Evolution - Lies in the Textbooks

reply to post by A Fortiori


I don't think proteins spontaneously appeared in the Primordial Ooze. Your comparison to the laboratory experiment isn't comparable. There's a good video on YT, about a plausible way abiogenisis is posited, and all it takes is simple, basic chemisty (and time, of course).

This is not science that is my area, so I have to trust the video maker, but perhaps,, if it's wrong, there are smart people here at ATS who will point out any mistakes??

Originally posted by selfisolated
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.

AND THEN!! He never said they were the same thing and yes carbon dating is calibrated to satisfy the time it would take for evolution's small gradual changes so to accomodate the paradigm we have now we assume evolution is true just like they do when explaining how the human eye came about as if that is the way it really did.

Do they know that for a fact?

Nope and that's why they call it the "fact of evolution" hearing it enough times one begins to even believe in such sillyness.

The OP is correct, they have an aweful lot of garbage in todays biology text books that is just plane rubbish yet they keep saying its all part of the mountain of evidence. Nothing about that theory regarding molecules to man evolution makes sense.

From the very start that theory gets off to a very un-scientific start by a guy whose only degree was in theology but for some reason many men of science take biology so they can talk as an expert about religion. Just look at Richard Dawkins.

Chapter IV of the Origin, entitled "Natural Selection; or the Survival of the Fittest," occupies 44 pages in the 1958 Mentor edition. In this chapter Darwin used the language of speculation, imagination, and assumption at least 187 times. For example, pages 118 and 119 contain the following phrases: "may have been," "is supposed to," "perhaps," "If we suppose," "may still be," "we have only to suppose," "as I believe," "it is probable," "I have assumed," "are supposed," "will generally tend," "may," "will generally tend," "If," "If...assumed," "supposed," "supposed," "probably," "It seems, therefore, extremely probable," "and "We may suppose." Is this really the language of science? No, it is not.

They still use haekels fraudulent embryos and his was a case of PROVEN fraud by his own admission.

The Evolution Definition Shell Game
Fred Williams
October 2000

The term evolution often takes on several meanings in today's scientific circles, often in very misleading ways. A 1999 undergraduate college textbook on Biology states: "Evolution is a generation-to-generation change in a population's frequencies of alleles or genotypes. Because such a change in a gene pool is evolution on the smallest scale, it is referred to more specifically as microevolution"1 [emphasis in original]. This type of "evolution" is widely accepted by evolutionists and creationists alike and is not in dispute. It really amounts to minor genetic variation that may result from selective breeding such as found in the different varieties of dogs, or from placing stress on a population resulting in adaptation to an environment (i.e. the peppered moth in England, or drug-resistant bacteria). Microevolution is a misnomer, since it is not evolution as most people understand the word, but instead is adaptation and variation within a kind of organism - lizards are still lizards, dogs are still dogs, and peppered moths are still peppered moths! Evolutionists invariably appeal to this kind of "evolution" as "proof" for their theory.

The same college biology book later defines macroevolution as the origin of new taxonomic groups, from species to families to kingdoms2. The problem with this definition is that it encompasses both large-scale change, such as invertebrates evolving to vertebrates (which creationists dispute), and small-scale change that results in speciation (which creationists do not dispute). Indeed a new species can easily arise by simple geographical isolation of segments of a population (called allopatric speciation). For example, there are six species of North American jackrabbits, all of which lost the ability to interbreed due to changed mating habits caused by geographic separation. Thus the term macroevolution is misleading by its inclusion of microevolution, a confusion confirmed by the very biology book that defined it, since the book later attributes speciation to microevolution on isolated populations!3

Finally, there is large-scale evolution that may be referred to as molecules-to-man evolution, a theory that organisms over a long period of time have evolved into more complex organisms through the improvement or addition of new organs and bodily structures. This is how the word evolution is generally understood by the public. In fact it was defined this way for many years until evolutionists began evolving the word!4

Molecules-to-man evolution is the type of evolution that my web site seeks to portray as a "fairy tale for grownups". It is unobservable, untestable, and has little, if any, evidence to support it. At best it should be labeled a low-grade hypothesis. Unfortunately, evolutionists continue to invoke microevolution and speciation as "evidence" that large-scale, molecules-to-man evolution is true. This is an invalid extrapolation, and is very misleading to the public. It is apparent that due to the lack of any real, tangible evidence for large-scale evolution, evolutionists have sought to create the illusion that evolution is true by reshaping and blurring the meaning of the word evolution.

[edit on 14-8-2009 by Ultradyne]

I'm a recent Christian...
I like to think so, and Kent Hovind does have a lot of great theories.

His problem is that he tries to prove EVERYTHING and gets some stuff wrong, or well. I dont agree with. Anyways...


I always wondered...
You have a tiger and a house cat, both Feline Kind.
You have a hyena and a poodle, both Canine Kind.

Why can't you have Human and Amp, both Man Kind?


^^ Please help me answer this.

reply to post by CanadianDream420


What is an Amp?

Originally posted by PieKeeper
reply to post by CanadianDream420

 

What is an Amp?

Ape lol

reply to post by CanadianDream420


I dont understand what you mean...humans are a great ape.We along with gorrillas,chimps,orangutans etc all share a common ancestor.Kind of like the common ancestor being a tree trunk and all the branches are where we went our seperate ways,humans being one of the branches and closest branch to us are chimpanzees.

reply to post by CanadianDream420


The problem with your question is it over-simplifies taxonomic ranks and classifications in biology.

For instance, 'feline' is a Genus, in a 'Family' --- the specific 'tiger' or 'housecat' refers to a species. Those two examples don't interbreed.

Humans and apes are very far removed from each other, we diverged a long time ago.

We can both be considered 'hominids', I suppose. BUT, they are "Simian", we are "Human".

People seem to want all of this in a neat box, like chocolates sorted in rows, it isn't that neat nor pretty. Every Class - Order - Family - Genus - Species evolves differently, different rates, results, environmental pressures...there are sub- categories, and it takes an entire discipline and lofetime of learing to have a full understanding of the complexities.

What I've just written was after a brief perusal at Wiki...thanks, because that's how I help myself learn.

Originally posted by Solomons
reply to post by CanadianDream420

 

I dont understand what you mean...humans are a great ape.We along with gorrillas,chimps,orangutans etc all share a common ancestor.Kind of like the common ancestor being a tree trunk and all the branches are where we went our seperate ways,humans being one of the branches and closest branch to us are chimpanzees.

I don't think we were ever apes.
How does one split into 10 different types of monkeys over time, if they cannot cross breed? and why are they still here?


[edit on 15-8-2009 by CanadianDream420]

I saw that too, a better text site ir oorparts. it is a something to think about, there are many instances of human and dinasouar tarcks and also picytures of them pauiinted omn p[ottery of american indian civilizations maya pre azteca, they never mentioned this in threee anthro claseses i took.

Originally posted by texastig

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

I used to think so too, the reason for which is one that Creationists like to perpetuate, its the myth that Evolution puts forth a theory of creation or origin of life in general (bio-genesis). Evolution typically doesn't postulate on how life came into existence although both bio-genesis and evolution may be lumped together in some text-books (a big mistake IMO). Evolution doesn't attempt to explain where LIFE came from it attempts to explain how life became so diverse.

Perhaps there should be a section in text books called "Varying Theories on the Origins of Life" that presents interference by a higher power, panspermia and the typical mainstream abiogenesis "life by accident" theory or perhaps they should be separated into an elective course more associated with philosophy then science...

Yes yes, evolution is a lie. That is why the entire world of science has accepted it basically as a fact, and why all of the predictions based on evolution from 100 years ago all came true, and why the science of genetics has confirmed natural selection, essentially.

I don't believe in evolution, I know it is a fact.

Originally posted by CanadianDream420
I don't think we were ever apes.

You don't understand. We ARE apes. Along with chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and bonobos.


[edit on 19-8-2009 by PieKeeper]

I hated scientific textbooks when I was at school...a long time ago.

I mean honestly these scientists and their changing facts, why can't they stick one story and defend it against all evidence to the contrary ?

After all I was taught there were nine planets...wrong..

Also how many continents are there ? 5, 6, 7 ?

I was also taught many other things that have since evolved (pun intended)

So once again..enough with theories and ongoing research, pick a story and stick with it.

(no I'm not serious)

Originally posted by CanadianDream420

Originally posted by Solomons
reply to post by CanadianDream420

 

I dont understand what you mean...humans are a great ape.We along with gorrillas,chimps,orangutans etc all share a common ancestor.Kind of like the common ancestor being a tree trunk and all the branches are where we went our seperate ways,humans being one of the branches and closest branch to us are chimpanzees.

I don't think we were ever apes.
How does one split into 10 different types of monkeys over time, if they cannot cross breed? and why are they still here?


[edit on 15-8-2009 by CanadianDream420]

uh we didn't descend from modern apes, we came from a common ancestor about 4 million years ago.
why do you get the idea that there were 10 types of monkeys? or that somehow makes the fact that we are related to them invalid if the species of apes can't crossbreed?
we could with chimps about 1.2 million years ago, or a bit later, this wasn't modern man of course, modern man didn't exist till about 250 thousand years ago.

plus there is serious thought that as closely related to chimps as we are, maybe they should be reclassified as members of homo genus along with humans.

Wow, I came on here expecting to find a serious discussion about the real fossil evidence being manipulated (Archaeopteryx being a case in point) and all I see is propaganda in the OP.

I'm disappointed now

Originally posted by ShiningSabrewolf
Wow, I came on here expecting to find a serious discussion about the real fossil evidence being manipulated (Archaeopteryx being a case in point) and all I see is propaganda in the OP.

I'm disappointed now

but every claim made against archeopteryx has turned out to be false or a failure of the accuser of understanding paleontology

Archaeoraptor was a fraud, but it was never really accepted by scientists, even before anyone outside academia knew about it(blame the media for wanting something to write about)
but no archaeopteryx has never been thought of as a fake or hoax by people who know anything about fossils. the only people attacking it were not paleontologists

reply to post by demongoat


Ah, whoops, must've got those two mixed up there.

Now I'm embarrassed XD

Originally posted by ShiningSabrewolf
reply to post by demongoat

 

Ah, whoops, must've got those two mixed up there.

Now I'm embarrassed XD

no worries
as long as theres no, "this proves science is useless, since its a fraud!!" like the same silliness with piltdown man

This process of petrifying is not to be confused with petrification wherein the constituent molecules of the original object are replaced (and not merely overlaid) with molecules of stone or mineral

link

So much fun to watch christians try to tackle science subjects.

Darwin has been debunked over and over and over.

This guy's claims will never go away though. It's all

the atheists have for a defense.



Dna, in all of its complexity, puts evolution in the ground.

And Science actually proves this. Check out the complexity involving dna.

Darwin didn't have access to this info when he was out and about - or he

never would have caused such a stir.



God made you, me, us - everything around us.

I.e. If the big bang is true, who lit the fuse?



[edit on 29-8-2009 by nomorecruelty]