|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Why are Haeckel's drawings being taught in school? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
7 Inactive Junior Member |
quote: And no wonder, for even Satan disguises (the art) himself as an angel(the lie) of light(the truth...?)
2 Corinthians 11:14
note: brackets added in verse to make a point.
quote: what does drawings of embryo have to do with adaptation? How do lies tell truth?
quote: You mean microevolution? I don't think any creationist denies microevolution. Macroevolution on the other hand.... ------------------Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. (?evolution?) Romans 1:22-23
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7608 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
SO have you found a school that teaches Haeckel's drawings yet? And are you in a position to tell us what teaching a drawing means?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
And no wonder, for even Satan disguises (the art) himself as an angel(the lie) of light(the truth...?) Well, if Satan is the serpent in Genesis 3, he's certainly a truth-teller. So what?
How do lies tell truth? Jesus taught in parables; a parable is a fictional account (a lie) used to express a truth. Lying to tell the truth is a phenomenon as old as storytelling. Why do you reject it in this case but allow it for Jesus?
You mean microevolution? I don't think any creationist denies microevolution. Macroevolution on the other hand.... There's no difference between them. That's why you'll find that biologists don't use those terms. And that's not even relevant. I've never seen the peppered moth example used to support anything but how environment shapes morphology. (Microevolution, in your terms.) Adaptation leading to speciation is another question that takes more than some moths to settle. You still haven't answered why these images can't be used as illustrations. Even if the moths were glued to the trees by research assistants it doesn't change the fact that the environment of the moths selects for certain pigmentation. Staging a photograph to help illustrate that is not misleading.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Even if the moths were glued to the trees by research assistants it doesn't change the fact that the environment of the moths selects for certain pigmentation. Staging a photograph to help illustrate that is not misleading. Can you explain in some more detail. Is the above what happened? That is, did they simply "tie down" the moths in a place that they were naturally a lot of the time just to allow for taking a picture. To me this would really be something that doesn't affect anything. Or is there more to the fruhaha?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
7 Inactive Junior Member |
these are strange questions...
quote: 1. I never knew I was suppose to find a school that does. If a school uses textbooks that contain the drawings, what do you think? 2. Let me put it in words you understand: Schools use Haeckel's drawings as a way of teaching evolution. I thought this was obvious and did not need any explaination, since this is a creation/evolution forum. ------------------Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. (?evolution?) Romans 1:22-23
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
7 Inactive Junior Member |
quote: whatever satan said was a lie. Prove me wrong
quote: A lie is something that is meant to deceive. Jesus did not use parables to deceive, so you cannot say that a parable is a lie. Parable is the derived from the Greek work Parabole meaning comparison or likeness.
quote: You use the wrong word here. Sub "Using parables" into "Lying". A parable is a method of teaching using a comparison between two things.
quote: quote: "In evolutionary biology today, macroevolution is used to refer to any evolutionary change at or above the level of species. It means the splitting of a species into two (speciation, or cladogenesis, from the Greek meaning "the origin of a branch") or the change of a species over time into another (anagenesis, not nowadays generally used). Any changes that occur at higher levels, such as the evolution of new families, phyla or genera, is also therefore macroevolution, but the term is not restricted to the origin of those higher taxa. Microevolution refers to any evolutionary change below the level of species, and refers to changes in the frequency within a population or a species of its alleles (alternative genes) and their effects on the form, or phenotype, of organisms that make up that population or species."
quote: I never knew I was supposed to answer this? I'm not really sure what you are asking.
Click here, might answer question Note: sorry if I have missed your posts, while I was typing out a response, brad and pamboli made several posts that I missed. I will try to answer them to the best of my ability. However, it is late and I regret to leave your questions and comments unanwsered. ------------------Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. (?evolution?) Romans 1:22-23
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
5. Sylvia Mader, Biology, Sixth Edition (Boston: WCB/McGraw-Hill, 1998). ISBN 0-697-34080- 5
This edition, except in the softbound version, never mentions Haeckel and has only photographs of pig and chicken embryos "at comparable early stages." Your source is mistaken, or possibly spreading disinformation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John Inactive Member |
quote: Hey... you try getting a bug to sit still for a picture. Seriously, Kettlewell did perch ( dead, I believe ) moths on tree trunks to photograph them. And the moths don't spend a whole lot of time on those tree trunks. It is a valid criticism. There are numbers of problems with the early studies, actually. Still, the basics turned out to be correct.
No webpage found at provided URL: http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Elephant%20stuff/Chapters/Ch%2014/Moths/Moth-Update.html ------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
You think bugs are hard, try my teenagers!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
Thank you. That is a useful expostion of the whole story. Another lie or near lie by some of the creationist sites. Tch tch.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
whatever satan said was a lie. Prove me wrong Not really the topic for this, but let's see if I can do it quickly: Basic Genesis story: God makes perfect garden. God puts tree of knowledge of good and evil in middle and tells Adam "If you eat of this tree you will die that day." The serpent comes up and tells them "God's wrong; you won't die that day but rather, you will become like god, knowing good and evil." They eat the fruit of the tree. God says "They have become like us(?), knowing good and evil." They don't die that day but rather, 930-some years later. Who's telling the truth here? The serpent's story is the one that actually happens. Seems simple to me.
A parable is a method of teaching using a comparison between two things. ...via a fictional narrative. The moth photographs are not meant to decieve but rather to demonstrate something that actually happens. A kind of visual parable. Unless you disagree that dark moths can hide better on dark trees?
Definitions snipped Your definitions are exactly what I expected (I've heard those terms before) but you have yet to provide evidence that they're in use by mainstream biologists. Also it's not logically clear why there should be a distinction because the same mechanism can account for both phenomenon.
I never knew I was supposed to answer this? I'm not really sure what you are asking. What I'm asking is, why can't a fictional or staged photograph be used to illustrate something that happens in real life? Is it as bad to include artist's conception sketches in astronomy texts? Or illustrations in the bible? Is it ok for newspapers to retouch photographs to make them clearer or to remove visual artifacts? I once read about a sports magazine using photoshop on a picture of a runner to remove a radio antenna that appeared to jut from the runners chin, an accident of alighment between the camera, runner, and coach. Does that make the photograph any less "true"? Should the magazine have warned people that the real scene didn't look exactly like it did in the photograph they printed? Illustrations aren't evidence and have never been claimed to be. They're just teaching aids to make certain points clearer. Whether or not the photograph recorded an actual event or not is irrelavant.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
zephyr Member (Idle past 4581 days) Posts: 821 From: FOB Taji, Iraq Joined: |
quote:1. Where does the Bible say it was Satan in the garden? 2. What happened when they ate the fruit? Did they die that day, or did they gain the knowledge of good and evil?quote:So are you trying to tell me you're unaware that speciation has been observed both in the wild and in laboratories? It's an established fact.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NosyNed Member Posts: 9004 From: Canada Joined: |
and speciation seems to be accepted by many if not most creationists. In fact others accept the evolution of new genera as well. Not only that but they accept an enormous rate of evolution to boot.
I still haven't figured out what the story is. There seems to be some different variation for every individual creationist. And sometimes several stories from one individual which contradict each other. Members should, maybe, have a bunch of check boxes on their profile at sign up.Eg., Age of earth a) 6,000 years, b)under 10,000 and over 6,000, c)anything up to 30,000, d)4.5 billion years or so Evolution a)none at all, b)variations within kinds (kind = species) c)kind = genera, d)kind = family (but not for humans) e) everything evolved but not humans f) everyting evolved including humans but some steps were magic (ID) e)none of the above The flood a)it rained a lot, b)the earth was torn apart by catastrophes of all kinds, c)the tide came in big time AND it rained a lot d)a bunch of things happened which I wil add to in an adhoc fashion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7608 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
quote:Read the title you gave the topic. The best way to find out why is to ask, don't you think? Find a school, find yer answer quote:First rule of critical thinking - look for assumptions and question them. I question your assumption that a school using a textbook uses all the material in it. I certainly didn't use the entire textbook when I was at school. quote:I'm questioning your assumption that schools teach using Haeckel's actual drawings. The best way to find out is to find a school and ask them. Why is it so difficult, when you claim it is so widespread? [This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 05-16-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
Well that explains it. You used a report by an antievolution organisation prepared by a member of questionable honesty.
Quite frankly you would be wise not to rely on the findings in that document.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024