Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Yes, it's another damned evolution question...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Lincoln
    Thanks Stinger. I have to go to work now but I must post this next article for the benefit of Jack before I go:

    Biblically-based scientists have always known that the theory of evolution is fraught with false evidence. Whether in the form of deliberate hoaxes or misinterpretations of the facts based on pre-conceived biases, practically every "proof" of evolution supplied by Darwin’s supporters has turned out to be false. A notable example of this was provided by German scientist Ernst Haeckel, Darwin’s staunchest supporter in nineteenth-century Europe. Like most proponents of evolution, Haeckel was less than honest and accurate in his scholarship. Stephen J. Gould, professor of biology, geology, and the history of science at Harvard and the world’s leading supporter of the evolution myth, admitted in an article in the March, 2000 issue of Natural History:

    Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, IF NOT ALWAYS ACCURATE [says Gould], books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin…in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution (p. 42, emphasis added).
    To "prove" the greater myth of evolution, Haeckel invented the lesser myth known as "ontology recapitulates phylogeny." In a nutshell, he claimed that evolution was proved by the fact that, from its conception to its birth (or hatching), every animal passes through an evolutionary "climb" identical to the worldwide process of evolution from one-celled animals to advanced life-forms over eons of time. In other words, every animal embryo "evolves" from a microscopic mass of cells to a fish, then to an amphibian, then to a reptile, and so on. To prove his claim, Haeckel created numerous drawings of embryonic fish, salamanders, tortoises, chickens, pigs, dogs, and humans, all placed side by side. His drawings showed each species starting its fetal existence looking exactly like all the others, and then undergoing an individual evolutionary ascent identical to that which Darwin had proposed for the entire animal kingdom.
    The problem with Haeckel’s "proof" of evolution was that his drawings were a hoax. Even Dr. Gould admitted that

    Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities [between embryos of different species] by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases — in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent — simply copied the same figure over and over again.…Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his fudgings right from the start (p. 44).
    Most of the scientific establishment, eager to reject the Book of Genesis and embrace Darwin’s myth, uncritically accepted Haeckel’s artwork. Of the very few who knew them to be fraudulent, the most vocal figure was one of the greatest Creation scientists of all time, Louis Agassiz. A professor of zoology at Harvard and the first scientist to discover that the Earth had once been under a "Great Ice Age," Agassiz had vigorously opposed the introduction of evolutionary teaching at Harvard. The Swiss-born scientist made no bones about Haeckel’s pro-evolution dishonesty. When he examined the book in which Haeckel’s bogus drawings first appeared, Agassiz wrote in the margins that the drawings were "artistically crafted similarities mixed with inaccuracies," and that "these figures were not drawn from nature, but rather copied one from the other!" He then wrote the word "Atrocious" (p. 48). In the fight that erupted between the two scientists, Gould admitted that
    Agassiz generally sticks to the high road, despite ample provocation, by marshaling the facts of his greatest disciplinary expertise (in geology, paleontology, and zoology) to refute Haeckel’s frequent exaggerations and rhetorical inconsistencies. Agassiz may have been exhausted and discouraged, but he could still put up one whale of a fight, even if only in private (pp. 47-48).
    Despite the fact that Haeckel’s embryo drawings have long since been exposed as fraudulent, the profoundly dishonest pro-evolution movement is, astonishingly, STILL presenting his artwork as "proof" of Darwin’s theory. Ironically, no one has been more vigorous in exposing this travesty than Dr. Gould, the world’s staunchest proponent of Darwin’s great myth. He wrote:
    Haeckel’s drawings, despite their noted inaccuracies, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology (p. 44)….Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because…textbooks copy from previous texts (p. 45).
    Prof. Gould then made this absolutely startling admission:
    …[W]e do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, IF NOT A MAJORITY, of modern textbooks! (p. 45, emphasis added)

    He then goes on to quote a colleague, Michael Richardson of the St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London, who stated, "I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically" (p. 45).
    These facts are both frightening and heartening. They are frightening because they demonstrate the colossal dishonesty of the evolutionary movement, as well as the widespread nature of this dishonesty. However, it is heartening to know that even a militant anti-Creationist such as Dr. Gould would admit in the pages of a respected journal like Natural History that one of the major pieces of evidence for evolution is not only fraudulent, but is shamefully being propagated among the world’s youth to this very day. With hope, this might serve as a wake-up call for people who have been deceived into believing Darwin’s theory as scientific fact beyond the scope of doubt or question.
    Ah yes, the misquotes. I know they are coming sooner or later. I don't understand this. All these misquites are not only old and worn out, but they have all been exposed as such. Why even bother, Lincoln?

    Creationist Arguments: Misquotes

    Clarence Darrow Misquoted by Creationists

    Quotations and Misquotations: Why What Antievolutionists Quote is Not Valid Evidence Against Evolution

    Famous Quotes found in books

    Thou Shall Not Bear False Witness

    Lie of a Creationist exposed by a Christian

    I am not going to list the horde of websites and pages dealing with Creationists lies, in this case misquotes and quoting out of context.
    Last edited by Urban Ranger; May 14, 2003, 12:42.
    (\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
    (='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
    (")_(") "Starting the fire from within."

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Lincoln
      In any case, the stories continue and for some reason the fantastic speculation is believed by people who will go to any means to escape their Creator. How much simpler would it be to assume that love, the beauty, intelligence, variety and adaptability of life comes from a being that has a superior reasoning ability than our own? Of course that would take a degree of humility which must be avoided at any cost.
      I'd think this was brilliant satire, if I didn't know you, Lincoln.

      Of course, nothing is said about the fantastic speculation one must make to believe in an invisible, omnipotent, omniscient being suddenly poofing everything into existence. Sure, that's so reasonable an assumption!

      One could also argue it is Religionists who are the ones who lack humility. After all, they are the ones arrogant enough to think the Universe was created for their benefit, and have the desperate need to have a god watching over them. It takes a real lack of humility to believe one is immortal, and that if one simply begs a divine power for something, that power will actually come to one's aid. Tell me, isn't arrogant for people to think god will answer/has answered their particular prayers, when countless millions have died horrible deaths, with their prayers unheeded? Why weren't those prayers answered? Were they lesser people than those who believe their prayers are answered?

      So how is it arrogant to seek a scientific explanation for things based on observation, yet perfectly humble to believe that one is the center of attention for an all-powerful supreme being who created the universe just for one's own salvation?
      Tutto nel mondo è burla

      Comment


      • #78
        Creationists are the same people as those who would have had Gallileo and Copernicus tried for heresey
        Space is big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind- bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space.
        Douglas Adams (Influential author)

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by TheStinger
          Creationists are the same people as those who would have had Gallileo and Copernicus tried for heresey
          It's essentially an argument from the same arrogant position: We must be the center of everything.

          Religionists: WE ARE THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE!

          Scientists: Um, actually, we orbit the Sun, which in turn--

          Religionists: HERETICS!!! BURN AND FLOG THEM!!!

          (400 years go by, during which time it is demonstrably shown that we indeed do orbit the Sun, not vice-versa).

          Religionists: Oops. Sorry about those burnings and floggings. BUT WE SURE AS HELL DIDN'T COME FROM CHIMPS!

          Scientists: Well, actually--

          Religionists: Get a rope.

          So in a few hundred years (hopefully less, should reason win a quick triumph), the religionists will have just one more mea culpa to add to their long list.
          Tutto nel mondo è burla

          Comment


          • #80
            Dammit, do I have to repost the disclaimer?
            ARGUE, people! Snide parodies are not a form of argument. They're just obnoxiousness...
            1011 1100
            Pyrebound--a free online serial fantasy novel

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Elok
              Dammit, do I have to repost the disclaimer?
              ARGUE, people! Snide parodies are not a form of argument. They're just obnoxiousness...
              When some folks start with accusing others of being arrogant, don't they deserve a thorough response?
              Tutto nel mondo è burla

              Comment


              • #82
                Yeah, well, personal attacks are obnoxious too. But that kind of semi-satirical name-calling is just plain childish. Why don't you just call him a doodyhead boogerbrain while you're at it? It's my experience that intelligent people are not convinced by insults and mockery. I don't think you have the right to assume your opponents are stupid, and I'm actually rather surprised that you don't know better than to fight that way. Your last argument before your little skit was a thorough response. Insults and generalizations are, IMO, out of line.
                1011 1100
                Pyrebound--a free online serial fantasy novel

                Comment


                • #83
                  Relax, the skit was just a bit of humor. If I hadn't posted the other response, maybe. And it is actually a pretty accurate condensation of how it went. It also demonstrates a valuable point--considering how often it has happened in the past that religious fundamentalism has lost out to science, the same should eventually prove true vis-a-vis evolution.

                  The religious extremists who make it a mission to attack science at all costs in order to maintain their irrational views are worthy of mockery, IMO. I don't think non-extremist religious folks should be offended by the above, as it's not a reference to them at all. The Pope accepts evolution, after all.
                  Tutto nel mondo è burla

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Elok
                    I don't think you have the right to assume your opponents are stupid, and I'm actually rather surprised that you don't know better than to fight that way.
                    Creationists might not be stupid, but they stoop down to any depth, no trick is too dirty for them. You name it: lies, misquotes, quoting out of context, evasions, logical fallacies, fabrications, buying advanced degrees from diploma mills, smears, you name it, it's in their bag of tricks.

                    I truly believe that some people who believe in Creationism are themselves victims, but you can tell whether somebody is actually here to spread Creationist lies when the debate rages on. I am not going to name names.
                    (\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
                    (='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
                    (")_(") "Starting the fire from within."

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Boris Boris Boris Boris! *cheer*
                      urgh.NSFW

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Originally posted by Urban Ranger
                        Creationists might not be stupid, but they stoop down to any depth, no trick is too dirty for them. You name it: lies, misquotes, quoting out of context, evasions, logical fallacies, fabrications, buying advanced degrees from diploma mills, smears, you name it, it's in their bag of tricks.

                        I truly believe that some people who believe in Creationism are themselves victims, but you can tell whether somebody is actually here to spread Creationist lies when the debate rages on. I am not going to name names.
                        Any trick? How about gross generalizations? What diploma mill did Lincoln get a degree from? This is why I hate all kinds of party affiliations-no one group can ever represent all the ideals of all its constituents in any way, and to attack the people on this board as creeps for the actions of unrelated stinkers is almost as dumb as "freedom fries."
                        But that's beside the point. My objection is to the pollution of an otherwise civil debate with petty name-calling, no matter how accurate. This is on OT page four or so now so it's a moot point, but let's play nice, huh?
                        Yeah, I just got back from babysitting duty. Can you tell?

                        1011 1100
                        Pyrebound--a free online serial fantasy novel

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Elok
                          Any trick? How about gross generalizations? What diploma mill did Lincoln get a degree from? This is why I hate all kinds of party affiliations-no one group can ever represent all the ideals of all its constituents in any way, and to attack the people on this board as creeps for the actions of unrelated stinkers is almost as dumb as "freedom fries."
                          Ah, but Lincoln has freely associated himself with those very same disreputable Creationists by adopting their false arguments and citing them as sources. Does that not lump him into their camp?
                          Tutto nel mondo è burla

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            This thread sure has deteriorated quickly. I wonder how I got to be the center of attention for posting some facts about a one hundred year lie that was perpetuated on innocent school kids? Oh, I forgot, only "creationists" lie. Funny, I know several hundred and none of them are liars but I guess they must be exceptions to the rule.

                            As far as Copernicus and Galileo go, they both believed in creation by God. I guess they were both liars and arrogant fools. And thanks for the links UR but I didn't see any that addressed my post. Diversion and mockery can be effective but also a dishonest debate tactic.

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Urban Ranger


                              Well, if you have a better theory that explains mountains of information from such a huge number of principles such as geology, biology, paleotology, genetics, farming, etc., etc., I am all ears.



                              What do you call this? Uh, a Strawman. That's it, a Strawman. Because only creationists would completely misconstrue evolution as "a strong of coninciding miracles," this makes you a Creationist.

                              Not that surprises me in the least.
                              I was talking about the so called abiogenesis of life from non-life. A debate you and Jack lost BTW.

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Boris Godunov


                                Ah, but Lincoln has freely associated himself with those very same disreputable Creationists by adopting their false arguments and citing them as sources. Does that not lump him into their camp?
                                No, it's called being fair and not calling them all "liars" etc. etc. Notice I also made reference to the honesty of Steven Gould. You might try to be objective instead of being so intolerant of views that oppose your own.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X