Replies

It does seem so. The Miller-Urey, completely discredited still remains in a preponderence of high school Biology textbooks. Of course we now know that the 'presumption' of a highly hydrogen-charged atomosphere which Urey used is now discredited. The experiment was reexamined with what is now considered the 'primitive' atmosphere of CO2,CH4, and H2O did create what these textbooks refer to as 'organic' precursors. Those 'precursors', which they often fail to identify, are cyanide and formaldehyde. So they deceive the students by not telling them that the original 'organic molecules' were one of the most poisonous agents known to man and embalming fluid, formalin.

They still clint to the drawings of Haeckel's of embryos even though the writers know those drawings were deceptive, intentionally so, now thoroughly discredited.

Embryologists now know that the folds of the developing embryo are not 'gills',....they are folds. Put your chin on your sternum and feel your neck....there are folds (that is meant to be an illustration). The ridges of skin are simply ridges of skin, in the developing embryo, with multipotential cellularity. Even the 'gills' in the developing fish embryos are not gills, at that stage of ontogeny. But they developed a catchy phrase...."Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" and they keep repeating what is a lie.

Now comes the chimp/man genome comparisons. They say 98-99% of their genes are shared, but we know that there is selective 'disposal' of any portion of the chromosome which is not seeminly in common is not part of the comparison. If you assume, as neo-darwinians do, that we are products of our genes, then you're saying that the dramatic differences in us and chimpanzees are due to 2% of our genetic makeup. It does seem clear from the literature that that 2% have very little to do with our or the chimps phenotype. So the neo-darwinist has a little problem there.

Archaeopteryx has been discredited as the precursor of modern birds. It is, according to Larry Martin, Ph.D., of University of Kansas. He stateed unequivocally in 1985 the Archaeopteryx is a member of an extinct group of birds. So, Archeopteryx turned out not to validate as a transitional fossil and, in accordance with Darwins own test, fails to verify Darwins theory. Even the ardent evolutionist, Pierre Lecomte du Nouy agree with Dr.Martin, saying We are not even authorized to consider the exceptinal case of the archaeopteryx as a true link. Byi link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptilia and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanism of transition remains unknown.

Yet, in most high school biology books, there is old archaeopteryx still deceiving children unaware.

Now, here we revisit the chimp/human canard....designed to deceive...to constantly resurrect a failed theory. There seems to be really no need for these repeated deceptions, other than to validate a worldview in which an army of neodarwinsts have staked their professional careers upon, and which has been measured in the balance for about 150 years and come up wanting. The narrative which has been constructed for their validation is made of shifting sand, and the sad part of it is, they know it. Their faith in what is willful self-deceit remains a vessel at sea becoming more and more etherial. And, as they grasp for Darwins apparition for comfort, as they see design, their high priests, such as Dawkins and Crick, have to remind them that they may see what 'appears' to be designed, as they measure what scientific materialism can never account for, they ask us to give our children over to abject failure build on sofistry. That is too much to ask.

I used to be one such person. I hold a BS in Biology and Chemistry, an MS in Bilogy, writing my thesis in "Vertebrate Pleistocene Fossils of McFaddin Beach, Texas", and a medical degree and board certification in General Surgery. With all of that education, the most important thing I was taught, was to think for myself. My breaking point came when I read George Gaylord Simpson, paleontologist and comparative vertebrate anatomist at Harvard say, "Place a chimpanzee in front of an IBM typewriter, and given enough time, he will reproduce the entire works of Shakespear, word for word." When I pondered that type of faith I could no longer believe Dr.Simpson, a man whom I had reverred. In the words of Dr.Norman Geisler, "I don't have enough faith to be an atheist".