Biology Textbooks and Haekel

[RufusAtticus]

A thread requested by SherBear

Today @ 06:59 PM
SherBear:

My issue is with them being used in high school biology books as teaching they are correct.

Recapitulation is correct. Haekel's drawings just exagerate the similarities in the early stages. I suspect that there are two reasons why biology textbooks have used them: historical and monetary. They were some of the earliest comparative embryology drawings and they are old enough to be free. I suspect that the latter reason appeals to many publishers.

Makes you scratch your head why they ever got into ANY textbooks issued after that date, to be used as evolutionary teaching instructions ... not as examples of previous overzealousness or fraudulent presentations.

Well a good portion of K-12 textbook writers are not practicing scientists, they work for publishing companies. Tack on school boards and teachers that lack to expertice to tell the good textbook from the bad ones and you get errors propogated. It seems to me that creationists are turning a mountain into a molehill. Plenty of K-12 books use simplifications that turn out to be techniqually inaccurate when viewed at a higher level, such as newtonian mechanics. Whenever creationists stop conflating, evolution, abiogenesis, cosmology, and astronomy then maybe that can start complaining about other people's errors.

I did dig up one textbook that I kept for the pictures (we can cut them out for poster work). Biology, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich (teacher's edition), ISBN 0153607319, pg. 236 Figure 15-6 caption to graphic: "Similarities in the development of fish, chicken, and human embryos suggest an evolutionary relationship"... related text on same page: "Embryological Evidence Organisms in the early stages of development are called embryos. The sudy of comparative embryology, which compares embryos of different species, has found similarites that support the theory of evolution. Most biologists believe that these vertebrates share common genetic instructions for embryo development and, therefore, a common ancestor.

All of this is accurate. What is the problem?

You may have no objection to the actual text from an evolutionary standpoint, but as you can see, this textbook published 1986, pulled from the county's classroom 2001 (!!), alludes to the drawings as supporting the text ... not as proof of previous fraud.

Well, fifteen year-old biology textbooks should be pulled.

[Sher]

Today @ 07:47 PM
RufusAtticus:

A thread requested by SherBearThanks RA! I hope we can keep this civil. I am not interested in debating evolution v. creationism with you here, but rather continue our discussion re: textbooks with information considered erroneous by both sides of that debate.I suspect that there are two reasons why biology textbooks have used them: historical and monetary. They were some of the earliest comparative embryology drawings and they are old enough to be free. I suspect that the latter reason appeals to many publishers.Are you a parent? I am and this scares the heck out of me, to be honest. How are we raising the next generations? Can we really complain about ignorance of youth when we complacently sit by and allow these inaccuracies to continue?Well a good portion of K-12 textbook writers are not practicing scientists, they work for publishing companies. Tack on school boards and teachers that lack to expertice to tell the good textbook from the bad ones and you get errors propogated. It seems to me that creationists are turning a mountain into a molehill.You make some good points... until this generalization. I think that this, and other errors in other subjects, should be a concern to everyone. I would be equally upset, and believe others should be as well, if erroneous revisionist writings were presented in history textbooks as proof that the Holocaust never took place (have you READ some of those writings?). Or if stories like George Washington and the Cherry Tree were presented in high school literature as biography.Plenty of K-12 books use simplifications that turn out to be techniqually inaccurate when viewed at a higher level, such as newtonian mechanics. Whenever creationists stop conflating, evolution, abiogenesis, cosmology, and astronomy then maybe that can start complaining about other people's errors.Are you only interested in turning this into a C vs. E soapbox? If so, I will stop participation and you can continue with others. I am solely interested in speaking about the allowance of inaccuracies that everyone considers erroneous.All of this is accurate. What is the problem?If you will notice my next line, which you quoted, I said "You may have no objection to the actual text from an evolutionary standpoint", meaning that you might find the text correct ... but when used to support the erroneous drawings, evolutionists should be equally concerned.Well, fifteen year-old biology textbooks should be pulled. Agreed! That point, however, was secondary to the point that the drawings (actually graphics) were there in the first place ... nearly 80 years after it was proved they were fraudulent!

{grammar edit}

[Stratnerd]

RA,

Recapitulation is correct. I don't believe so. I have it in my mind that recapitulation is that derived species go through their ancestral ADULT stages (all of them) during development. What is supposed to be more accurate is VonBaer who noted that ontogeny is similar to phylogeny. That is, the more closely related the more similar the development.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 08:34 PM
SherBear:

Are you a parent? I am and this scares the heck out of me, to be honest. How are we raising the next generations? Can we really complain about ignorance of youth when we complacently sit by and allow these inaccuracies to continue?

I'm a scientist. I expect that in about five years I'll be lecturing to college students about biology. I TA'd introductory genetics last fall. The quality of students that our high schools are graduating is very important to me.

Are you only interested in turning this into a C vs. E soapbox? If so, I will stop participation and you can continue with others.

If you want to discuss improving biology education then that will be impossible to avoid. The reason why high school biology is so horrible is because in many areas, it avoids the "e-word" because teachers don't want to outrage parents who don't know any better. My wife's HS biology class spent less than a day on evolution and her teacher prefaced it by saying that "she didn't believe it." Freshman year in college she took an anthropology, actually learned what evolution was, and realized that there was no reason for her faith to conflict with it. She shouldn't have to have waited untile college to learn that. Although the nuiances of evolution can be quite complex, it is a rather simple and obvious concept.

I am solely interested in speaking about the allowance of inaccuracies that everyone considers erroneous.If you will notice my next line, which you quoted, I said "You may have no objection to the actual text from an evolutionary standpoint", meaning that you would find the text correct ... but when used to support the erroneous drawings, evolutionists should be equally concerned.

But as far as I can tell the text wasn't being used to support the drawings.

That point, however, was secondary to the point that the drawings (actually graphics) were there in the first place ... nearly 80 years after it was proved they were fraudulent!

If the only problem a textbook has is that it uses an embellished historical diagram, then we're doing pretty good. The Georgia State biology requirements are quite worse than that, such as confusing biology and cosmology.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 08:46 PM
Stratnerd:

I have it in my mind that recapitulation is that derived species go through their ancestral ADULT stages (all of them) during development.

That is strict recapitulation, which is false.

What is supposed to be more accurate is VonBaer who noted that ontogeny is similar to phylogeny. That is, the more closely related the more similar the development.

That is now what is refered to as recapitulation.

[Sher]

Today @ 09:01 PM
RufusAtticus:

I'm a scientist. I expect that in about five years I'll be lecturing to college students about biology. I TA'd introductory genetics last fall. The quality of students that our high schools are graduating is very important to me.This is another very good reason to be aware of, and attempt to change, the errors that exist in textbooks.If you want to discuss improving biology education then that will be impossible to avoid. The reason why high school biology is so horrible is because in many areas, it avoids the "e-word" because teachers don't want to outrage parents who don't know any better. My wife's HS biology class spent less than a day on evolution and her teacher prefaced it by saying that "she didn't believe it." Freshman year in college she took an anthropology, actually learned what evolution was, and realized that there was no reason for her faith to conflict with it. She shouldn't have to have waited untile college to learn that. Although the nuiances of evolution can be quite complex, it is a rather simple and obvious concept.I can understand, though not agree with, why you would feel this way. However, I think we have common ground in that we both appear to want removal of erroneous information. But as far as I can tell the text wasn't being used to support the drawings.I realize that sight unseen it is difficult to see my point. However, if you believe the text correctly represents what it is speaking about, but the graphic is of fradulent example, and they are linked to each other (see figure x), do you disagree that the text and the figure are being used to validate each other? At the very least, we can agree, I think, that the graphic itself shouldn't have been present, except in perhaps a historical sense with a caption and/or text that clearly showed it as such.If the only problem a textbook has is that it uses an embellished historical diagram, then we're doing pretty good.Granted that this is an older textbook(but the point is still valid as shown in my last post), but this wasn't the only error ... just one of the more glaring ones. The Georgia State biology requirements are quite worse than that, such as confusing biology and cosmology. I find that very sad. :no: This is one reason that people should be more active in voicing the need for changes. There are various groups already (there is a big math one whose name escapes me right now) that try to get these changes made, but it is slow, aggravating work because the schools appear to be statisfied with the current percentage levels of good v. erroneous, missing the point that no major errors should be acceptable.

Here is a personal example of something that we were involved in that greatly concerned me. We obtained a brand new language arts (literature, grammar, and writing combined) textbook set on eBay last year, published 2001. This book was so full of errors it was unusable. Now, keep in mind that my strengths are not in this field, but these errors couldn't be easily overlooked. I contacted the publisher on several occasions when the asst. editor seemed receptive to my commentaries, and continued to solicit my input. When they decided to update the textbook to a new edition, she sent me replacement books that were to have had those errors corrected (we corresponded via emails which she stated she was keeping to have the changes made). When we received the books, we found that only a very small percentage of the errors were corrected, and in fact, they had made changes to the book that ADDED more errors! :argh: When I contacted her again re: the new books, she glowed about the improvements regarding pictures with better colors and their newly designed cover ... and became quickly annoyed when I pointed out that most of the errors, and some new ones, were present. She promptly stopped responding to my emails. It made me want to :bonk: something.

[Socrates]

Even the idea of embryonic similarities, let alone the recapitulation lie, is based on forged embryonic pictures. What on earth is wrong with SherBear being concerned about this.? See also Embryonic Fraud Rediscovered (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1339.asp) for the textbook presentation v the reality.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 02:16 AM
Socrates:

Even the idea of embryonic similarities, let alone the recapitulation lie, is based on forged embryonic pictures. What on earth is wrong with SherBear being concerned about this? See also Embryonic Fraud Rediscovered (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1339.asp) for the textbook presentation v the reality.

Ah yes, more creationist lies.

Embryonic similarities and recapitulation are observeded facts. No amount of creationist handwaving or subterfuge can hide that. Socrates once claimed that creationists don't ignore data, yet here is a perfect example of them doing just that.

From a page SherBear has already linked to (http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Haeckel.html):

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/fish-embryo.jpeg
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/chick-embryo.jpeg
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/pig-embryo.jpeg
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/human-embryo.jpeg

http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/New-embryo-figure.gif

It is very obvious that prior evolutionary morphology is observable during development. Such as human tails, baleen whale teeth, pharyangeal arches, etc.

[RufusAtticus]

Yesterday @ 09:41 PM
SherBear:

I realize that sight unseen it is difficult to see my point. However, if you believe the text correctly represents what it is speaking about, but the graphic is of fradulent example, and they are linked to each other (see figure x), do you disagree that the text and the figure are being used to validate each other?

Form what you've posted here it appears more that the graphic is being used to provide simple visual support for the text.

At the very least, we can agree, I think, that the graphic itself shouldn't have been present, except in perhaps a historical sense with a caption and/or text that clearly showed it as such.

Yeap.

This is one reason that people should be more active in voicing the need for changes. There are various groups already (there is a big math one whose name escapes me right now) that try to get these changes made, but it is slow, aggravating work because the schools appear to be statisfied with the current percentage levels of good v. erroneous, missing the point that no major errors should be acceptable.

The problem is Texas and California. It doesn't matter what you do in your own state. Textbook publishers write to appease Texas and California state school boards since they are the largest markets. I know Texas causes a lot of problems since their textbook committee is more concerned about politics than education. For example, one historical revisionist is on the history textbook comittee because he is state republican party leader.

[Socrates]

Socrates:

Even the idea of embryonic similarities, let alone the recapitulation lie, is based on forged embryonic pictures. What on earth is wrong with SherBear being concerned about this? See also Embryonic Fraud Rediscovered (www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1339.asp) for the textbook presentation v the reality.

Rufus rants :rant:
Ah yes, more creationist lies.As if your evolutionary philosophy can justify truth telling anyway ...Embryonic similarities and recapitulation are observeded facts. No amount of creationist handwaving or subterfuge can hide that. Socrates once claimed that creationists don't ignore data, yet here is a perfect example of them doing just that.Look what's talking!! Some of the num
rous ex_mples oa embryo0ic deve.opment 4hich art contraty to the supposed evolutionary sequence are: the heart forms before the circulatory system, the teeth form before the tongue, and the whale embryo never has a four-legged phase.

It is very obvious that prior evolutionary morphology is observable during development.Nonsense. Even the very earliest stages are different, but then they converge in some cases on superficial similarity, then diverge again quickly. E.g. it is impossible to mistake a human for a dog by 40 days.
Such as human tails,The "tail" in the human embryo does not mean that we descended from tailed animals. In fact, the human embryo also has a post-anal gut. Does this mean that we descended from an animal with such a thing? It is important to remember that the needs of the developing embryo are as important as those of the adult. The "tail" develops first, ensuring that there is an adequate blood supply to the developing leg buds in the embryo. The "tail" forms the coccyx bone. This, again, is not a useless vestige of an evolutionary history. The coccyx is an important attachment for muscles required for our upright posture (and other muscles controlling the anus — no tail of a monkey has this function). Besides, without the coccyx one could not sit comfortably.
... baleen whale teeth,These teeth in the embryo function as guides to the correct formation of the massive jaws.
... pharyangeal arches, etc.I.e. throat arches. Big deal, but at least you're not lying by calling them "gill slits". The so-called "gill slits" are neither gills (they have nothing to do with respiration) nor slits (they are grooves, which serve as guides for developing blood vessels). They develop into completely different structures. There is a different developmental sequence in fish.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 05:16 AM
Socrates:

As if your evolutionary philosophy can justify truth telling anyway

Ah, yes more creationist lies. I have no "evolutionary philosophy." I do, however, have science.

Look what's talking!! Some of the numerous examples of embryonic development which are contrary to the supposed evolutionary sequence are: the heart forms before the circulatory system, the teeth form before the tongue, and the whale embryo never has a four-legged phase.

Did you find the instructions how to build that straw man on AiG too?

Nonsense. Even the very earliest stages are different, but then they converge in some cases on superficial similarity, then diverge again quickly. E.g. it is impossible to mistake a human for a dog by 40 days.

Why do "separate kinds" converge at all?

The "tail" in the human embryo does not mean that we descended from tailed animals.

Yet it makes much sence for God to have created a developmental pathway for a tailless creature that involves a tail. Right. . . .

In fact, the human embryo also has a post-anal gut. Does this mean that we descended from an animal with such a thing? It is important to remember that the needs of the developing embryo are as important as those of the adult. The "tail" develops first, ensuring that there is an adequate blood supply to the developing leg buds in the embryo.

So an omnipotent diety created human legs such that during their development they need to be nurished by a tail, which latter disappears. Right. . . . Why does omnipotent design look so much like it was constrained by prior history?

The "tail" forms the coccyx bone. This, again, is not a useless vestige of an evolutionary history.

That's right. It's a useful vestage of evolutionary history.

The coccyx is an important attachment for muscles required for our upright posture (and other muscles controlling the anus — no tail of a monkey has this function). Besides, without the coccyx one could not sit comfortably.

Of course this doesn't explain why the coccyx is not made of one bone, but rather is a series of fused vertebrae. Why does omnipotent design look so much like it was constrained by prior history?
http://www.coccyx.org/images/coccyx1.jpg http://www.coccyx.org/images/coccyx2.jpg

These teeth in the embryo function as guides to the correct formation of the massive jaws.

So what? Why do the jaws need teeth to guide them in the first place? Why does omnipotent design look so much like it was constrained by prior history?

I.e. throat arches. Big deal, but at least you're not lying by calling them "gill slits". The so-called "gill slits" are neither gills (they have nothing to do with respiration) nor slits (they are grooves, which serve as guides for developing blood vessels). They develop into completely different structures. There is a different developmental sequence in fish.

Well then explain why creations as distance as man and fish have similiar structures that develop into different structures latter on, while at the same time developing into similar structures like the thyroid gland.

Why does omnipotent design look so much like it was constrained by prior history?

[QED]

A question for you. My experience is that the word is out (in scientific and creationist circles, both) about the falsity of Haeckel's drawings, but that some people do not correctly identify Haeckel's illustrations. Some have the misconception that any comparative illustrations of embryos they run across in a text book are Haeckel's fraudulent diagrams. In this context...

I realize that sight unseen it is difficult to see my point. However, if you believe the text correctly represents what it is speaking about, but the graphic is of fradulent example, and they are linked to each other (see figure x), do you disagree that the text and the figure are being used to validate each other?

Are you certain that the illustration in figure x is Haeckel's? Or is it possibly from another source? If indeed it is from Haeckel, then this is an example of gross error in the textbook. I have kids, and find their textbooks full of avoidable errors. It is an indictment against the text-book selection process in the U.S. that we let so much bad information get into the textbooks. I know that more modern textbooks are finally replacing the Haeckel diagrams, but that doesn't excuse the mess.

[Socratism]

Yesterday @ 05:57 AM
RufusAtticus:
Why does omnipotent design look so much like it was constrained by prior history?

{snip]

Why does omnipotent design look so much like it was constrained by prior history?

[snip]

Why does omnipotent design look so much like it was constrained by prior history?

[snip]

Why does omnipotent design look so much like it was constrained by prior history?

"I will confound the wisdom of the wise" ---- God

This is a consistent theme throughout the Bible, all the way from the Garden up to and including Revelation.

According to the theory advanced by Walter Remine (Message Theory) the Creator designed life so that it would look like it came from a single source: Him. But such a design could be misinterpreted as due to common descent from a single original replicating molecule.

So He did two things to guide people's thinking: First He told them the truth directly in His Word and second He made a number of strategic design exceptions in lifeforms to guide those who believed in His message that the evolutionary theory was not true. This latter characteristic Remine calls "The Biotic Message". An interesting theory.

As to why God would want to destroy the wisdom of the wise I do not really know, except He does say He favors people who humble themselves toward Him and He hates pride. Of course this is only my own personal guess.

[Sher]

Today @ 07:15 AM
QED:

Are you certain that the illustration in figure x is Haeckel's? Or is it possibly from another source?I would assume it is from "another source" as it is graphically represented in color, instead of looking like these drawings in black and white: http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/Richardson1.gif They are Haeckel's, right?.

The graphic appears to me to be identical to each counterparts in the aforementioned picture, though, so I would answer that it is still Haeckel's work ... or his fradulent inspiration, if you will. What do you think? (again, granted this is the older book because I no longer have the others from when we moved... but again, why were they ever in there after 1909??) If indeed it is from Haeckel, then this is an example of gross error in the textbook. I have kids, and find their textbooks full of avoidable errors. It is an indictment against the text-book selection process in the U.S. that we let so much bad information get into the textbooks. I know that more modern textbooks are finally replacing the Haeckel diagrams, but that doesn't excuse the mess. Here or anywhere else. That is my whole point. Not just Haeckel, but all major errors should be removed!

The colored picture is a quick-scan from the textbook (pardon that it isn't very neat). If this works, I will also post the picture from above edited to show just the species that relate to the graphic so you can see them in comparison. (Let's see if this works)

[Sher]

Okay, that didn't work, so here is the second picture:

[Sher]

Now, compare those two to the pictures from that previous link (again edited to show just the fish, chicken, human since those match the textbook's examples) ... pardon the crude cut/paste graphic:

[Sher]

Today @ 10:23 AM
Socratism:


"I will confound the wisdom of the wise" ---- God

As to why God would want to destroy the wisdom of the wise I do not really know, except He does say He favors people who humble themselves toward Him and He hates pride. Of course this is only my own personal guess. Perhaps this is the reason:

"Your own mouth condemns you, and not I; yes, your own lips testify against you. Are you the first man who was born? Or were you made before the hills? Have you heard the counsel of God? Do you limit wisdom to yourself?" ('Job 15:6-8')

coupled with:

"A wise son heeds his father's instruction, but a scoffer does not listen to rebuke." (Prov 13:1)

I think it is because our wisdom is intended to come from God. When we do not listen to our Father's instructions (His word in the Scriptures), nor His rebuke, we are like the foolish scoffer and deserve to have our self-based wisdom confounded.

[QED]

Sherber - looks like your book has the real deal. It is a valid complaint.

[RufusAtticus]

Today @ 10:23 AM
Socratism:
"I will confound the wisdom of the wise" ---- God

This is a consistent theme throughout the Bible, all the way from the Garden up to and including Revelation.

See, this is one of the fundamental contradictions of creationists. They claim to know God's will, i.e. that they can see His handiwork in nature. That they can see the good design. However, when such things like balleen whales with fetal teeth are pointed out, they then say that God's will is unknowable, his design confounding. They can't have it both ways. God either is knowable or He isn't.

According to the theory advanced by Walter Remine (Message Theory) the Creator designed life so that it would look like it came from a single source: Him. But such a design could be misinterpreted as due to common descent from a single original replicating molecule.

Be careful listening to engineers talking about biology. On another note, would you say that the universe just looks old (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/sep01.html) too?

[tgamble]

[i][b]
According to the theory advanced by Walter Remine (Message Theory) the Creator designed life so that it would look like it came from a single source: Him.


Naturally, Remine's theory is without supporting evidence and is based solely on ignorance, speculation and blind faith.

[Socrates]

Socratism:

See, this is one of the fundamental contradictions of creationists. They claim to know God's will, i.e. that they can see His handiwork in nature.

More likely, God's will is revealed in the Bible. So where the Bible speaks clearly, e.g. Creation and the Flood, we can construct models to reflect that. God also reveals that the evidence from creation leaves people without excuse (Romans 1:20 ff.), so ReMine's thesis makes sense (tgamble's totally fact-free attack notwithstanding).

But where the Bible is silent, we are free to propose various explanations, but should be non-dogmatic.
That they can see the good design. However, when such things like balleen whales with fetal teeth are pointed out, they then say that God's will is unknowable, his design confounding.More likely, as they have for decades, pointed out that these teeth are guides to the development of the massive jaw.
They can't have it both ways. God either is knowable or He isn't.Of course you can, if God is knowable in some areas (because He's told us in Scripture!) but not in others. :doh: Learn some elementary logic :dufus:

According to the theory advanced by Walter Remine (Message Theory) the Creator designed life so that it would look like it came from a single source: Him. But such a design could be misinterpreted as due to common descent from a single original replicating molecule.

The first part is accurate, but not the second. ReMine is explicit that the patterns in life are designed to thwart such a materialistic explanation.
RA:
Be careful listening to engineers talking about biology.And beware of population geneticists talking outside their field too. But as always, evolutionists are allowed to pontificate on all manner of topics, including about the historical origins of YEC.
On another note, would you say that the universe just looks old too?Nope. See:
The earth: how old does it look?
Even many of those who believe that the earth is ‘young’ think that it looks ‘old’. But does it? (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v23n1_earth_how_old.asp)

[tgamble]

More likely, God's will is revealed in the Bible.

Or rather, what primitive people claimed was God's will based on opinions and ignorance.

So where the Bible speaks clearly, e.g. Creation and the Flood, we can construct models to reflect that.

Only if you ignore the evidence which creationists are forced to do. Geologists tried, they failed and realized there was no global flood.

God also reveals that the evidence from creation leaves people without excuse (Romans 1:20 ff.),

Merely the opinion of a bible writer. Since such evidence doesn't exist, the bible is once again wrong.

so ReMine's thesis makes sense (tgamble's totally fact-free attack notwithstanding).

ReMine's thesis is without any evidence. It's merely argument from ignorance and speculation.

Nope. See:
The earth: how old does it look?

ROTFL!

"The young man, a carpenter in his early twenties.... "

A CARPENTER?! ROTFL! Is that the best you can do?

"All we need do is remember that some of the greatest minds that ever lived, the fathers of modern science—Newton, for example—looked at the same earth that we look at today, and did not ‘see’ millions of years."

No reference for this is given but Newton wasn't a geologist! What AIG (naturally) don't tell you is that the the fathers of modern GEOLOGY were Christians!

Lies from AIG don't change the fact that the earth is 4.5 billion years old at least. It looks old because it is old. It looked old to Christian geologists 200 years ago.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/geohist.html

Let's see what sort of lies AIG uses to support the myth of a young earth.

1) The continents are eroding too quickly.

yup, that's lie #1
http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/1proofs2.html#15

Funny isn't it, they assume constant rates yet whine and moan and bitch about constant rates when it comes to radioactive decay!

2) There is not enough helium in the atmosphere.

Yup, that's lie #2
http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/1proofs2.html#14

3) Many fossils indicate that they must have formed quickly, and could not have taken long time-spans.

totally irrelevent.

4) Many processes, which we have been told take millions of years, do not need such time-spans at all.

Most likely false and also totally irrelevent.

5) The oceans are nowhere near salty enough.

Lie #3
http://www.geocities.com/kenthovind/1proofs2.html#24

So they offer nothing but lies and irrelevent (possibly false) claims to support the myth of a young earth! No surprise there!

Is there really evidence for a young earth?
http://www.gps.caltech.edu/~tisco/yeclaimsbeta.html

A Radiometric Dating Resource List
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/8851/radiometric.html

AIG can lie all they want about the earth not looking old. Other creationists disagree!

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/apprage.htm

"Real creation necessarily involves creation of 'apparent age'. Whatever is truly created--that is, called instantly into existence out of nothing--must certainly look as though it had been there prior to its creation. Thus it has an appearence of age." (Morris, 1972, p. 62)

"If God actually created anything at all, even the simplest atoms, those atoms or other creations would necessarily have an appearence of some age. There could be no genuine Creation of any kind, without an initial appearence of age inherent in it. And if God could create atomic stuff with an appearence of age--in other words, if God exists!--then there is no reason why He could not, in full conformity with His character of Truth, create a whole universe full-grown." (Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, 238).

"This is the "scientific evidence" that the creation "scientists" would like to have taught in a biology classroom--the universe isn't really old, it only LOOKS that way because that's the way God made it. Why does radio-decay give such old dates for the earth? "With each mineral containing a radioactive element, there were also at the original Creation all of the daughter elements in the decay series, including some of the final stable product." (Whitcomb and Morris, 1961, p. 345). Why do the bristlecone pines have so many tree rings? "Creation had to involve some superficial appearence of earth history. Trees were likely created with tree rings already in place." (ICR Impact, "Tree Rings and Biblical Chronology", June 1994) Why do we see light from stars that are billions of light years away? "This requirement is a very little thing to a Creator! . . . The 'light' bathing the earth on the first three days was created in space as en route from the innumerable 'light bearers' which were yet to be constituted on the fourth day . . . In fact, in view of God's power and purposes, it is by far the most reasonable, most efficient, and most gracious way He could have done it." (Morris, 1972, pp 61-62)"

There is simply no evidence to support a young earth. The earth looks old, it IS old. It's at least 4.5 billion years old. It's a fact.
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/geologic_column.htm

Edit request fulfilled -- profanity

[Socrates]

tgamble persists with his baseless smears, but rather than attacking AiG, he links to sites attacking Dr Dino and an old "light created in transit view" by Dr Morris which AiG explicitly rejects!

He also persists with this chronological snobbery and bigoted parochialism in his fact-free attacks on the Bible. And he shows his village-atheist level of philosophical sophistication with:
Funny isn't it, they assume constant rates yet whine and moan and bitch about constant rates when it comes to radioactive decay!Rather, creationists are showing that even the evolutionists own assumptions (uniformitarian rates) show that the Earth is far younger than they claim. Creationists are perfectly in order to fight their opponents with their own weapon -- reductio ad absurdum. Also it's a FACT that radioactive decay rates have been speeded up a billionfold in the lab!

Indeed the fathers of geology were Christians, like Steno and Woodward, and they believed in a global Flood! But the father of uniformitarianism was the deist Hutton, who simply made an ipse dixit that only processes seen happening today were admissible as explanations.

Soc, I edited out this portion of the quoted blurb because it is also being edited out of the original

[Sher]

Yesterday @ 12:16 PM
QED:

Sherbear - looks like your book has the real deal. It is a valid complaint. Yeah, I thought so too. I wish for the sake of this discussion I had kept the books from 2000/2001 that I had with the same type of pictures so I could support that it still goes on today. But alas, something had to give when we packed the moving van, and my over-abundance of textbooks had to be weeded out.

And before anyone comments, I also got rid of history, english, etc. textbooks; not just science :tongue:

[RufusAtticus]

SherBear,

I don't know how old your children are, but in High School we used Cambell's textbook, Biology (4ed). My university uses it in its intro biology class. I believe that it's on the sixth edition now and if anything you could use it to improve your own knowledge as needed.

[tgamble]

Today @ 02:27 AM here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=41139#post41139)
Socrates:

tgamble persists with his baseless smears, but rather than attacking AiG, he links to sites attacking Dr Dino and an old "light created in transit view" by Dr Morris which AiG explicitly rejects!


The links were NOT attacking Dr. Dino, they were refuting his young earth "proofs", many of which are the same junk AIG is useing.

Typically, you simply ignore the rebuttals and resort to your typical insults and nastiness.

He also persists with this chronological snobbery and bigoted parochialism in his fact-free attacks on the Bible.

More insults, lies and nastiness. Rather typical of you.

Rather, creationists are showing that even the evolutionists own assumptions (uniformitarian rates) show that the Earth is far younger than they claim.

And their claims are easilly shown to be false, baseless and based on false, unsupported assumptions.

The fact is, the earth is still 4.5 billion years old at least. Pity you can't tell the difference between geology and biology!

Creationists are perfectly in order to fight their opponents with their own weapon -- reductio ad absurdum. Also it's a FACT that radioactive decay rates have been speeded up a billionfold in the lab!


That's nice, But it doesn't effect redioactive dating.
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/woody_distortion_henke.htm

You'll ignore that of course. Prefering to attack John Stear with personal insults as if that changed reality!

Indeed the fathers of geology were Christians, like Steno and Woodward, and they believed in a global Flood!

The founders of modern geology were people like Sedgwick and Buckland and Hutton and Lyell.

Modern geology doesn't include myths like a global flood. A global flood never happened. There is no evidence to support one. There is overwhelming evidence showing that one is impossible!

[Sher]

Here's another from 1990 {which doesn't even appear to try to change his drawings, save to color them brownish) ... 81 years after it was shown to be fake, still in textbooks:

[Socrates]

Socrates:Look what's talking!! Some of the numerous examples of embryonic development which are contrary to the supposed evolutionary sequence are: the heart forms before the circulatory system, the teeth form before the tongue, and the whale embryo never has a four-legged phase.

Rufie rants :rant: (after previously accusing me of lying)Did you find the instructions how to build that straw man on AiG too?What's straw man about it. You claimed that recapitulation is a reality, so I provided many exceptions. So the idea of Haeckel's "Biogenetic Law" is just so much nonsense.

Nonsense. Even the very earliest stages are different, but then they converge in some cases on superficial similarity, then diverge again quickly. E.g. it is impossible to mistake a human for a dog by 40 days.

Why do "separate kinds" converge at all?I was using the word "converge" to refer to the Richardson photos, which are convergent only in a loose sense, since they are still very different.

More to the point, if common ancestry is a reality, then there should be a common genetic program controlling the development from a single cell. But the development is very different.

Feduccia used the different ontogeny of dinosaur and bird thumbs to argue against the dino-to-bird theory, and it was published in teh leading German science journal Naturwissen (Feduccia, A. and Nowicki, J., The hand of birds revealed by early ostrich embryos, Naturwissenschaften 89:391–393, 2002).

So AiG was right to use the same logic to show that mammals did not arise from amphibians in the article www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0822_ostrich_dino.asp

This is because the pentadactyl digit pattern develops in a completely different manner in amphibians and the other groups. To illustrate, the human embryo develops a thickening on the limb tip called the AER (apical ectodermal ridge), then programmed cell death (apoptosis) divides the AER into five regions that then develop into digits (fingers and toes). By contrast, in frogs, the digits grow outwards from buds as cells divide (see diagram, below, after Sadler, T.W., ed., Langman’s Medical Embryology, 7th Ed., Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, Maryland, USA, pp. 154–157, 1995; and Tyler, M.J., Australian Frogs: a natural history, Reed New Holland, Sydney, Australia, p. 80, 1999].).

The "tail" in the human embryo does not mean that we descended from tailed animals.

Yet it makes much sence for God to have created a developmental pathway for a tailless creature that involves a tail. Right. . . . Tail is a false superficial impression for the fact that the spine develops first before the legs bud out and enclose it. So it may LOOK like a tail but is really nothing of the sort.

In fact, the human embryo also has a post-anal gut. Does this mean that we descended from an animal with such a thing? It is important to remember that the needs of the developing embryo are as important as those of the adult. The "tail" develops first, ensuring that there is an adequate blood supply to the developing leg buds in the embryo.

So an omnipotent diety created human legs such that during their development they need to be nurished by a tail, which latter disappears. More likely, the so-called tail just develops first and is then developed. But RA's argument is specious -- he may as well complain that God created our cells so that they needed to be nourished by a respiratory/circulatory system. For goodness sake, it is good PLANNING to solve problems in advance.Right. . . . Why does omnipotent design look so much like it was constrained by prior history?Why does the fallible critic ask so many LEADING QUESTIONS?


The "tail" forms the coccyx bone. This, again, is not a useless vestige of an evolutionary history.

That's right. It's a useful vestage of evolutionary history.Another ipse dixit from someone who can't even spell.

The coccyx is an important attachment for muscles required for our upright posture (and other muscles controlling the anus — no tail of a monkey has this function). Besides, without the coccyx one could not sit comfortably.

Of course this doesn't explain why the coccyx is not made of one bone, but rather is a series of fused vertebrae. Why does omnipotent design look so much like it was constrained by prior history?If RA has the sligtest proof that it doesn't work well, then he should demonstrate it. Just because RA doesn't like the design or thinks it could have been done better is hardly any reason to complain about God's methods. Maybe he should design a better one himself, and the program to develop it from a single cell, then pathetically WHINGING about it.

These teeth in the embryo function as guides to the correct formation of the massive jaws.

So what? Why do the jaws need teeth to guide them in the first place?It WORKS perfectly well, so why complain about the method God used to make it work?

I.e. throat arches. Big deal, but at least you're not lying by calling them "gill slits". The so-called "gill slits" are neither gills (they have nothing to do with respiration) nor slits (they are grooves, which serve as guides for developing blood vessels). They develop into completely different structures. There is a different developmental sequence in fish.

Well then explain why creations as distance as man and fish have similiar structures that develop into different structures latter on, while at the same time developing into similar structures like the thyroid gland.Explain why you are so hung up about superficial similarities. Fact is, they work, so are compatible with a common designer.

[RufusAtticus]

Yesterday @ 11:47 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=45878#post45878)
Socrates:

What's straw man about it. You claimed that recapitulation is a reality, so I provided many exceptions. So the idea of Haeckel's "Biogenetic Law" is just so much nonsense.

The straw man is the Haeckel's Law is not the only form of recapitulation. Perhaps you should look up von Baer. What is known as recapitulation today is not Haeckel's recapitulation.

More to the point, if common ancestry is a reality, then there should be a common genetic program controlling the development from a single cell. But the development is very different.

And that is what we find. Ever hear of HOX genes?

So AiG was right to use the same logic to show that mammals did not arise from amphibians in the article www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0822_ostrich_dino.asp

Another strawman since no one claims that mammals arose from amphibians (Lissamphibia). (See the tree of life (http://tolweb.org/tree?group=Terrestrial_vertebrates&contgroup=Sarcopterygii).)

Tail is a false superficial impression for the fact that the spine develops first before the legs bud out and enclose it. So it may LOOK like a tail but is really nothing of the sort.

The legs do not bud out and enclose the fetal tail. The tail dies off by the process of apoptosis. See Sapunar et al. (2001) Ann Anat May;183(3):217-22 and Fallon & Simandl (1978) Am. Jour. Anat. 152 (1): 111-& 1978. Now explain why a tailless creature would develop an embryonic tail that latter regresses.

Another ipse dixit from someone who can't even spell.

Another ad hominem from someone who can't address the evidence. Your manurity shines through your spelling flame.

If RA has the sligtest proof that it doesn't work well, then he should demonstrate it. Just because RA doesn't like the design or thinks it could have been done better is hardly any reason to complain about God's methods. Maybe he should design a better one himself, and the program to develop it from a single cell, then pathetically WHINGING about it.

I notice that you missed my point in your haste to handwave around it. I never said that it doesn't work well. Under a sentient design hypothesis there is no reason to expect the coccyx to be produced by fusing the lower vertebrae, after our embryonic tail has regressed by apoptosis. In fact going through such developmental hoops many no sense under a sentient design hypothesis. If it is only a mussle attachment, why isn't it a solid piece of bone like the most of the rest of the pelvis?

On the other hand, evolution is a blind design process and must work within the confines of prior history. Thus vestiges such as the coccyx are what we expect.

It WORKS perfectly well, so why complain about the method God used to make it work?

Becuase no competent, omnipotent, sentient designer would do such a thing. Why would God design an animal that lacks teeth in such a way that it requires teeth for proper jaw formation. However, if ballen whales evolved from toothed ancestor, the evidence makes perfect sense.

Explain why you are so hung up about superficial similarities. Fact is, they work, so are compatible with a common designer.

1. They're not superficial.
2. No omnipotent designer should be limited to jury-rigged design.

Nequaquam nobis divinitus esse creatam
naturam mundi, quanta stat praedita culpa.

Lucretius, De Rerum Natururm II, 180

[SLPx]

03-18-2003 @ 10:16 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=38672#post38672)
Socrates:

Socrates:
and the whale embryo never has a four-legged phase.




False.

http://imiloa.wcc.hawaii.edu/krupp/BIOL101/present/lcture15/sld034.htm

[Socrates]

Socrates:
...and the whale embryo never has a four-legged phase.

SLPx simplistically declares:False.

http://imiloa.wcc.hawaii.edu/krupp/...re15/sld034.htmWhat, you call that a hind limb?? :rofl: That's the trouble -- evolutionists are so full of wishful thinking that any protrusion of bone is interpreted as a limb. See also The strange tale of the leg on the whale (http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/3316.asp). :bonk:

And my comment was in the context of disproving embryonic recapitulation. I said there is NO FOUR-LEGGED phase, and there isn't. The whale embryo simply does not develop into a four-legged mammal then reabsorb these legs.:read:

[SLPx]

Hello?

[TheFiveSolas]

SLPx,
The link you gave doesn't work. Can you check it?

[Dr.GH]

TheFiveSolas, use the link in SLPx's post rather than the one in Socrates'. Worked for me.