A Critique of Bob Jones' Life Science Textbook. Part One

[wolfpax22]

One thing that I can say about A Beka Book (another fundy textbook line) from my own experiences is that however backward they might be in science their grade school phonics books are very good. Important to teach reading so you can memorize all those scriptures after all.

[darkreign16]

Is this an old pre-recorded video or did your voice suddenly get higher?

[Kabane52]

You can see that this video was uploaded in August 2007, over a year ago.

[darkreign16]

Oh, it just popped up in my subscriptions box for some reason. That threw me off.

[DancingUnderFlames]

That was my science book last year.

[soccerbuy123]

i never leard any thing in that class

[CRoadwarrior]

The fundamental problem with theistic evolution, which it appears you believe, is that evolution is an essentially chance, trial and error process. And that is the the intelligent, all-knowing God of the Bible. Creatures do adapt, but adaptation is NOT evolution, and there is no absolute proof of macro-evolution.

[CRoadwarrior]

Creation can be tested, as we can test the world and see that it was created (Romans 1:20;Psalm 19:1-4). That is why unbelieving scientists can study the world and say it is "designed." That is why so many scientists are supporting ID. There are scientists with 3 doctorates who clearly explain how and why evolutionary theory is fatally flawed. I applaud your efforts to preach the Gospel in most of your videos, but before you make any more videos, I would suggest you study the issues better.

[CRoadwarrior]

Kabane, at this point what I'm seeing is that you are repeating, blindly, evolutionary rhetoric. Evolution is not "repeatable." No one has ever seen evolution take place. We see fossils, but they are NOT proof of evolution. Why? Because the creatures that they represent died in the past, and those creatures were NOT made of bone alone. Dr. Denton made an excellent point in his book "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" when he talked about the marsupial pouch...

[CRoadwarrior]

...and how that, if all we had were bones of these creatures, we would never know of its special reproductive system and the complexities of it. And to speculate about the creature and its alleged transitional forms would have to involve a level of speculation and assumption. So, you really need to study this issue more carefully and thoroughly.

[TheAmazingCristian]

Fossils are pretty good evidence for evolution, But neither science or evolution require direct observation

[CRoadwarrior]

No, fossils are not "pretty good" evidence for evolution. A fossil only proves that a living thing died a very unusual death. That's all.

[TheAmazingCristian]

1 Fossil doesn't tell you anything, but look at the Fossil Record, comparing different fossils and you will see evolutionary patterns.

[CRoadwarrior]

No, fossils do not show evolutionary patterns. That is the ASSUMPTION placed on the fossils. The fossils themselves do not prove anything except that a creature or creatures were fossilized. Most fossils do not give us flesh tissue, so if all we had were fossils, we would be totally in the dark about the amazing reproductive system of marsupials. Yet how can we tell how something "evolved" without such important information? We can't in a conclusive manner.

[TheAmazingCristian]

OMG, Just research Transitional fossils and you'll get what i'm talking about.

[gaw18]

"bob jones"

a chill went down my spine

[XxXFunnieBunnieXxX]

lol my class had that 2 weeks ago..haha...lol...i think were on like chapter 9 or somethin

[naterocks42]

dang, i took that course 2 years ago, I am in 9th grade now, lol and it's funny cuz that's the exact textbook that i used, lol good work lol but that's the class i did the best in, also i like mrs. vicks(whopo teaches it from homesat)

[peterdeon]

bright kid!

[thrufaithalone]

The creation reproduces itself every single day: dogs have dogs, cats have cats, humans have humans, horses have horses. The creation is eminently observable, testable, and predictable. It works in a lab (and out) On the other hand, they've never observed or proved evolution, not even in a lab.

[Kabane52]

Pff. Creationists first refused to acknowledge the process of speciation, but now that it is undeniable, they acknowledge it. That isn't testing creationism. You can't test creationism, as in the hypothesis that God created the world 6000 years ago. Give me one shred of evidence for that hypothesis. Evolution is observed, tested, and it makes predictions.

[thrufaithalone]

You get variation within a kind (many different varieties of dogs), but it never "evolves" into another kind of animal.

[migkillertwo]

care to explain the redundant pseudogenes? how about the orthologous endogenous retroviruses?

[thrufaithalone]

migkillertwo-You don't believe in God, right?Intelligence is neither matter or energy. Where does intelligence come from?

[thrufaithalone]

(Sorry. While intelligence may be neither matter or energy, I meant information.)

[toomanfilms]

Intelligence arises from consciousness, which arises from sense organs. We say a rock is not intelligent, but a worm is, and a fish even more so. Intelligence does not require a supernatural origin.

[thrufaithalone]

Where does the information come from in the DNA? Information comes from a mind, does it not? Please give one example where information comes from anything other than a mind.

[toomanfilms]

Are you arguing that the proteins which carry out the instructions (information) from the DNA are being guided by God? Either the proteins are moving on their own accord (through chemical reactions) or they are moving through supernatural means. I would guess that what makes one protein go one way (when it reads the code "GGTA") and what makes a protein go another way (when it reads the code "AAGA") is a chemical reaction, wouldn't you?

[thrufaithalone]

You miss the very point that you state - it is a code. Code, by definition, is designed and required an intelligence to write it.

[migkillertwo]

actually thrufaithalone, im a christian. I just accept evolution, like most christians around the world

[thrufaithalone]

Kabane52-define what you mean by speciation. (nobody denies varieties within the kinds) The only "evolution" that is testable is within the kinds - it's never crossed over. Dogs have dogs, humans have humans, chimps have chimps. There are limits.

[scienceminded]

And a common ancestor of chimps and bonobos speciated into both, it is the evolution of a population into two population that cannot or do not commonly interbreed. Did the mythical kinds create okapis separate from giraffes? No, they share a common ancestor, this is almost certain, but feel free to falsify :)

[cwhitt26]

thrufaithalone wants a chimp to shit out a dog in 2 months...evolution takes millions of years you nutbag!!!

[InfoJunkieHolland]

CREATIONISTS CAN READ?!!?!?!!

[nailo1]

howed you get it you bought it just to critique it or you know someone that goes to one of these schools

[Kabane52]

I went to that school in seventh grade and I sort of *erm* took the textbook home and never gave it back.

[nailo1]

hehe kinda funny but taking it is prolly good for the next 7th graders

[barbydell]

this kid seems like he really wants to think while learning. ---impressive.

[MadGouki]

I live right down the road from Bob Jones Uni... I have to deal with these people all the time. Have you ever had one of them tell you Dinosaurs were put there to test your faith?

[eepwwtppwe]

oh s***, I think my school (christian school) is gonna make me read that BS!!!:O

[DCxxRay]

lol, sux to be you jk

[Krosbryd]

Kabane, I applaud your efforts to teach Creationists that evolution is true. As a(n) Deist/agnostic, it is very good to hear about Christians accepting evolution. It implies intelligence.

[a01011399]

Well show me an example of a retrovirus that both humans and apes have, that we know that attacks randomly,

[alienspy07]

All of them except for Sir3p and Sir4p, and possibly a couple of others. If you have evidence otherwise from a recent scientific source that actually includes a reference to where they got their information then, please, show it to me.

[a01011399]

alienspy07 the article was from the ´´national resource for molecular biology information´´ what can be more reliable?

[alienspy07]

"Replication of retroviruses and retrotransposons depends on selecting a favorable chromosomal site for integration of their genomic DNA. Different retroelements meet this challenge by targeting distinctive chromosomal regions. Despite these differences, recent data hints at a common targeting mechanism-tethering of integration complexes to proteins bound at favorable sites"

[alienspy07]

It's a one-paragraph, four-year-old article from a website that I've never heard of that EVERY source that I can find completely contradicts.

wiki(dog)cotch(dot)net/index(d­ot)php/Endogenous_retroviruses

I'm going to give you this web page again, and I want you to read the section called "Creationist replies". The article you gave me could very well be referring to those two examples.

[vipmarco]

WOW! Im really impressed! For a 14 year old, your knowledge about the Theory of Evolution and the fundamental scientific principles is just unbelievable. Im an athiest, but of course I respect everyone who believes in God and also "believes" in science (and Evolution). Congratulations to your well educated view of the world, Kabane52.

[CajunPunk]

Kabane, can science test if we have spirituality? A Soul? Can science test if there is even a Holy Spirit? Can science test if there is a God? Just curious.

[alienspy07]

Kabane is a Christian, Cajun, and the answer to all of those questions is no. Obviously.

[CajunPunk]

I know he's a Christian. That's why I asked.

[Kabane52]

No, no, no, and no. I never claimed that these claims are science. Just that I believe in them.

[CajunPunk]

So, you don't believe in the creation story, because science apparently disproves it because of its lack of evidence to test and because of evolutionary finding, yet when it comes to other things such as a soul, spirituality, God, etc. you simply just believe them?

I'm not trying to be facetious here. I think you are quite the brainy one. I actually enjoyed this video.

[vipmarco]

No, no, no and no! You cant deny you referred to scientific principles in your video - which most people dont even know. :)

[a01011399]

No, retroviruses attack on specific cells and specific parts of the genome, at is a fact that some retroviruses can affect humans, others can affect apes, and others both apes and humans, that is why we don't share all the retroviruses. To be honest I don't know what percentage of retroviruses we share with apes.

I will send you an email with the links because I can not paste links in this comment section.

[alienspy07]

Your sources were crap. Give me a REAL, SCIENTIFIC source duplicating this claim, not just an article from a random website or a video by a random guy on youtube saying it. And give me articles in English, please, I don't speak Spanish.

[scojomasta]

man this kid is fucking smart maybe as smart as me =D he can just make vids and has accecory to these types of tools

[a01011399]

2) well do some research, you wont find impartial information in ´´talk origins´´ do some research in Google in webs that has nothing to do with evolution vs creation and you will see that retroviruses do not attack randomly.

[alienspy07]

2)So you're saying that retroviruses enter our genome intelligently at a specific time? How could it NOT be random? And if what you are saying is true, why is it that some ERV's are NOT shared between us? I mean, if what you are saying is true, shouldn't ALL our retroviruses be shared in the genomes of apes and humans (except in the 1.5% of genes that are different), and not just most of them?

[a01011399]

1) We do not share many ERVIS with dogs because there are not that many retroviruses that can affect both dogs and humans, in the other hand there are many retroviruses that can affect apes and humans this is an observed fact, and has nothing to do with evolution.

[alienspy07]

1)I thought that all retroviruses can infect all animals. Do you have ANY reference for that claim?

[a01011399]

However it is an observed fact that there are retroviruses that can affect both humans and apes, so this is why we have some similar retroviruses. The retroviruses argument can be explained without a common ancestor.

[alienspy07]

It isn't 'some' similar retroviruses, MOST of them are similar and in the same place in the genome. Retroviruses infect at random times and in random places, so they can not be explained because humans and apes are similar. Nice try, though.

[a01011399]

It just a possibility, one example of a retrovirus that both humans and apes have is HIV this disease originated in Africa and apes infected humans a few years ago, and as you know HIV can be transmitted trough sexual contact (of course there are other possibilities)

[alienspy07]

HIV was not transmitted between apes and humans because of sexual contact. Second, having sex with someone doesn't make you have any common ERV's, reproducing a child makes the child have all the common ERV's. If having sex made common ERV's then we would share a lot of retroviruses with dogs, which humans have sex with a lot more than monkeys, if anyone has sex at all with monkeys.

[a01011399]

Do some research about retroviruses, similar retroviruses within humans and apes are prove that humans and apes where in direct contact (probably sexual contact) not prove of a common ancestor.

[SkepticOptimist]

So you're saying apes and humans had sex... and thus the same ERVs appear in both species?

On a side note... you should be using *proof* not *prove*.

[a01011399]

Thanks

[NotSoOldHippy]

Amazing. How are Christanic extremists any diofferent than their Islamic extremist "enemies." The lack of reason and so much of what they stand for are shared among them.

[themoderateextremist]

I was looking into a christian home school curriculum for my kids, it seems the whole science curriculum seems slanted toward hovindism, but I'm not sure until I read it.

[kajaragi]

I think you'd be correct to make that assumption.

[CajunPunk]

You're right. I was home schooled. But, if you would actually want to be involved with your kids, you can do a point, counter point type of thing to help them learn about evolution.

[pdoeman]

I also interpret the bible in light of science; that's why I can see tjat it's a simple adaptation of earlier myths and legends.

Why stick to the Christian creation story, there are many to choose from?

[KT45]

"creationist theories"? wouldn't they just be hypothesis?

[alienspy07]

You kinda mumbled around the... what was that? Babylonian Creationism?  Couldn't hear that part.

[kajaragi]

amusing the attempts creationists make to attack evolution.

[Xskullboy]

The bible is a book that does not tell anything. Just a fairy tell.

[mollian]

Yes it does. It tells you how to have blind ignorance.

[Kabane52]

Could you cite a verse which endorses ignorance? Once you start responding to the messages I send you, you may start commenting on Christianity.

[mollian]

I'm good though. I don't want to waste my time.

[Kabane52]

Mmhm. You sure wanted to waste your time when you thought you could argue with me.

[mollian]

Yes I did waste my time and I learned from it.

[kajaragi]

I disagree, and by the way, it's spelled fairy *tale.

[mollian]

first comment