Richardson is an expert in this field and refers to commonly accepted knowledge within that field and so does not substantiate that point as much as could be done.
You claim he was wrong without any evidence at all.
No, I don't claim he was wrong. I am claiming that he did not say what you said he said. I said he claimed that Haeckel had significant influence. You said he claimed that scientists rely on Haeckel. 'Significant influence' is a very general non-specific term. Was Haeckel's fraudulent work relied on by scientists? Maybe, but I'm yet to see it.
I don't appeal to authority alone. On something like this, I was forced to appeal to Richardson because guys like you are so incredibly ignorant of this area, even though you have a very strong and dogmatic opinion, that I am forced to show you how even someone I disagree with, agrees with me on this. This is a basic fact within the debate. You guys are just trying to squirm your way out of admitting the obvious.
The point is, you refer to the opinion of authority, not just their findings. For example, Wilson, Watson and Richardson.
Heck, even Richardson admitted Haeckel was believed, relied upon, and that his depictions were fraudulent.
You claim Richardson said Haeckel was relied upon, and that scientists relied on Haeckel's fraudulent work for 125 years. This doesn't seem to be Richardson's opinion, but your interpretation of his opinion.
There is no debating this, except with people like you that would swear the sky was orange if you thought it would help protect your "faith" (ToE).
The on-topic part was your reliance on appealing to the opinions of a small selection of scientists and assuming that their opinion is right on the subject and their opinion is representative.
Not only was I not defending the ToE, I wasn't even discussing it. Your the one that seems to think the actions of a few unscruplous indidviduals has some kind of effect on an explantory framework./
This message has been edited by Modulous, Fri, 23-December-2005 12:28 PM
™ Version 4.2
