[stop_killing_unborn_babies]

Why can't you admit that Haeckle's drawings were fraudulent?

They were fraudulent.
Glad to hear you admit that evilution has been inudated with fraud from the beinning, not many will admit to frauds.

Your inital claim was that current textbooks are presenting them as non-fraudulent.
The textbooks that include Haeckle's drawings and premise of each stage of embryonic development depicting evilutionary stages do indeed present them as non-fraudulent by default, simply by their inclusion of them.

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

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

[Dimensio]

Glad to hear you admit that evilution has been inudated with fraud from the beinning, not many will admit to frauds.

It's hard to take you seriously when you say "evilution". It would be like me calling you a "cretinist".

And there have been frauds. Piltdown man was another fraud. It was exposed by scientists, and science moved on. False data and outright frauds in any scientific field tend not to last long, because the peer review process usually weeds them out quickly.

The textbooks that include Haeckle's drawings and premise of each stage of embryonic development depicting evilutionary stages do indeed present them as non-fraudulent by default, simply by their inclusion of them.

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.

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

What fraud? You present an example of one man who fudged data to support a hypothesis that was tossed out a century ago and use this as "proof" of a vast conspiracy. You're ranting like a loon, and you're certainly not being insightful.

[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?!