Tom, The Dancing Bug

MSNBC ^ | 2 July 2005 | Ruben Bolling

[Ichneumon]

Gen. 27:11

Um, what?

But Jacob said to Rebekah his mother, "Behold, my brother Esau is a hairy man, and I am a smooth man."
-- Genesis 27:11, KJV

[Ichneumon]

He was sugar-coating it by saying it wasn't a "conscious fraud."

Please learn to read. I said it wasn't *necessarily* a conscious fraud.

I simply pointed out that it was indeed "conscious," as evidenced by the expert's statements I referenced.

...and I simply pointed out that you were incorrect about what your "expert's statements" actually did and did not say.

The damage done to science in general and to the ToE by those drawings is immeasurable;

ROFL! Yeah, right. You wish.

furthermore, to make excuses for Haeckel is kind of silly, IMO.

I wasn't making excuses for Haeckel. I was describing the situation and pointing out that the creationist version of it is cartoonishly oversimplified, not to mention slanderously false in several respects.

[WildHorseCrash]

The phrase Gott Mit Uns is of pre-Nazi Germanic origins, adopted by the Nazis, like the Iron Cross. So I don't think it is fair to use this as evidence of a religious basis for Hitler's motive, because it is more than likely nothing more than a nod to German tradition.

Here is a photo of the Kaiserstandarte, the Kaiser's flag, a design which stems from 1870, with the phrase upon it.

[Ichneumon]

Fabulous post. It would be great if you had a copy on your personal page so the rest of us could refer to it from time to time.

Ooh, thanks for the reminder. While I have linked some of my earlier "educational posts" on my Freeper homepage, I've fallen way behind on indexing the rest of them. I'll do that as soon as I have some free time.

[RightWingAtheist]

*Groan!*

[Ichneumon]

Maybe you should take a deep-breath!

Maybe you should get to the point.

The only lies we are talking about here would be those told and drawn by Mr. Haeckel, years ago,

Are you really this incapable of following the discussion? "We" were talking about *creationist* behavior on this thread *long* you showed up. Did it escape your attention that this thread *started* with a satirical cartoon about the behavior of creationists?

Maybe the "only" lies *you* want to talk about are those of Haeckel, but "we" have already been discussing creationist dishonesty for a long time now. But I can understand why you'd want to keep restricting the conversation to only Haeckel, since even though you have to go back to the 19th century to get a juicy example of a biologist being significantly misleading, there are *THOUSANDS* of CONTEMPORARY examples of creationists lying their faces off.

Deal with it.

Or don't. But don't kid yourself -- your running away from that topic doesn't make it go away, nor convince anyone that creationists are actually accurate, honest, and willing to address sticky issues head-on. Quite the contrary, in fact.

perpetuated by people like you and your atheist buddies.

Uh huh. Please present your evidence for your presumption that I am an "atheist". This should be pretty funny. Then you can repeat the exercise for my "buddies", as you call them.

And what exactly are "people like me"? I'm not a recapitulationist. Be specific.

I'm sorry if the truth hurts.

I'm sorry if you keep revealing that you have barely a passing acquaintance with truth, and instead keep posting your wild guesses and prejudices as if they were facts.

And your laughable snipes don't hurt at all.

Why don't you cut and paste another 50+ paragraph post from talkorg or the P-thumb and calm down.

Why don't you try to actually address the evidence which I presented and the points I made?

Oh, right, you can't. You don't actually know enough about biology to do that. You never bothered, despite my repeated suggestions over the past year or so imploring you to do so. Not that this lack of knowledge stops you from being a belligerent anklebiter on these threads, though, because hey, you've glanced at a few creationist websites and that's *ALL* you need to know about the subject, right?

Arrogant snottiness is no substitute for knowledge, son.

[Ichneumon]

Online Articles of Notable Interest

From the very first link in Michael_Michaelangelo pack-o'-creationist-claptrap "Articles of Notable Interest" ("notable" only in their unceasing spew of disinformation and dishonest propaganda):

"That there is a controversy over how macroevolution could have occurred is largely due to the increasing awareness in scientific circles that the fossil evidence is very difficult to reconcile with the Darwinist scenario."
-- creationist Phillip Johnson (whose expertise in evolutionary biology field is as... a lawyer!)

Horse manure. See post #52 for many examples. The fossil evidence *beautifully* fits "the Darwinist scenario". It's the creationists who have a hell of a hard time reconciling it with *their* scenarios. So they just lie about it. And often they lie about it by misquoting respectable biologists or paleontologists and trying to stuff the creationist lies into *their* mouths. See:

The Quote Mine Project: Or, Lies, Damned Lies and Quote Mines

Quotations and Misquotations: Why What Antievolutionists Quote is Not Valid Evidence Against Evolution (scroll to the bottom of this one as well, it has links to *dozens* of other sites dedicated to exposing the countless creationist dishonest "quotes" of scientists)

You'll find many examples of these dishonestly misused quotes in Johnson's essays at Michael_Michaelangelo's link, as well as in the links to essays by other creationists.

Johnson dishonestly continues:

New forms of life tend to be fully formed at their first appearance as fossils in the rocks. If these new forms actually evolved in gradual steps from pre-existing forms, as Darwinist science insists, the numerous intermediate forms that once must have existed have not been preserved.

Again, this is complete and utter bollocks. Johnson can't even begin to attempt to reconcile the fossil record to any *creationist* scenario, so instead he just outright LIES and falsely claims that it doesn't show any "numerous intermediate forms" which match evolutionary scenarios.

Again, this is just a badlfaced lie, and again, one can look at post #52 for *several* examples of the "numerous intermediate forms" of fossils which Johnson shamelessly claims "have not been preserved" (i.e. do not exist).

Remember, folks, *this* is the sort of "tell you complete and transparent lies to your face" stuff that the creationists rely on as their stock-in-trade. *This* is what Michael_Michaelangelo presents to his fellow Freepers as "Articles of Notable Interest".

This is the moral bankruptcy and intellectual emptiness of the creationist movement.

[Michael_Michaelangelo]

Hey, genius, let's let the lurkers read the information in the links and decide for themselves, shall we? Or would you like to tell everyone here how to think? (Don't answer that - I think we know the answer)

[Gumlegs]

Every once in a while an evangelist asks me my favorite Bible verse. That's it. Once they figure it out they usually end up not pursuing the conversation.

[Junior]

In other words, "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain."

[Ichneumon]

More admissions of a fraud:

"After this compromising confession of 'forgery' I should be obliged to consider myself condemned and annihilated if I had not the consolation of seeing side by side with me in the prisoner's dock hundreds of fellow - culprits, among them many of the most trusted observers and most esteemed biologists. The great majority of all the diagrams in the best biological textbooks, treatises and journals would incur in the same degree the charge of 'forgery,' for all of them are inexact, and are more or less doctored, schematised and constructed."

ROFL!!! Here we have Evidence That Creationists Have Faulty Reading Comprehension #73,792, collect the whole set!

This isn't an "admission", you goof. Did you not notice that "forgery" was written in "scare quotes"? And did you not actually bother to read the passage for content?

Here the writer is only saying, "look, if the idealizations in my illustrations were 'forgeries', then hell, just about all illustrations are idealized to some degree and all illustrators are 'guilty' of that 'crime', string us all up!..." In other words, he's saying that the whole *purpose* of illustrations is to clarify, to idealize, to highlight the significant details and minimize the distraction of the insignificant details.

So... What was your "Verbal" score on your SAT tests?

[donh]

And was this... religious in nature? Or did the descent of man (and it's lineage) have anything to do with this?

Huh. Is the Catholic church religious in nature? What a puzzler.

[donh]

And was this... religious in nature? Or did the descent of man (and it's lineage) have anything to do with this?

Huh. Is the Catholic church religious in nature? What a puzzler.

[donh]

I noticed you "terminated it" before coming to the part about politics.

I'm not here to crack cryptic rhetorical puzzles. Provide enough context so that I know what you are responding to, and what you are talking about.

I'll note that.

I doubt it.

[Ichneumon]

At least he took solace in the fact that his buddies were doing it too, so that made it okay. The culprit.

See my previous post. Your ability to completely misread the meaning of this quote is... astounding.

Your vitriol and your belief that evolutionary biology is just "lies, all lies", told by multiple generations of lying biologists, is nothing short of clinical paranoia. Seek help. I'm not kidding.

[PatrickHenry]

While I have linked some of my earlier "educational posts" on my Freeper homepage, I've fallen way behind on indexing the rest of them. I'll do that as soon as I have some free time.

I'll be adding your post 52 to the List-O-Links.

[Ichneumon]

Hey, genius, let's let the lurkers read the information in the links and decide for themselves, shall we?

I'm not stopping them. I strongly encourage everyone to read material from various creationist sites, so that they can see for themselves just how dishonest and inaccurate those sources are.

Just be sure to actually read some science journals, some primary research literature, and some evolution information sites as well, so that you can actually have a basis for comparison, lest you end up in the situation of a liberal who has made the mistake of "learning" all of his "knowledge" about conservatism from the likes of Michael Moore, Alec Baldwin, Dianne Feinstein, MoveOn.Org, etc., without actually giving an equally attentive ear to actual conservatives to see what they're *actually* like and are *actually* saying.

Don't be like Michael_Michaelangelo. Learn some *real* science, instead of just the distorted cartoon-version of it attacked on creationist sites.

Or would you like to tell everyone here how to think?

Not at all. I have always strongly encouraged people *TO* think, to LEARN, to become personally acquainted with the evidence, to learn how to reason logically, to analyze accurately, to resist propaganda, to recognize charlatans.

Surely you must remember all the times I've tried *really* hard to get you to go *learn* some evolutionary biology -- the *real* field, the *real* evidence, not just toddle off to your creationist sites and lap up all of their reassuring falsehoods. It has been completely in vain so far, but I haven't given up on you. I know you can become educated if you try. I *want* you to try.

(Don't answer that - I think we know the answer)

As usual, the answer that you "know" is just dead flat wrong.

And therein lies your problem -- you never even entertain the possibility that your presumptions could possibly be wrong. You believe that you *have* all the answers already. And that belief blocks you from seeking knowledge. It closes your mind.

[Ichneumon]

I've become pretty fond of Proverbs 29:9.

[Stultis]

This isn't an "admission", you goof. Did you not notice that "forgery" was written in "scare quotes"?

I did, actually, and am aware of the full history, including the (one rather lonely) non-creationist source MM cited. I've read Gould's book among many other shorter historical writings on the recapitulation theory and related issues. You are correct, as I see it, in your characterization that Haeckel did not admit conscious (or even venal) fraud, and that we don't know enough about the matter historically to say that he intended to deceive.

We do know, however, that Haeckel was wrong, and that many of his contemporaries (not least Von Baer, the dominant personality in the field of embryology) realized it and said so clearly, and that they were soon vindicated in the consensus judgment of the whole scientific community.

So, while I disagree with MM's overheated and gratuitous characterization, I think it's worth pointing out that even if it's accepted it still doesn't make his case (that damage was done, that recapitulation influenced modern textbooks, etc, etc).

[balrog666]

Too funny. Some people's underwear seems to be too tight. ;^)

Maybe that's what they get for wearing them on their head. ;^)