Are our kids being brainwashed?

[Riprorin]

If not, how do you explain this?

1. Origin of Life. Why do textbooks claim that that the 1953 Miller-Urey experiment shows how life?s building blocks may have formed on the early Earth when conditions on the early Earth were probably nothing like those used in the experiment, and the origins of life remains a mystery?

2. Darwin?s Tree of Life. Why don?t textbooks discuss the ?Cambrian explosion,? in which all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed, instead of branching from a common ancestor thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life?

3. Homology. Why do textbooks define homology as similarity due to common ancestry, then claim that it is evidence for common ancestry ? a circular argument masquerading as scientific evidence?

4. Vertebrate Embryos. Why do textbooks use drawings of similarities in vertebrate embryos as evidence for their common ancestry even though biologists have known vertebrate embryos are not most similar in their early stages, and the drawings are faked.

5. Archaeopteryx. Why do textbooks portray this fossil as the missing link between dinosaurs and modern birds even though modern birds are probably not descended from it, and its supposed ancestors do not appear until millions of years after it?

6. Peppered Moths. Why do textbooks use pictures of peppered moths camouflaged on tree trunks as evidence for natural selection when biologists have known since the 1980s that the moths don?t normally rest on tree trunks, and all the pictures have been staged?

7. Darwin?s Finches. Why do textbooks claim that beak changes in Galapagos finches during a severe drought can explain the origin of species by natural selection even though the changes were reversed after the drought ended, and no net evolution occurred?

8. Mutant fruit flies. Why do textbooks use fruit flies with an extra pair of wings as evidence that DNA mutations can supply raw materials for evolution even though the extra wings have no muscles and these disabled mutants cannot survive outside the laboratory?

9. Human Origins. Why are artists? drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere accident when fossil experts cannot even agree on who are supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?

10. Evolution is a Fact? Why are we told that Darwin?s theory of evolution is a scientific fact even though many of its claims are based on misrepresentations of the facts?

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

I don't have kids, so I'm not worried.

nik

 

[Capn]

uh oh, here we go again.

 

[CedarTeeth135]

I'm a kid and i'm very smart. Ahhhh.

 

[loup garou]

I love armchair evolutionary biologists.

EDIT: I also love trolls.

EDIT2: Basically, Riprorin is my favorite AT member, ever.

 

[b0mbrman]

Hmmm...your logic is all the same.

Disproving one factor of the counter-argument does not necessarily make the argument true...

 

[spazntwich1]

While I'm not qualified to answer any of these questions, I don't think I would if I could.

You're just trying to stir up another big evolution argument, and while evolution is nothing more than a theory, the bible is nothing more than a set of documents that was translated, retranslated, interpreted, reinterpreted, and possibly even edited by monks, over the course of a thousand years.

As a recap: This thread isn't going anywhere.

 

[Riprorin]

<< You're just trying to stir up another big evolution argument, and while evolution is nothing more than a theory, the bible is nothing more than a set of documents that was translated, retranslated, interpreted, reinterpreted, and possibly even edited by monks, over the course of a thousand years. >>



Nice tangent, but you didn't answer my question.

 

[b0mbrman]

<< While I'm not qualified to answer any of these questions, I don't think I would if I could.
You're just trying to stir up another big evolution argument, and while evolution is nothing more than a theory, the bible is nothing more than a set of documents that was translated, retranslated, interpreted, reinterpreted, and possibly even edited by monks, over the course of a thousand words.
As a recap: This thread isn't going anywhere. >>


Yeah...and you don't even have to go that far.

Riprorin, your logic comes from people thinking that because (no one knows exactly what's true) thereofore (all ideas about the universe are equally valid)

Theories based on evolution, natural selection, etc. have more relative value (but doesn't hold the absolute value) over theories based on creation.

 

[Marstaton4]

Think kids in school really pay attention?

 

[b0mbrman]

<< Think kids in school really pay attention? >>


Well, kids in school a hundred years ago must have paid attention...otherwise no one would believe in creation anymore

 

[Riprorin]

<< Theories based on evolution, natural selection, etc. has more relative value (but doesn't hold the absolute value) over theories based on creation. >>



If that's true, why can't the facts stand on their own merit without being twisted?

If the points I made are true (and you haven't disputed them), either textbook writers are ignorant of the facts or they are manipuating them to support their own agenda.

 

[EpsiIon]

Guys, these are important questions.

There are some 'scientists' who are so dedicated to the idea of evolution that they'll invent data and forge pictures to further its cause, and none of you have a problem with this?

I thought we were supposed to look for the truth, not blindly follow one train of thought...

 

[Maetryx]

The kids don't have to be brainwashed, if the parents will tell them the following:

1) What is taught at the public school is Western Science
2) It presupposes the non-existence of the supernatural
3) It has some value as a way of learning the rational assembly of an internally consistent system.
4) Since it is NOT internally consistent, it fails
5) Since it is not externally consistent with other disciplines like physics, philosophy, and ethics, it fails

 

[gopunk]

did you you think of that all by yourself or did you get that from some book published by a reverend who decided to study biology in order to "devote my life to destroying darwinism"?

 

[Maetryx]

<< Riprorin, your logic comes from people thinking that because (no one knows exactly what's true) thereofore (all ideas about the universe are equally valid) Theories based on evolution, natural selection, etc. has more relative value (but doesn't hold the absolute value) over theories based on creation. >>



I sincerely doubt that Riprorin's logic is based on other peoples' denial of the existence of objective truth.

 

[EpsiIon]

<< did you you think of that all by yourself or did you get that from some book published by a reverend who decided to study biology in order to "devote my life to destroying darwinism"? >>



gopunk, I fail to see how that invalidates these questions... If they're valid, they're valid, regardless of the source.

 

[gopunk]

gopunk, I fail to see how that invalidates these questions... If they're valid, they're valid, regardless of the source.

did i say they were invalid?

countless *other* professors have come out and refuted the claims made in this book, do a search in google.

 

[b0mbrman]

<<

<< Theories based on evolution, natural selection, etc. has more relative value (but doesn't hold the absolute value) over theories based on creation. >>


If that's true, why can't the facts stand on their own merit without being twisted?
If the points I made are true (and you haven't disputed them), either textbook writers are ignorant of the facts or they are manipuating them to support their own agenda. >>


I don't know enough to dispute them and I won't argue that they're not true.

But if you're using those statements to prove that creation theory is 100% true, then your argument is incomplete.

 

[EpsiIon]

b0mberman, if I may be so bold, I think you missed the point. If I interpret the purpose of this post correctly, it's not to prove creation theory, it's to raise important questions about evolutionary theory.

 

[gopunk]

b0mberman, if I may be so bold, I think you missed the point. If I interpret the purpose of this post correctly, it's not to prove creation theory, it's to raise important questions about evolutionary theory.


this is the point:



<< Father's words, my studies, and my prayers convinced me that I should devote my life to destroying Darwinism, just as many of my fellow Unificationists had already devoted their lives to destroying Marxism. When Father chose me (along with about a dozen other seminary graduates) to enter a Ph.D. program in 1978, I welcomed the opportunity to prepare myself for battle. >>





i realize it's sounding like i'm trying to discredit the author, but seriously, the questions may be valid, but lets not kid ourselves about the intent.

 

[Riprorin]

<< did you you think of that all by yourself or did you get that from some book published by a reverend who decided to study biology in order to "devote my life to destroying darwinism"? >>



Yes, you got it right except that it wasn't written by a "reverend". I believe that the author is Dr. Jonathan Wells.

 

[EpsiIon]

Forgive me, gopunk, but I don't understand what you're getting at.

 

[dullard]

<< I fail to see how that invalidates these questions... If they're valid, they're valid, regardless of the source. >>



It doesn't invalidate the questions. However even if all the 10 statements were true (that the textbooks were wrong in those cases) it doesn't prove or disprove anything. Evolution could exist even if all 10 of Riprorin's arguements are valid. Evolution could be completely wrong even if Riprorin is wrong on all 10 claims.

Textbooks are notoriously error prone. One study found an average of 1.5 known errors per page in science textbooks. Those were errors that can be proven, not counting ones that cannot be proven.

For example: many history and chemistry textbooks list the Statue of Liberty as made of bronze. Suppose Riprorin made a thread that our kids are being branwashed because: 1) The statue is not made of bronze, 2) Bronze certainly wouldn't discolor in the way that copper would, 3) The poem written on the statue has gramatical errors, 4) The teacher told the kids that the statue is bronze even though many of the teachers statements are misreprestations of facts. Now since Riprorin found these errors, I guess that means the Statue of Liberty doesn't exist. That would be silly! An error in a textbook doesn't prove or disprove anything.

I can disprove one claim easily (number 10). It is called the theory of evolution. The word theory means that it isn't known fact, but our current best guess. Thus we aren't told that it is a fact, we are told it is a best estimate.

 

[Riprorin]

<< i realize it's sounding like i'm trying to discredit the author, but seriously, the questions may be valid, but lets not kid ourselves about the intent. >>



Why does the intent matter? If the allegations are true, don't you think academic fraud and misrepresentation is a serious issue?