Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Haeckeling, trying to wrap it up....
pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 71 of 93 (268624)
12-13-2005 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by randman
12-13-2005 1:25 AM


Re: So?
They clearly assert, just as Haeckel did, that vertibrates pass through "a fish stage."
Again, you intentionally misconstrue. You essentially lie to make your point.
There is a clear difference between a "fish-like" stage and a "fish stage." "Resembles a fish embryo" is clearly different than "is a fish."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by randman, posted 12-13-2005 1:25 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by randman, posted 12-13-2005 1:49 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 77 of 93 (268635)
12-13-2005 1:58 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by randman
12-13-2005 1:44 AM


Re: quick history lesson
Nice. I point out that I told you about the date. You respond with this crap about who was and wasn't a creationist:
I thought you were referring to this thread, but now that I recall that, you acted just as unreasonable then, and failed to substantiate that Rutimeyer was an evolutionist, as you claimed.
Seems you need another history lesson, since I never made that claim, and it was you who failed to substantiate that Rutimeyer was a creationist:
The 1868 denouncement was Rutimeyer. Here you claimed that the 1868 denouncement was by a creationist, and thus that Rutimeyer was a creationist.
Something you backed up with absolutely zero evidence.
You obviously went back and read a bit of the old thread to remind you of the Rutimeyer argument, but yet again you got your facts assbackwards.
I'm not trying to be petty in bringing this old stuff up, but twice you've told me I'm wrong and twice I've showed you that I was actually right, both about arguments you yourself made.
I really don't see how you are at all following the discussion, which is only strengthened by the fact that you repeatedly make the same comments and reuse refuted arguments and quotes; not to mention the fact that you continue to argue points even when people agree with you.
I see little point in continuing discussion if your behavior is going to continue, and I see little reason to expect your behavior to change.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by randman, posted 12-13-2005 1:44 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by randman, posted 12-13-2005 2:05 AM pink sasquatch has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 78 of 93 (268637)
12-13-2005 1:59 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by randman
12-13-2005 1:56 AM


Re: interesting quote by Richardson
One wonders about how long he could make statements like that, speaking the truth, before his colleagues start pressuring him to moderate those claim...
I think he's pretty damn safe, considering that the vast majority of evolution biologists agree with him 100%.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by randman, posted 12-13-2005 1:56 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by randman, posted 12-13-2005 2:06 AM pink sasquatch has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 81 of 93 (268641)
12-13-2005 2:06 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by randman
12-13-2005 2:02 AM


Re: applying this to evolution
Don't even try changing the direction of the thread with some silly quote. Obviously you haven't even begun to defend your opening post.
Can you really do no research beyond Richardson and Miller?
You still haven't provided any peer-reviewed articles based upon Haeckel's fraud... that might be a good place to start.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by randman, posted 12-13-2005 2:02 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by randman, posted 12-13-2005 2:09 AM pink sasquatch has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 85 of 93 (268646)
12-13-2005 2:12 AM
Reply to: Message 80 by randman
12-13-2005 2:05 AM


Re: quick history lesson
still cling to vestiges of the Biogenetic Law in making claims like a fish-like stage for vertibrates
Must everything be so simple, so black-and-white to you, that saying something is like something else means that they are the same thing? Or is it just the conspiracy freak in you that can't let go?
Early human embryos are often described by OB/GYN as being "bean-like" when they are helping their patients discern the embryo on a sonogram. Does that mean that the doctors are claiming that the embryo is actually a bean? Or are they just saying that it has characteristics of a bean?
Human embryos and fish embryos share many characteristics. Get over it. And no, I am NOT claiming that human embryos have gills. Don't even start.
When you have some evidence of a modern evolution biologist claiming that human embryos actually ARE fish, let me know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by randman, posted 12-13-2005 2:05 AM randman has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 87 of 93 (268648)
12-13-2005 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by randman
12-13-2005 2:09 AM


Re: applying this to evolution
Your idiocy apparently knows no bounds. Just look at the study in the OP. It's peer-reviewed.
You really have no clue. Of course Richardson is peer-reviewed, and of course mentions Haeckel, because it is pointing out where Haeckel was wrong.
I'm asking for a peer-reviewed papers based upon Haeckel (accepting his fraud as correct), not refuting Haeckel. This is what you promised in the OP:
randman in the OP writes:
My point here is that Haeckel's diagrams were relied on by evos in their studies, research, textbooks and peer-reviewed work, at least until 1997.
So. Substantiate your claim. Reference one of these peer-reviewed works.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by randman, posted 12-13-2005 2:09 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by randman, posted 12-13-2005 2:19 AM pink sasquatch has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 88 of 93 (268649)
12-13-2005 2:19 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by randman
12-13-2005 2:06 AM


Re: interesting quote by Richardson
You think so? You think the vast majority agree with the following:
Yes. Absolutely. Scientific fraud is abhorred in the scientific community - banishment is universally the result if fraud is found to have occurred. Even being suspected of fraud can often destroy one's scientific career forever.
Your conspiracy theory view of the scientific community simply doesn't hold true.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by randman, posted 12-13-2005 2:06 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by randman, posted 12-13-2005 2:21 AM pink sasquatch has replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 91 of 93 (268652)
12-13-2005 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 89 by randman
12-13-2005 2:19 AM


short memory?
Wow. Can I write this down? Are you sure you aren;t going to insist otherwise in a few minutes.
Again, you're a hysterical idiot. I've agreed with this point a hundred times.
Richardson references some papers in the quote in the OP. Look them up for yourself if you don't believe him.
I already did look them up, and I already pointed out to you why they weren't acceptable here.
Then again it should be no surprise to me that you can't remember what happened thirty posts ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by randman, posted 12-13-2005 2:19 AM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by AdminPhat, posted 12-13-2005 2:28 AM pink sasquatch has not replied

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 6022 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 92 of 93 (268653)
12-13-2005 2:26 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by randman
12-13-2005 2:21 AM


Re: interesting quote by Richardson
Let me ask you something. What would you think of an evolutionist today recommending the fraudulent drawings as teaching aides?
You think any credible evos do that still?
Yes, of course. A textbook on the subject of evolution would be incomplete without the fraudulent Haeckel drawings.
You really don't understand context, do you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by randman, posted 12-13-2005 2:21 AM randman has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024