[_ Old Earth _] Give ToE frauds the Boot!!

[MrVersatile48]

There are many

I just have time to expose the long-perpetuated Haeckel scam, that claimed fraudulently that human embryos go thru a fish stage, an amhibian stage, a reptile stage & so on - supposedly retracing & somehow proving Darwin'e dodgy evolutionary tree/ladder

Within months of German evo-loopy, Ernst Haeckel, publishing his work - in 1868 - Prof L Rutimeyer, professor of zoology & comparative anatomy at the University of Basel, showed it to be fraudulent

William His Sr, professor of anatomy at Leizig University, & a famous comparative embryologist, corroborated Rutimeyer's criticisms

These scientists showed that Haeckel fraudulently modified his drawings of embros to make them look more alike. He even printed the same woodcut several times, to make the embryos look absolutely identical, & then claimed they were embryos of different species!

Despite the fraudulent basis of the idea, & its debunking by many high-profile scientists since, the idea persists

A human embryo, in fact, never has gill slits like a fish, never looks reptilian or pig-like. A human embryo is always a human embryo, from conception - yet abortionists still lie to women: "Don't worry: it's only a fish you lose"



As autologout approaches, I'll ask you to see the fine, learned articles, mags, books, CDs, DVDs & MP3s @:-

http://www.creationism.org

& http://www.discovery/csc

& http://www.AnswersInGenesis.org


I can't recall, in the hubbub here, which has search facility, but do check out Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, peppered moths, whale evolution & horse evolution for just some of the longstanding frauds perpetrated to detroy faith in God's Word & make folk gullible to men's lies

It is most sinister indeed that the evo-loopy establishment ruthlessly censor all criticism of neo-Darwinism & all debate @ the overwhelming evidence for Inelligent Design, from micro-biology to astronomy, that has led hundreds of top MSc/PhD level scientists to reject the atheistic brainwashing of their education & to worship the Almighty Creator

Academia prides itself on freedom of thought

Evo-propaganda & deliberate fraud gives the lie to such claims of freedom

As Jesus said, "The truth shall set you free!"

Must go!

Ian

 

[MrVersatile48]

Very briefly..

Piltdown Man was a hoax based on a human skull & an orangutan's jaw

It was widely publicised for @ 40 yrs & wasn't even a competent forgery

Nebraska Man was a hoaxbased on a single tooth of a pig

 

[MrVersatile48]

Peppered moths fraud

Kettlewell, who perpetrated the fraud photos still used in evo-loopy textbooks, said that if Darwin had seen them, his life's work would be consummated & confirmed

It turns out this classic evo-loopy-poop is full of holes: peppered moths don't even rest on tree trunks during the day

Kettlewell & others lured the moths into traps at night

The moths being filmed were laboratory-bred ones placed onto tree trunks by Kettlewell; they were so languid that he once had to warm them up on his car hood - see GA Clarke, GS Mani & G Wynne, "Evolution in Reverse: Clean Air & the Peppered Moth", in Biological Journal of the Linocan Society, 26: 189-199, 1985

The fake photos were done by glueing dead moths to the trees

Massachusetts Uni biologist Theodore Sargent helped glue moths onto trees - he says textbooks & films featured " a lot of faked photographs" - Washington Times, Jan 17, 1999

See "Refuting Evolution 2" by Dr Jonathan Sarfati, pages 203/205

Must go!

Ian

 

[Quath]

Talkorigins.org can clear up a lot of this stuff for you. For example, the Haeckel scam:

Haeckel's work was discredited in the 19th century, and has not been relevant to biology since the rediscovery of Mendel's laws of genetics.

So scientists using the scientific process, found out a fraud and did not use his research.

Piltdown Man :
Hoax uncovered by science.

Nebraska Man :
It was controversial when it was given. For example, a book written at the time says

"In 1920 [sic], Osborn described two molars from the Pliocene of Nebraska; he attributed these to an anthropoid primate to which he has given the name Hesperopithecus. The teeth are not well preserved, so that the validity of Osborn's determination has not yet been generally accepted."

As it was investigated, scientists concluded it was a bad claim.

So all you show is old evidence that was exposed by other scientists doing their work. It shows that the scientific method is working and the overall theory of evolution has survived other scientists looking for cases of fraud and bad science.

Quath

 

[Barbarian]

Speaking of frauds, here's Kenneth Miller, a devout Christian and a scientist, talking about Jonathan Wells' moth scam:

"1) Peppered Moths. For years, Wells has argued that the peppered moth story repeated in many textbooks is a "fraud," and that the moths do not provide an example of natural selection in action. What did I do at the debate? I made it clear that the moths are, as scientists like Bruce Grant (William & Mary) and Michael Majerus (University of Cambridge) agree, a perfectly sound example of natural selection in action. And I also pointed out that Wells is just plain wrong when he claims that the moths don't rest on tree trunks. The latter claim is particularly important, since this is why Wells feels justified in claiming that a photo of the moths on a tree trunk in one of my textbooks is a "fraud."

Wells presents a series of quotes from the literature to support his contention, made in "Icons," that peppered moths don't rest on tree trunks, a claim I rebutted in the debate. Like many opponents of evolution, he argues from quotation rather than from data. At the debate, I presented actual data on the positions in which moths have been observed in the wild, and guess what? Although the literature is clear that adequate studies have not yet been done to pinpoint the places where these moths generally rest in the wild, observations done to date show that most moths have, indeed, been found on tree trunks.

Here are the data I presented (from Majerus, 1998, Industrial Melanism: Evolution in Action, page 123):


Resting positions of moths found in the wild in studies between 1964 and 1996
Exposed trunk: 6
Unexposed trunk 6
Trunk/branch joint: 20
Branches 15
Summary: 32 of 47 moths (68%) were found on tree trunks

Resting positions of moths found in the vicinity of traps between 1965 and 1996
Exposed trunk: 48
Unexposed trunk 22
Trunk/branch joint: 66
Branches 20
Foliage 22
Man-made surfaces: 25
Summary: 136 of 203 moths (67%) were found on tree trunks

What's really disturbing is that Wells knew this; he even cites carefully edited portions of this report in his book.

It seems that some creationists feel any dishonesty is fair, if it's "in a good cause." Perhaps they are keying off Martin Luther's claim that it's OK to lie for God.

 

[MrVersatile48]

MORE PROOF 4 U THEN...

Talkorigins.org can clear up a lot of this stuff for you. For example, the Haeckel scam:

Haeckel's work was discredited in the 19th century, and has not been relevant to biology since the rediscovery of Mendel's laws of genetics.

So scientists using the scientific process, found out a fraud and did not use his research.

Piltdown Man :
Hoax uncovered by science.

Nebraska Man :
It was controversial when it was given. For example, a book written at the time says

"In 1920 [sic], Osborn described two molars from the Pliocene of Nebraska; he attributed these to an anthropoid primate to which he has given the name Hesperopithecus. The teeth are not well preserved, so that the validity of Osborn's determination has not yet been generally accepted."

As it was investigated, scientists concluded it was a bad claim.

So all you show is old evidence that was exposed by other scientists doing their work. It shows that the scientific method is working and the overall theory of evolution has survived other scientists looking for cases of fraud and bad science.

Quath

But, Quaith, Haeckel is STILL in many textbbooks & TV scams - CGI cartoon special FX have gullible kids - even highly educated adults - confusing truth from fiction

Here's Dr Jonathan Sarfati - "Refuting Evolution 2" - pages 200/202:-

"Despite the evidence of fraud, Haeckel's drawings are STILL WIDELY BELIEVED....

"But a recent investigation, published in 1997, has revealed that Haeckel's fraud was FAR WORSE THAN ANYONE REALISED

"An embryologist, Dr Michael Richardson, with the co-operation of biologists around the world, collected & photographed the types of embryo Haeckel SUPPOSEDLY drew

"Dr Richardson found that Haeckel's drawings BORE LITTLE RESEMBLANCE TO THE EMBRYOS

UK's The Times quotes him:-

"This is 1 of the WORST cases of SCIENTIFIC FRAUD. It is SHOCKING that somebody 1 thought was a great scientist was DELIBERATELY MISLEADING...

It is a FAKE"

 

[MrVersatile48]

Re: Peppered moths fraud

Yo Conan!

U been wowing 'em @ Fashion Rocks with those Barbarian outfits again, dude? 8-)

Having re-read my Dr Jonathan Sarfati quote, I print it again & invite any unbiased reader to search @ Haeckel fraud @ http://www.creationism.org & ID site http://www.discovery.org/csc - as well as http://www.AnswersInGenesis.org

Kettlewell, who perpetrated the fraud photos still used in evo-loopy textbooks, said that if Darwin had seen them, his life's work would be consummated & confirmed

It turns out this classic evo-loopy-poop is full of holes: peppered moths don't even rest on tree trunks during the day

|Kettlewell & others lured the moths into traps at night

The moths being filmed were laboratory-bred ones placed onto tree trunks by Kettlewell; they were so languid that he once had to warm them up on his car hood - see GA Clarke, GS Mani & G Wynne, "Evolution in Reverse: Clean Air & the Peppered Moth", in Biological Journal of the Linocan Society, 26: 189-199, 1985

The fake photos were done by glueing dead moths to the trees

Massachusetts Uni biologist Theodore Sargent helped glue moths onto trees - he says textbooks & films featured " a lot of faked photographs" - Washington Times, Jan 17, 1999

See "Refuting Evolution 2" by Dr Jonathan Sarfati, pages 203/205

Must go!

Ian

Let me just assure you - all readers - that I am not trying to humiliate anyone

Having made my living in direct sales for 20+ years, you can imagine how often my antennae picked up scams & got out fast, feeling betrayed - so like nearly all who are now creationists or ID-ers, I know only too well the feeling of betrayal that many now feel towards teachers & lecturers who they trusted implicitly

But they too utterly trusted in their teachers & lecturers

What is now most reprehensible is that, after many years of highly qualified creationist & ID scientists patiently lobbying the academic establishment @ obvious scams - & just plain mistakes - the paranoid & ruthless censorship of the truth, even in top academic institutions who pride themselves on freedom of academic thought, is plainly not education but brainwashing indoctrination

At least ToE propaganda used to be full of uncertain phrases like, "should be..could be..might have", etc

But to parade what is only a very shaky hypothesis indeed as proven fact is inexcusable - hence this thread



Nevertheless, to be strictly accurate & charitable, I'll start a thread on the mistakes that may, or may not, be deliberate:-

"Dump dating disasters!"

Ian

 

[pasta911]

The Shard of turin was found to be hoax, dose that mean all of christens should abounded there religion.

Just because you found some old hoaxes, doesn't mean you can rule out evolution.

 

[MrVersatile48]

Must go cook some pasta..

The Shard of turin was found to be hoax, dose that mean all of christens should abounded there religion.

Just because you found some old hoaxes, doesn't mean you can rule out evolution.

Dude, do check a few other threads here.. :angel:


Gonna be 1 FUN half-term holiday, huh? :-D

 

[reznwerks]

Re: Must go cook some pasta..

The Shard of turin was found to be hoax, dose that mean all of christens should abounded there religion.

Just because you found some old hoaxes, doesn't mean you can rule out evolution.

Dude, do check a few other threads here.. :angel:


Gonna be 1 FUN half-term holiday, huh? :-D

Time to get in the real world. All of your objections are obsolete and all the corrections were made by other scientists not ID'rs. You either have facts or you have beliefs. Which do you think carry more weight or rather which do you think SHOULD carry more weight? As for checking the threads please do.

 

[Solo]

The Shard of turin was found to be hoax, dose that mean all of christens should abounded there religion.

Just because you found some old hoaxes, doesn't mean you can rule out evolution.

When the entire theory of evolution is found to be a hoax, as science has shown, the entire theory should be ruled out. The same facts for creation exist in science as for evolution; the difference is the predisposed faith of each side. Evolutionists have faith in the humanist philosphy, and Creationist have faith in Creator God. Simple.

 

[Barbarian]

But, Quaith, Haeckel is STILL in many textbbooks & TV scams - CGI cartoon special FX have gullible kids - even highly educated adults - confusing truth from fiction

I get to review textbooks. You know what's got Wells cross-eyed with rage? They stopped doing drawings and started using photographs. :

Here's Dr Jonathan Sarfati - "Refuting Evolution 2" - pages 200/202:-

"Despite the evidence of fraud, Haeckel's drawings are STILL WIDELY BELIEVED....

In fact, Haeckel's theory was refuted by Darwinians a very long time ago. I confronted Sarfati with this fact and challenged him to show were any school was teaching Haeckel's theory.

He refused to answer, and said it was clear that I was not a Christian. He refused to answer, because he knew as well as I did, that the theory was refuted long ago, and is no longer taught, except as a cautionary tale about errors in science.

"But a recent investigation, published in 1997, has revealed that Haeckel's fraud was FAR WORSE THAN ANYONE REALISED

"An embryologist, Dr Michael Richardson, with the co-operation of biologists around the world, collected & photographed the types of embryo Haeckel SUPPOSEDLY drew

"Dr Richardson found that Haeckel's drawings BORE LITTLE RESEMBLANCE TO THE EMBRYOS

Von Baer pointed this out over a hundred years ago, and Haeckel was discredited at that point.

Here's the modern take on it, and why photographs are now used in textbooks:
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/ ... eckel.html

I don't know of any biologist who is unaware of these facts. When I took comparative vertebrate anatomy in the 1960s, it was prominently mentioned in my textbook and in lectures.

Somethings very fishy going on here...

Incidentally, Wells isn't exactly honest with you, either. He claims in his book that his PhD work dissuaded him from evolution. But in other places, he says that the Moonies gave him a mission to "destroy evolution" long before that time.

Can't both be true.

 

[MrVersatile48]

Re: Must go cook some pasta..

The Shard of turin was found to be hoax, dose that mean all of christens should abounded there religion.

Just because you found some old hoaxes, doesn't mean you can rule out evolution.

Dude, do check a few other threads here.. :angel:


Gonna be 1 FUN half-term holiday, huh? :-D

Time to get in the real world. All of your objections are obsolete and all the corrections were made by other scientists not ID'rs. You either have facts or you have beliefs. Which do you think carry more weight or rather which do you think SHOULD carry more weight? As for checking the threads please do.

"OUCH!!... :o

"My toebone, Musskie!!!!!!!!!!! :

Everyone's in such a rush to liberate their demented teachers & lecturers from their lifelong attempt to transfer da notes from da teacher's manual into da noteboks of da students...

without da contents passing thru da minds of either!!!" :evil:

Sorry, Deputy Dawg... :

I'll just post a link to them thar defunct apemen 4 U.. :o

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopic.php?t=18687

Thanks, Musskie.. :-D

I'll just get a movie review of Pride & Prejudice to clean up al the evo-loopy-poop round these here parts... :roll:

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 597#216597

 

[Barbarian]

Do you get the impression that Mr. Versatile misses a lot of stuff in the conversation?

 

[Quid]

The fact that he uses smilies for punctuation is worrisome.

And horrifically annoying.

 

[MrVersatile48]

"Where is the wise man?

""""""""""""the scholar?

"""""""""""""""" philospher?

Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?"

Come & discuss @ "The Art of Conversation" - 11/11 - (Armistice Day)

Helpful blog here:-

http://www.christianforums.net/viewtopi ... 057#218057

See http://www.philosophyinpubs.org.uk & click "schedule"

Or the "true identity" question - as in quote above - @ the following Friday Forum @ this EU Capital of Culture's respected Universities highly honored Philosophy Outreach Program

CU in Berlin for next year's global conference maybe?

Must go!

Ian

 

[MrVersatile48]

Flagged up by popular demand 8-)

 

[Barbarian]

Isn't there some kind of rule about spamming on this board?

And if you don't understand the argument well enough to tell us what it is, what makes you think it's right?

 

[MrVersatile48]

Hi Barb!

http://www.crosswalk.com/pastors/11552410/

Worldviews: God Explains it All
Dr. Paul Dean

What do you believe and why do you believe it?

Such a question is basic to our very existence and all people must answer it in some way whether consciously or unconsciously.

To answer the question unconsciously is both to answer it and to ignore it at the same time.

To ignore the question is to answer it along these lines, “I only believe what I feel like believing at any given moment.â€Â

In other words, this individual has no coherent philosophical grid by which he approaches life in general except that he acts merely upon circumstantial feelings. This individual will live with philosophical inconsistencies and contradictions within his own mind without really caring or perhaps even knowing such to be the case.

Some take a more thoughtful approach and attempt to develop some sort of belief system.

In other words, they know what they believe and are often very committed to those beliefs. Yet, they are not so different from those who ignore the question, though they may conceive themselves as being different by virtue of the fact that they at least answer the first half of the question: what do you believe?

They are not so different because setting forth what one believes is not enough.

What one believes is irrelevant if he does not know why he believes it. If one does not know why he believes something then he is his own authority and has relegated himself to a position of relativism, or, to put it more aptly, arbitrariness. That is, he is philosophically uncertain about anything because he has no ground for what he believes.

He simply believes it because he believes it.

Others are more thoughtful still. Not only have they answered the first half of the question, but they have wrestled with the second half as well.

These individuals know what they believe and offer some justification for it. In other words, they have attempted to answer the question: why do you believe it?

They have consciously committed themselves to a particular worldview. Of course, those who ignore the question and those who answer only the first half have committed themselves to their respective worldviews to be sure.

The difference between those individuals and the one who wrestles with the “why†question is that the former are unconsciously committed to their worldviews and the latter is consciously committed to his worldview. The latter is attempting to make some sense out of his world.

There is yet another category to be brought forth momentarily.

The concept of “worldview†must be dealt with first. A “worldview†quite obviously has to do with the way a person looks at the world. In one sense, it is the totality of what one believes.

In another sense, it is the lens through which a person views the world or ultimate reality. It consists of one’s presuppositions or assumptions about the nature of our world.

A worldview is made up of those presuppositions that individuals believe without evidence or outside support; they are merely taken for granted or on faith.

Then there are those presuppositions or beliefs that persons hold to based on some kind of rationale. A person will always speak from his particular worldview whether he is conscious he is doing so or not, whether he is consistent or not, or whether he has determined to do so or not.

Everyone brings his worldview to the marketplace of ideas.

To pick up on the opening question once again is to put these issues in sharper focus. It is not difficult to see that the individual who has ignored the question has no ground for what he believes. And, it is perhaps quite clear that the one who has only set forth what he believes without asking why he believes it has no ground for what he believes either.

And yet, it is also true that the one who has answered both sides of the question, the one who knows what he believes and why, has no rational, philosophical ground for what he believes if he holds to any worldview other than a biblical worldview.

In other words, the one who does not presuppose the God of the bible has no ground for believing what he believes about anything. He has relegated himself to a life of intellectual futility and philosophical inconsistency.

By way of example, one committed to an evolutionary/naturalist worldview must live with philosophical contradictions.

He conceives of the universe as a box. The only things that exist are those things within the box. One may not go outside of the box to search for answers to anything or to explain anything. There is only the physical universe in which we live. There is nothing metaphysical. Thus, he says there is no God.

Yet, there are a number of things that he cannot justify on his worldview.

He presupposes laws of logic to engage in scientific method or have a conversation, etc...

But laws of logic are immaterial, that is, metaphysical and cannot be justified on his worldview.

He cannot justify concepts like honesty on his worldview though he presupposes those concepts in the reporting of data or in formulating hypotheses or theories, etc.

He violates his own worldview by presupposing the uniformity of nature though he says the origin of the universe was a random chance accident.

He posits a natural law that says matter and energy cannot come from nothing yet he says just that: the universe came from nothing.

He posits a natural law that says that life cannot come from non-life yet in the beginning life did in fact come from non-life says he.

On an evolutionary worldview, we are but an accident with no real purpose for being here. On that worldview, values mean nothing and there is no life after death.

Evolutionists do indeed attempt to inject meaning into our existence. But, they have no justification for doing so on their worldview.

Let me take it a step further. The evolutionist says there is no God.

The question must be put to him, “how do you know there is no God?â€Â

On his worldview, one of observation and data, he does not know. He has not searched every corner of the universe. He has limited knowledge and limited investigative ability.

He posits a statement of absolute fact concerning the existence of God but he is relegated to a position of complete uncertainty on his worldview. He cannot justify his claim...

http://www.crosswalk.com/pastors/11552410/ - 2 more pages there

Ian

 

[MrVersatile48]

Evangelical Minds

David Dockery on Christian Higher Ed's Key Challenges

Plus: Fearing secularization and "fundamentalization" and whether "Christian economics" exist.
Hunter Baker


Book Report: David Dockery's Renewing Minds

David Dockery is president of Union University in Jackson, Tennessee. Co-editor of two earlier books on Christian higher education (Shaping a Christian Worldview and The Future of Christian Higher Education), he has now written his own book on the subject. Renewing Minds: Serving Church and Society through Christian Higher Education, will be published by Holman Academic in October.


CT: You've already edited two books on Christian higher education, and have written extensively on the subject. What motivated you to take it up again in a new volume, especially as there have been so many other books on Christian higher education in recent years?

Dockery: The world in which we live is characterized by change. At the heart of these paradigmatic changes we see that truth, morality, and interpretive frameworks are being ignored if not rejected.

The challenges posed for Christian higher education by these cultural shifts are formidable indeed. I believe that those of us who are called to serve in Christian higher education at this time in history must step forward to address these issues.

Renewing Minds is a call to reclaim the best of the Christian intellectual tradition.

In this context we need more than just new and novel ideas and enhanced programs; we need distinctively Christian thinking. It seems to me that the integration of faith and learning involves, as T.S. Eliot said so appropriately, being able to think in Christian categories.

CT: One of the significant divides in terms of conceiving the Christian university is between the "two spheres" model that aims to provide an excellent secular education in a Christian environment and the integrationist model that aims at distinctively Christian education. You endorse the latter. Why?

Dockery: A two-sphere model recognizes the place of chapel, campus ministry, mission trip opportunities, and residence-life Bible studies. This model sees a place for faith on one side of the campus and learning on the other. This model can be achieved with parachurch ministries on secular campuses. I do not believe this model represents the best of Christ-centered higher education nor do I think it represents the best of the Christian intellectual tradition through the years.

The conjunction of faith and learning, the one-sphere or integrationist model, points to the essence of a Christian university. In recent years, among an increasingly large number of intellectuals, there has arisen a deep suspicion of today's thoroughly secularized academy, so that there is indeed a renewed appreciation for and openness to what George Marsden calls "the outrageous idea of Christian scholarship."

As Mark Schwenn of Valparaiso University has suggested, it may be time to acknowledge that the thorough secularization of the academy is, at least, unfruitful. There is even a renewed interest in many places in the relationship of the church to higher education. "Ex cordeecclesiae" is the way our Catholic friends frame this idea, which calls for the church to be at the heart of the university and for the university to be at the heart of the church.

Being faithful will involve much more than mere piety or spirituality, which by itself will not sustain the idea of a Christian university. We need a model of higher education that confesses the sovereignty of the triune God over the whole cosmos, in all spheres and kingdoms, visible and invisible.

CT: Why are Christian faculty sometimes deeply divided over making the integration of faith and learning the touchstone of a Christian university experience? And why does it seem to provoke bigger fights between Baptists than Presbyterians or Catholics?

Dockery: I think one of the key challenges we face in trying to advance the cause of Christian higher education is locating and developing faculty who believe in the importance of the vision I have attempted to articulate in the first three questions. This understanding of faith (the faith that we believe) provides a unifying framework that helps avoid the error of a spiritualized Gnosticism on the one hand or a purely materialistic metaphysic on the other.

It is this confessional starting point that forms the foundation for our affirmation that all truth is God's truth, whether revealed or discovered. Thus, on the one hand we respond with grateful wonder at what has been made known to us, and on the other, with exerted effort to discover what has not been clearly manifested...


http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/200 ... -42.0.html

Ian