Does Darwinism Equal "No God"?

That's not entirely accurate. I believe evolution leads to atheism for a great many prominent evos, such as Wilson, and that evos latched onto Darwin, in part, because of that appeal. That's just bull crap. They are scientists and asked to refer to the scientific significance of Darwin. The fact they perhaps can't see straight enough to know the difference between science and social and religious issues is indicative of many evos, and that's the whole point of the thread. Well, this is not Christmas cheer, but you are just being a flat out liar here, Percy. I never do that. I questioned jar, not because he differed from me, but because of the way he inserts the claim he was "a Christian" all the time on science threads when there is no reason to do so, except to insinuate something not entirely true. The BS point isn't even referring exclusively to his Christian claim, but the idea that he is representative of Christianity and as such as "a Christian", he feels the need to say he is one all the time, insisting in reality that other Christians like him (since he is representative of Christians) don't really believe God created mankind in His image, etc,...It's total BS, and considering his constant deceptive behaviour in this, I eventually questioned him on it. The guy would not even state he believes in an afterlife. He well may be "Christian" but his idea of Christianity is a moot point on a science thread, and his inserting that invariantly when there is no reason for it would cause any objective person to question his motive.If he didn't want his motive questioned, then he should explain why he keeps doing it and qualify what he means by "Christian". Heck, Thomas Jefferson was a Christian to a Moslem, but probably a heathen in his own mind.

Once again, like evos do all the time, you resort to theological arguments to try counter the concept of Intelligent Design. Suffice to say, you cannot muster good science arguments, and your theological arguments are very weak.

robin, forgive me if I take the opinions of respected evos in this field like Richardson, and respected creationists such as the ones that originally pointed this out to me, more than your opinion that somehow I, Richardson and many others are just wrong.

That's right, embryology within the context of how embryology relates to evolution. The claim of a phylotypic stage is an argument used in support of evolution. I would think you know that, but maybe you are incapable of accepting facts if they disagree with your belief system.I have seen similar mentalities, such as your's, in religious cults.

Faith, what we have here is a clear case of facts, historical and present facts, that are embarrasing for evos. Evos or many of them, believing what they do as a result of indoctrination not education, can sometimes find themselves in a position where they just cannot accept facts if they disagree with evolution.I think nwr actually is probably incapable of realizing Richardson's comments on Haeckel and embryology were within a context of ToE. Accepting that fact would threaten his belief system.

Robinrohan, you believe they were "almost identical" and thet "it doesn't matter", but the facts say otherwise, and he actually doctored every emrbyo at the "tailbud" stage but one, and doctored many other aspects of the drawings.

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.

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.

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.

Nwr, yep, it was discredited very early on, but evos kept using it well until at least 1997, and I suspect some still do. That's the whole point. They refused to accept the facts and kept inisting the law of recapitulation was true, first the Biogenetic law which was standard fare in textbooks well into the 50s. My Dad was taught it in college in the late 50s.Then, the law of recapitulation was taught, but a watered down form consisting of claims of a highly conserved embryonic stage called the phylotypic stage. I think some evos still advance that concept, but Richardson claims in 19997 that it was widely accepted among evos and that Hae ckel's data was accepted as evidence.So we have 125 years of evos insisting something was true despite it being debunked early on. The truth is the myth is far from dead. Evos relied so heavily on this claim that they are already backtracking and insisting there is some merit to the claims.Heck, Richardson has been so widely quoted as referring to this as one of "the biggest hoaxes in biology" that it looks like he has buckled some, and now has written Hae ckel's drawings can be "good teaching aides." History may well repeat itself with evos back in business asserting the law of recapitulation in all it's glory.This message has been edited by randman, 12-23-2005 09:06 PM

I already have ad nauseum, but just for you. MK Rich Ardson - MK Blog Rich

It is used in embryology as an example of evolution. It's directly related to evolutionary claims.