Why Lie? (Re: Evolution frauds and hoaxes)

I added "in this instance" so you could avoid dealing with suggestions that evos do this elsewhere or all the time.Can you answer now?Here is where they do that for those that are just jumping in here. MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog RichEdited by randman, : No reason given.

Straggler, I already gave you Von Baer who in today's context would be either a creationist or IDer. He was anti-Darwinian, and if you look at his beliefs, they are ID beliefs. So I answered you and you refuse to acknowledge that. Ok, so your answer is it's OK to call fraudulent data "evidence for evolution." I am not that surprised. Will you further admit I was correct then in characterizing the paper as an attempt to reevaluate and restore some of Haeckel's ideas and the biogenetic law, that indeed evos, at least these guys, are already back to trying to use and indeed are using Haeckel's faked data and the biogenetic law as evidence for evolution, contrary to what many have stated here.As far as embrylogy, no, I don't think it is strong evidence for evolution. I don't think it belongs in textbooks as evidence for evolution and that the history of using it as evidence for evolution has been rife with fraud. I am well aware of some of the arguments, characteristically overstated as evos generally always do, but they are very weak arguments.Since this thread is not about embryology per se, I'd suggest starting a new thread, but just to give you one example of evo illogic, evos will often present some feature like a potential whale limb (as a leg) and say, look, this is vestigal. Only that explains it. But that's basically bull crap. First off, if you are an evo, you'd have to say it's entirely possible this is a new evolutionary development, not a vestigal organ. It could also be a parallel evolutionary development, and lastly, it could be none of the above. It's sheer lunacy to insist it can only be vestigal, if not an outright deception. If you want to say it could be vestigal, fine, but to say it could only be there as a result of a vestigal situation is absurd and just downright false, and yet this is how evos present "evidence" along with many other fabrications such as Haeckel's faked data, recapitulation, human gill slits that don't exist, etc, etc,.....

I read it. Why don't you take your insults elsewhere and address the topic.Do you consider it acceptable to call faked data "evidence for evolution" or not?Here is the quote again where they call the faked data evidence for evolution. MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog RichEdited by randman, : No reason given.

That's what you'd like to believe but the facts speak otherwise. Please note the following quote where evos specifically argue in a peer-reviewed journal that the drawings are "evidence for evolution." They also have some glowing things to say about the biogenetic law. MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog Rich

Here is the quote again where they call the faked data evidence for evolution. MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog RichDo you or do you not consider it acceptable to use faked data and call it "evidence for evolution"? It's not a straw man. This what they've done in this paper as quoted above, and this is what evos have done for well over 100 years on this issue.Seems that you approve of such things? But maybe I am wrong on that?

Because that is not all they are doing. They are saying fraudulent data is "evidence." It's one thing to explore an idea. It's another to use faked data as evidence for it.

This is one reason we have different threads so that if you want to explore more and more in-depth on a particular topic, such as the history of anti-Darwinians and their research and beliefs, you can do so.

MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog RichYou can find under point 4 in the conclusion. The paper also states if you read it that Haeckel is still used in textbooks and scientific papers.

Thank you.....should have read the thread further and realized someone else answered the question first.

Prove it because they are not 90% correct. They have been described by one prominent evo as one of the "biggest frauds in all of biology." They simply do not reflect the data accurately and were deliberately fundged and faked to draw the wrong conclusion and assume more similarity exists than is so in reality.Moreover, merely claiming embryonic similarity means nothing. He was claiming something much more than that and seeking to show it be fudging his data. Keep in mind all animals are similar. You are similar to a fish, an ape, a turtle, a fly, etc,....in some fashion or another. So what?Finding out that a pig embryo is a little similar to a human or chicken embryo is no big deal because pigs, chickens and humans are a somewhat similar as adults. That doesn't support evo theory. Haeckel fudged his data to try to make embryos which are not all that similar appear much more similar to make recapitulation theory, which evos are still trying to claim as somehow true, work.But the data doesn't show what Haeckel shows. We don't pass through a fish stage, for example.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

---

"Haeckel's much-criticized embryo drawings are .... evidence for evolution."Richardson and Gerhard Keuck, 2002 paper

So you have no evidence to support your contention? You don't know what Von Baer believed, nor His, nor are familiar with the many criticisms of this fraud. Right? Your post reflects a typical evo fallacy, namely that somehow "scientists" cannot include creationists. You insisted that "scientists" exposed the fraud as oppossed to creationists. You have nothing to back up your claim and the claim itself contains a massive fallacy, accusing anyone that is a creationist and I presume an IDer, that they are not scientists when that's clearly not the case.Just to make it clear, "evolutionist" is not synonymous with "scientist."It's interesting by the way to see how evo positions change. At first, some claimed, hey, no one says Haeckel's data is being used, relied on and "evidence for evolution", and then when shown that is indeed what is occurring, the fall-back position is well, it's not so fraudulent after all.....it's, it's 90% accurate.On whale limbs, you do realize the pelvis is necessary for mating, don't you? You think that structure should not develop in the embryo or something, and once again, you fail to realize that you are overstating things even if your facts were accurate. For example, animals are evolving all the time, right? So any feature could, according to evo doctrine, just be something novel that is evolving.Of course, fairly treating the data and admitting that isn't done. No, it just has to be vestigal.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

---

"Haeckel's much-criticized embryo drawings are .... evidence for evolution."Richardson and Gerhard Keuck, 2002 paper

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_16.htmlI think one is pretty clear. Had they not found the rest of the skeleton, evos maty well be still trumpeting Nebraska man. The saga of erroneously showing Pakicetus shows the propensity of evos to overstate evidence in the most egregious manner.

The idea Jefferson was referring to did not originate with him and does not correspond to the modern concept of separation of Church and State. The term originated with the Anabaptists (actually further back with the Donatists), and it is significant Jefferson uses this term in a letter to the Baptists. It's far removed from the modern interpretation of the phrase.

Maybe from his perspective, but I can guarantee you the other side of the debate considers the exact opposite to be the case. Not commenting negatively on board moderation, just pointing out that your post is an opinion and one not shared by the IDers and creationists here.

Madison didn't originate it either. It stems from Anabaptist theology and has absolutely nothing to do with trying to keep the government from acknowledging God, nor keeping God out of the science curriculum.Edit to add: just realized this was not the right thread for this. Sorry to all. Won't post anymore here on church/state separation.Edited by randman, : No reason given.