|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 4653 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Science, dogmas, and AiG Creation Museum statement of faith | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Rrhain Member Posts: 6351 From: San Diego, CA, USA Joined: |
ApostateAbe responds to me:
quote: Then we have a fundamental difference regarding what the term "context" means and there is very little point in continuing. If a direct statement of "the biogenetic law is not literally true" does not provide any information with regard to a picture of comparative embryos, simply because it is not part of the caption, then there is nothing to discuss. That's your argument? It wasn't part of the caption so therefore it doesn't count?
quote: Doesn't that tell you something? You're already complaining that because a direct denial of Haeckel wasn't part of the caption, that isn't sufficient to declare that the text denies Haeckel. And now you're trying to say that your opinion should be accepted without explaining why.
quote: Incorrect. From your own quotation (and you did read it before you quoted it, yes?)
The Richardson et al. paper does not dispute that there is a highly conserved embryonic stage among the vertebrate classes. What part of "highly conserved embryonic stage" are you having trouble with? My guess is that your problem is with the following statement:
However, these authors do criticise the notion that this stage is nearly identical in all species and that differences between the classes can be resolved only after subsequent development. OK...but who is saying this? Again, back at the origin of comparative embryology, with Van Baer, it was seen that there are differences between the species in their embryogenesis. Your own source indicates that it is considered "old hat" in one group they investigated. So where are these other groups that don't understand this? And in the end, you still haven't shown that which originally claimed: Where did the NCSE "mangle the facts"? Be specific. Wells claimed that these books used Haeckel's drawings. They didn't. So where is your evidence that NCSE "manged the facts" regarding this?
quote: Indeed. Someone who complains that "the biogenetic law is not literally true" doesn't actually count as a denial of the biogenetic law because it's not part of a caption is being disingenuous at best and there is no hope of having any productive conversation.
quote: Then stop arguing like a creationist. Stop pretending that a direct denial is actually an example of advocacy. I asked you a direct question. Would you please answer it? Is it possible to draw a picture of embryos as a visual aid to a discussion of comparative embryology without it being a "redrawn version of Haeckel's sketches"? Is there any point in continuing this? Rrhain Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time. Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
greyseal Member (Idle past 3887 days) Posts: 464 Joined: |
Mike, you missed the point.
The drawings of haeckel were falsified, but reasonably correct, anatomically. What was wrong was the idea. If I am wrong, correct me - Haeckel said that mammal embryos (including humans) went from amoeba to amphibian to reptile to mammal. That doesn't happen, and that's wrong. What they ARE is all reasonably similar at certain points in their sequences - physically similar, but they are not physically what they are similar to. Understood?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9003 From: Canada Joined: |
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. Rrhain proved that Haeckel's drawings were NOT used. They are NOT exactly the same. Of course they are similar, they are of stages of development of the same animals. And, in fact, those stages do have a lot of similarities. They are also laid out in about the same manner as Haeckel's. It happens to be a good way to present the information. Again, Mike, they are NOT exactly the same. To say so is to repeat a creationist lie. And going on about Haeckel not physically drawing them as if that was meant is utter nonsense and looks stupid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
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.
And going on about Haeckel not physically drawing them as if that was meant is utter nonsense and looks stupid. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ApostateAbe Member (Idle past 4653 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
mike, I don't think it will pay to argue this point further, regardless of who is right and who is wrong. This isn't even the appropriate thread to do that. I invite you to my other thread, How creationism explains babies with tails. I pledge to give to you my fullest attention and critical thinking to any and all objections that you have to my arguments.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ApostateAbe Member (Idle past 4653 days) Posts: 175 From: Klamath Falls, OR Joined: |
Gotcha. There are some productive arguments to get into, and there are some not so productive arguments, and you can only distinguish between them after you get into them, and then you know when to bail.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mike the wiz Member Posts: 4755 From: u.k Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024