• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Science Disproves Evolution

catsmate1 said:
Yep. It appears s/he is using a fairly well known list of creationist "arguments" that dates back to the old days of Usenet.
Click to expand...

everything bought up by Jonathanquick can also be found on talk origins "common creationist arguments"
here for instance is the Haeckel argument
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB701.html
again though as a dishonest fundie creationist jonathan seems to have missed the fact that hes complaining about something which happened almost 150 years ago and which was corrected by other scientists (lefties), notably the whole time the God squad was quiet.
so hypocritical at best. And of course, that Haeckel and his drawings had no influence upon Darwins origins of species is an undeniable fact, something which actually makes JQ's comments on it off topic in this thread......
heres where he came in with Darwin is a racist
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA005_1.html
what this means is that actually jonathan is a racist and recognising it in himself is keen to shift the blame to others to draw attention away from his own failings, (I can't wait until he starts gay bashing)
and here is the complete list
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB100

maybe just letting him post reams of baloney and then posting a link to the talk origins page which destroys it in a kind of anti pahu strategy would be more effective than wasting your time by responding to anything he doesn't understand in future. He doesn't know anything about science, hes just a right wing hate mongerer,

at some point he will get round to "god did it all", but he'll have been banned for rule 12 long before
:D
 
Last edited:
catsmate1 said:
So in addition to rejecting the reality of evolution by natural selection you're a god botherer and a climate change conspiracist. Oh dear.
Are you a flat earther as well? Moon landing refusnik? 9/11 truther?
Click to expand...

Probably not an 9/11 truther. 9/11 conspiracy theories most often blame the Bush administration, and JQ seems quite in love with W...
As I see it, apart from the "the Jews did it" variety, the 9/11 truth movement, is mostly a left-sided nuttery...
I'd think JQ more likely to be a birther :p


But, that's not really the subject of the thread...
So, here: the alleged lack of 'missing links' was brought up earlier in the thread., so this might be of interest. It is rather simple but still quite good.

There also is this nice series of lectures, the third one, in particular, touch on several of the themes of the last few pages...
 
Mister Agenda said:
My guess is the question will be ducked (again).
Click to expand...

Already has been (as you say, again):

How do you explain the evidence of Human chromosome 2 fusion?
Click to expand...
Your point is well taken. Ernst Haeckel must not have created these hoaxes after all.

Science overlooked and neglected them for 129 years, but now with a single sentence from you, all is made clear. Ontogeny once again recapitulates phylogeny.

Thank YOU, Scientist.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
I'm sorry but thinking that disproving Haeckel disproves Evolution is like thinking that the Cold Fusion debacle disproves nuclear physics.


And what in the heck is a "Darwinist" anyways?
 
I have moved some of the more uncivil posts to AAH, along with posts quoting them. If you are unable engage in discussion without insulting people, you are likely to end up suspended in short order.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles
 
JonathanQuick said:
In 1868, Ernst Haeckel presented a series of pictures which he claimed represented the development of embryos of various widely different classifications of animals. Their similarities were as stunning as they were fraudulent.
Click to expand...

Wells'esque nonsense.

As a sideline note, a quote by someone who influenced Haeckel:

It does not please [you] that I've placed Man among the Antropomorpha, but man learns to know himself. Let's not quibble over words. It will be the same to me whatever name we apply. But I seek from you and from the whole world a generic difference between man and simian that [follows] from the principles of Natural History. I absolutely know of none. If only someone might tell me a single one! If I would have called man a simian or vice versa, I would have brought together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to have by virtue of the law of the discipline.
Click to expand...

If you don't understand what is referred to in the above quote, Linné is saying that he considered by law of the scientific discipline that simian and man dictates, in all fairness and honesty, they might be related, but he never took the step to fully elaborate on it before he died. And he's showing what we all know in hindsight, that in fear of the christian establishment, and as a man of religious belief, he didn't dare open that can of worms on his own at that time. Therefore, what follows from the principles of Natural History, i.e also the inherent conclusion of his work on animalia, that man and ape in accordance with these principles, are ancestrally related.
 
Travis said:
I'm sorry but thinking that disproving Haeckel disproves Evolution is like thinking that the Cold Fusion debacle disproves nuclear physics.
Click to expand...
No one said it does.

Is that why you apologized first?


Cuddles said:
I have moved some of the more uncivil posts to AAH, along with posts quoting them. If you are unable engage in discussion without insulting people, you are likely to end up suspended in short order.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Cuddles
Click to expand...
The double-standards here really are astonishing.


JonathanQuick, you were absolutely correct in your eviscerating of the groupthink conformity. Most-effective posts against the tide here are summarily banished, the evidence of humiliation eliminated. I'm sure you have already reasonably concluded that any efforts invested here in any in-depth manner are simply wasted against ears that deliberately, purposely refuse to hear. But please do stick around, and just be a little more selective and efficient with your evisceration. I am enjoying your posts immensely.
 
Last edited:
154 said:
But please do stick around, and just be a little more selective and efficient with your evisceration. I am enjoying your posts immensely.
Click to expand...

When did that happen?

Evolution happened, the argument is over and to deny it is to deny reality.
 
154 said:
The double-standards here really are astonishing.
Click to expand...

Except that some of MY posts were also moved; so I don't see why you think there's some sort of double standard. Perhaps because you didn't bother to check which posts were moved at all before drawing a conclusion ?

Or perhaps you're simply playing victim.
 
154 said:
The double-standards here really are astonishing.
Click to expand...
Example, please.
note I agree with you that people can be one sided. However, if you find a post that extend beyond the level of acceptable taste, please report it. It is all of our job to ensure the forum doesn't degenerate into a series of name callings.


154 said:
JonathanQuick, you were absolutely correct in your eviscerating of the groupthink conformity. Most-effective posts against the tide here are summarily banished, the evidence of humiliation eliminated. I'm sure you have already reasonably concluded that any efforts invested here in any in-depth manner are simply wasted against ears that deliberately, purposely refuse to hear. But please do stick around, and just be a little more selective and efficient with your evisceration. I am enjoying your posts immensely.
Click to expand...
Being insulting and dismissive isn't synonymous with eviscerating an argument. It would be like confusing WWE banter with Lincoln-Douglass debates.
 
joobz said:
Example, please.
note I agree with you that people can be one sided. However, if you find a post that extend beyond the level of acceptable taste, please report it. It is all of our job to ensure the forum doesn't degenerate into a series of name callings.

Being insulting and dismissive isn't synonymous with eviscerating an argument. It would be like confusing WWE banter with Lincoln-Douglass debates.
Click to expand...
Please.

I've never reported any post. I'm all for words remaining for all to see.

Even as a most-censored, it's simply not an issue beyond that to me.
 
Last edited:
154 said:
Please.

I've never reported any post. I'm all for words remaining for all to see.

Even as a most-censored, it's simply not an issue beyond that to me.
Click to expand...
it's where we differ. I'm all for civil honest debate. I don't believe insulting comments to be advantageous to anyone. I guess it is all about one's goal.
 
joobz said:
it's where we differ. I'm all for civil honest debate. I don't believe insulting comments to be advantageous to anyone. I guess it is all about one's goal.
Click to expand...
Yes, we differ, but the where is elsewhere.

As you well know, my exchanges with Marduk alone, just as one example,( ;) What up, duky?), have given you hundreds of opportunities to demonstrate your own declared standards, and I don't recall you ever saying anything, not even one time, urging some civility toward me,

but that's ok, really, I don't care beyond acknowledging it directly on suitable occasion, no martyr, no persecution, no problem, I can take it, obviously to any fair observer by now.

We all draw our own lines and call them whatever we want.
 
154 said:
Yes, we differ, but the where is elsewhere.

As you well know, my exchanges with Marduk alone, just as one example,( ;) What up, duky?), have given you hundreds of opportunities to demonstrate your own declared standards, and I don't recall you ever saying anything, not even one time, urging some civility toward me,

but that's ok, really, I don't care beyond acknowledging it directly on suitable occasion, no martyr, no persecution, no problem, I can take it, obviously to any fair observer by now.

We all draw our own lines and call them whatever we want.
Click to expand...

I actually haven't followed your discussion with Marduk.
 
154 said:
<snip>
I'm sure you have already reasonably concluded that any efforts invested here in any in-depth manner are simply wasted against ears that deliberately, purposely refuse to hear.
Click to expand...

Our good old 154... Redefining "irony" and "hypocrisy" with each post.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom