Where's the birth certificate

Free and Strong America

Monday, June 13, 2011

Evolutionists promoting 'junk science' in Texas


While the blind followers of Darwinian evolutionary theory claim to be on the side of 'Science', their actions seem to indicate otherwise. A recent analysis of textbooks offered for study in the curriculum of the state of Texas revealed the following, glaring errors. Evolution and Views informs us of the discredited instances of macroevolutionary 'support' being offered up as fact...




  • "Erroneous statements that the 1950s Miller-Urey origin of life experiment produced amino acids under conditions that accurately simulated the early earth.






  • Long-discredited claims that the appendix, tonsils, and other organs are non-functional "vestigial" organs left over from a blind evolutionary process. In fact, these organs are now recognized by scientists to serve important biological functions.





  • Fraudulent embryo drawings originating with nineteenth-century German racist Ernst Haeckel that are used to claim that vertebrate embryos are the same at the earliest stages of development (not true).





  • Some curricula claim that the prevalence of dark moths over light moths is due to moths naturally resting on tree trunks in the wild where they are eaten by birds, failing to report the empirical data questioning this claim.






  • Some curricula promote the Gal├ípagos finches as if they provide evidence for adaptive radiation, failing to mention that the finches are highly similar and can even interbreed.



And on it goes. When will the science-fetishists ever pause for a moment and consider the so-called evidence that they would have children learn? For a more complete explanation on why the Miller-Urey experiment was incomplete and did not work, just click here. In the meantime, I find it quite amusing that the evolutionists don't even bother to police themselves in the propogation of such embarrasing, junk science.

3 comments:

Justin Vacula said...

JD, you simply don't understand evolution.

"Erroneous statements that the 1950s Miller-Urey origin of life experiment produced amino acids under conditions that accurately simulated the early earth."

Abiogenesis and the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution. What are said innacurate statements, anyway? You link Lee Strobel as a source to discredit Miller-Urey. Are you kidding me?

"Long-discredited claims that the appendix, tonsils, and other organs are non-functional "vestigial" organs left over from a blind evolutionary process. In fact, these organs are now recognized by scientists to serve important biological functions."

You don't understand what vestigial means. It is not the case that vestigial organs have ZERO function, but rather that they have lost most of their function and/or don't serve their original purposes. Eyes or wings, for example, in insects that live only underground, are often vestigial organs because many of these insects navigate through other means and need not expend energy in use of eyes and wings.

"Fraudulent embryo drawings originating with nineteenth-century German racist Ernst Haeckel that are used to claim that vertebrate embryos are the same at the earliest stages of development (not true)."

Read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html

"Some curricula claim that the prevalence of dark moths over light moths is due to moths naturally resting on tree trunks in the wild where they are eaten by birds, failing to report the empirical data questioning this claim."

Read this: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601.html

"Some curricula promote the Galápagos finches as if they provide evidence for adaptive radiation, failing to mention that the finches are highly similar and can even interbreed."

Read this. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/finches.html

JD, in just about two minutes of using Google and very basic information, I've discredited your claims. Why don't you do some research before posting these things?

Evolution happened. Even if some things that scientists say happen to be wrong or faulty, this doesn't entail that evolution is false.

Justin Vacula said...

You also note that people are "blind followers" of evolution. This is nonsense. There is tremendous evidence supporting evolution.

JD Curtis said...

Abiogenesis and the origin of life has nothing to do with evolution

Then why is abiogenesis defined as the "creation or evolution of an organism from lifeless material, spontaneous generation"?

You don't understand what vestigial means. It is not the case that vestigial organs have ZERO function, but rather that they have lost most of their function and/or don't serve their original purposes.

"There was a very important logical error in the evolutionist claim regarding vestigial organs. As we have just seen, this claim was that the vestigial organs in living things were inherited from their ancestors. However, some of the alleged "vestigial" organs are not found in the species alleged to be the ancestors of human beings!" Link

Do you even know enough about this subject to tell me if this is true or not?

You didnt "discredit" anything. You merely pointed out that there is a counter viewpoint out there.

Is talkorigins.com the site described as..

"The Talk.Origins charter says that moderation will be used to block certain cross-posted messages. The justification for this policy was that readers of other newsgroups may not want to read evolution-related messages. The charter says that the moderation will cease after six months, unless there is a public vote to maintain the moderation. Contrary to this provision, the moderation has continued for over ten years with no vote."

Is this true J?