because you want to ask questions and have an open mind does not mean you have to believe every idiotic hypothesis out there.

Perhaps I was not clear enough. People make choices and reverse engineer theirs to fit. If you believe there is no God then the statistics involved in both abiogensis and evolution become singular acts of random chance building upon each other in near perfection given the time frame into a "un-supernatural" order. If you believe in God then you believe that this order was driven by a willful act and organized. Both teams retrofit their argument.

You talk evidence? It took millions of dollars and the best and brightest minds purposefully arranging elements in a laboratory to form one single semi-spontaneous protein and conclude that this must be what happened 4.5 billion years ago. Not ten thousand, not one hundred thousand, but four billion five hundred million years ago. Considering the time frame, the statistics involved, all the new information about what is matter... it's still just a guess with supporting evidence that it could have happened that way.

I am not arguing for creationism. My original point which no one is even acknowledging is that this subject matter is not at all like demonstrating gravity.

It is not still occurring in a measurable, observable way. It is not exact yet. There's like what 5 or 6 "ingredients" of this theory that they are still conjecturing even the "how" of recreation attempts? Something like that, I forget.

Gravity can be measured, it can be observed, it can used to support other formulas. What we don't know (is it a wave? what are gravitons?) is insignificant to what we do know.

So, no, it is not at all like evolution. You should at least be as honest as the scientists studying it and admit there is still a lot of work to be done.

Anyway...

OH! Yeah. You say there is no evidence to support creationism. You say it so matter of factly that I do wonder if you realize that this is also an emotional issue to many. Many people feel they have touched the divine and have evidence of it, so your saying it over and over and over again is like, well, someone speaking of your mother disparagingly.

Yes, its an open forum and yes we're all big boys and girls, but still...be gentle.

reply to post by Gdc934

---

Scientists don't use carbon-dating to date, say, Dinosaurs. They use other types of radiometric dating, and date the rock strata that the fossil is found in.

Potassium-40 has a half-life of 1.3 Billion years. Uranium-235 has a half-life of 700 million years.