Where are all the bones?

[RickG]

I understand the difference i just don't care much . you cant put God in a science box and it all works to weaken faith because its all carnal minded .

I agree, trying to force science into faith only weakens faith, which is why I don't understand why the greater Christian community doesn't stand up against this.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

You're kinda new here, aren't you?

Oh, I do know that you're the type of person who will respond to any post that you like since you want the attention so badly.
However, I'd prefer to have an actual adult conversation with someone. And that someone isn't you.

 

[Radrook]

Of course, and when spotted as part of peer review it will be corrected.

Sometimes peer review either doesn't kick in immediately or else goes right along for the ride. Although it definitely does help to control quackery and discourage its attempt, it isn't a 100% foolproof guarantee for authenticity.

This isn't surprising since an atheist scientist will tend to be overjoyed with anything that supports his atheism and a bit reluctant to try to disprove it.

 

[RickG]

Haeckel's embryos
Hesperopithecus haroldcookii

No AV, try learning the real story behind Haeckel's embroys. It is the creation science community that is doing the misrepresentation there. You seem to denounce creation science, yet use some of their techniques of misinformation.

 

[AV1611VET]

It is malicious misrepresentation that we are really concerned with.
Knowingly juxtaposing the jaw of an ape on a human skull, mineralizing fossils to make them appear older than they are, exaggerating prenatal embryological anatomy so that it conveys support for the evolutionist, embryological recapitulation.

That sort of unscientific quacking quackery.

Okay ... thank you.

 

[AV1611VET]

No AV, try learning the real story behind Haeckel's embroys. It is the creation science community that is doing the misrepresentation there. You seem to denounce creation science, yet use some of their techniques of misinformation.

Misinformation is what was requested, and misinformation is what was supplied.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Misinformation is what was requested, and misinformation is what was supplied.

Examples of misinformation was not what I requested from Radrook. It was misrepresented data.

 

[Radrook]

Whether a site is biased or not does make a difference. Conversapedia is a website run by fundamentalist Christians who flat out believe that evolution is true and that every single scientific discovery to do with evolution is a lie, and they do not hide that fact.
I do agree that evidence does stand or fall on it's own merits, but when the evidence is presented in a horribly biased manner, then the evidence is next to worthless, since it's coming from a source that does not value intellectual honesty.

And what I mean is that when I tried to reply to the post you made (#248), my reply (#249) only came up with my reply to your post, and it had none of the content you put up. Although this does sound more like a software problem on CF's part over anything else.

I don't uphold nor approve of biased websites and am not encouraging such an unethical, modus operandi unworthy of having the name of Jesus associated with it.
However, the data stands or falls on its own merit. If indeed you find that it doesn't, then present counterevidence instead of attacking the website from which it was gathered. That is the effective and convincing way.

About the glitch, sometimes it can be the website, and sometimes it might be the computer itself that is going haywire. I have many issues with the way my computer behaves and have taken matters repeatedly to the manufacturer. One solution was to press the start button for thirty seconds so that the computer can reconfigure itself. It worked for make. I think that pressing another key simultaneously might be involved. But first I suggest you take it to forum administration so they can check it out from their end.

 

[Radrook]

Misinformation is what was requested, and misinformation is what was supplied.

Equivocation at its finest! LOL!

 

[RickG]

Piltdown Man

There you go again, back into creation science.

Charles Dawson was an "AMATEUR" archeologist. It was the actual mainstream professional scientific community that unearthed his hoax and set thing right. For the creation science community to blame that hoax on mainstream science in today's world is beyond being dishonest, not to mention Hackel's embryos.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/solving-the-piltdown-man-scientific-fraud/

 

[Radrook]

There you go again, back into creation science.

Charles Dawson was an "AMATEUR" archeologist. It was the actual mainstream professional scientific community that unearthed his hoax and set thing right. For the creation science community to blame that hoax on mainstream science in today's world is beyond being dishonest, not to mention Hackel's embryos.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/solving-the-piltdown-man-scientific-fraud/

That's why I didn't mention the Pilt Man incident.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I don't uphold nor approve of biased websites and am not encouraging such an unethical, modus operandi unworthy of having the name of Jesus associated with it.
However, the data stands or falls on its own merit. If indeed you find that it doesn't, then present counterevidence instead of attacking the website from which it was gathered. That is the effective and convincing way.

Yet Conservapedia is fundamentally against any science that goes against their belief in a Young Earth Creation, so any thing scientific that you post from that website will always have a negative slant against it because that is their MO: any scientific evidence that goes against their religious viewpoint is bad and must be attack.

About the glitch, sometimes it can be the website, and sometimes it might be the computer itself that is going haywire. I have many issues with the way my computer behaves and have taken matters repeatedly to the manufacturer. One solution was to press the start button for thirty seconds so that the computer can reconfigure itself. It worked for make. I think that pressing another key simultaneously might be involved. But first I suggest you take it to forum administration so they can check it out from their end.

And I know what to do when my laptop has a glitch. I'm not stupid. The problem is the way that CF uses the software for their [QUOTE-/QUOTE] system. As soon as you reply to a post with a quoted portion in it, it disappears, which makes post where people put a section of writing in [QUOTE-/QUOTE], very difficult to reply to, since it just leaves us with a blank post.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

That's why I didn't mention the Pilt Man incident.

Piltdown Man.

 

[AV1611VET]

There you go again, back into creation science.

Charles Dawson was an "AMATEUR" archeologist. It was the actual mainstream professional scientific community that unearthed his hoax and set thing right. For the creation science community to blame that hoax on mainstream science in today's world is beyond being dishonest, not to mention Hackel's embryos.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/solving-the-piltdown-man-scientific-fraud/

Don't forget L'Aquila and Thalidomide.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Don't forget L'Aquila and Thalidomide.

And those are two Red Herrings that have nothing to do with the discussion and I do very much believe that you have been asked multiple times to stop bringing them up in discussions.

 

[RickG]

Sometimes peer review either doesn't kick in immediately or else goes right along for the ride. Although it definitely does help to control quackery and discourage its attempt, it isn't a 100% foolproof guarantee for authenticity.

What you need to look at in peer review is the reputation of the journal, not the peer review process.

This isn't surprising since an atheist scientist will tend to be overjoyed with anything that supports his atheism and a bit reluctant to try to disprove it.

That's total crap! And don't get me wrong, I'm not supporting atheism, I'm supporting science. If you have to debase something I suggest debasing something you have a background, experience, and understanding of instead of making baseless assertions. Sir, I spent some 30 years practicing science in the scientific community and still have numerous connections with scientists performing up to date research. I have worked along side atheists, Christians, and people of other religions, and with respect to the science, none of their personal beliefs come into play. Professional integrity is of utmost importance with scientists performing research.

 

[Radrook]

Ernst Haeckel's Gigantic Fraud on Embryos

References and Notes

1. The superficial resemblance of various embryos to one another had attracted the attention of zoologists before Haeckel, including J.F. Meckel (1781-1883), M.H. Rathke (1793-1860), and Etienne R.A. Serres (1786-1868) who theorized that embryos of higher animals pass through stages comparable to adults of lower animals, and K. von Baer (1792-1876) who was a creationist and opposed this view as well as vigorously opposing Darwinism (Encyclopedia Britannica, 1:789, 1992). It was Haeckel who popularized the idea with his catchy phrase “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” (meaning that the development of the human embryo in the womb is a rerun of the steps in man’s alleged evolutionary rise from a primitive creature).

2. R. Grigg, ‘Ernst Haeckel: Evangelist for evolution and apostle of deceit’, “Creation” magazine 18 (2): 33-36, 1996.

3. E.g. Stephen J. Gould has said, ‘Both the theory [of recapitulation] and “ladder approach” to classification that it encouraged are, or should be, defunct today.’ Dr Down’s Syndrome, Natural History, 89:144, April 1980, cited by Henry Morris, The Long War Against God, Baker Book House, Michigan, p.139, 1989.

4. E.g., World Book Encyclopedia, 6:409-410, 1994; Colliers Encyclopedia, 2:138, 1994; Carl Sagan, The Dragons of Eden, Book Club Associates, London, pp. 57-58, 1977.

5. Creationists have for many years pointed out that similarity does not prove common ancestry, but can equally well arise from common design, common pathways for engineering efficiency, etc. See “DNA Similarity of Humans and Chimps—does it prove common ancestry? AIG Article

6. E.g. Scott Gilbert, ‘Developmental Biology’, Sinauer Associates, Massachusetts, fifth edition pp. 254 and 900, 1997, where Gilbert wrongly attributes the drawings to ‘Romanes, 1901’. And George B. Johnson, ‘Biology’, Mosby-Year Book, St. Louis, p. 396, 1992.

7.E.g. Mahlon Hoagland and Bert Dodson, ‘The Way Life Works’, Ebury Press, London, p. 174, 1995, presents Haeckel’s drawings in full color, no less! And Richard Leakey, ‘Illustrated Origin of Species’, Faber and Faber, London, p. 213, 1986, where Leakey calls Haeckel’s recapitulation dogma ‘misleading’ but still reproduces the drawings.

8. Michael Richardson et al, Anatomy and Embryology, 196(2): 91-106, 1997.

9. Elizabeth Pennisi, Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered, Science 277(5331):1435, 5 September 1997.

10. Embryonic fraud lives on, New Scientist 155(2098):23, September 1997.

11. Nigel Hawkes, The Times (London), p. 14, 11 August 1997.

12. Creationists have always been aware of Haeckel’s frauds, though not necessarily its extent. See Ian Taylor, ‘In the Minds of Men’, TFE Publishing, Toronto, pp.185ff., 275ff., 1986; Wilbert H. Rusch Sr, Ontogeny Recapitulates Phylogeny, Creation Research Society, 6(1): 27-34, June 1969; Douglas Dewar, Difficulties of the Evolution Theory, Edward Arnold & Co., London, Chapter VI, 1931. Also Assmusth and Hull, Haeckel’s Frauds and Forgeries, Bombay Press, India, 1911.

http://truedino.com/haeckels.htm

 

[RickG]

Don't forget L'Aquila and Thalidomide.

Isn't there a CF forum on Health or something like that. Why don't you bring that irrelevant bilge up in that forum instead of here where it is completely irrelevant.

 

[AV1611VET]

And those are two Red Herrings that have nothing to do with the discussion and I do very much believe that you have been asked multiple times to stop bringing them up in discussions.

You guys have more escape hatches for your junk science than your Titanic had voyages:

PRATTs, Red Herrings, No True Scotsmen, unacceptable sources, unqualified fields.

It's enough to make your Hindenburg look like it was their fault.

 

[AV1611VET]

Isn't there a CF forum on Health or something like that. Why don't you bring that irrelevant bilge up in that forum instead of here where it is completely irrelevant.

And what if they tell me to bring it here?