|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why are Haeckel's drawings being taught in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 Inactive Junior Member |
Hope this isn't a repost but why are Haeckel's drawings being taught in school? They have already been proven wrong in 1874 yet they are still being taught as facts all over the world. Even Haeckel himself admitted to making up the drawings.
quote: quote: quote: So why are they still being taught almost 130 years after they have been proven false? Why do evolutionists feel the need to lie to teach evolution? Below you can find a comparision between Haeckel's drawings and the truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 Inactive Junior Member |
Here are a list of textbooks that are still being used in schools today that teach Haeckel's drawings as facts:
1.Alton Biggs, Chris Kapicka & Linda Lundgren, Biology: The Dynamics of Life (Westerville, OH: Glencoe/McGraw-Hill, 1998). ISBN 0-02-825431-7 2. Neil A. Campbell, Jane B. Reece & Lawrence G. Mitchell, Biology, Fifth Edition (Menlo Park, CA: The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, 1999). ISBN 0-8053-6573-7 3. Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology, Third Edition (Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1998). ISBN 0-87893-189-9Burton S. Guttman, Biology, (Boston: WCB/McGraw-Hill, 1999). ISBN 0-697-22366-3 4. George B. Johnson, Biology: Visualizing Life, Annotated Teacher's Edition (Orlando, FL: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1998). ISBN 0-03-016724-8 5. Sylvia Mader, Biology, Sixth Edition (Boston: WCB/McGraw-Hill, 1998). ISBN 0-697-34080- 5 6. Kenneth R. Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology, Fifth Edition (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 2000). ISBN 0-13-436265-9Peter H. Raven & George B. Johnson, Biology, Fifth Edition (Boston: WCB/McGraw-Hill, 1999). ISBN 0-697-35353-2 7. William D. Schraer & Herbert J. Stoltze, Biology: The Study of Life , Seventh Edition (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1999). ISBN 0-13-435086-3 8. Cecie Starr & Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life, Eighth Edition (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1998). ISBN 0-534-53001-X.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 Inactive Junior Member |
I was unaware of this change and I am glad that such a change has been made. However take a look at what Miller and Levine said:
quote: The fact still stands that other textbooks are using this fradulent material and that Haeckel's drawings are still being taught as prove of evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 Inactive Junior Member |
quote: I received my source from the above passages. The evaluation included the 2000 Biology, Fifth Edition. Even after claiming to have fixed the problem, the evalutation has concluded that the textbook is sill misleading in some areas about Haeckel's drawings.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 Inactive Junior Member |
quote: And no wonder, for even Satan disguises (the art) himself as an angel(the lie) of light(the truth...?)
2 Corinthians 11:14
note: brackets added in verse to make a point.
quote: what does drawings of embryo have to do with adaptation? How do lies tell truth?
quote: You mean microevolution? I don't think any creationist denies microevolution. Macroevolution on the other hand.... ------------------Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. (?evolution?) Romans 1:22-23
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 Inactive Junior Member |
these are strange questions...
quote: 1. I never knew I was suppose to find a school that does. If a school uses textbooks that contain the drawings, what do you think? 2. Let me put it in words you understand: Schools use Haeckel's drawings as a way of teaching evolution. I thought this was obvious and did not need any explaination, since this is a creation/evolution forum. ------------------Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. (?evolution?) Romans 1:22-23
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 Inactive Junior Member |
quote: whatever satan said was a lie. Prove me wrong
quote: A lie is something that is meant to deceive. Jesus did not use parables to deceive, so you cannot say that a parable is a lie. Parable is the derived from the Greek work Parabole meaning comparison or likeness.
quote: You use the wrong word here. Sub "Using parables" into "Lying". A parable is a method of teaching using a comparison between two things.
quote: quote: "In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, is also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to the origin of those higher taxa. Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species."
quote: I never knew I was supposed to answer this? I'm not really sure what you are asking.
Click here, might answer question Note: sorry if I have missed your posts, while I was typing out a response, brad and pamboli made several posts that I missed. I will try to answer them to the best of my ability. However, it is late and I regret to leave your questions and comments unanwsered. ------------------Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. (?evolution?) Romans 1:22-23
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 Inactive Junior Member |
quote: Scripture distinguishes three types of death. First, there is physical death, which is the seperation of body and soul. The second type of death is spiritual death (which is the case in this situation) and the third death is eternal death. "The aspect of spiritual death that overtook our first parents immediately upon their act of sin. Alienation toward God was shown by their vain attempt to hide from Him when He came to have fellowship with them in the cool of the evening (gen. 3:8) It was apparent from their attitude of guilty fear toward him (3:10), in the curse of expulsion from the Garden of Eden (where they had enjoyed intimate and cordial fellowship with Him), in the curse of toil and pain both in the eking out of a living from the soil and in the process of childbirth, and in the eventual death of the body and its reversion to the soil from which it was made (3:16-19,23-24). From that moment on, Adam and Eve fell into a state of spiritual death, separated from the living God through their violation of His covenant." Spiritual death is described in Ephesians 2:1-3.Further reading is available here: Page not found - Apologetics Press Bible Search and Study Tools - Blue Letter Bible quote: going further off-topic into a whole differnet topic which this thread was not meant to be about... Firstly, the author of the article is a creationist, like myself. We don't believe in evolution hence the reason why we don't believe in the pepper moth as evidence of any evolutionary activity. Secondly, you have interperted the article wrong. Haeckel's drawings and moth photographs are two seperate topics. In Haeckel's case, the pictures were faked and meant to decieve since none of it is real and in moth photographs, though faked, we know that there were two different colours of moths. No one ever said that the different coloured moths were a made-up fantasy so I have no idea where you are coming up with your accusations. Thirdly, peppered moths are not evidence of evolution. Even non-creationists scientists are having second thoughts about peppered moths as evidence of evolution. No webpage found at provided URL: www.the-scientist.com/yr1999/may/opin_990524.html. Further reading of this found here:
No webpage found at provided URL: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/bowdenmalcolm/evol.htm The Quixotic Message No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4105.asp quote: First of all biologist call macroevolution a "fact of evolution".
No webpage found at provided URL: http:///RefLib/EvidencesMacroevolution.html. I'm suprised you would try to say otherwise. Christian critique found in the following link: No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp quote: Please refer to the above lines that have provided. [This message has been edited by 7, 05-18-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 Inactive Junior Member |
quote: I don't have to find a school because my school uses Haeckel's drawings hence my reasoning in creating a thread dedicated to the topic of Haeckel's drawings. Theres your answer.
quote: 1. Just because you didn't use one part of a textbook doesn't mean that someone else didn't.2. No i did not make any assumption that a school uses an entire textbook. Nor does the school have to mention anything about Haeckel's drawings. If the textbook contains them. a student can find them when he or she is using the textbook as study material. 3. Don't jump to conclusions and make up liable comments. 4. I question your assumption of my assumption that i did not make. quote: I question your assumption that it is difficult for me to find a school to back my claims. Once again you have made accusations and made liable comments in an attempt to create defamation of my character. Oh and the teacher that used Haeckel's drawings as evidence of evolution was fresh out of teacher's college. I know she knows that Haeckel's drawings were false which leaves me to wonder why she would use fradulent material to teach evolution. Note: forgive my lateness in reply. I will try to find time in between weeks to answer your questions. I look forward to the upcoming "conversation."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 Inactive Junior Member |
a quick reply before I leave
quote: yes my mistake. but its libelous not libellous. libel - to misrepresent damagingly. IN this case Mr. P made up false accusations to make me look like a lunatic who can't back his claims. so his libelous remarks were against me and not the argument.And no I never said anything about libel comments being related to disagreement in this topic. I will get back to your questions later on. till then. ------------------Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. (?evolution?) Romans 1:22-23
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
7 Inactive Junior Member |
I was in a rush so I will explain myself better now. First of all, libel is the act of misrepresenting which he has done to my responses. His remarks were not directed towards you so I don't expect you to understand but place yourself in my shoes. How would you answer his response when he accuses you with something you never claimed? How would you answer someone that accuses you of making assumptions when he jumps to assumptions about you? Once again, I feel you wouldn't understand since his remarks were not directed to you. However, who are you to say that I did not feel slandered? I actually felt he was trying to insult me.
quote: You have misunderstood my post. I never claimed that by not backing up my claims will me a lunatic. What I meant were his remarks were meant to downplay me as a person of reason, intelligence etc. For example: "Read the title you gave the topic. The best way to find out why is to ask, don't you think? Find a school, find yer answer" I felt I gave a satisfactory answer to his response but then he tries to talk to me as a superior instead of an equal (I tried to treat this entire forum as equals, we all know how a debate works). "read the title you gave the topic" Seriously what kind of remark is that? He tries to make me sound stupid. sorry bud, but even my father did not speak to me like that. "First rule of critical thinking - look for assumptions and question them. I question your assumption that a school using a textbook uses all the material in it. I certainly didn't use the entire textbook when I was at school." What are you my teacher? Once again I am bombarded by a cocky attitude directed towards me. Must I go on to explain my reasoning?
quote: I don't know where to begin to tell you how wrong you are. If you feel I'm making up baseless accusations over frustration of a debate, you're just simply wrong. I came to this debate as a reasonable person and now I am attacked by insults and false accusations. "losing argument" I never knew this was an argument. I thought this was a debate. Guess I was wrong. I feel I have provided the evidence, I tried to answer all the posts though it is overwhelming since the majority seem to be evolutionists. The only "argument" lost here is the macroevolution/microevolution which you haven't even acknowledged yet. Why don't you show me evidence to support your claims when it isn't that difficult?.<-------Doesn't it upset you when people write like this? ------------------Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. (?evolution?) Romans 1:22-23 [This message has been edited by 7, 05-18-2003]
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024