Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.
You keep using that word in a scientific context.
Again, "evolutionary geology" exists only in your imaginations. Evolution is part of life science, geology is part of earth science.
As your "anti-Moses bigotry" inanity, the first geologists were ministers or church laymen who were looking to find evidence for the Flood.
The problem is the more they looked, the more they realize that their observations were holey inconsistent with the Flood.
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
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?
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. <<
How does one expect to be taken seriously when one posting not even wrong stuff like this?
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
Is ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny still being taught as "science"?
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
3. I don't know how you got that from what he wrote. It's yet another frankly bizarre non sequitur.
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.
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
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?
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 thought you said you knew a little bit about genetics. Your questions suggest otherwise.
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.
The words "prove it" are two words.
Evolutionary geology is a pseudoscience based on the false doctrine of uniformitarianism.
They didn't look very hard. There is plenty of evidence for a global flood.
Back to my point, Lyell supposedly said this:{snip}
Again, they didn't look very hard. The evidence for a global flood is, well, global!
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:
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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?