Education

Nonsense. It just shows that textbooks for beginning courses are not always up to date.I should have mentioned that biology course I took was somewhere around 1957. There you go putting words in my mouth again.I haven't claimed anything about embryology to be true. I don't know much about the subject at all.

---

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

So, now, can you explain how the actions of an unspecificed minority of evolutionists making claims about vertebrate embryology speaks to the veracity of evolutionary claims that have nothing at all to do with vertebrates, embryos or no?That's the part of your logic I'm having the trouble with. Or maybe that you're having trouble with. Is it your assertion, then, that vertebrate embryology forms the basis of evolutionary science? How does that work, exactly? What's the relevance of vertebrate embryology to, say, entomology, or microbiology?

I didn't say you had. I said mainstream evos had.

Since Haeckel's drawings were generally used as one of the main evidences for evolution, despite being false, for 125 years, I think it shows a serious problem within the evo community in their approach to data, as it relates as evidence for evolution.

oh god not this again.keep it to the gd.

---

אָרַח

Nothing to with the Bible really. It`s a question of integrity. If you insist on maintaining the moral high ground, then you better beware that the same accusations can`t be fitted to your belief. For example, one might ask you for transitional fossils in the Bible provenance. Or point out Haeckel isn`t the only one portraying fictions up to the present (think of those representations of Jesus as a tall, blondish white)

If you want to discuss embryology why not post to Bernd's new 'Branchial arches or biomechanical flexion folds?', where he directly addresses one of the claims you have recently been making, yet again.TTFN,WK

I know, and that is the point, you don't now all the facts, you have evidence and you believe that it shows how the world fits together , but, you don't KNOW that it is correct. Therefore it is a belief, a belief in what the evidence shows you, but it is a belief the same as those who believe the other evidence that the bible contains.

Couldn't you same the same about the people who believe the bible is correct and then proceed to provide reams of evidence to support literature that some claim to be an accurate history. It applies both ways.(sorry I'm still catching up with this thread)

First of all I don't reject all of the other evidence of evolution. I was just pointing out that since there is no complete record of fossils, it is a fact that science doesn't have the whole picture. Just as the evidence about the sun and the solar system. A person could believe in a heliocentric theory because that is what they observe. As indeed have you. You believe the solar system goes around the sun because that is what you have learnt from other sources, and you have accepted that information. But again it proves my point that unless you have the complete picture, you cannot make concrete conclusions. Just as it has been pointed out that scientists cannot be dogmatic if they are willing to recieve new information and evidence to further their understanding.This message has been edited by RobertFitz, 12-12-2005 07:18 AM

It's not me who claims it, but the creationist who demands that you prove your theory. That is one of the reasons that they pick holes in it isn't it. You know, no transistional fossils etc. But I'm not defending either theory, I'm just pointing out that noone of us have the complete picture, and that we all make conclusions from evidence that may or may not be complete, and that therefore to condemn one argument or the other as totally innaccurate is somewhat conceited.This message has been edited by RobertFitz, 12-12-2005 07:20 AMThis message has been edited by RobertFitz, 12-12-2005 07:21 AM

As Randman says:"Please substantiate this. Specifically show:1. How the mere fact of fossils of any kind substantiates evolution. For example, how many fossils of transitionals does ToE predict, or are you you merely arguing a totally unfalsifiable theory.2. How any number of transitionals shows evolution. Should there not be some sort of prediction or analysis of how many transitionals should be found? To just claim any that are found more or less proves evolution is basically, once again, not showing a falsifiable scientific theory, since what you are arguing is that any combination of fossils automatically verifies evolution. "see what I mean.....

quote:

---

Schraf, I already told you due to your behaviour, I would not participate on that thread any longer. Maybe you didn't realize I was serious.
I did note though that someone else provided a link as you were demanding, and you still ignored it.

---

My behavior? I don't recall any behavior problems from me in that thread.Certainly, no moderator saw fit to point out any problems. Perhaps you would like one of the other mods to examine the thread and make a determination regarding who, between the two of us, are following the forum guidelines?Personally, I think you are derelict in your duty as a moderator to set a good example in that thread regarding Forum Rule #4: You made an assertion which you have refused to back up with evidence, yet you also refuse to withdraw it.In this thread, you have also flung about very grave accusations that thousands of professional scientists are either moronically incompetent or complete liars, again without providing a bit of evidence to show that this is the case.Shameful.

quote:

---

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.

---

No, randman, according to you she is most definitely NOT honorable and doing good work.According to you, she is "mythmaking" because he work is based upon the idea that the ToE is the best explanation of the data we have to explain the origin of species on Earth.You have repeatedly made your opinion of Evolutionary Biologists abundently clear. You believe they are moronic incompetents or fraudulent deceivers.You can't have it both ways. You cannot indict the entire field as worthless and then pretent to not be saying that about individual scientists and their work as well.So, you are surely calling Crashfrog's wife a liar and an incompetent.

That is part of the issue. THe 'creationist' says there are problems that there are not. For example, you mention "No transitional fossils". That claim is misinformation, because hundreds of transitional fossils have been discovered When this is explained, and detailed examples given, the information is ignored by the creationist, who repeats their claim, just as if the information was never relayed to them at all.I have noticed that even when an argument has been shown to be false, that same arguement gets brought up repeatedly. This seems to be a discognitive dissidence where information that does not match preconcieved notions it dismissed.Many people do not understand what evolution actually is. They keep on asking for 'evidence' about things that evolution does not predict. They keep on attempting to raise the bar on the evidence. Many people who are creationist reject evolution because it doesn't answer 'where the first cell came from'. That question is irrelavent to evolution, because it deals with how life changes through generations.Before you can demonstrate the accuracy of a theory, you first have to understand what the theory is. A scientific theory is never 'proved'.
What happens is that the scientists uses investigation and tests to try to disprove it. After over 150 years of trying, more and more evidence has come in to substantiate the theory, and no one has shown anyway to falsify it.