Evolutionist Fraud

[truth above all else]

This fraud was exposed in 1868, John.

I'll give you 5 blessing points if you answer the following question correctly.

Was the fraud exposed by a scientist or a creationist?

Haeckels law has an irresistable appeal to the Darwinian imagination such that it is still taught in many schools around the world. Sadly as a youngster (late 70's) Darwins most prominent German disciple and his nonsensical idea was taught to my biology class as a proof of evolution. Given that this fraud was exposed over 100 years earlier , why was this idea still allowed to reach vulnerable young minds.

 

[Atlantians]

Ah, I seee.....so one drawing is faked = all drawings are fakes. Interesting how "evolutionists" DON'T use Haeckel's drawings as evidence, John.

You have no idea how many people in the public square have used the concept of Haeckels drawings to reffute my arguments against Evolution.
Where did they learn of the concepts shown in these fake drawings?
Every science textbook at my school.
Every Science teacher teaches from theese books without actual question.

What that results in:
A large number of critical thinking free persons.

 

[KerrMetric]

Haeckel wasn't totally wrong. Ontogeny does not recapitulate phylogeny BUT they are related. His drawings were not inaccurate either. He substituted dog embryos for human but it doesn't matter. The point he was getting across by the drawings has some validity. Why do Creationists portray this as completely bogus?

The Wikipedia article states this as:

The fact that the literal form of recapitulation theory is rejected by modern biologists has sometimes been used as an argument against evolution by some creationists. The argument is: "Haeckel's theory was presented as supporting evidence for evolution, Haeckel's theory is wrong, therefore evolution has less support". This argument is not only an oversimplification but misleading because modern biology does recognize numerous connections between ontogeny and phylogeny, explains them using evolutionary theory without recourse to Haeckel's specific views, and considers them as supporting evidence for that theory.

Note the phrase "modern biology does recognise numerous connections..."

 

[WolfBitnGodSmittn]

You have no idea how many people in the public square have used the concept of Haeckels drawings to reffute my arguments against Evolution.
Where did they learn of the concepts shown in these fake drawings?
Every science textbook at my school.
Every Science teacher teaches from theese books without actual question.

What that results in:
A large number of critical thinking free persons.

...and then you have supposed Christians like Kerr fighting against you defending... Kerr id be very happy to debate you on this subject as well... right here if you like

 

[KerrMetric]

...and then you have supposed Christians like Kerr fighting against you defending.. a lie evidently... Kerr id be very happy to debate you on this subject as well... right here if you like

What lie? Haeckel used dog embryos in his drawings and called them human. Accepted that is technically a fraud. Would it have made a difference with human embryo drawings?

Answer, NO it wouldn't. They look very similar. His theory was wrong but not in totality. Modern biology accepts there is a relation between ontogeny and phylogeny, though not in the sense of Haeckels recapitulation.

 

[WolfBitnGodSmittn]

What lie? Haeckel used dog embryos in his drawings and called them human. Accepted that is technically a fraud. Would it have made a difference with human embryo drawings?

Answer, NO it wouldn't. They look very similar. His theory was wrong but not in totality. Modern biology accepts there is a relation between ontogeny and phylogeny, though not in the sense of Haeckels recapitulation.

it is outright fraud, deception, lies, and its no surprise to me that you are defending his fraud... you sir are no Christian

ill debate you on this subject any day you feel froggy but i doubt that day will come... youll make a remark about uneducated people and condescendingly decline

i think the proof is in the pudding

You defend lies, defend evolution and do not believe the bible... so how are you a 'Christian'?

 

[KerrMetric]

ill debate you on this subject any day you feel froggy but i doubt that day will come... youll make a remark about uneducated people and condescendingly decline

i think the proof is in the pudding

You defend lies, defend evolution and do not believe the bible... so how are you a 'Christian'?

What is there to debate here. I accept Haeckel used dog embryos for his so called human embryos. Tell us what difference that would make?

Quit the insinuations about my faith.

A majority of evolutionists are Christian. I defend no lies which is why I cannot stand so called Creationism which is a bastion of them. I believe in the Bible but I don't worship it as so many literalists do it seems. I also don't need OT Jewish mythology to be literal history/science which it is clearly not.

 

[WolfBitnGodSmittn]

What is there to debate here. I accept Haeckel used dog embryos for his so called human embryos. Tell us what difference that would make?

Quit the insinuations about my faith.

A majority of evolutionists are Christian. I defend no lies which is why I cannot stand so called Creationism which is a bastion of them. I believe in the Bible but I don't worship it as so many literalists do it seems. I also don't need OT Jewish mythology to be literal history/science which it is clearly not.

scripture most clearly DOES agree with scientific findings and that i will debate you any day of the week...

 

[truth above all else]

What is there to debate here. I accept Haeckel used dog embryos for his so called human embryos. Tell us what difference that would make?

Quit the insinuations about my faith. It is blatant rule breaking.

A majority of evolutionists are Christian. I defend no lies which is why I cannot stand so called Creationism which is a bastion of them. I believe in the Bible but I don't worship it as so many literalists do it seems. I also don't need OT Jewish mythology to be literal history/science which it is clearly not.

You appear to be lukewarm on scripture and absolute truth , but overwhelmingly supportive of scientific fraud and vague alleged connections relating to phylogeny and ontogeny, why for heavens sakes ?

 

[WolfBitnGodSmittn]

You appear to be lukewarm on scripture and absolute truth , but overwhelmingly supportive of scientific fraud and vague alleged connections relating to phylogeny and ontogeny, why for heavens sakes ?

many of our church l;eaders you see on tv are members of organizations affiliated with Sun Myung Moon as well... he states that he is messiah and one day Jesus will worship at his feet

 

[WolfBitnGodSmittn]

What is there to debate here. I accept Haeckel used dog embryos for his so called human embryos. Tell us what difference that would make?

Quit the insinuations about my faith.
A majority of evolutionists are Christian. I defend no lies which is why I cannot stand so called Creationism which is a bastion of them. I believe in the Bible but I don't worship it as so many literalists do it seems. I also don't need OT Jewish mythology to be literal history/science which it is clearly not.

and if you dont see what the problem is with Haeckel's drawings, that it makes no differance what embryo was used are you equating humans to dogs? Sounds rather Godless to me given scripture tells us we are made in His image... is God a dog in your eyes? no problem with that??... Explain to me about the gills in Haeckel's drawings and tell me why they are fraudulant as well

 

[Baggins]

and if you dont see what the problem is with Haeckel's drawings, that it makes no differance what embryo was used are you equating humans to dogs? Sounds rather Godless to me given scripture tells us we are made in His image... is God a dog in your eyes? no problem with that??... Explain to me about the gills in Haeckel's drawings and tell me why they are fraudulant as well

Instead of challenging all and sundry to debates, why don't you actually rise to the challenge of debating the falsification of a young Earth and flood geology that I have set you.

 

[dlamberth]

You defend lies, defend evolution and do not believe the bible... so how are you a 'Christian'?

All that's needed to be a Christian is to accept Jesus Christ as ones personal savior. That's it. Baggins is right on the mark when he writes: Kerr Metric by not doing so has shown more Christian spirit than you have ever done.


.

 

[JGG]

All that's needed to be a Christian is to accept Jesus Christ as ones personal savior. That's it. I've also reported you. Baggins is right on the mark when he writes: Kerr Metric by not doing so has shown more Christian spirit than you have ever done.

That can't be true. There are Christians, and then there are True Christians(TM). What's the difference between the two?

 

[dlamberth]

That can't be true. There are Christians, and then there are True Christians(TM). What's the difference between the two?

Ego.

.

 

[KerrMetric]

and if you dont see what the problem is with Haeckel's drawings, that it makes no differance what embryo was used are you equating humans to dogs? Sounds rather Godless to me given scripture tells us we are made in His image... is God a dog in your eyes? no problem with that??... Explain to me about the gills in Haeckel's drawings and tell me why they are fraudulant as well

Answer the scientific point - what difference would it make?

Gill pouches appear in all four legged vertebrate embryos. There is no fraud there. Do you actually know anything about any topics related to the evolution/creation debate? Your physics is non-existent and seemingly your biology is weak.

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Most likely he is like many who PRETEND to be Christian... i know of satanists and luciferians who do this... many of our church l;eaders you see on tv are members of organizations affiliated with Sun Myung Moon as well... he states that he is messiah and one day Jesus will worship at his feet

You mean like Jonathan Wells, Moonie and hero of the anti-evolution crowd and one of major promoters of Haeckel as an argument against evolution?

 

[Frumious Bandersnatch]

Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution". Vertebrate embryology is a an excellent illustration of his point. IMO it is not as important that embryology is evidence for evolution as it is that evolution makes sense of embryology. It explains why the 3rd and subsequent pharyngeal arches that become various structures in tetrapods look at one point like the gill slits that become gills in fish while the 1st arch forms the jaw and the second becomes the hyoid in all vertebrates. It explain features such as leg bud in snake, dolphin and whale embryos and why even human embryos go through a tail bud stage and why humans are occasionally born with tails.

 

[suzybeezy]

MOD HAT ON

I have just taken alot of time to try to clean up this thread to remove flames, baits, and accusing each other of breaking the rules. Staff action was issued accordingly.

If this thread is to remain open, please keep the discussion on topic and avoiding breaking the rules of CF.

1.1 You may discuss another individual's beliefs or religious organization but you will not harass, insult, belittle, threaten, defame or flame the individual (member or non-member) as this is considered personal (ad hominem) attacks in posts, PMs and any other communication within the site.


1.5You will not directly state or otherwise imply that another member is not a Christian if he or she falls under Rule 6.5 and 6.6 and he or she does not have a hidden faith icon without providing substantiation from scripture or doctrine or historic church writtings.

2.1 You will not do anything on the site that disrupts the peace and harmony of this forum. This includes, but not is limited to:
a. Deliberately reposting a post, thread, image, Chatbox post or anything else that has been removed by a staff member for a breach of forum rule.
b. Baiting where a member harasses another member to the point where he or she might retaliate in a flame.
c. Brinking where a member deliberately does things to push the boundaries of the forum rules.

2.5.a. Accusing another member in public of breaking a rule (including calling him or her a troll or a sock-puppet). Please report any rule breaches to the staff.

MOD HAT OFF

 

[random_guy]

and if you dont see what the problem is with Haeckel's drawings, that it makes no differance what embryo was used are you equating humans to dogs? Sounds rather Godless to me given scripture tells us we are made in His image... is God a dog in your eyes? no problem with that??... Explain to me about the gills in Haeckel's drawings and tell me why they are fraudulant as well

Haeckel's false drawing has no effect on the fact that chodates have pharyngeal gill slits, including mammals such as humans and monkeys. The pharyngeal gill slits are more evidence of common ancestory, and they themselves, are not fraudulant.