Education

You mean like those doctored petroglyph photos you were shopping around as proof that men lived along-side dinosaurs?

No. The fact that there's a beetle evolution to study in the first place makes your obsession with Heckel et al. irrelevant. Evolution stands on a weight of data that has absolutely nothing to do with your two or three pet outrages. Heckel's drawings are, at best, a historical aside with no relevance whatsoever to the bulk of evolutionary research. Yes, it's quite convenient that the concept of "kind" magically expands so as to include all offered examples of inter-taxon change. I imagine that, as our models of common descent grow in confidence and are supported by more and more data, creationists will eventually be forced to recognize all living organisms as members of the same "kind", and that the entire diversity of living things on Earth decend from a single organism via "microevolution." I suspect it will be quite funny to see.

Uh huh,...really? Care to show where I have ever written anything about the Big Bang, much less that it was an atheist plot.Is this sort of like the Haeckel mentality? Fake the data to make your claim? Also, you actually beleive evos didn't put any credence in Haeckel's drawings for decades? MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog RichLooks like evos were taking Haeckel's claims very seriously up to at least 1997, to the point they accepted his claims of a phylotypic stage uncritically and offered little to no citations, as if it had already been well-established, which it was.The problem is Haeckel's work contained fraudulent data to make his claims.

I posted that link as a subject of interest, not as a scientific claim on my part. I clearly stated the site contained a wide area of data, some better than others, but that it was intringuing.The fact you think that equates with evolutionists relying on Haeckel's claims until at least 1997, and his faked data, is very telling.

MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog Rich

Fascinating, but relevant only to vertebrates. Do you believe that vertebrates constitute the focus of the bulk of evolutionary research?

I shall consider that an unwarranted and scurrilous attack.

---

What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul.
(paraphrasing Mark 8:36)

You didn't get that memo? That's what it means to be a creationist and an admin here at EvC - open license to promulgate the most base of slanders.

Why? Did not Haeckel doctor his drawings and faked the data?You act like I am wrong to bring it up.

You are wandering off topic, crashfrog. Moreover, it is inappropriate to criticize AdminRandman on the basis of posts by ordinary member randman.

---

You wrote: I responded appropiately showing you where you were wrong. Are you under the impression that Haeckel's comparitive embryonic drawings depict something other than vertibrates?

That is not actually relevant to what I posted. You were certainly wrong to bring it up in the form of an unwarranted accusation against me.For the record, I don't know whether Haeckel doctored his drawings and faked the data. I'm not an historian, so I have no way of determining his intent.

---

What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul.
(paraphrasing Mark 8:36)

nwr, I was responding to this by you: In light of this comment, I thought my response was appropiate. It's not like I was hurling some wild scurrilous charge. You stated I am myth-making, and yet admit Haeckel's drawings were used, and hence my question.This message has been edited by randman, 12-11-2005 11:41 PM

Are you? You seem intent on expanding their import to situations where they cannot possibly apply; such as the bulk of evolutionary research.Answer the question. Is it your apprehension that the bulk of evolutionary research occurs in the context of vertebrate organisms?

I'm sorry? I'm familiar with the casual fiction that admins are different people than their non-admin logins, but that's simply carrying it too far. If we're required to treat that conceit as fact, it should be codified into the rules.