Another Godless Evolutionist fraud exposed </Hotie>

Mastermind · Post by **Mastermind** » Sat Feb 19, 2005 7:16 pm

http://rense.com/general63/fraud.htm

Ha ha ha, I can't believe these guys. They don't even do it to prove theists wrong, they do it for fame, like that British dude.

August · Post by **August** » Sat Feb 19, 2005 7:21 pm

It does show the value of peer review in science though, he was exposed by his (jealous?) co-scientists. It also begs the question how much other evidence is fraudulent.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Sat Feb 19, 2005 9:51 pm

Wow, isn't that interesting. You know Haeckler's drawings? They made humans, fish, amphibians, and some hoofed animal (and maybe one more animal) look the same during development? He made up the drawings. Kids are still taught that in school (it was in my college science book even) after over 100 years of being known as a fraud. This guy will live on in a textbook somewhere, it just follows that the lies keep on going and the truth is suppressed.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 9:45 am

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:Wow, isn't that interesting. You know Haeckler's drawings? They made humans, fish, amphibians, and some hoofed animal (and maybe one more animal) look the same during development? He made up the drawings. Kids are still taught that in school (it was in my college science book even) after over 100 years of being known as a fraud. This guy will live on in a textbook somewhere, it just follows that the lies keep on going and the truth is suppressed.

Not quite...

Haeckel did embellish some of his drawings to favor his personal interpretation.

However, his drawings are not still taught to kids.

It was in your college text was it? What text was it? I own about 6 college biology texts, I might have it and I will check.

His drawings are IN many texts for historical purposes, but I am unaware of any that 'teach' them. Actual photographs of the embryos are much more interesting and just as awesome. Very good evidence for evolution.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 2:10 pm

August wrote:It does show the value of peer review in science though, he was exposed by his (jealous?) co-scientists. It also begs the question how much other evidence is fraudulent.

Non-sequitur.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Tue Apr 05, 2005 6:23 pm

Non-sequitur.

The mind wanders and I wasn't trying to prove a point-I was just saying that if stuff that's been proven wrong that long ago is still in the books (and it wasn't the history of science...I think it was taught as fact, along with the peppered moth stuff) what else (in science, in general) could still be wrong and known to be wrong.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Tue Apr 05, 2005 6:24 pm

WOW! That's horrible...I thought you were referring to me, and that looked like something I might write, so I thought I did write it...wow, my memory...wow....

Mastermind · Post by **Mastermind** » Tue Apr 05, 2005 7:42 pm

Kmart man, you never cease to amaze me.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 5:25 am

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:
Non-sequitur.
The mind wanders and I wasn't trying to prove a point-I was just saying that if stuff that's been proven wrong that long ago is still in the books (and it wasn't the history of science...I think it was taught as fact, along with the peppered moth stuff) what else (in science, in general) could still be wrong and known to be wrong.

If you went to college in, say, the 1920s. then you may be right.

However, as I mentioned, Haeckel's drawings are still in texts for historical purposes.

Mastermind · Post by **Mastermind** » Wed Apr 06, 2005 5:27 am

SLP wrote:
If you went to college in, say, the 1920s.

That might explain why he's so senile.

AttentionKMartShoppers · Wed Apr 06, 2005 3:58 pm

Back in the day, I had to stand on street corners and sell apples for 5 whole cents!

However, as I mentioned, Haeckel's drawings are still in texts for historical purposes.

They are not taught like that, though...I've never had it taught in class that they were wrong...except by a theistic creationist, who didn't find the info in the book, but knew it from another source.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Thu Apr 07, 2005 6:46 am

AttentionKMartShoppers wrote:
However, as I mentioned, Haeckel's drawings are still in texts for historical purposes.
They are not taught like that, though...I've never had it taught in class that they were wrong...except by a theistic creationist, who didn't find the info in the book, but knew it from another source.

In what class were you taught otherwise? When? Where?

I have several biology textbooks on a shelf behind me as I speak, and none of them refer to Haeckels drawings as 'fact'.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 4:26 am

I remember being taught that the drawings were fact. And the text book that we used, although it didn't say it, it implied it. It was only till I did research later that I found that the drawings were nowhere near what is actually true.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 5:19 am

two_phat wrote:I remember being taught that the drawings were fact. And the text book that we used, although it didn't say it, it implied it. It was only till I did research later that I found that the drawings were nowhere near what is actually true.

When and where were you taught this?

Do you really mean 'nowhere near'?

Of course Haeckel embellished his drawings. But that does nto mean that the entire science of comparative embryology or the ToE is affected at all. Just another red herring.

What I am finding interesting is that amidst all these claims, nobody seems to be able to tell the name of the text, when or where this occurred.

bizzt · Post by **bizzt** » Fri Apr 08, 2005 2:36 pm

SLP wrote:
two_phat wrote:I remember being taught that the drawings were fact. And the text book that we used, although it didn't say it, it implied it. It was only till I did research later that I found that the drawings were nowhere near what is actually true.
When and where were you taught this?

Do you really mean 'nowhere near'?

Of course Haeckel embellished his drawings. But that does nto mean that the entire science of comparative embryology or the ToE is affected at all. Just another red herring.

What I am finding interesting is that amidst all these claims, nobody seems to be able to tell the name of the text, when or where this occurred.

Page 223 of the Lion Book (BIOLOGY - The Living Science) and page 283 of the Elephant Book (BIOLOGY by Miller and Levine)
*Edward O. Dodson, Evolution (1960), pp. 46-47;
*William Bloom and *Carl Krekeler, General Biology (1962), p. 442;
*Tracy Storer and *Robert Usinger, General Zoology (1965), p. 244; *Tracy Storer, *Robert Usinger, and *James Nybakken, Elements of Zoology (1968), p. 216;
*Claude Ville, *Warren Walker, Jr., and *Frederick Smith, General Zoology (1968), p. 677;
*Richard Leakey, Illustrated Origin (1971).

I'll even quote a Famous site that most Atheists will Quote
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/haeckel.html