Science, dogmas, and AiG Creation Museum statement of faith

hi - I am a "creationist", the person Rhrain constantly is referring to.My claim in another topic was that Haeckel's drawings are in modern textbooks.Rhrain seems to think that I meant that Haeckel climbed out of his coffin and physically drawn them.My only claim was that Dr Michael Richardson and Gould, have shown these pictures are replicated.Rrhain then shown drawings nearly OR exactly the same as Haeckel's and seemed to think this disproved my claim that Haeckel's drawings are used.If he meant that Haeckel didn't physically draw these drawings, then he equivocated, because anyone of normal thinking would OBVIOUSLY see that I meant the drawings are either replicated or copied.That was the only thing I was claiming. Rrhain then jumped to all kinds of conclusions about me, called me a liar, and said all of the things he has basically said to you.My advice; ignore this individual, and don't be offended, there or nicer people at this forum, so stick to the good work and carry on.Kind regards, mike.

There are replications of Haeckel's work. It is not disproved, because a comparison shows that the drawings are identical if not very similar. I provided a link in the other thread that named two people who are not creationist. Dr Michael Richardson and Gould.Does this mean that I am stating that every embryo ever depicted will be a copy of Haeckel's? No.All I want is an EXACT representation of what those embryos look like. The pictures he shown in the other thread show the human embryo as the same as other animals at one stage. Are you saying Gould and Richardson were lying about Haeckel's drawings being used in textbooks even though they are not creationist?When you say Rhrain proved the pictures are not used, he infact used many pictures. Which one?You do realize that logically, all I have to do is show Haeckel's drawings in ONE modern biology textbook in order to PROVE the claim, "Haeckel's drawings are used in modern textbooks"??It's no good showing pictures that aren't the same as haeckel's when there certainly are many that are the same, in biology books. HERE are Haeckel's drawings. It does not take an artistic genius to realize the similarities in modern books.HERE is the first picture Rhrain shown to me in the other thread. Note that in the following debate we have, he claims this picture was not Haeckel's drawings. LOOK Closely. Do you really think I am lying when I say that this picture is based on Haeckel's drawings, and that Rhrain has proven Haeckel's drawings are not used by showing a depiction of them being used?Let your biases go - and try and look at it objectively.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

Thanks for the offer, but I wasn't intending to get into this debate. I didn't even make a creationist claim. Believe it or not I only mentioned Haeckel's forms in passing, in regards to a completely different subject. The ensuing debate was Rhrain's own self-inflicted tangeant, so I fail to see why I should debate strawman positions I never argued.

IOW, you don't think I've got the guts to go 15 rounds with creed? ...That's not it, honestly, you know what it really is - it's that I know it's futile to continue to stay at this site and argue with folk. Look at the amount of posts I have tallied up. Trust me - with that amount of experience, I guarantee that you see things differently. I simply don't have inexhaustable debate-energy.But your topic seems well written and interesting. I have read the explanation from AIG, as they linked to a Christian website. As far as I can see, the spine starts out as tail-like, but they said that the tails in humans never had any bone or muscle. Either there is a confusion here or I have misunderstood. Perhaps they didn't know of any cases were a real tail formed. They only posited that lame-"tails" exist, that don't have a real tail-morphology.I don't know that much about it but personally I think that it's an amazing example of intricate design, the embryo, as it forms.Thanks.