Jump to content


Abortionists Having To Face Truth.


  • Please log in to reply
157 replies to this topic

#41 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 22 March 2009 - 05:47 AM

They keep saying they've stopped teaching Häckel, but if that were so, why would we be seeing stuff like this?

...In eight weeks after fertilization, a single human embryo traces our entire evolutionary past. The first weeks we start simple, a sponge maybe, or the translucent ghost of a hydra. Within the next few days a notochord descends. The origin of the vertebrate. Gills streak our sides by week four, and we begin to breathe the amniotic fluid of our mother’s uterus like an ancient jawless fish. Week five, our hands web into the ray-like fin of a perch. Then a spine. A red lattice of veins. A mouth that sucks fluid into the soaked lungs of something amphibian. Week seven we sprout the first hair follicles of a mammal....


http://www.princeton.....hp?id=96.html

#42 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 22 March 2009 - 06:09 AM

And there's more to this lie than just the acknowledged fraud, too.

What I venture to ask here is how anyone could ever have been fooled in the first place.

How could anyone fail to see the most obvious implication of such a proposal? Namely, stillborn children should emerge as fish, salamanders, and chickens. Nobody should have been unaware if children were born with feathers and proceeded to strut around the yard and crow in the morning.

I maintain the fact that such things have never been observed should have conferred common-sense immunity to anyone who did not intend to be fooled by "Häckel."

If Häckel & co. claim the baby becomes successively different animals, how does one reconcile the failure of these animals to turn up when pregnancies go wrong? Not just human pregnancies - all mammals were thought to pass through stages. But no dog's ever produced a fish. How obvious is that!?

But of course, that's not what Häckel actually taught. That's Straw Häckel. Straw Häckel was invented so they could disavow something, while still keeping everything the real Häckel taught (minus his catch-phrase, because it'd be too obvious).

There will probably be someone just itchin' to accuse me of making this up.
http://dannyreviews...._Phylogeny.html

The idea that the development of individuals is a progression through adult ancestral forms, epitomised in the saying "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny", has played an important part in the history of biology. Since the rejection of recapitulationist ideas in the early part of this century, however, the study of links between development and evolution has been relatively neglected.


See that term 'adult'. They currently disavow this idea, claiming that recapitulation of developmental forms occurs. Well, when we look at what Häckel's drawings, they do not contain adult versions of any creature! Only Straw Häckel claimed recapitulation of adult forms. The real liar didn't. But in order to pretend they're going to play straight (as if!) they invented straw Häckel and straw recap.

#43 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 22 March 2009 - 06:17 AM

They keep saying they've stopped teaching Häckel, but if that were so, why would we be seeing stuff like this?
http://www.princeton.....hp?id=96.html

View Post



Hmmmmmm, evolution in nine months.. I thought it took millions of years (give or take a few zeros)!

I remember debating that real evolution is nothing more than the adaptive and circular growth pattern; we as a species go through, from the cradle to the grave. That our lives start in the embryonic stage, we evolve (grow through adaptation) until we reach middle age, then we start to de-evolve physically (and mentally somewhat) until these bodies give out. And the wolves were howling and gnashing their teeth at my description. So, it went over well.

When you read that article, the author reaches a point of speculation and fantasy that only the best of evolutheistic writers can hope to reach. But, when you put all the fanciful and flowery writing aside, the author is just describing the growth and adaption process of the embryonic cycle, while opining in evolutheistic rhetorical babble-speak… It almost brought me to tears in its shear imagination and word picturesque(ness).

#44 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 22 March 2009 - 06:19 AM

:) "Straw Häckel" I can almost hear him singing "If I only had a brain".

:rolleyes: Sorry, but that's what came to mind :)

#45 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 22 March 2009 - 06:42 AM

:) "Straw Häckel" I can almost hear him singing "If I only had a brain".

:rolleyes:  Sorry, but that's what came to mind  :)

View Post

Skudd Dude, they have straw everything!

Care to read about Straw Lamarck?
http://www.textbookl...org/54marck.htm

The Lamarck presented in schoolbooks, however, is a fiction -- an imaginary figure who has been fashioned from hearsay and wrong guesses, and who has been replicated in countless books by successive teams of plagiarists. This figure shares very little, except his name, with the Lamarck of history. Textbook-writers have imbued the fictitious Lamarck with an importance that the real Lamarck never had, and they have credited him with ideas that the real Lamarck did not hold. They also have invented a myth in which those ideas are compared falsely with Darwin's ideas, to produce a bogus dichotomy.


That's written by an evolutionist, BTW.

When's the last time you saw an evolutionist argue against anyone's actual position? (My link doesn't count ;) ) Doesn't happen often, does it? They argue against straw creationism, straw bibles, straw every-last-thing-they-oppose. And when they want to look like they oppose something they support, why reinvent the wheel? Just keep doing the same thing they always do: crankin' out straw men left and right.

#46 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 23 March 2009 - 04:06 PM

When's the last time you saw an evolutionist argue against anyone's actual position? (My link doesn't count  ;) ) Doesn't happen often, does it?

View Post



Not too often, but, if you give them time, they’ll contradict themselves left and right. But, when we bust them out by quoting their own words, they defend themselves by hollering “QUOTE MINING!!!”.

It’s great fun. And it’s the only reason to even read their drivel anymore!!

#47 Richard Townsend

Richard Townsend

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London, England

Posted 23 March 2009 - 04:22 PM

They keep saying they've stopped teaching Häckel, but if that were so, why would we be seeing stuff like this?
http://www.princeton.....hp?id=96.html

View Post


His work probably was fraudulent, which cannot be defended in any way.

However, it is true that embryological development does take human embryos through states that look like 'ancestral' species. For example, the circulatory system in human embryos goes through a series of configurations that resemble the embyonic circulatory systems of fish, amphibians and reptiles. This is the same sequence in which it is believed that evolution happened. This is not direct proof of evolution but it is suggestive.

Lots of research is going on in this area. It's quite legitimate for this kind of material to appear today.

#48 Richard Townsend

Richard Townsend

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London, England

Posted 23 March 2009 - 04:40 PM

And there's more to this lie than just the acknowledged fraud, too.

What I venture to ask here is how anyone could ever have been fooled in the first place.

How could anyone fail to see the most obvious implication of such a proposal? Namely, stillborn children should emerge as fish, salamanders, and chickens. Nobody should have been unaware if children were born with feathers and proceeded to strut around the yard and crow in the morning.

I maintain the fact that such things have never been observed should have conferred common-sense immunity to anyone who did not intend to be fooled by "Häckel."

If Häckel & co. claim the baby becomes successively different animals, how does one reconcile the failure of these animals to turn up when pregnancies go wrong? Not just human pregnancies - all mammals were thought to pass through stages. But no dog's ever produced a fish. How obvious is that!?

But of course, that's not what Häckel actually taught. That's Straw Häckel. Straw Häckel was invented so they could disavow something, while still keeping everything the real Häckel taught (minus his catch-phrase, because it'd be too obvious).

There will probably be someone just itchin' to accuse me of making this up.
http://dannyreviews...._Phylogeny.html
See that term 'adult'. They currently disavow this idea, claiming that recapitulation of developmental forms occurs. Well, when we look at what Häckel's drawings, they do not contain adult versions of any creature! Only Straw Häckel claimed recapitulation of adult forms. The real liar didn't. But in order to pretend they're going to play straight (as if!) they invented straw Häckel and straw recap.

View Post


Forget Häckel - that's ancient history (and I agree almost certainly fraudulent). The claim of modern evolutionary development is that the human embryo goes through stages that resemble in some respects embryos of 'ancestor' species. It doesn't matter what Häckel thought.

This is why we don't expect to see stillborn children looking like adults of other creatures. However, photos of human embryos do look show resemblances to embryos of other species, generally in quite early stages of development. We have a tail for example at one point in our development, and circulatory patterns that resemble those of embryonic fish, amphibians and reptiles.

#49 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 23 March 2009 - 05:52 PM

Forget Häckel - that's ancient history (and I agree almost certainly fraudulent). The claim of modern evolutionary development is that the human embryo goes through stages that resemble in some respects embryos of 'ancestor' species. It doesn't matter what Häckel thought.

This is why we don't expect to see stillborn children looking like adults of other creatures. However, photos of human embryos do look show resemblances to embryos of other species, generally in quite early stages of development. We have a tail for example at one point in our development, and circulatory patterns that resemble those of embryonic fish, amphibians and reptiles.

View Post


His work probably was fraudulent, which cannot be defended in any way.

However, it is true that embryological development does take human embryos through states that look like 'ancestral' species. For example, the circulatory system in human embryos goes through a series of configurations that resemble the embyonic circulatory systems of fish, amphibians and reptiles. This is the same sequence in which it is believed that evolution happened. This is not direct proof of evolution but it is suggestive.

Lots of research is going on in this area. It's quite legitimate for this kind of material to appear today.

View Post

And the difference? None.

Still teaching what Häckel taught.

Does make your suggestion that we forget him seem a bit out-of-order. What? You want to plagiarize for free?

#50 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 23 March 2009 - 06:43 PM

However, photos of human embryos do look show resemblances to embryos of other species, generally in quite early stages of development.

View Post


And I've seen humans with heads shaped like potatoes, and yet they’re still human.

#51 Richard Townsend

Richard Townsend

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London, England

Posted 25 March 2009 - 03:57 PM

And the difference? None.

Still teaching what Häckel taught.

Does make your suggestion that we forget him seem a bit out-of-order. What? You want to plagiarize for free?

View Post


No, what I'm saying is that there is genuine evidence from embryology that is consistent with evolution. The fact that he made up some drawings doesn't affect the truth or otherwise of that evidence.

#52 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 25 March 2009 - 04:22 PM

No, what I'm saying is that there is genuine evidence from embryology that is consistent with evolution. The fact that he made up some drawings doesn't affect the truth or otherwise of that evidence.

View Post


And there is more genuine evidence from embryology that is consistent with design.

#53 Richard Townsend

Richard Townsend

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 113 posts
  • Age: 47
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • London, England

Posted 26 March 2009 - 06:18 AM

And there is more genuine evidence from embryology that is consistent with design.

View Post


Everything is consistent with design, and everything in any possible world is consistent with design, unless you specify some attributes of the designer and their motivation.

#54 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 26 March 2009 - 01:46 PM

Everything is consistent with design, and everything in any possible world is consistent with design, unless you specify some attributes of the designer and their motivation.

View Post


There is no problem with specifying attributes of the designer and His motivation. And design is far more logical than the alternative of everything coming from nothing. The problem for the atheist evolutionary thinker is that they cannot accept anything beyond the physical. And yet we utilize and work within the metaphysical everyday. In fact, we cannot explain the physical without the metaphysical…

#55 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 26 March 2009 - 01:59 PM

And there is more genuine evidence from embryology that is consistent with design.

What potential evidence can you think of that would be inconsistent with design?

Give us a few examples.

#56 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 26 March 2009 - 02:03 PM

What potential evidence can you think of that would be inconsistent with design?

Give us a few examples.

View Post


Given that vague question, absolutely none...

In fact, all the evidence is far more consistent with design that it could ever be for an accident… Logically and scientifically!

#57 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 26 March 2009 - 02:10 PM

Given that vague question, absolutely none...

In fact, all the evidence is far more consistent with design that it could ever be for an accident… Logically and scientifically!

View Post

So arguing for design by claiming that "the evidence is consistent with design" is logically and scientifically worthless, because you admit there is no possible evidence inconsistent with design.

Got it.

#58 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 26 March 2009 - 03:00 PM

So arguing for design by claiming that "the evidence is consistent with design" is logically and scientifically worthless, because you admit there is no possible evidence inconsistent with design.

Got it.

View Post


Quite the contrary, arguing from the standpoint of random accident would be illogical. You are confusing possibility with probability. It is possible that everything was a random accident, but it is logically improbable.

There is absolutely no inductive evidence that any living thing was created by accident, because there would have had to have been the possibility of the ingredients for life coming about by accident. All inductive logical and scientific evidence shows that life comes from life. There is absolutely no inductive logical and scientific evidence that shows life coming from non-life. Therefore, the logical and scientific probability of such is negated…

#59 de_skudd

de_skudd

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,518 posts
  • Location:North Augusta, SC
  • Interests:reading, learning, talking and stuff
  • Age: 41
  • no affiliation
  • Creationist
  • North Augusta, SC

Posted 26 March 2009 - 03:07 PM

Unless, of course, you have some logical and scientific evidence of life coming from non-life? Can you provide such logical and scientific evidence?

#60 assist24

assist24

    Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 251 posts
  • Age: 40
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • United States

Posted 26 March 2009 - 04:28 PM

Unless, of course, you have some logical and scientific evidence of life coming from non-life? Can you provide such logical and scientific evidence?

View Post

Give me a concise definition of life and non-life first.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users