Vatican accepts evolution as fact

Fatima Perspectives ^ | August 24th 2004 | Chris Ferrara

[stop_killing_unborn_babies]

ping

[js1138]

Heckel fudged his drawings to lend credence to his hypothesis. His hypothesis was falsified long ago, thus making his fudging irrelevant. His drawings were still considered useful, because they were still reasonably accurate depictions of embryonic stages, and moreover the 'fudging' that he did do wasn't relevant, because they weren't being presented to support his false hypothesis anymore. Now that it's been discovered that he fudged the drawings, they're being replaced with more accurate depictions. That he did not represent the drawings accurately has not demolished the theory of evolution, it hasn't even weakened it. His drawings are not and never have been a foundation for the theory of evolution, and the fudging that he did do was completely irrelevant to the point of having them included in more recent textbooks.

Certainly you don't think there are no textbooks that don't include those fraudulent drawings and premise, do you?

No, I don't. You've not cited a single textbook that presents Heckel's drawings in the context that he originally intended, so you've failed to demonstrate that his false premise is still being pushed. You are a liar for suggesting that it is.>/i>

Best single discussion of the Heckel drawings ever.

[Tantumergo]

"With the amount of fraud in evilutionary teaching certainly you can't think that."

Although not fraud specifically, one could also mention Charles Lyell's spurious "geological dating" of strata presentation to the Royal Society, which relied on the circular reasoning of fossils being used to date rocks based on the length of time required for them to fit into a theory of evolution!

[balrog666]

Certainly you don't think there are no textbooks that don't include those fraudulent drawings and premise, do you?

Do you, or do you not, have a currently used textbook with such claims? Reference it please.

With the amount of fraud in evilutionary teaching certainly you can't think that.

A small handful of ancient frauds among millions upon millions of pieces of evidence? Wow, must be a real conspiracy among all those millions of working scientists, huh?!

[stop_killing_unborn_babies]

Heckel fudged his drawings to lend credence to his hypothesis.

Haeckle didn't just "fudge" those drawings, they were completely fabricated to fit his false premise. That has been known for a long time. It is patently dishonest to have included fraudulent drawings in textbooks for over a 100 years knowing they were fraudulent.

[stop_killing_unborn_babies]

Certainly you don't think there are no textbooks that don't include those fraudulent drawings and premise, do you?

No, I don't.

Glad to see you all agree there are still textbooks that dishonestly include Haeckle's fraudulent drawings and premise.

Since you agree, there is no need to cite any.

[balrog666]

Haeckle didn't just "fudge" those drawings, they were completely fabricated to fit his false premise.

Wrong again.

That has been known for a long time. It is patently dishonest to have included fraudulent drawings in textbooks for over a 100 years knowing they were fraudulent.

Not if they were to illustrate why they were previously included.

So now, where's that textbook? Or were you just lying for the shock value of such a claim?

[js1138]

Since I was clearly quoting another post, you might respond to the author.

[balrog666]

Glad to see you all agree there are still textbooks that dishonestly include Haeckle's fraudulent drawings and premise.

Wrong again. Unlike you it's not dishonest.

Since you agree, there is no need to cite any.

You mean you did lie originally about having a fraudulent textbook? Come on, we know, just say it so we can move on from here.

[Dimensio]

Haeckle didn't just "fudge" those drawings, they were completely fabricated to fit his false premise

So you're saying that the drawings that he made bear absolutely no resemblance whatsoever to actual embryonic states?

Let's compare Haeckel's human embryo drawing with an actual human embryo (lowest one). Someone want to tell me that Haeckel's drawings are total fabrications, bearing no resemblance whatsoever to reality? What about the chick or the pig drawings compared to their real-world counterparts (second and third rows, respectively).

I notice that you're not actually trying to argue against evolution. You're desperately clinging to this one point in the hopes that you can tear down a theory that has stood for over 140 years based upon one man's fraud that his own peers forced him to admit.

[js1138]

Since you agree, there is no need to cite any.

No we don't and you continue to lie.

[stop_killing_unborn_babies]

Although not fraud specifically, one could also mention Charles Lyell's spurious "geological dating" of strata presentation to the Royal Society, which relied on the circular reasoning of fossils being used to date rocks based on the length of time required for them to fit into a theory of evolution!

While not outright fraud, it is irrational and self-serving to "teach" as fact Lyell's method of dating(still employed and taught as reliable today).

[Dimensio]

D'oh. I didn't see that those were individual images, and I just linked to a fish in development. See the real pig,chick and human here.

[Dimensio]

Although not fraud specifically, one could also mention Charles Lyell's spurious "geological dating" of strata presentation to the Royal Society, which relied on the circular reasoning of fossils being used to date rocks based on the length of time required for them to fit into a theory of evolution!

Ah, the old canard that "the rocks date the fossils and the fossils date the rocks". No matter how often you explain that it's not true, creationists still repeat this lie.

[balrog666]

Why is it that some people can never stop telling the same lie, over and over again, long after they know it is a lie? Or even admit that they made a mistake? Over and over again, of course.

[stop_killing_unborn_babies]

Someone want to tell me that Haeckel's drawings are total fabrications...

Sure, I'll be happy to.

Haeckle's drawings were complete fabrications to fit his false premise.

[Dimensio]

Haeckle's drawings were complete fabrications to fit his false premise.

You didn't answer my other question. I asked if you really believed that his drawings did not, in any way, represent reality.

I'm not surprised that you ignored the question, mind you. You seem utterly uninterested in honesty or integrity. You seem more interested in clinging to whatever half-truths or even outright lies you can find that will let you prop up your bogus claim that all of the theory of evolution is based on fraud.

[Dominick]

Although not fraud specifically, one could also mention Charles Lyell's spurious "geological dating" of strata presentation to the Royal Society, which relied on the circular reasoning of fossils being used to date rocks based on the length of time required for them to fit into a theory of evolution!

In items I have dealt with isotope dating is used, this is because the rate of decay of isotopes is well known, and easily calculated based on physical properties.

Strata location is a shortcut used to save time, but often for things I have dealt with, unreliable.

Diffusion also gives us a good clue on age> The longer something has been in a certain type of material, the more of that material migrates into the object. Petrified wood is an example of carbon in wood being replaced with silicon.

[js1138]

still employed and taught as reliable today

Well there you go. They are reliable, as far as they go. But they are augumented by at least fifty independent measures of age.

[stop_killing_unborn_babies]

Why is it that some people can never stop telling the same lie, over and over again, long after they know it is a lie? Or even admit that they made a mistake? Over and over again, of course.

Darned right, those whacked out evilutionists have been doing exactly that for over a 100 years.

Obviously they follow the axiom that if you tell the lie of evilution long enough and loud enough people will begin to believe it.

In the beginning was nothing, and then it exploded and evolved, the BIG LIE.