|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Education | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Maybe this should be taken to a different thread, but yea, I think the fact evos kept teaching something fraudulent for 125 years makes the field suspect in terms of it's standards.
I am sure your wife is honest, honorable and doing good work, but that doesn't change the overall field, or how it seems particularly resistant to abandoning what some call the icons of evolution. From what you have told me, btw, it doesn't sound like substantiating beetles may have all evolved from an original beetle is any different in that one regard than what creationists claim.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNWR Inactive Member |
In future, take discussions of moderation to the appropriate thread, so as to minimize disruption of debate threads.
Nobody is suggesting that they are different people. However, they are different roles. To err is human, but we expect those acting in an administrator role to attempt to be superhuman. To comment on moderation procedures or respond to admin messages:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminJar Inactive Member |
Yup, Off Topic and inappropriate or as AdminNwr said,
You are wandering off topic, crashfrog. Moreover, it is inappropriate to criticize AdminRandman on the basis of posts by ordinary member randman. moreover, continuing to question this is STILL off topic, sophomoric and inappropriate.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Maybe this should be taken to a different thread, but yea, I think the fact evos kept teaching something fraudulent for 125 years makes the field suspect in terms of it's standards. You haven't even come close to establishing that evolutionists have "kept teaching" this material, however. For instance I've just flipped through my wife's literature on insect evolution. No mention of Haekel's diagrams. So too with her textbooks on cell biology. So too with her books on ecology and systematics. I've just asked her, and she doesn't even know who you're talking about. I'm sorry, but the idea that Haekel is still somehow revered as a source, or ever was in any recent period, simply can't be supported by the experience of the evolutionists here and that I'm familiar with. It doesn't matter who you quote; your sources are in a minority compared to the voices arrayed against you. Something you don't seem prepared to face. So, no. The fact that you can dig up references to Haekel's drawings in a historical context in texts written by laypeople does not, to any reasonable person, cast suspicion on a vast and varied field where the bulk of the research is occuring in fields well beyond the relevant context of vertebrate embryology in the first place.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
In future, take discussions of moderation to the appropriate thread, so as to minimize disruption of debate threads. Done.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Yawn. Crash, you are hopeless. Of course, in discussion of insects you are not going to see Haeckel's drawings. The fact I have to explain that to you suggests that it's sort of a waste of time to debate with you, as you are so ignorant of the issues here.
You seem to not accept Richardson's claims evos relied on Haeckel's claims and data. He wrote that in 1997.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nighttrain Member (Idle past 4024 days) Posts: 1512 From: brisbane,australia Joined: |
Maybe this should be taken to a different thread, but yea, I think the fact evos kept teaching something fraudulent for 125 years makes the field suspect in terms of it's standards. So, by that logic, if we find something fraudulent in the teachings of the Bible for 2000+ years, makes the field suspect in terms of its standards?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ned_Flanders Inactive Member |
quote: I call it a theory that was proven wrong. Plain and simple. Science goes through this all the time. Just because one person had a bad idea doesn’t make evolution wrong. It’s pathetic that you judge science by one man that had a theory that was proven wrong. Want me to show you some inconsistencies in the Bible? There are plenty...
quote: You still have not addresses that Jack Chick has blatantly lied in his stupid little books. But of course you say he is more rigorous in his fact checking. Right???Do you support spreading lies to support the creationists cause? The only thing he is rigorous in is spreading lies to a bunch of people incapable of thinking for themselves.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ned_Flanders Inactive Member |
quote: Have you ever read the Bible?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Of course, in discussion of insects you are not going to see Haeckel's drawings. Progress. How about, say, a discussion of microorganisms?
You seem to not accept Richardson's claims evos relied on Haeckel's claims and data. Which evolutionists, exactly? All of them? It's already been proven that you and Richardson are completely wrong in that regard. Will you continue to insist that all evolutionists rely on these drawings in the face of proof that the vast majority of evolutionists never have?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
quote:I didn't. I wasn't on the textbook committee that approved the book. I was just a student. My main point is that the whole issue is not nearly as important as you make it out to be. Even if they were correct, Haeckel's drawings would not be particularly significant on the question of whether ToE is a sound theory. What shall it profit a nation if it gain the whole world, yet lose its own soul. (paraphrasing Mark 8:36)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
It’s pathetic that you judge science by one man that had a theory that was proven wrong. The problem is they kept using the faked drawings and some if his false ideas for 125 years after being proven wrong.
You still have not addresses that Jack Chick has blatantly lied in his stupid little books. What do you call presenting Haeckel's drawings as factual? Telling the truth?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Funny how evos, claiming to adhere to science, start attacking the Bible when cornered.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Evos making embryonic claims of a phylotypic stage relied on them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
My main point is that the whole issue is not nearly as important as you make it out to be. Even if they were correct, Haeckel's drawings would not be particularly significant on the question of whether ToE is a sound theory. Fine, but that is secondary to the issue that they do show evos have a serious problem getting rid of false arguments and beliefs, to such a degree in fact, I think it brings into question the nature of whether evolutionary theory is science-based or myth-based. Could be, as you claim, that the myth is true, or as I think, not true, but either way, appealing to false data is myth-making.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024