Lucy and Secular Humanism

Neanderthal Children’s Fossils | Answers in Genesis By the way, I am accusing them of using the images falsely, whether of error or fraud, I cannot say obviously, but I can say that in my opinion, I think the evolutionist community has tended to depict things in a slanted fashion, and even when they finally, after years and years of being called on it by their critics, sometimes even decades, evolutionists still seem slow to admit the implications of how what they told everyone before was bogus.In fact, the same dogmatic attitude is asserted, even more so.You tell me.Why after 1950 did evolutionists still depict Neanderthals as more or less subhuman?

In Message 22 you claimed:

quote:

---

Those are 3 solid examples of evolutionists using images to mislead the public, imo

---

In fact, as was pointed out in Message 23 the images came from pages that cannot reasonably be construed as representing science at all

quote:

---

The first image is from a French page on ebusiness.

​

The second is from an Italian company selling miniature figures (it is one of their figures, painted)

​

The third is a cover to the magazine "Creepy" drawn by Frank Frazetta.

---

Yet now you claim

quote:

---

The examples I gave were true, but I did not check the images closely.

---

So essentially you admit that you didn't bother to check the sites, but still maintain that each of the sites represents an attempt by "evolutionists" to deceive the public. Despite the fact that the nature of the sites involved makes that vey implausible and you offer no reason why your claim should not be rejected as clearly absurd.

You seem to have forgotten this thread.You have not clearly retracted your accusations nor have you supported them very well.It will be time for another suspension if you don't do one or the other.

PaulK, the 3 solid evidences of the false use of images are:1. the example in the OP2. Haeckel's drawings3. the false depiction of Neanderthals as excessively ape-likeNow, the images used to support the Neanderthal claim, that I mentioned hastily, may indeed be inaccurate, but the claim remains.Why?Because:The false use of images I refer predated the internet.Clearly it has taken a very long time for the evolutionist community to own up to in their images and depictions with the facts, namely that Neaderthals are fully human.Are you guys denying that?It seems Ned, you are denying something that is common knowledge. As far as finding evidence for, I went back and posted links to other images illustrating my point.Can you guys find human depictions of Neanderthals dating from the 50s, 60s, and 70s?How about the 80s and 90s?Why does it seem that it takes decades for evolutionists to quit relying in false and misleading pictorial depictions when the data has long ago indicated those depictions were false?Why did a web-site used for an argument by you, Ned, on another thread contain Heackel's drawings?it's true they put a disclaimer that the drawings were fudged, something they did not do for decades after it was known they were fudged, but why use the false depictions at all?Are you guys seriously claiming the way evolutionists have used images and depictions in the 3 areas I mention above, has been accurate and above reproach?

There are a lot of items in your post. I don't have time for all now and will leave some for others.The web site did NOT have Heackel's drawings as far as I can tell from the drawing and the captioning.The site also specifically noted that Heackel fudged his.How is that evidence of lies? Exactly what is wrong with what that site posted. That site, not Heackel's drawings which were discredited a long time ago.

YOur original accusation claimed that evolutionists were reluctant to give up the "right" to use false images to mislead the public.1) The example in the OP. As yet there is no evidence of fraud - or even that the image concerned is wrong.2) Haeckel's drawings - Haeckel was promoting his own ideas. Those were rejected (you will not find a recent textbook supporting Haeckel's version of recapitulation). The drawings may have been retained in textbooks but there is no indication of any deceptive use and they have been replaced.3) As has been pointed out it is the evolutionists who are producign the more accurate images, while only popular sources produce "ape-like" Neandertals. This example contradicts your thesis - unless you wish to turn around and start to claim that the more ape-like drawings are accurate. You can't even show that the older images had any intent to deceive.

Go to the following link and view the drawings, which are "based on Haeckel's drawings" according to the web-site.http://users.rcn.com/...ltranet/BiologyPages/T/Taxonomy.htmlWhy do they have drawings based on Haeckel's drawings?In reality, the web-site is worse for your case than had they simply used Haeckel's drawings with a disclaimer. Instead, they present new, fudged drawings, but try to get away with that by claiming they were based on Haeckel's fudged drawings.Wow!So they pass the buck here, and still get to use fudged drawings instead of real photos, which are available, or even drawings based on those real photos. No, instead they use as a basis for their depictions faked drawings, or as they put it, "fudged drawings".This is a classic case of exactly what I am talking about.

If they are retained and shown, that is deceptive use all on it's own.As far as Neaderthal images, can you show a Neaderthal image in a textbook dating from 1950-1985, for example, that did not contain a deceptive depiction of Neaderthals?How about from 1985-1995?Exactly when did some evolutionists begin to use more accurate images in depicting Neanderthals?

The full text:

quote:

---

The idea that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" was proposed over a century ago by the biologist Ernst Haeckel. He also made the drawings on which the drawings above are based. Periodically, people rediscover that in making them, he altered certain details to emphasize his theory. Though they are schematic, the story they illustrate here has stood the test of time.

---

I should add that there is other text stating that the idea that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is "a distortion of the truth"Obviously there is no intent to deceive here.I would add that if you can find better, easily available drawings in the Public Domain I suggest that you notify the author. If not, then it seems to me that providing a corrected version of Haeckel' drawings may have been the most practical option available.

Since Haeckel's distortiosn were to support an idea that is NOT TAUGHT AS FACT they could not have deceived the readers. So retainign them is not automatically deceptive.As to the Neanderthal images you would need to explain why erroneous images would be evidence of deliberate deception. Even in textbooks (which are often out of date by their nature).

The evidence is faked. You cannot get around it. There were actual photos posted on the same thread which clearly show the drawings used were inaccurate.My claim is evolutionists have used inaccurate images to present their case.I have now proven that.

The drawings are still being used, and still were used, to also support the scaled down version of recapitulation that evolutionists still teach.They used faked images to present their case.I have proven that, and there really is no debate. You guys just don't want to own up to any wrong-doing or weaknesses on your side.

quote:

---

The drawings are still being used, and still were used, to also support the scaled down version of recapitulation that evolutionists still teach.

---

You have not shown that Hackel's drawings themselves are stillb eing used.
And the modern idea of recpitualtion is not a "scaled down" version of Haeckel's ideas. Rather, it is based on the EARLIER ideas of Von Baer.

quote:

---

They used faked images to present their case.

​

I have proven that, and there really is no debate. You guys just don't want to own up to any wrong-doing or weaknesses on your side.

---

You haven't proven any such thing. You haven't provided one shred of evidence that there is anything wrong with the actual drawings.on the website.But you are right about one thing - there is no debate. Just the usual creationist smear tactics.

Nobody is claiming that Haeckel's drawings are entirely accurate. Unfortunately Haeckel's "fraud" - if fraud it was - was to support his own ideas which are rejected and not taught.You have yet to support your claim that there is a pattern of deliberate deception.You are however providing evidence that there is a pattern of creationists making false accusations.

In exactly what way are these drawings "fudged"? What would you change to make them "correct"?What principle are they portraying that is incorrect?