Does Darwinism Equal "No God"?

It has been used in the past. But at best it provides very weak support, far too little to settle the issue.

---

Impeach Bush.

Hi Randman,I wonder if you'd be willing to help out a fellow creationist, just as a regular member, not as a moderator. Carico over at the explaining common ancestry thread is having trouble understanding biology's classification system. If you pick up at Message 104 you'll get a pretty good flavor.--Percy

nwr, so are you admitting it has been used, or is used, or are you going to go back to denying it ever was used to argue for evolution?Seems somewhat absurd for you to claim I was thoroughly debunked when you alternately agree with me and then disagree.The truth is everything I have written on Haeckel has been thoroughly and amply substantiated, and your comments claiming otherwise are just foolish grandstanding denying the obvious.

Looking through the thread, I am not sure where you want me to help out. The fact is humans cannot breed with apes. Maybe if you guys would just own up to that, and then calmly state your position which is that it does not matter because of such and such, the discussion could go forward. I think ultimately it will go back to the fossil record and why we don't see the gradual changes, species to species, that would need to take place, and that gets into something I have never seen evos do fully, explain and substantiate their claims of fossil rarity in the context of species, not individual fossil rarity.

I was asking you to help him out with the classification system, not with anything else. Carico doesn't understand that ape is a broad classification at the superfamily level. He thinks that an ape is a species. The thread has gone on for a while now, and no one can seem to successfully explain to him that he is using the wrong definition of ape. If you think you can help out, or you want to discuss how you might be able to help, please post there, not here. Let's not waste any more of this thread's limited life. We're approaching 300 messages here. Right, if by apes you mean gorillas and chimps. Everyone agrees. But no matter what people say, Carico responds, "So you're claiming that humans breed with apes!" Or words to that effect. We think he's confused because he thinks apes are a species rather than a superfamily, and I thought he might trust hearing that apes are not a species from a fellow creationist.--PercyThis message has been edited by Percy, 12-23-2005 12:49 PM

uhmmmHumans are apes!!!!!

It would help if you could learn to read.As far as I can tell, it may have been used in some early textbooks to support evolution. I have never denied that. What I denied was your reading of the Richardson article. You were thoroughly debunked in your attempt use Haeckel as an argument against evolution. The obvious truth is that you are hopelessly confused. Your posting on Haeckel was mostly your misconstrual of the use of Haeckel in embryology, as if that were use for supporting ToE. That you fail to recognize this only demonstrates how confused you are.

---

Impeach Bush.

quote:

---

and even then some fraudulent claims have taken over 125 years to be corrected, and the jury is still out on whether evos will assert the same ole myths again.

---

So, is it your position that the hundreds of thousands of Evolutionary Biologists, Geneticists, and a dozen or so other scientific fields are fraudulent liars?

quote:

---

The reason I keep bringing it up is because it is demonstrably true, and you guys deny it, just like evos have denied all sorts of facts for generations; heck, teaching the Biogenetic law for 70 years when there was virtually no evidence at all for it.

---

So, is it your position that the hundreds of thousands of Evolutionary Biologists, Geneticists, and a dozen or so other scientific fields are fraudulent liars?

Evos use Haeckel's data in defense of evolution for 125 years, and now you deny it. What is there to say in the face of such a denial of reality? Is the sky orange in your world, nwr?

No, they were duped by a fraudulent ***. There is a difference between incompetence and deliberate deception, but then again, I can't speak for all of them.

No, they just taught as factual an unsubstantiated theory based on fraudulent evidentiary claims and doctored evidence. Personally, I am not sure which is more damaging to the cause of evolution, the fact most were completely duped and failed to verify their evidentiary claims (gross incompetence) or that they were lying, but I think they were, for the most part, be***ving their own spin so much they were just honestly deceived.

I haven't seen the evidence. What I have seen suggested that evos stopped using it quite early, but it continued to be used in embryology.

What evos stopped using it? What the heck do you mean they stopped using? They still use it sometimes in teaching evolution, and they still use embryological claims as evidence for evolution. Your idea that evos did not use embryology or still don't is absurd. Richardson specifically mentions the phylotypic stage held to by evos, and that is the exact theory evos used from the 50s until recently and some still do. Prior to that, they used the Biogenetic law which was also wrong. Both claims are wrong, and evos relied on both.Didn't you go to school? Pretty close to every evo textbook in the nation taught these things, and evos in the field relied on these claims as factual as well.

How can I answer that, when I don't know who did use it. I am going by comments such as this (from http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/haeckel.html: