Coccyx - tale of a creationist disinformation post

[USincognito]

The only legitimate fraud I am aware of that was ever used to attempt to argue for evolution in some capacity was Piltdown Man. And that was exposed by scientists, NOT creationists.

I had a formal debate with Mark Kennedy about whether Creationists should continue to mention Piltdown or not 12 years ago.
Forma Debate - Piltdown Man Should Not Be Cited By Creationists

 

[Bible Research Tools]

You keep using that word in a scientific context.

The words "prove it" are two words.

Again, "evolutionary geology" exists only in your imaginations. Evolution is part of life science, geology is part of earth science.

Evolutionary geology is a pseudoscience based on the false doctrine of uniformitarianism.

As your "anti-Moses bigotry" inanity, the first geologists were ministers or church laymen who were looking to find evidence for the Flood.

They didn't look very hard. There is plenty of evidence for a global flood.

Back to my point, Lyell supposedly said this:

"I am sure you may get into Q. R. what will free the science from Moses, for if treated seriously, the party are quite prepared for it."​

and, this?

"the physical part of Geological inquiry ought to be conducted as if the Scriptures were not in existence”​

It appears he had an agenda against Moses and the scripture.

The problem is the more they looked, the more they realize that their observations were holey inconsistent with the Flood.

Again, they didn't look very hard. The evidence for a global flood is, well, global!

Rev. William Buckland
William Buckland: Minister and Geologist Grappling with Fossil Feces, Deep Time and the Age of Reptiles
Rev. Adam Sedgwick
Adam Sedgwick - Wikipedia

Both were fooled by bad science. If they had been faithful to the scripture and the plain words of the Lord, they would have seen through the folly of an old earth:

"But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female." -- Mar 10:6 KJV​

"For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that [Noah] entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be." -- Mat 24:38-39 KJV​

When Jesus said, "strait is the gate, and narrow is the way", those were not idle words.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

If this were true then why do creationists keep rehashing the same single event that occurred over a hundred years ago? Surely you'd have something newer to talk about by now?

It is always appropriate to remind people of the sordid past of the pseudoscience of evolutionism.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Hombre I've forgotten more about this stuff last year than you're learned in your entire life. In the few textbooks Creationists have been able to find where Haeckel's drawings were being used they were used contextually to discuss his recapitulation hypothesis. In many other textbooks where they supposedly are being used, they either weren't his drawings at all or later versions of his drawings. This famous one wasn't drawn by Haeckel, but by George John Romanes.

https://www.the-scientist.com/?arti...yonic-Evolution-Through-Ernst-Haeckel-s-Eyes/
>> Haeckel’s embryo drawings were widely circulated. They appeared in some mid-20th century high school and college biology textbooks in the United States, often bearing the name of a Canadian-British evolutionary biologist and physiologist, George John Romanes, who had copied Haeckel’s work. <<

Is ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny still being taught as "science"?

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

How does one expect to be taken seriously when one posting not even wrong stuff like this?

Do you mind translating that?

And it's hilarious hearing a Creationist claim that evolution is a fraud by citing things from 100 to 150 years ago when their own gurus and fellow travelers are spreading lies like the Delk Print and the Big Daddy Chick Tract in 2018.
View attachment 230408

LOL! I had to look those up. I had never heard of them until you posted them. I guess I need to get out more. None of the creation science websites I frequently visit mention them.

I am surprised you didn't bring up Kent Hovind?

That said, why were Haeckel's embryo's being promoted by evolutionists as late as 2015? And why were some of the modern darling's of evolution so reluctant to let them go?

Dan

 

[Brightmoon]

Wow that’s some serious denial going on there.
Dan no offense but you’re starting to look delusional! Where’s your evidence that the fantasy tales in the Bible are accurate ? Aside from nuh uh you still haven’t answered that question . And why do you keep calling the pharyngula stage of fetal development “Haeckel’s drawings”? I understand that creationists have trouble using scientific terminology correctly, but dang son, everybody has corrected you on that one!

 

[USincognito]

Is ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny still being taught as "science"?

It hasn't been taught as science (no need for scare quotes) in 100 years. Embryology does provide insight into evolution and Evolutionary Developmental Biology (EvoDevo), which combines embryology and genetics is producing a treasure trove of evidence supporting evolution.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

Well, let's see. The only two frauds I can think of in the last 100 years was Piltdown and Archaeoraptor and both of there were exposed by other scientists, not Creationists.

That is a red-herring. Creation scientists do not feed at the government (taxpayer) trough, so research money is scarce. Besides, most were educated under the strict doctrine of the evolutionism orthodoxy. I was. At the time, there was no reason to doubt the gods of science.

That said, would you say the claims about peppered moths and whale evolution are on the up-and-up?

Dan

 

[Brightmoon]

You’re complaining about kettlewell’s famous peppered moth experiment . Even though Majerus redid the experiment using more natural parameters and came up with the same results. And you also have to take into consideration that the creationist version of the original experiment wasn’t completely truthful about Kettlewell’s procedures.

 

[Brightmoon]

What about whale evolution? The original genetic evidence came back as whales are closely related to Artiodactyla . Now we understand that whales ARE Artiodactyla including having some unusual ear bones that are only found in the Artiodactyla

 

[Bible Research Tools]

I don't know what "evolutionists" are and "evolutionism" is yet another figment of your imagination. That said, you seem to be mixing words up.

Evolution is a fact.

Baloney.

Facts in science are those things that have been supported to the point where they are provisionally accepted pending any future discoveries. That goes for things as well established as heliocentrism, plate tectonics and germ theory of disease as well. It is because of that need for potential falsification, not matter how unlikely, that we do not consider scientific facts to be "proven".

Evolution, like all other historical philosophies, cannot be falsified without a time machine.

That said, there are far more plausible theories on the origin of the geological column and the fossil record that traditional evolutionism theories.

Let me just reflect back, you do know you're quoting the author of that article, not me, right? I also don't see how your question follows "Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science." It's quite frankly a bizarre non sequitur.

I believe I asked you if you were aware that mathematics was not falsifiable.

1. That's not "my" definition.
2. I coined So's Law which states - Whenever a response begins with "So..." the likeliness that whatever follows will be a straw man nears 100%. It has again been shown to be accurate.

So?

3. I don't know how you got that from what he wrote. It's yet another frankly bizarre non sequitur.

Your frequent use of the phrase "non sequitar" is noted.

Given that Steve works at a prestigious genetics institute, his papers are peer reviewed and they've got over 50,000 citations, his work is certainly more reliable than Jeffrey Tomkins.

Prove it (there is that "word", again).

Frankly, the research of anyone who believes humans and chimpanzees might have a common ancestor should be automatically labeled as suspicious.

Dan

 

[Brightmoon]

humans and bacteria have a common ancestry, what do you have against chimps? What does the geological column have to do with common descent. It just gives a relative age for some extinct organisms, trilobites are older than grasses for example.( Of course you can date the igneous layers and put a number on how old it is )And “plausible” is not the word you want to use when describing creationist versions of how the geological column came to be. Just-so story is a better description.

 

[Brightmoon]

evolution can be falsified by an out of place fossil ( and I don’t mean human burials that disturbed a layer with dinosaur bones) Like a bunny in the Precambrian.

 

[USincognito]

What about whale evolution? The original genetic evidence came back as whales are closely related to Artiodactyla . Now we understand that whales ARE Artiodactyla including having some unusual ear bones that are only found in the Artiodactyla

And as I frequently post, they have a broken gene package for hind limb development and briefly develop hind limbs in utero. I'm sure that he's referring to some dentist Carl Werner's nonsense though.

 

[Bible Research Tools]

You didn't answer my question. I asked if it was actually true, then what is the context? You do know the context do you?

This is the context listed in the article I linked a while back:

Thus, what follows are examples of textbooks that

(1) Show embryo drawings that are either Haeckel’s originals or highly similar or near-identical versions of Haeckel’s illustrations — drawings that downplay and misrepresent the differences among early stages of vertebrate embryos;

(2) Have used these drawings as evidence for currentevolutionary theory and not simply to provide some kind of historical context for evolutionary thinking;

(3) Have used their Haeckel-based drawings to overstate the actual similarities between early embryos, which is the key misrepresentation made by Haeckel, even if the textbooks do not completely endorse Haeckel’s false “recapitulation” theory. They then cite these overstated similarities as still-valid evidence for common ancestry.​

The only legitimate fraud I am aware of that was ever used to attempt to argue for evolution in some capacity was Piltdown Man. And that was exposed by scientists, NOT creationists.

Creation scientists are scientists who seek the truth about creation, unlike evolutionists.

For the record, there are many other misrepresentations currently or previously presented to our children as proof of evolution, such as the Muller-Urey experiment, peppered moths, Darwin’s finches, and Archaeopteryx, to name a few.

The author of the 2015 article also made this statement:

"There you have it. As you can see, these drawings are pervasive, continuing to misinform students as they’ve done for going on a century and a half.​

"And you might see a trend publication dates of the offending textbooks. There are still some very recent textbooks (i.e., 2005 or younger) that use Haeckel’s drawings, but most of the textbooks in our list predate the year 2000. Why is that? It’s because 2000 was the year that Jonathan Wells published his book Icons of Evolution which raised the public’s consciousness about inaccuracies in biology textbooks, especially the prevalence of Haeckel’s faked embryo drawings. While some textbooks continue to promote the inaccurate “icons,” Wells’s book has had a positive impact, reducing the number of textbooks that use the fraudulent drawings."
​

Coincidence, maybe?

In the fairness of full disclosure, Jonathan Wells is not a creation scientist.

Dan

 

[Bible Research Tools]

I thought you said you knew a little bit about genetics. Your questions suggest otherwise.

Answer them and then we shall see how much you know.

Dan

 

[Brightmoon]

This is from the Wikipedia article. The info is accurate. Jonathan Wells is a Moonie. They are known to deliberately use deceit to convince people that their particular sect is the “ Truth” . Which means it isn’t surprising that Wells used misquotes and deceptive edits . Which is also a typical creationist tactic

 

[Bible Research Tools]

And as I frequently post, they have a broken gene package for hind limb development and briefly develop hind limbs in utero. I'm sure that he's referring to some dentist Carl Werner's nonsense though.

I have never heard of a dentist named Carl Werner. You are not referring to this physician, are you?

"Dr Werner graduated from the University of Missouri with distinction in biology (summa cum laude). He received his doctoral degree in medicine at the age of 23 and practices family medicine in St Louis."

Carl Werner - creation.com​

Dan

 

[USincognito]

The words "prove it" are two words.

Uh huh, there's no problem with your use of "it" in a scientific context. I suggest you actually take the link I provided and read the content for understanding rather than just looking to attack it.

Evolutionary geology is a pseudoscience based on the false doctrine of uniformitarianism.

1. As I have told you, "evolutionary geology" exists only in your imagination.
2. Again, evolution is biology, geology is earth science.
3. Uniformitarianism, in geology, is not a doctrine as much as it is a proposal, and no modern geologists hold to it strictly. It would be more accurate to state that the modern incarnation holds that "the same processes happening now happened in the past" which would include earthquakes, floods and impact events.

They didn't look very hard. There is plenty of evidence for a global flood.

I doubt you've even heard of them so how would you know that? And no, there zero evidence geologically or genetically for the Flood.

Back to my point, Lyell supposedly said this:{snip}

Creationists have a hard time grasping that science is evidence based, not authority or personality based. Whatever Lyell said 200 years ago does not change the fact that numerous early geologists were ministers or had studied theology and standard geology and deep time have been supporter by literally (pun intended) mountains of evidence.

Again, they didn't look very hard. The evidence for a global flood is, well, global!

Yeah, before we bother delving into the lack of evidence for the Flood, I suggest you read this testimony from Glenn Morton. He was a YEC who had a crisis of faith after he became a geologist in the oil industry and the things he was observing just couldn't be explained by the Flood or a young earth.
Old Earth Creation Science Testimony - Why I Left Young Earth Creationism, by Glenn Morton

Both were fooled by bad science. If they had been faithful to the scripture and the plain words of the Lord, they would have seen through the folly of an old earth:

Ah yes. The AIG statement of faith - don't believe your lying eyes.
Statement of Faith

• By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

​

 

[pitabread]

This is the context listed in the article I linked a while back:

Thus, what follows are examples of textbooks that

(1) Show embryo drawings that are either Haeckel’s originals or highly similar or near-identical versions of Haeckel’s illustrations — drawings that downplay and misrepresent the differences among early stages of vertebrate embryos;

(2) Have used these drawings as evidence for currentevolutionary theory and not simply to provide some kind of historical context for evolutionary thinking;

(3) Have used their Haeckel-based drawings to overstate the actual similarities between early embryos, which is the key misrepresentation made by Haeckel, even if the textbooks do not completely endorse Haeckel’s false “recapitulation” theory. They then cite these overstated similarities as still-valid evidence for common ancestry.​

​

Out of curiosity, I dug back into the DI's "review" of textbooks where they discuss use of embryological pictures. Quite frankly it seems they are complaining about any suggestion that developmental biology suggests evolutionary history/relationships. But given the latter is generally accepted as evidence for evolution and really has little to do with Haeckel at this point, I'm not sure what the objection is.

Creation scientists are scientists who seek the truth about creation, unlike evolutionists.

If you read the faith statements of major creationist organizations, this is most emphatically not the case. It's about protecting religious dogma.

For the record, there are many other misrepresentations currently or previously presented to our children as proof of evolution, such as the Muller-Urey experiment, peppered moths, Darwin’s finches, and Archaeopteryx, to name a few.

None of those things are fraudulent though. The Muller-Urey experiment showed exactly what it set out to: the formation of organic compounds from precursors in specific conditions.

Peppered moths are an example of natural selection and this has been reaffirmed in recent decades.

Darwin's finches... not sure what the objection is here?

Archaeopteryx is a fossil with characteristics of both theropod dinosaurs and more modern birds. It's transitional in that respect. Again, not sure what the objection is.

None of these are deliberate falsehoods or misrepresentations with respect to biological evolution.