Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   most scientific papers are wrong?
bernd
Member (Idle past 3981 days)
Posts: 95
From: Munich,Germany
Joined: 07-10-2005


Message 82 of 113 (285152)
02-09-2006 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 56 by randman
02-07-2006 2:42 PM


Re: RM wrong still
Hello Randman,
You wrote:
Wrong on what point?
1.Do you deny he faked his data?
2. Do you deny evos taught the Biogenetic law as factual even when it wasn't? and did so for a full 50 years after everyone in the field knew it was wrong?
3. Do you deny that recapitulation theory, also taught, is wrong?
4. How about the claims of the phylotypic stage, which was based on Haeckel's data according to Richardson in his 1997 study?
Exactly how am I wrong on any of my claims relative to Haeckel?
A discussion of your questions is probably off topic in this thread. Why don't you discuss the points one to three here [1]? The thread is intended to explore the following article [2], wherein Richardson revises his positions on Haeckel's theory and drawings - which I suppose has some consequences for your favourite arguments.
Finally, your last point is in my opinion irrelevant for the ToE. If you don't agree, I would propose to discuss the topic in this thread [3].
-Bernd

[1] Message 1
[2] MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog Rich
[3] Message 1
This message has been edited by bernd, 10-Feb-2006 12:04 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by randman, posted 02-07-2006 2:42 PM randman has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024