|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Lucy and Secular Humanism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Tom, haven't read the whole thread, but evolutionists are loathe to give up the right to use false and misleading artistic renderings to convince the public to believe.
It's all about teaching the end conclusion, for them, so hey, if they fabricate some, they see it is as no big deal for the most part.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
You really want me to track down false uses of images and post them?
How about the use of Haeckel's drawings on the thread you brought up the same issue, and I backed it up with specifics. That's one. Showing Lucy with excessively human-like hands, as mentioned in the OP, that's another. Showing Neanderthal as ape-like is another. Not all evolutionists do this anymore, thankfully, but it was done for awhile, and I suspect you can still find such false images. I will do a google search with faith that they will be there. When I was shown such false images of an ape-like creature, the internet was not around so we'll see. Yep, just typed in Neanderthal images, and up they came. Neanderthal images - Google Search Is this good enough? Those are 3 solid examples of evolutionists using images to mislead the public, imo. This link summarizes my feelings. We were all shown the ape to man transition, led to believe Neanderthal was ape-like, that Cro-Magnon was somehow slightly less than normal human, and that apes like Ramapithecus were genuinely more humanoid than they were. http://www.cryingvoice.com/Evolution/ApeMen1.html This message has been edited by randman, 06-15-2005 01:44 AM This message has been edited by randman, 06-15-2005 02:04 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
PaulK, are you denying that evolutionists for a very long time presented Neanderthal as sub-human?
I remember textbooks in the 70s showing Neanderthals as ape-like creatures, as sub-human. If you are to be honest, you should admit the same. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/bvl07.jpg
http://www.cartage.org.lb/en/themes/Sciences/LifeScience/...{Shortened display form of URL, to restore page width to normal. - Adminnemooseus} This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 06-15-2005 04:47 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
The examples I gave were true, but I did not check the images closely. But the images are evidence of the examples, and I think anyone who has followed this for a long time knows full well it has only been fairly recently that Neanderthal has been presented graphically as a normal human being.
Are you claiming that is not the case? I substituted some other links, but considering the internet is not where most of us were first presented this data, it's not the best source. I did note there was no link attached to the graphic of girl Neanderthal. I recently saw that same depiction on a site showing other, very different and fairly recent depictions of Neanderthal. So my examples of false use of images remain: Haeckel's drawings (still used today sometimes as shown here even on a link on another thread) Depicting Neanderthal as ape-like, often with the ape-to-man transition, implying Neanderthal was some sort of "missing link", which totally misrepresents the fact Neaderthals were just a tribe of people. And showing Lucy with excessively human-like hands, as mentioned in the OP. As far as claiming that is fraud, that's a stretch. False use, sure, but fraud is crime, and I don't know if you can make that case or not. Is it wrong? I think it is. Is it a crime? I suspect it probably is not and have obviously not made that claim, despite you trying to bait me with that insinuation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
The first Neanderthal child we shall examine is the supposedly 2-year-old Pech de l’Aze from southern France. In his original description, E. Patte in 1958 said that when the teeth are placed in a normal bite, the end of the lower jaw doesn’t contact the concave socket in the head.3 (Figure 1) He said it was a projecting jaw. Ivanhoe exaggerated the same features in 1970.4 Figure 2 shows how wrong they were, because when I studied it, the teeth fitted perfectly together and the lower jaw fitted into the socket. There was no projecting face as in Figure 1. In fact, a detailed study of measurable X-rays found Pech’s face didn’t project as far forward as a modern 2-year-old, but was further back in relation to the forehead than even the modern 1-year-old.5 Here is a ‘custom-built’ transitional fossil with a projecting lower jaw, so made because of the evolutionary belief that men descended from apes, and it is used to support that same belief. This is circular reasoning!
Neanderthal Children’s Fossils
| Answers in Genesis
By the way, I am accusing them of using the images falsely, whether of error or fraud, I cannot say obviously, but I can say that in my opinion, I think the evolutionist community has tended to depict things in a slanted fashion, and even when they finally, after years and years of being called on it by their critics, sometimes even decades, evolutionists still seem slow to admit the implications of how what they told everyone before was bogus. In fact, the same dogmatic attitude is asserted, even more so. You tell me. Why after 1950 did evolutionists still depict Neanderthals as more or less subhuman?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
PaulK, the 3 solid evidences of the false use of images are:
1. the example in the OP 2. Haeckel's drawings 3. the false depiction of Neanderthals as excessively ape-like Now, the images used to support the Neanderthal claim, that I mentioned hastily, may indeed be inaccurate, but the claim remains. Why? Because: The false use of images I refer predated the internet. Clearly it has taken a very long time for the evolutionist community to own up to in their images and depictions with the facts, namely that Neaderthals are fully human. Are you guys denying that? It seems Ned, you are denying something that is common knowledge. As far as finding evidence for, I went back and posted links to other images illustrating my point. Can you guys find human depictions of Neanderthals dating from the 50s, 60s, and 70s? How about the 80s and 90s? Why does it seem that it takes decades for evolutionists to quit relying in false and misleading pictorial depictions when the data has long ago indicated those depictions were false? Why did a web-site used for an argument by you, Ned, on another thread contain Heackel's drawings? it's true they put a disclaimer that the drawings were fudged, something they did not do for decades after it was known they were fudged, but why use the false depictions at all? Are you guys seriously claiming the way evolutionists have used images and depictions in the 3 areas I mention above, has been accurate and above reproach?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Go to the following link and view the drawings, which are "based on Haeckel's drawings" according to the web-site.
http://users.rcn.com/...ltranet/BiologyPages/T/Taxonomy.html Why do they have drawings based on Haeckel's drawings? In reality, the web-site is worse for your case than had they simply used Haeckel's drawings with a disclaimer. Instead, they present new, fudged drawings, but try to get away with that by claiming they were based on Haeckel's fudged drawings. Wow! So they pass the buck here, and still get to use fudged drawings instead of real photos, which are available, or even drawings based on those real photos. No, instead they use as a basis for their depictions faked drawings, or as they put it, "fudged drawings". This is a classic case of exactly what I am talking about.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
The drawings may have been retained in textbooks but there is no indication of any deceptive use If they are retained and shown, that is deceptive use all on it's own. As far as Neaderthal images, can you show a Neaderthal image in a textbook dating from 1950-1985, for example, that did not contain a deceptive depiction of Neaderthals? How about from 1985-1995? Exactly when did some evolutionists begin to use more accurate images in depicting Neanderthals?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
The evidence is faked. You cannot get around it. There were actual photos posted on the same thread which clearly show the drawings used were inaccurate.
My claim is evolutionists have used inaccurate images to present their case. I have now proven that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
The drawings are still being used, and still were used, to also support the scaled down version of recapitulation that evolutionists still teach.
They used faked images to present their case. I have proven that, and there really is no debate. You guys just don't want to own up to any wrong-doing or weaknesses on your side.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
If you don't think I have defended the charges, that's your business. Do what you will.
Part of the problem is that you and others seem so concooned in your thinking, that say, the false images "based on Haeckel's drawings" seem accurate to you. You ask for comparisons, but you already saw the comparisons on the other threads. if you cannot see the major differences and exegerrations in viewing the actual photos of embryos and these faked drawings, I might as well be trying to convince you the sky is blue when you've made up your mind that it is yellow. On the ape to human transition most of us were presented graphically as a means to convince us in school of common descent, I honestly do not understand how you or anyone can contest the fact it was a deceptive use of images. Why should I elaborate more when you are not willing to even consider the fact the ape-human transition graphics are based on making Neanderthal subhuman, excessively ape-like, and even including non-transitional species like Ramapithicus? Why are you not answering any of the questions I put to you, and allowing evolutionist posters to ignore the evidence? You demand I answer how Neanderthal's features were exagerrated as if I did not already show you how evolutionists working under their assumptions exagerrated skulls. So here it is again.
The first Neanderthal child we shall examine is the supposedly 2-year-old Pech de l’Aze from southern France. In his original description, E. Patte in 1958 said that when the teeth are placed in a normal bite, the end of the lower jaw doesn’t contact the concave socket in the head.3 (Figure 1) He said it was a projecting jaw. Ivanhoe exaggerated the same features in 1970.4 Figure 2 shows how wrong they were, because when I studied it, the teeth fitted perfectly together and the lower jaw fitted into the socket. There was no projecting face as in Figure 1. In fact, a detailed study of measurable X-rays found Pech’s face didn’t project as far forward as a modern 2-year-old, but was further back in relation to the forehead than even the modern 1-year-old.5 Here is a ‘custom-built’ transitional fossil with a projecting lower jaw, so made because of the evolutionary belief that men descended from apes, and it is used to support that same belief. This is circular reasoning!
Neanderthal Children’s Fossils
| Answers in Genesis
By the way, I am accusing them of using the images falsely, whether of error or fraud, I cannot say obviously, but I can say that in my opinion, I think the evolutionist community has tended to depict things in a slanted fashion, and even when they finally, after years and years of being called on it by their critics, sometimes even decades, evolutionists still seem slow to admit the implications of how what they told everyone before was bogus. In fact, the same dogmatic attitude is asserted, even more so. You tell me. Why after 1950 did evolutionists still depict Neanderthals as more or less subhuman? Why are you refusing to address the issues I raised, and threatening banning me? I could take a guess, but you wouldn't like it. This message has been edited by randman, 06-21-2005 01:46 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Compare the following to the faked depictions on the following link. The chick (and pig) for instance are totally different than the faked drawings "based on Haeckel's drawings" of the web-site you used in an argument. Just look at the different images. The chick and all of the embryos are articifially made to look similar, put into a shape that is not at all reflective of the shape they actually are during that stage.
If you want to be truly honest, post the comparisons. I don't know how to import the images from that web-site. Look at the drawings on the following link. http://users.rcn.com/...ltranet/BiologyPages/T/Taxonomy.html Now, compare them to the following. fish:
chick:
pig:
human:
In fact, if you look at the depictions "based on Haeckel's drawings" you can see they include the same faked errors Haeckel does. They are still using faked images. http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/evo5.html Why Ned, I ask again, do evolutionists such as the web-site you used in an argument here, use faked drawings. The drawings are fake. That's 100% admitted to, except by some around here. The web-site colored on some of Haeckel's faked drawings to make their point. How can justify that? This message has been edited by randman, 06-21-2005 01:56 AM This message has been edited by randman, 06-21-2005 01:58 AM This message has been edited by randman, 06-21-2005 02:02 AM This message has been edited by randman, 06-21-2005 02:06 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Every time there is a mistake or a misrepresentation of information, whether it is one of the infamous ones like piltdown man or the lesser ones like Haeckle's drawings, it has NOT been creationists that have exposed them, but scientists. And they are then removed from the science except as a footnote. Actually, that's not true. Pressure from creationists continually exposing misrepresentaions, at least in the case of Haeckel's drawings, at times seems to be the only reason evolutionists have abandoned their use. In fact, one can see evolutionists still using Haeckel's drawings. And yet they were exposed decades ago as frauds.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
No pigs, which is why I edited with ( ). It's still a valid point because it shows a different form.
As to the source, I merely cut and pasted from an evolutionist who did not post his source. Funny though that you did not demand he post his source. Could that be because he was defending your claims on that thread? As far as to the changes, I suggest you read the links I supplied. There is no need for an amateur analysis. The fact Haeckel distorted embryos in his drawings is well-established. I suspect you are fairly well aware of that, but choose to be unreasonable here, but maybe you really are unaware that Haeckel faked his drawings?
But Haeckel's drawings are wrong. Photographing actual embryos at these stages, Richardson and colleagues show that Haeckel's drawings are oversimplified to the point of obscuring important differences between classes of vertebrates. ... Interestingly, this knowledge appears to be "old hat" among German biologists. Haeckel's drawings were not trusted (see Goldschmidt, 1956), and Haeckel was accused of scientific fraud by a university court in Jena, where he worked and by other embryologists, as well (see Hamblin, 1997; Richardson et al., 1997b). Yet, the idea that early vertebrate embryos are essentially identical has survived. I think there were two reasons for the survival. First, Haeckels' illustration was reproduced in Romanes' (1901) Darwin and After Darwin. From here, the illustration entered Anglophone biology, "sanitized" from Haeckel. Second, the picture can be used (as it has been in several developmental biology books, including my own [Gilbert, 1997, p. 254]) to illustrate von Baer's principles rather than Haeckel's biogenetic law. http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/evo5.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Below is a textbook publisher admitting that Haeckel's drawings were:
1. "frauds"2. "became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook" As it turns out, Haeckel's contemporaries had spotted the fraud during his lifetime, and got him to admit it. However, his drawings nonetheless became the source material for diagrams of comparative embryology in nearly every biology textbook, including ours! Haeckel's Embryos Can we agree on that? Next, the web-site you linked to on the other thread is this one below. http://users.rcn.com/...ltranet/BiologyPages/T/Taxonomy.html They are nearly identical to Haeckel's faked drawings. http://zygote.swarthmore.edu/evo5.html In every respect of error, they are the same. Just look at the drawings. It appears to me the only difference in Haeckel's drawings and the drawings based on Haeckel's fraudulent drawings is the coloring. Case closed on that point. That's deceptive use of images. Can you agree to that?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024