Textbook...Innaccuracies

Discussion in 'Science and Technology' started by Hobbit, Jun 26, 2006.

  1. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    Looking back at what I know today and have read in many a scientific article, I have become baffled as to how much baffoonery is present in modern day biology textbooks. It seems as though the authors of such books are willing to believe anything that sounds interesting. Here's just a few examples.

    Embryonic drawings - I'm sure you've all seen them. We're talking about the side by side drawings of humans, fish, and pigs at various embryonic states. The further back you go, the more similar they look. This is somehow supposed to prove evolution. The problem is that it's a fraud. The guy who originally drew those, a Dr. Ernst Haekel, manipulated the images to make them look the way he wanted them to look. Since then, we have been able to get crystal clear photographs of the very same species of embryos he drew. These extremely little resemblence between a human and pig embryo and none at all between humans and fish past the zygote stage. These drawings are still in textbooks.

    The Piltdown Man - This skull, untested and unexamined, remained on display for 50 years as the missing link while its finder basked in fame and fortune. First off, it's kinda suspicious that it's only one skull and was found in some guy's backyard in Sussex. Also suspicious is the fact that it looked a little too much like projected images of the missing link. In 1953, a couple of scientists decided to try to date the fossils. It turns out that the skull fragment was only 600 years old that the jawbone was simply an orangutan jaw that had had its teeth filed down to look more human. It was also treated with some chemical to make it look older. The Piltdown Man is still featured in a few biology texts. None of them point out that it was a huge fraud.

    Peppered Moths - I'm sure you've all heard of this one, the famous peppered moth story. According to Darwinists, the peppered moth of England evolved a darker color to better blend in with the soot-covered tree trunks resulting from industrial age coal burning factories. There's even a picture of the 'inferior' white moth beside the nearly invisible 'evolved' moth against a tree trunk. First off, this proves nothing. I can change color in an afternoon. Africans are black because of the intense sunlight. Nobody's growing extra hands or complex organs here. However, yhis, too, was nothing more than a fraud. After standing unchallenged for 50 years, a prominent lepidopterist (entomologist specializing in moths, butterflies, and similar insects) by the name of Ted Sargent, along with many of his collegues, pointed out that even the scientists gathering the data for the study never saw any peppered moths on tree trunks during the daytime, when predatory birds abound. In fact, they were attracting the animals with pheramones and hardly saw any at all during the day. They couldn't figure out where they went. Sargent knew, though. Peppered moths, like most other moths, rest on the underside of branches during the day and only emerge at night. He also pointed out that the famous still photographs of moths on trees were staged, and that it was clear under scrutiny that dead moths had been glued to the tree. While his arguments were never countered, he was dismissed by Darwinists as a fraud and a nutcase, was chastised by their whole cabal, and was demonized as some sort of religious fanatic. The peppered moth 'proof' of evolution, including the laughably fake pictures, is still found in most new biology textbooks.

    The Tongue Map - All of you remember that thing. It's that diagram that shows how the tip of your tongue is for sweet, the back for bitter, and the sides for salty and sour. Tell me, do you honestly believe this? Put a grain of salt on your tongue and tell me you don't taste it. It originated in a theoretical drawing in the early 1900s and has been a staple belief among the makes of expensive French wine glass makes for decades, but there's no scientific basis for it, whatsoever. This may still be in EVERY biology textbook I've ever seen, but it's hard for a drawing to counter what I observe with my very own tongue. I can tell you with a certainty that I don't just taste coffee on the back of my tongue.

    The Miller-Urey experiment - In the 1950s, a couple of Darwinists, Doctors Miller and Urey, decided to do an experiment involving the creation of life from the primordial soup. They mixed some of the stuff up in a jar with an atmosphere consistent with what Earth's early atmosphere was believed to be, which is similar to Jupiter's. They zapped it with an electric jolt, and BAM, they had some (very) simple amino acids. Problem number one: Scientists were unable to expand on the experiment. Despite years of trying, nobody could coax these amino acids into proteins, much less into a DNA strand. I doubt they would ever have succeeded, but they quit trying because of...Problem number two: Earth's early atmosphere was not like Jupiter's. New archeological data shows that Earth's early atmosphere was full of CO2 and nitrogen, not methane. Such an atmosphere makes the spontaneous generation of amino acids chemically impossible. The Miller-Urey experiment is still cited as support for creation from the primordial soup in most biology textbooks.

    Computer simulation of the evolving eye - In a book by Richard Dawkins, Dawkins shrugs off the counter-evolutionary example of the eye by citing, sort of, a computer simulation he saw of exactly how an eye would evolve. First off, so what? I own a computer simulation of an alien invasion of Earth. It's called "Half-Life." Second off, upon further investigation, it was found that no such simulation exists. Dawkins simply fabricated it to get those pesky facts out of the way of his divine argument. This computer simulation is still mentioned in many modern biology textbooks.

    The Archeoraptor - The first missing link between dinosaurs and birds fell flat, as that animal was quite unwieldy and the fossil record doesn't show winged animals emerging for eons, so they latched onto the archeoraptor, which was closer to the correct time period. It, like the Piltdown man, ended up being nothing more than a grab-bag of bones from different animals. It was so fake that it was disproved within a year. At least one modern biology textbook still has the archeoraptor in it (I've seen it, but can't remember who wrote it).

    The Cambrian Explosion - This one isn't so phenomenal for was is mentioned as for what isn't mentioned. The Cambrian Explosion is what is used to describe a spectacular phenomenon in the fossil record. Despite evolutionists charges of 'a slow series of random mutations,' the dawn of the Cambrian period saw the emergence of nearly every known phylum of life we observe today in the incredibly small (geologically speaking) window of 5-10 million years. For years, Darwinists claimed that there were pre-Cambrian stages of life, but that the conditions were wrong for it to fossilize (sorry teacher, but the Earth ate my homework). This was debunked when an entire pre-Cambrian stratum was found by Chinese archeologists that was teeming with life that is VERY hard to fossilize, proving that the pre-Cambrian area was ideal for fossilization. None of the unearthed fossils show any stages into the Cambrian explosion. It was nothing put sponges and anemones. The only time the Cambrian Explosion has ever appeared in an American government school was when a WA state biology teacher brought the newspaper articles about the Chinese project into his classroom. The ACLU filed suit, claiming that these scientific articles on exactly what they were discussing in class violated seperation of church and state because it went against evolution (never mind that there was no mention of God and that the articles were fact only). The teacher was filed. Nobody dares mention it again.

    Anybody notice an alarming trend with the mistakes in biology textbooks?

    Evidence of all of these points (except the tongue map) can be found here:

    http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html

    With citations.
     
  2. PsuedoGhost
    Offline

    PsuedoGhost Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    206
    Thanks Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +15

    What I think is hilarious, is that the site that you linked to, completely debunks all the statements that you just made. :rotflmao:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Mr.Conley
    Offline

    Mr.Conley Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2006
    Messages:
    1,958
    Thanks Received:
    115
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    New Orleans, LA/Cambridge, MA
    Ratings:
    +116
    Wow, pawned.
     
  4. MissileMan
    Offline

    MissileMan Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,939
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +223
    Anybody notice an alarming trend with the mistakes in Hobbit's posts?
    :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
     
  5. Hobbit
    Offline

    Hobbit Senior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,099
    Thanks Received:
    420
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Near Atlanta, GA
    Ratings:
    +421
    Ok, so I didn't look at the link too well. I got all this information out of a book, and was looking for something easy to link to so I wouldn't get cries of YOUR INFORMATION IS FALSE!

    Try these.

    http://www.epicidiot.com/evo_cre/fossil_hoaxes.htm
    http://twincentral.com/site/pages/articles/apologetics/witness/evolution/evohoaxes.shtml
    http://www.theedgeam.com/evolution/hoax.htm

    I'm telling you. Most things that 'support' evolution are a hoax. I've got more, but all my sources are print books that aren't published on the internet. Gimme a day or two and I'll post their names.
     
  6. PsuedoGhost
    Offline

    PsuedoGhost Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2006
    Messages:
    206
    Thanks Received:
    15
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +15
    lol... Why should I read these posts? All the information you already posted has already been disproved by the other link!

    I think you should just give up on this one bud.
     
  7. Nienna
    Offline

    Nienna Senior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    4,515
    Thanks Received:
    333
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +333
    Silly Hobbit! :) A bit of a gaffe... but, you're right; all of these supposed pieces of evidence for evolution have been disproved, often by evolutionary scientists, themselves.
     
  8. MissileMan
    Offline

    MissileMan Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,939
    Thanks Received:
    223
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +223
    Do you mean scientists like Carl Baugh?
     

Share This Page