Billiards Ball

Respectfully, is this thread an okay place to take a contrary stance? I was a big defender of pre-trib until some things struck me, one of them being: Pre-trib forces all kinds of jumping about in the gospel eschatons, but pre-wrath allows Matthew 24 and 25 et al to be read completely chronologically, verse 1 then 2 then 3 . . .

How about this? Pray, "Lord Jesus, I need some confirmation here, some sign, however, I know you do things in your timing and your way to help me understand you, love you and know you better. I wait upon you, knowing you will respond. Your will be done. Amen."

It's important to see that religions, all of them, press us to be good and to perfect ourselves morally, an obvious impossibility, and therefore we need Christ to perfect us via His cross and resurrection.

I think you mean, "Keep looking up!" which is a godly thing...

Hebrew scholars and the fact that Hebrew has never passed out of Jewish understanding or study.

Amen to that, only Jesus satisfies deeper, inner needs, well.

Can we go with the Bible's though that the sacrifices of the Law prefigure and typify Jesus Christ? God sacrificed animals as far back as Adam and Eve, to protect and covenant with us.

I've worked in textbook design. You don't delay to update a science textbook for 8-19 years!

https://evolutionnews.org/2012/10/darwin_lobbyist_1/

Recently a colleague asked for a list of textbooks that use Ernst Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo drawings, which since the 19th century have been used to support the hypothesis of universal common ancestry. We’ve covered this many times over the years (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, or here). Yet somehow we’ve never tried to gather into a single list many (or perhaps nearly all) known examples of textbooks in recent memory that use Haeckel’s drawings. Our colleague’s email provides an occasion for doing so. Thus, what follows are examples of textbooks that (1) Show embryo drawings that are either Haeckel’s originals or highly similar or near-identical versions of Haeckel’s illustrations — drawings that downplay and misrepresent the differences among early stages of vertebrate embryos; (2) Have used these drawings as evidence for current evolutionary theory and not simply to provide some kind of historical context for evolutionary thinking; (3) Have used their Haeckel-based drawings to overstate the actual similarities between early embryos, which is the key misrepresentation made by Haeckel, even if the textbooks do not completely endorse Haeckel’s false “recapitulation” theory. They then cite these overstated similarities as still-valid evidence for common ancestry. That having been said, here is the list: Donald Prothero, Bringing Fossils to Life: An Introduction to Paleobiology (Columbia University Press, 2013). Sylvia S. Mader, Jeffrey A. Isaacson, Kimberly G. Lyle-Ippolito, Andrew T. Storfer, Inquiry Into Life (13th ed., McGraw Hill, 2011). Peter H. Raven, George B. Johnson, Kenneth A. Mason, Jonathan B. Losos, and Susan R. Singer, Biology (9th ed., McGraw Hill, 2011). Adaptive Curriculum online curriculum submitted to Texas State Board of Education for adoption in 2011. Rice University online curriculum submitted to Texas State Board of Education for adoption in 2011. Sylvia S. Mader, Biology (McGraw Hill, 10th ed., 2010). Sylvia S. Mader, Biology (McGraw Hill 2007). BSCS Biology: A Human Approach (Kendall Hunt Publishing Company, 2006). National Geographic, Alton Biggs, Lucy Daniel, Edward Ortleb, Peter Rillero, Dinah Zike, Life Science(McGraw Hill, Glencoe, 2005). Here are some slightly older ones: Donald Prothero, Bringing Fossils to Life: An Introduction to Paleobiology (McGraw-Hill, 2nd edition, 2003). Joseph Raver, Biology: Patterns and Processes of Life (J.M. Lebel, 2004, draft version presented to the Texas State Board of Education for approval in 2003). Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (Wadsworth, 2004, draft version presented to the Texas State Board of Education in 2003). Peter H. Raven and George B. Johnson, Biology (6th ed, McGraw Hill, 2002). Michael Padilla et al., Focus on Life Science: California Edition (Prentice Hall, 2001). Holt Science and Technology: Life Science (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 2001). Burton S. Guttman, Biology (McGraw Hill, 1999). Peter H. Raven and George B. Johnson, Biology (5th ed, McGraw Hill, 1999). Albert Towle, Modern Biology (Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1999). William D. Schraer and Herbert J. Stoltze, Biology: The Study of Life (7th ed, Prentice Hall, 1999). Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (8th ed, Wadsworth, 1998). Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (3rd ed, Sinauer, 1998). Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph Levine, Biology: The Living Science (Prentice Hall, 1998). Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph Levine, Biology (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998). Judith Goodenough, Robert A. Wallace, and Betty McGuire, Human Biology: Personal, Environmental, and Social Concerns, 582 (Harcourt College Publishers, 1998). Donald Prothero, Bringing Fossils to Life: An Introduction to Paleobiology (McGraw-Hill, 1st edition, 1998). Helene Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Invitation to Biology (5th Ed., Worth Publishers, 1994). Donald Voet and Judith G. Voet, Biochemistry (2nd ed, John Wiley & Sons, 1995). Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph Levine, Biology (3rd ed., Prentice Hall, 1995). Robert H. Dott and Donald R. Prothero, Evolution of the Earth (Mcgraw-Hill Education, Fifth Edition, 1994). Bruce Alberts, et al., Molecular Biology of the Cell (3rd ed, Garland, 1994). Joseph S. Levin and Kenneth R. Miller, Biology: Discovering Life (D.C. Heath, 2nd ed., 1994). Joseph S. Levin and Kenneth R. Miller, Biology: Discovering Life (D.C. Heath, 1991). Kenneth R. Miller and Joseph Levine, Biology (1st ed., Prentice Hall, 1991). Scott F. Gilbert, Developmental Biology (3rd ed, Sinaeur, 1985). Scott F. Gilbert, Developmental Biology (2nd ed, Sinaeur, 1988). Scott F. Gilbert, Developmental Biology (1st ed, Sinaeur, 1985). Honorable mention that’s not a textbook: Ernst Mayr, What Evolution Is (Basic Books, 2000). There you have it. As you can see, these drawings are pervasive, continuing to misinform students as they’ve done for going on a century and a half. And you might see a trend publication dates of the offending textbooks. There are still some very recent textbooks (i.e., 2005 or younger) that use Haeckel’s drawings, but most of the textbooks in our list predate the year 2000. Why is that? It’s because 2000 was the year that Jonathan Wells published his book Icons of Evolution which raised the public’s consciousness about inaccuracies in biology textbooks, especially the prevalence of Haeckel’s faked embryo drawings. While some textbooks continue to promote the inaccurate “icons,” Wells’s book has had a positive impact, reducing the number of textbooks that use the fraudulent drawings. Unfortunately, as this textbook review published in 2011 makes clear, biology textbooks still have a long way to go when it comes to fixing the icons of evolution. Source: https://evolutionnews.org/2015/04/haeckels_fraudu/ --Something like the above makes it simple to believe this world is anti-Creation, anti-God.

Be aware that similarities/common descent do not demonstrate evolution! Plus, our five minutes are up!

I've graduated but I saw it in two different textbooks in 2012!

You'd love to see it? How come?

My own college text showed the photos across several pages then put in a tiny footnote explaining they were in error. THAT's the world we live in.

Sonograms show different details, unfortunately, many biology texts still show drawings made 150 years ago--now debunked.

Yes, there is a way out. The unpardonable sin is rejecting Jesus Christ. Trust Jesus Christ for salvation. He died a horrible death then rose from the dead to take our sin, guilt and shame. No one is perfect, so Christ made a way for us to be transformed when He returns, ready for eternal life!

Thank you, you are very kind and sincere. I apologize for the hassle, but I'm always wading through threads online where people are circumspect regarding their treasured views. Haeckel issues and related issues: https://creation.com/haeckel-fraud-proven I would also point to the fact that God uses a good tool belt of handy designs that do not immediately imply macroevolution. As an analogy, cars have wheels, airplanes have wheels and many boats have wheels for convenience, without them having evolved mechanistically one from another. Thanks again!

Yes, I just like to point to double standards. Will you actually read the references I bother to post here?

Thank you, but your post contained no documentation, either.

A simple Google search will bring you many sources online--for my own college textbooks, footnotes showed that the original drawings were done more than a century before without the artist having looked at actual specimens!

Amen. Thank God, God's Word has many hundreds of verses correcting our attitudes towards money, its use and its lure.

A good question, but you might be shocked to go online and learn how many of these 150-year-old concepts have since been debunked.

People discard the end of Mark (wrongly) for academic reasons (their atheist professors told them so), most believers do not. Atheists claim, by discarding Mark 16's end, that Mark does not include the resurrection. This is typically blind atheism, as the earlier part of the chapter has an empty tomb and the command to gather in the Galil to meet the risen Christ! It's how you use the Word, reverently or not. We both use it reverently. The KJV-only movement has some information that is not solid. I like solid rocks.

Bu "intra-species" I meant "within one species", with zero fossils, ever. I'm aware that scientists like to put similar species together to show transition between different species. But a wing requires multiple changes at once, which is why the article was to me, evasive, not convincing. Examples abound: it takes 30 proteins to clot human blood. My liver has 500 known functions. There is no way a heart evolved independently of lungs or vice versa. Scientists are excited, now that it is thought to take only 140,000 years to evolve a simple eye, without connecting that eye to a brain to receive signal. Cetacean evolution is a bad example: https://creation.com/a-whale-of-a-tale - that one article alone is enough to make me realize what a hoax modern palentology is.

Not quite, I think theistic evolution is untrue. But then again, my argument from silence in 3) has to with billions of fossils extant without a single intra-species transition fossil!