Korean Job Discussion Forums

gang ah jee · Joined: 14 Jan 2003 Location: city of paper

Yes, Rteacher started off the other thread with a link to a list of scientists. You claim to have read the start of that thread, remember?

But thanks for the 9,000 word post. It really shows that you've got a handle on the debate.

By the way, ever heard of Project Steve?

Meegook · Joined: 12 Oct 2006

So sorry, got called out before being able to edit the almost 500 names of REAL scientists who doubt evolution.

Those listed, of course, are only the ones we know about.

First, you guys argue that 'no REAL scientists doubt evolution,' then when an incomplete list of almost 500 are given, lists and numbers no longer matter.

LMFHO

gang ah jee · Joined: 14 Jan 2003 Location: city of paper

Meegook · Joined: 12 Oct 2006

So, you take exception to one of the 500 and throw the rest out with the bath water?

Hitiching wasn't listed with any credentials.

Many of the rest are supported with credentials and graduated from many of the same institutes as REAL scientists.

Why not attack them?

Like I said, if Christ himself showed up at your house, you'd still wouldn't believe. Why, you don't want to. [More accurately, you can't. But that's a whole nother thread].

And your here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hitching.html is the TalkOrigins web site supporting a theory that doesn't address origins.

Should we waste some time investigating a few REAL scientists and their credentials?

Hmmmmm.......?

The Fraud of Evolution
By Mark Nash
March/April 2002

How science cheats at proving its pet theory

One of the favorite �proofs� commonly included in such a chapter is the similarity of embryos from a variety of animals and man. This information may be traced back to embryologist Ernest Haeckel in the mid-1800s. Haeckel published pictures he claimed were the embryos of a fish, salamander, tortoise, chicken, hog, calf, rabbit and human being. He tried to show that the embryos look similar in the early stages of development. This was supposed to show they all had a common ancestor.

The problem is, the pictures were not accurate; in fact, they were faked. Jonathan Wells wrote in his book Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth?, �When Haeckel�s embryos are viewed side by side with actual embryos, there can be no doubt that his drawings were deliberately distorted to fit his theory.�

This fraud was known and published as early as 1894 by Professor Adam Sedgwick of Cambridge University, who wrote that the similarities reported by Haeckel are �not in accordance with the facts of development.�

Scientists continue to find fault with the �evolutionary evidence� created by Haeckel. In 1977, �Erich Blechschmidt noted: �The early stages of human embryonic development are distinct from the early development of other species.� And in 1987, Richard Elinson reported that frogs, chicks, and mice �are radically different in such fundamental properties as egg size, fertilization mechanisms, cleavage patterns, and [gastrulation] movements�� (Wells, op. cit.).

The curator of the fossil collection at Harvard�s Museum of Comparative Zoology, Stephen Jay Gould, wrote about the Haeckel fraud: �Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases�in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent�simply copied the same figure over and over again� (Natural History, March 2000). Gould further commented on the deleterious effect of such �inaccuracy� when it is reproduced in a textbook and not corrected: �The smallest compromise in dumbing down by inaccuracy destroys integrity and places an author upon a slippery slope of no return.�

Haeckel�s fraudulent drawings are presently in at least ten major biology textbooks published from 1998 through 2000. In each case, they are used to demonstrate the supposed similarity of early embryos in different animals and man, and the authors claim this is evidence of common ancestry and Darwin�s evolution hypothesis. These authors simply perpetuate Haeckel�s fraud in an effort to promote what they call the �theory� of evolution.

Oops! A fraud known as early as 1894 is still presented in support of evolution in text books as late as 2000.

that's not one teacher thats' hundreds down through over 100 years.

http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=589

Balls in your court.

gang ah jee · Joined: 14 Jan 2003 Location: city of paper

Meegook · Joined: 12 Oct 2006

We all work with the same evidence.

You mistake evidence with proof.

Haven't you learned anything in the last dozen or so pages?

gang ah jee · Joined: 14 Jan 2003 Location: city of paper

atlhockey · Joined: 20 Aug 2006 Location: Jeonju City

gang ah jee · Joined: 14 Jan 2003 Location: city of paper

Grotto · Joined: 21 Mar 2004

creationism=fantasy

evolution=reality

choose your theater!

tomato · Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2006 11:38 pm Post subject:

This must be the picture which 미국 was referring to:

This picture was easy to find, because it is on many Creationist Websites.
This seems to be their favorite ad hominem attack, next to the Piltdown Man and the Nebraska Man.
In fact, one site calls it "the Piltdown picture."
Funny that Duane Gish hasn't added this number to his repertoire!

If this story is true, then that proves that some Evolutionists are intellectually dishonest.
But keep in mind that that this debate is supposed to be over Evolution, not Evolutionists.

gang ah jee · Joined: 14 Jan 2003 Location: city of paper

Grimalkin · Joined: 22 May 2005

Meegook · Joined: 12 Oct 2006

gang ah jee · Joined: 14 Jan 2003 Location: city of paper