Education

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.

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.

---

Yup, Off Topic and inappropriate or as AdminNwr said, moreover, continuing to question this is STILL off topic, sophomoric and inappropriate.

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.

Done.

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.

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?

quote:

---

What do you call Haeckel's drawings and the theory of recapitulation, if not a myth?

---

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:

---

I think when a group of scientists rely on faked data and claims for over 100 years, despite repeated evidence the claims and data are faked, then yes, I think they are probably less rigorous than Jack Chick in their fact checking.

---

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.

quote:

---

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.

---

Have you ever read the Bible?

Progress. How about, say, a discussion of microorganisms? 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?

quote:

---

nwr, I was responding to this by you:

​

The randman account of Haeckel's drawings are what strike me as myth making. I took one year of biology as an undergraduate. The text included Haeckel's drawings.

​

In light of this comment, I thought my response was appropiate.

---

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)

The problem is they kept using the faked drawings and some if his false ideas for 125 years after being proven wrong. What do you call presenting Haeckel's drawings as factual? Telling the truth?

Funny how evos, claiming to adhere to science, start attacking the Bible when cornered.

Evos making embryonic claims of a phylotypic stage relied on them.

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.