Jump to content


Abortionists Having To Face Truth.


  • Please log in to reply
157 replies to this topic

#1 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 August 2005 - 03:38 AM

From gill slits to brains? That's what Haeckel would have you believe, and was one of the main driving forces of evolution, as Darwin was desperate to find evidence for his theory. Here's haeckel's drawings.

Posted Image



But new technology really spells out the lie, with no way around it.

http://www.clearview...om/gallery3.asp

Even though this was actually proven wrong, and Haeckel was found out, this lie was still in text books over a 100 years after the fact. And was even being taught by teachers, and professors as fact. Were not text in science text books upgraded in 100 years? Yes, but even the upgrades, written by those with scientific minds, still contained both the lie of haeckel's, and Dawson (piltdown man).

Excuse? It takes so long to change text books in school. Really? Ever heard of sending letters to schools pointing out that this was wrong information? A fraud, a lie? There are several ways this could have been done, inexpensively. But, they did not even try.

This, plus Piltdown man. Did so much to move evolution into the mainstream. Why not let it stay? Why not still let it be taught? Science had no problem with it back then, why even remove it now?

But let's get to the core of the issue for a second. Would science had removed it, if it were not for Christians (creationists) pointing it out as a lie? If no one would have raised such a ruckus, as Christians did, it would still be there. Science did not have the notion to remove it, or even send letters for it not to be taught, why would they remove it on their own? Why would they suddenly decide to do a moral thing, when what was being promoted was immoral? And no one in Haeckel's line of work would step forward for several years to say anything?

So how hard would it have been to stop this lie being taught to our children?

Sending a letter to each school would have cost a nickel, or less, for each school. Or, even better. Send one letter to each school board. And let them make copies and send it out to the schools in their area. But this was so hard to do, that the finest minds could not do it, or would not do it.

But was this bias? Yes it was.

Example: How much trouble did science go to, to remove creation and God from our schools? They spent a lot of money, and had collected money from other scientists to do it. Had court hearings etc.... While they had the haeckel's lie, and Dawson's lie, still in our text books. it was time to move. And they did. But they did not lift one finger to point out that what Dawson and Haeckel did was a lie, not even in court. And because both of these lies were the bases as to why evolution got into our schools, plus the finding of a tooth (later found to be a pig's tooth), they could not allow this foundation to be torn down so quickly. So they came up with a way to make unprovable stuff sound like truth. And tweak it based on how our minds would perceive it as being truth (a type of brain washing). Thus, relativism was born.

Relativism: The view that truth is relative and not absolute. Truth varies from people to people, time to time and there are no absolutes.


Make your own truth and your own reality. But real reality is different:

the state of being actual or real; "the reality of his situation slowly dawned on him"


So the bases of evolution, can't even be said to be based on the definition of what reality is. Because Haeckel lied, Dawson lied, and the tooth turned out to be, what it was not claimed to be. Three things, that were the launching pad for evolution, not even real? No wonder relativism has to be used.

But the story even gets more morbid. People who have a personal agenda, take haeckel's lies, and use them to start the abortion mill called planned parenthood. Haeckel's lies, and drawings, were used to win several court cases. They proved to the court, through a lie, that humans were some type of animal during gestation of a baby.

gestation: The nine-month period of pregnancy from conception to birth.


All because several lies could not be owned up to, by a group of people unwilling to admit wrong doing. So now evolution, plus science, has the blood of millions of babies aborted every year, to this very day, just because they could not admit to "not" telling the truth. And then once the truth about the lie came out, dragged their feet in doing anything about it. Darwin's Theory had to survive, how many paid the price for it's survival? And how many more will continue?

And evolutionist say the flood killed children? Abortion has killed more children than any flood ever could.

It is estimated that 3,000 babies are aborted in the U.S. everyday. Some people have such a grim view of life, they actually use it as birth control. Having more than one abortion per year. How did some get this mindset? Haeckel's lie.

But Haekel's lie, and evolution go even deeper into evil than we could imagine. For even Hitler used both to justify killing millions of people, because he thought they were bread from dogs. Sub-human, as he would call it. Blacks were on this list as well. Don't think Hitler used evolution as an excuse for what he did? Why was it mentioned by him in the book he wrote concerning how he thought the world should be? How a super race of the "fittest" should be the only ones to live on earth. I wonder where he got the phrase "fittest" from?

The history of abortion, that connects to evolution, and Hitler:
http://lifedynamics....s/Holocaust.cfm

First, second and third trimester abortions and how they are done.
http://lifedynamics....ps/Methods1.cfm

So is what we do with abortion, being done to intelligent life? Life that can feel pain?
http://www.michaelcl....com/story.html

Side note:
Why would I post something like this? I basically get tired of evolutionist making what they do look like some type of saint hood. While in the process, making Christians look like something evil. I just thought I'd set the record straight. and I only touched on the surface of what I could have posted about this. For if you want more, just let me know.

Added 8-21:
Question: If what Dawson and Haeckel did, were made known when it should have been. Would evolution be where it is at today?

Personal opinion: No. Why? When something comes into question because of the fraudulent act of others. It makes people look deeper into what was being pushed to ask the question why someone had to lie, and cover it up. And upon doing so, the foundation of evolution would have been destroyed. How? Relativism was not mainstream like it is today. And because people back then were looking for what was real, and not fake, they would have seen right through this. but the brain washing of our schools, that whatever you want to be true can be, has taught kids that now now adults. That they can believe a lie, and it makes it truth. All because your reality of truth makes it so.

Question: Did teachers and professors know about these lies that these people told? Of course. but what else were they going to teach? Creation was thrown out of school. And no one really knew how to reinstate it. So the lie continues.

So what is the lie being pushed as truth today about us evolving? The Stanley Miller experiment.

#2 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 20 August 2005 - 11:39 AM

So, did the flood kill more children than abortion, which happens to be part of evolution because of Haeckel?

Did Hitler kill more people than the flood did?

Added:

This being up for three days, and no response. Tells me what I figured all along. When truth is exposed about a lie, it has an affect that makes people see reality. Those caught up in a lie such as this, are really shocked to see the truth of it. For some thought that it was only one side that had done bad things, even accused God of these things. To only read what is here, and find, that is not true. That their hand are even more bloody, than what they would accuse others of being.

And if this shocks you, I can tell you it's not the half of it... Like medical science, that kills people every day. They produce medications that actually have a side affect that says: Can cause sudden death. Some might think: This has to happen to find a cure. Really? If so, then let a family member of yours take, and have that side effect and see if you don't change your mind. Adults, and children, die for what?

The drug companies have to get their research and development money back. Which is a funny way to put it, when most of what they do is funded by grants, which is our tax money. So we fund these drug companies to make drugs that can kill us? Or is this all really for money?

Then you have the abortion pill, RU486. Which, by the way, says it can cause sudden death. Death in the unborn, as well as the mother. How? RU486 works like rat poison. You see, rat poison kills the rat by making it's blood so thin, the rat bleeds to death internally. Ru 486 works the same way to kill the unborn child. Problem is, there's a 50% chance it may kill the mother as well. By making her internally bleed to death. And it has happened. Both mother and baby die, and for what reason? Money.

You see, the problem is, when the mother takes the RU486. It makes her blood so thin, that if she bleeds, gets into an accident, etc.... There's a very good chance she will bleed to death. I remember on story a doctor told of a woman that came into the ER one night. The doctor could tell she had lost a lot of blood. In fact, all of her veins had collapsed. They could only give IV through her neck. Before it was all over with, they had used 10 pints of blood to save her life. Because she just kept bleeding. They had to remove all her female organs, and burn all the openings to her blood vessels, which would not clot because of that drug. This doctor had testified in front of congress to stop the drug from coming to the US. It fell on death ears.

So what would make us do these things? Evolution makes us believe that life is worth nothing. So why cherish it? Kill more to find cures to save many? Yes, but only if it's not one of my family members.

So why do you think they want human clones. If we already do these things to our own kind. Just imagine how clones will suffer. And for what? To show how we can find cures? Or make more money?

#3 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 21 August 2005 - 03:06 PM

Don't think they will use human clones will be used in experiments that were for animals?

Why did they experiment with making cloned fish with no heads? No head means they feel no pain. So you could just do whatever until they died, and say it was painless, and some how, that would make it right and moral. but will human clones be our doom? If their immune system is weak, this could allow diseases we have not seen in years make a come back. Plus new ones to form as well. We could wipe out our own kind just for the greed of knowledge and money.

Example: Even wonder why the Incas just disappeared from the face of the earth? If you look at how far advanced they were, in experiments they did on humans. I believe they actually open themselves up to a sickness that killed them so fast, you could not tell what happened to them. So fast that they were so scared, they did not even record what had happened. so it remains a mystery. We could do the same with human clones.

Clones and the end times:
Will the human clone have a soul? According to the word of God, the anti-Christ will be possessed by the devil himself. If the clone has no soul, it would explain how this could be done. How death (him being mortally wounded, and make a full recovery) has no control over him. Being conceived in a way that God did not make us to be, would make the clone with no soul. Why? God says that He knew us before we were born. Which means born in the way God intended. And when God referred to people multiplying, He always made references to their seed. But guess what? The clone has no seed of a man.

A clone only has life because someone started the cell splitting using a low voltage jolt to the woman's egg. Birth outside the way the Creator designed us.

God's word also says: He (the anti-Christ) will not have need of a woman. Some thought this would mean that he would be g*y. But, a clone often is a morphodite (having both male and female organs that don't work). How can you have S@xual desires if your s@x organs don't work? Also, this would also go along with what happened when angels (Satan's angels) had s@x with women and had a race of giants. What happened to these angels?

2 peter 2:4. For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell, and delivered them into chains of DARKNESS, to be reserved unto judgment;

Being in chains, means that God does not want this to ever happen again. So the seed of Satan (anti-Christ in the flesh) cannot be multiplied because he is a clone, and his s@x organs don't work. For if Satan did have a body fully functional, what do you think he would do with it?

So will the anti-Christ be a clone? It all seems to fit.

#4 Fred Williams

Fred Williams

    Administrator / Forum Owner

  • Admin Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2469 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Broomfield, Colorado
  • Interests:I enjoy going to Broncos games, my son's HS basketball & baseball games, and my daughter's piano & dance recitals. I enjoy playing basketball (when able). I occasionally play keyboards for my church's praise team. I am a Senior Staff Firmware Engineer at Micron, and am co-host of Real Science Radio.
  • Age: 52
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Broomfield, Colorado

Posted 21 August 2005 - 06:48 PM

Just a quick note. I emailed a Harvard professor about the fake Haeckel embryo picture he was using on his school-sponsored and hosted website to promote this illusion of evolution (in this case a fraud). In a round-about way he admitted they weren't accurate, but all he did on the website is put a small disclaimer that the embryos are just drawings, and that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny has problems. But he still kept the fake drawings on his site and referred to them!!! In other words, he decided to keep the illusion going, despite the fact this nonsense was long sense disproven. I seldom use the word lie, but this professor was intentionally lying to his students and the public. Like Haeckel, he is a disgrace to truth and to science. If need be I'll try to find the site. The year I emailed him he had recently retired, so it's possible the web page may have since been removed only because of inertia due to his no longer being on the staff. This was at least 3 years ago.

A question I would ask is, if there truly is so much evidence for evolution, why would a biology professor at Harvard need to bother including evidence that has long since been proven to be a fraud?

Fred

#5 RockerforChrist14

RockerforChrist14

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 123 posts
  • Age: 15
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Amity, Oregon

Posted 21 August 2005 - 11:17 PM

Amen brother. Amen amen amen. Wow!

#6 st_dissent

st_dissent

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Interests:Physics, mathematics, astronomy, hiking, reading, and good conversation.
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • PLANET EARTH

Posted 22 August 2005 - 11:30 AM

Haeckel's illustrations might be incorrect but the fact that the embryos are similar is not in question. They are very similar! Sure there are some differences, however, that is to be expected since the degree of relation between animals is not equal. I am surprised that a professor still uses Haeckel’s illustrations because illustrations exist that are corrected for Haeckel’s errors.

Here is a great site showing the similarities visually with actual film footage:

http://www.pbs.org/w.../odyssey/clips/

Also, here is Kenneth Miller's response on the whole issue:

http://www.millerand...os/Haeckel.html

Note the part about how the illustrations have been fixed in most textbooks. This is why I can't believe that the professor Fred spoke of is still using those outdated drawings; these are just as convincing - even if the professor is part of some naturalistic conspiracy. Just glancing through the biology text that my campus uses shows Haeckel's embryo drawings and explains what is incorrect about it and shows a corrected version made from real photographs. The similarities remain quite striking!

By the way, I do not think life isn’t special, quite the contrary, I think it is amazing. I do support abortion, however it is not from a morality standpoint. Humans like to have s@x; we are one of the few animals that do it out of season just for pleasure. It is impossible to keep people from breeding and producing offspring and with significant decreases in birth spacing and subsequent increases in population levels, unwanted pregnancies usually lead to the continuation of poverty and crime. Outlawing abortion has ill effects on a community from a practical standpoint. If this were a fascist government it would be easy to implement morality on a population; unfortunately it is not so folks will have to be satisfied with implementing their morality on themselves and their immediate family (if that sort of control exists).

#7 st_dissent

st_dissent

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Interests:Physics, mathematics, astronomy, hiking, reading, and good conversation.
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • PLANET EARTH

Posted 22 August 2005 - 11:39 AM

This, plus Piltdown man. Did so much to move evolution into the mainstream. Why not let it stay? Why not still let it be taught? Science had no problem with it back then, why even remove it now?


This was a hoax exposed by scientists. It shows that science is self correcting. The hoax was discovered because Piltdown man could not be reconciled with other hominid fossils (this is why it took 40 years to do it).

Look at the Creationist hoaxes: Malachite Man, Paluxy Footprints!

Whats the difference?

#8 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 August 2005 - 12:28 PM

Look at the Creationist hoaxes:  Malachite Man, Paluxy Footprints!

Whats the difference?

View Post


And how long did it take for them to finally admit to it? Not until those frauds had evolution firmly set in place. Then science only admitted to the mistakes they wanted to admit to, or had to admit to.

Like the Stanley Miller experiment. Is it ok for every scientist to cheat to get his results, then other scientist say: Well the reason he cheated was to show this could actually happen. An excuse for fraud? So is this what accredited schools teach? Then not print what the cheat was until creationists actually have to point it out? The finest minds, work together to cover up frauds?

And the paluxy foot prints are only frauds through the assumption of bias opinions. Also, why was it that when they were going to expose more of these foot prints by removing a slab of rock, that some environmentalist, at just the right time, got a law past about "hurting the river" by doing such things? Funny how that law was specifically written to only stop the removal of the slab near the shore. But anything in the river bed itself is ok.

So if science is so into solving this mystery, why won't they allow the removal of this slab, which will expose more of these paluxy tracks, probably in perfect condition. Or is science afraid of the truth?

This was a hoax exposed by scientists. It shows that science is self correcting. The hoax was discovered because Piltdown man could not be reconciled with other hominid fossils (this is why it took 40 years to do it).


40 years, then another 150 to get it out of our text books? And even then some text books still had it. So that's almost 200 years to even try to do something. I can get more done in a day, then what they took 200 years to correct.

#9 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 August 2005 - 09:10 PM

So what about all the deaths to keep evolution alive? I see this has been skipped. Funny how the evolutionists always demand we give an answer, but are all to willing to overlook their own faults by ignoring them.

#10 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 August 2005 - 09:23 PM

SD said:

Haeckel's illustrations might be incorrect but the fact that the embryos are similar is not in question. They are very similar! Sure there are some differences, however, that is to be expected since the degree of relation between animals is not equal. I am surprised that a professor still uses Haeckel’s illustrations because illustrations exist that are corrected for Haeckel’s errors.


There are people who would disagree with you:
-------------
Michael Richardson Embryologist at St. George’s Medical School:

This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It's shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry. What Haeckel did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don't. These are fakes. "An Embryonic Liar" The London Times August 11, 1997 p.14

-------------

One of the most popular and familiar pieces of evidence used to bolster the theory of evolution – reproduced for decades in most high school and college biology textbooks – is fraudulent, and has been known to be fraudulent for nearly 100 years.

Most people have seen those drawings of developing human embryos next to developing animal embryos, and they look virtually indistinguishable. (The Haeckel embryo sequence shown purported to show – left to right – a hog, calf, rabbit and human). This has long been said to demonstrate that humans share a common ancestry with these animals and thus prove the theory of evolution.

These pictures were designed by German zoologist Ernst Haeckel. What few people know – and one of many surprises in the evolution debate reported in the July edition of Whistleblower magazine (formerly WorldNet) – is that they were fakes. At Jena, the university where he taught, Haeckel was charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court. His deceit was exposed in "Haeckel’s Frauds and Forgeries," a 1915 book by J. Assmuth and Ernest R. Hull, who quoted 19 leading authorities of the day.


Ernst Haeckel

"It clearly appears that Haeckel has in many cases freely invented embryos, or reproduced the illustrations given by others in a substantially changed form," said anatomist F. Keibel of Freiburg University. Zoologist L. Rütimeyer of Basle University called his distorted drawings "a sin against scientific truthfulness."

Yet, despite Haeckel’s fraud conviction and early exposure, Western educators continued using the pictures for decades as proof of the theory of evolution.

The matter was settled with finality by Dr. Michael Richardson, an embryologist at St. George’s Medical School in London. He found there was no record that anyone ever actually checked Haeckel’s claims by systematically comparing human and other fetuses during development. So Richardson assembled a scientific team that did just that – photographing the growing embryos of 39 different species.

In a 1997 interview in The Times of London, Dr. Richardson stated: "This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry. ... What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don’t. ... These are fakes."

Today – believe it or not – Haeckel’s drawings still appear in many high school and college textbooks. Among them are "Evolutionary Biology" by Douglas J. Futuyma (Third Edition, Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 1998), and also the bedrock text, "Molecular Biology of the Cell" (third edition), whose authors include biochemist Dr. Bruce Alberts, president of the National Academy of Sciences.

Haeckel’s fraudulent drawings are just one of evolution’s pillars now under spectacular scientific assault. There are many others.

Reference: http://www.worldnetd...RTICLE_ID=23532

-------------------------

Maybe you should look at these pics and tell me if Haeckel's drawings were true. And if keeping information that has been proven fraud is worth all that you see here? Baby pics
These pics are not for the weak hearted.

I also notice that you use the word error instead of fraud. Does the belief in theories allow frauds to become errors?

#11 st_dissent

st_dissent

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Interests:Physics, mathematics, astronomy, hiking, reading, and good conversation.
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • PLANET EARTH

Posted 24 August 2005 - 05:56 AM

I also notice that you use the word error instead of fraud. Does the belief in theories allow frauds to become errors?


Oh no, they were definately fudged by Haeckel. Haeckel even admitted it himself. I used the word error not to imply mistake but to imply inaccuracy. Read Miller's response at the above link.

#12 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 August 2005 - 06:25 AM

I have to wonder why it took so long.

In 1998 we rewrote page 283 of the 5th edition to better reflect the scientific evidence. Our books now contain accurate drawings of the embryos made from detailed photomicrographs.


He was taken to court at his own university, the University of Jena. And he was convicted of fraud in 1874. One hundred and thirty-one years ago Ernst Haeckel confessed to lying about this embryology thing.


So lets see:
1998-1874= 124 years. I could have sent out letters in one day, to all the schools letting them know about what haeckel did.

Just let that fraud stay in the book I say. Why change a 124 year old lie? So many already believe it's true. That link just makes my point about science allowing a fraud to establish the evolution foundation. so why change now?

#13 st_dissent

st_dissent

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 61 posts
  • Interests:Physics, mathematics, astronomy, hiking, reading, and good conversation.
  • Age: 27
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • PLANET EARTH

Posted 24 August 2005 - 09:36 AM

Quote from NCSE


Twentieth-century and current embryological research confirms that early stages (if not the earliest) of vertebrate embryos are more similar than later ones; the more recently species shared a common ancestor, the more similar their embryological development. Thus cows and rabbits - mammals - are more similar in their embryological development than either is to alligators. Cows and antelopes are more similar in their embryology than either is to rabbits, and so on. The union of evolution and developmental biology - "evo-devo" - is one of the most rapidly growing biological fields. "Faked" drawings are not relied upon: there has been plenty of research in developmental biology since Haeckel - and in fact, hardly any textbooks feature Haeckel's drawings, as claimed.


Thought this to be relevant!

#14 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 August 2005 - 08:44 PM

Quote from NCSE
Thought this to be relevant!

View Post


But why take so long in changing those books? Over 100 years? I notice you are trying to avoid the issue by making an appeasement about the subject being corrected now, when it should have been when it was found out. I believe this is because we both know why this was done. It was done because evolution would not have survived these two frauds. For what else did they have to convince people of Darwin's idea? Evidence? none. So that was the reasoning Haeckel used to justify his faked drawings. And now you think that because someone went through thousands of photos, and found some that were close, and used them in current text books, that this makes what Haeckel did ok?

Maybe science will soon start saying that Haeckel did not lie. Even though He admitted to it. So did He lie about admitting, or lie about his drawings? Soon to come to a science website near you. Great news: Haeckel told the truth about his drawings. He was forced to admit to lying by evil creationists. :lol:

What a joke that science would still try to defend this.

#15 Guest_George R_*

Guest_George R_*
  • Guests

Posted 31 August 2005 - 04:31 PM

Quote from NCSE
Thought this to be relevant!

View Post



It is indeed a relevant conclusion.

The point is ... how well is this conclusion supported with facts and logic. It's no fun being relevant if a conclusion is not warranted by the evidence and by the choice of alternate explanations for that evidence.

Twentieth-century and current embryological research confirms that early stages (if not the earliest) of vertebrate embryos are more similar than later ones; the more recently species shared a common ancestor, the more similar their embryological development.


If true, one would expect a tight correlation between the (1) "commonality" of embryos at an "early" stage, and other evidence-based mappings of common descent.

If true, it would not beg the question "does common similarity" prove "common descent"? It would be replete with examples that could be explained no other way.

"Common similarity" is only strong proof if we already believe conclusion. For example, I find that human toes resemble rat fore-limb fingers in some ways. I cannot conclude from that alone that human legs were derived from rat fore-paws.

"Early stages" begs another premise or two. It seems to imply that a progressive embryonic development in stages is parallel across species, and that the maximum similarity occurs early and gradually trails off with decreasing similarity at all later stages.

Alas, Haeckel did a very selective choosing of what constitutes an "early stage" to maximize the visual effect. Do you find it of passing interest as to what an unbiased selection of the same embryo stages would be? Have you seen one? Does it bear the same correspondence?

Finally the circular howler: "more recently species shared a common ancestor, the more similar their embryological development."

This seems to unveil a slamdunk proof. It is a conclusion that says "when you select common ancestry based on common resemblance, the embryos also have a common resemblance.

Well, isnt that telling. It is really saying... Dog embryos are more similar to each other than dog embryos are to cat embryos,... What's the big lightning strike here? What a revelation ... whoda thunkit?

How about an Occam-like alternative explantion... Form and sttructure by design also shares a resemblance ... just like airplanes being built resemble each other more than they resemble houses being built ... the commonality of planned design is reflected in the commonality seen in early stages of construction.









\

#16 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 September 2005 - 07:29 AM

I wonder why this thread is being avoided?

#17 Guest_Calipithecus_*

Guest_Calipithecus_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 September 2005 - 07:57 AM

I wonder why this thread is being avoided?

Ever heard of Godwin's law?

#18 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 03 September 2005 - 08:23 AM

and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress


That comment made me fall out of my seat :angry: .

By default of the mention of the name, the poster losing the debate? Sounds like a cop out to me. But funny just the same. So I guess if people want to use this as the excuse of not addressing the connection, then I win by default. And we can call that: Admin3's law. B)

#19 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 11 September 2005 - 07:24 PM

I wonder why this thread is being avoided?

View Post


Not sure it’s been avoided for any given reason, other than what is there to debate? Both sides admit that Haeckel’s used drawings not photo’s.

As to the why it took so long to correct I can only speculate, perhaps the differences between the drawings and an actual photo were not that significant, so they let it slide. But yes it’s too long for a correction.

Would this have changed how people perceive evolution?, I don’t know, evolutionary theory is certainly independent of embryonic development, so in scientific circles it should make no difference. To the layman if the “Haeckel evidence” were omitted, I doubt it would make any difference also, e.g. evolution was accepted before DNA and the method of inheritance was understood, arguable far more significant.

P.S. what is the connection to “Abortionists Vs Haeckel” as per the title of this discussion?

#20 xdisciplex

xdisciplex

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 10 posts
  • Age: 24
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Germany

Posted 12 October 2005 - 06:18 AM

The Haeckel pictures are a joke and basically one more proof that atheists cannot be trusted! They even use lies to support their religion! I would never trust an atheist when it comes to evolution. All they want is to refute God and they use anything they can find.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users