Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Will you oppose to scientific conclusions if they'll lead to theology?
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 106 of 112 (189172)
02-28-2005 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by peddler
02-28-2005 10:01 AM


You need some practice
You have replied to yourself. That means whoever you were replying too will not get a notification of your reply.
Add an extra line break between paragraphs. It makes it easier for folk to read your posts.
You have made many serious allegations but provided no evidence to support those allegations. You've been asked to provided that but so far have failed. Now I am telling you to provided supporting evidence for the following:
The question you should ask yourself is why? Why does the press -like National Geographic promote fraud?
Please provide evidence that the NationalG promotes fraud.
Why do the textbook to this day deceive children with Haeckel's embryo drawings that were denounced as fakes over 100 years ago?
Please provide evidence that textbooks to this day show Haeckl's drawings as fact.
Fraud in evolution is not a rare occurrence
Please provide evidence that fraud in evolution is a common occurrence.

New Members should start HERE to get an understanding of what makes great posts.
Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
General discussion of moderation procedures
Thread Reopen Requests
Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
Other useful links:
Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by peddler, posted 02-28-2005 10:01 AM peddler has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by coffee_addict, posted 02-28-2005 4:08 PM AdminJar has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 107 of 112 (189182)
02-28-2005 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by peddler
02-28-2005 10:01 AM


Fraud in evolution
Fraud in evolution is not a rare occurrence. It is only rare that is gets any press.
Do you know one reason to be rather sure that this is a false statement?
It is because the creationists organization are trying to use ID and other methods of attacking what is taught. If your statement above was true they would be uncovering one example after another instead of jumping on the handful of examples that scientists have uncovered in a century.
They don't even try. That is one reason to be very suspicious of your accusation. Now, as noted, you either retract it or support it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by peddler, posted 02-28-2005 10:01 AM peddler has not replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 108 of 112 (189200)
02-28-2005 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by peddler
02-28-2005 10:01 AM


Re: Logic
I don't get my science from the popular press. ... National Geographic ... Time magazine
ROTFL!
Why do the textbook to this day deceive children with Haeckel's embryo drawings that were denounced as fakes over 100 years ago?
Still waiting for evidence of this assertion.
No self-respecting biologist approves of this-evolutionist or no-but there they sit.
I have often seen this claim, in many forums, and I have often seen offers from textbook authors and publishers to fix the error if only the poster will identify where to look for the error. Like you, no poster ever comes up with a modern textbook in which Haeckel's drawings are used without identifying their errors.
List the textbooks that do this and I will personally make sure the problem is fixed.
I already posted a link to PZ Myer's critique. He didn't sit, nor did Gould. Wells and Haeckel's Embryos:
quote:
In the case of Haeckel, though, I have to begin by admitting that Wells has got the core of the story right. Haeckel was wrong. His theory was invalid, some of his drawings were faked, and he willfully over-interpreted the data to prop up a false thesis. Furthermore, he was influential, both in the sciences and the popular press; his theory still gets echoed in the latter today. Wells is also correct in criticizing textbook authors for perpetuating Haeckel's infamous diagram without commenting on its inaccuracies or the way it was misused to support a falsified theory.
Unfortunately, what Wells tries to do in this chapter is to take this invalid, discredited theory and tar modern (and even not so modern) evolutionary biology with it. The biogenetic law is not Darwinism or neo-Darwinism, however. It is not part of any modern evolutionary theory. Wells is carrying out a bait-and-switch here, marshalling the evidence and citations that properly demolish the Haeckelian dogma, and then claiming that this is part of "our best evidence for Darwin's theory." ...
In 1977, Gould wrote an excellent scholarly book on the intertwined history of embryology and evolution, titled Ontogeny and Phylogeny. As might be guessed from the title, Haeckel is a prominent character in the book, and his theories and their consequences in the field are dissected in detail and without mercy. Gould also returned to this topic in his column in Natural History magazine in 2000, centering his commentary on the discovery of a scathing critique of Haeckel by one of his contemporaries, Louis Agassiz. Gould has also written other related articles, disparaging textbook authors for their deplorable habit of recycling text and figures well beyond reason.
They call themselves Nat. Center for Scientific Ed. but promote only evolution.
RIght. They promote science. Creationism and ID are not science.
On one hand they promote ideas no self-respecting scientist would endorse ...
Such as?
... and on the other ridicule creationist as insane people?
Where does the NCSE ridicule creationists as insane people? The only occurrence of the string "insane" on the NCSE website is in a quote from a flat-earther at Morality, Religious Symbolism, and the Creationist Movement. You'r a liar ...
Why did Time magazine promote Haeckel's ideas in a fairly recent article?
The most recent mention of Haeckel in Time magazine was in 1925, in a book review. Search Result. To what article do you refer?
Why do some evolutionist defend this?
Still waiting for evidence that there are evolutionists who defend the use of Haeckel's drawings.
Over and over I see these childish tactics like saying people of faith are stupid because they believe the earth is flat etc.
Where? Certainly not at the talkorigins.org page to which you linked.
Louis Pasteur proved life only springs from life more than 100 years ago yet many evolutionists still believe we descended from a rock
Sigh. Pasteur proved that modern organisms do not arise spontaneously from formerly living matter, which is true but has nothing to do with scietific theories of how life originally arose.
When these tactics are necessary to prove your point you need to look at yourself instead of attacking others.
You are, of course, referring to yourself. We have presented evidence, discussion, and references to more information, as is typicalof "evolutionists". You have ranted and raved and produced nothing but unsupported assertions.
Fraud in evolution is not a rare occurrence. It is only rare that is gets any press.
What are the statistics of the incidence of fraud in evolutionary biology?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by peddler, posted 02-28-2005 10:01 AM peddler has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 109 of 112 (189221)
02-28-2005 1:16 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by peddler
02-28-2005 10:19 AM


No one believes it
Oh? You're a mind-reader, now?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by peddler, posted 02-28-2005 10:19 AM peddler has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 110 of 112 (189250)
02-28-2005 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 106 by AdminJar
02-28-2005 10:21 AM


Re: You need some practice
Hey yo, Mister AJ or any other admin, is it possible this peddler person is desdamona? The writing and debate style are rather... eerily familiar.

People, please look at the Style Guide for EvC thread by Sylas. Pay particular attention to step 3.
SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: Refusal to use the search engine may cause brain cancer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by AdminJar, posted 02-28-2005 10:21 AM AdminJar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by AdminJar, posted 02-28-2005 4:21 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 111 of 112 (189256)
02-28-2005 4:21 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by coffee_addict
02-28-2005 4:08 PM


Re: You need some practice
Doesn't appear to be the same person.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by coffee_addict, posted 02-28-2005 4:08 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
moioci
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 112 (189735)
03-03-2005 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by peddler
02-28-2005 10:01 AM


Re: Logic
You said:
"Louis Pasteur proved life only springs from life more than 100 years ago yet many evolutionists still believe we descended from a rock."
My understanding of science is that nobody can prove that life only springs from life in every case. IIRC, Pasteur showed that maggots(yum) do not spontaneously arise from dead meat. That is, he disproved Aristotle's contention in that regard. No conceivable experiment could show the conclusion you state.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by peddler, posted 02-28-2005 10:01 AM peddler 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