Darwin's Theory of Evolution is not scientific

  • Thread starter Thread starter Uriel1
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Uriel1 said:
Let’s stick on topic; Haeckel’s Embryos were evolutionists’ attempts to deceive a whole population into thinking there is no God. It was a protracted NON SCIENTIFIC deceit, a fraud fed to four generations after it had been called out to be a fraud. Admit that and then we’ll deal with other lies, one by one
Click to expand...
TheOldColonel said:
The burden of proving your own point is upon you, not the readers of your post.
Click to expand...
As has been pointed out to you Haeckel’s Embryos were a conspiracy, the evolutionists’ attempts to deceive a whole population into thinking there is no God. It was a protracted NON SCIENTIFIC deceit, a fraud fed to four generations after it had been called out to be a fraud. Admit that and then we’ll deal with other lies, one by one
 
Uriel1 said:
As has been pointed out to you Haeckel’s Embryos were a conspiracy, the evolutionists’ attempts to deceive a whole population into thinking there is no God.
Click to expand...
False. Your sources are lying to you. Haeckel’s drawings were an attempt to support his own personal variation on evolution: “Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny”. They were specific to Haeckel, and his supporters and nothing to do with God. Modern evolution has rejected Haeckel’s idea

You need to find better informed sources. For example, what evidence do you have that Haeckel was not a Christian? My own very limited research indicates that he was a member of the Prussian Evangelical Church.

rossum
 
Haeckel’s drawings were and remain profoundly wrong, but were used in text books to deceive both teachers and kids for 120 years from the 1870s when the drawings were published, up to 1997 when publishers were forced to admit the fraud/conspiracy.
 
How can one be asked to ascent to a proposition you’ve yet to prove?

So far, your claim is just a theory and a conspiracy theory at best.

Surely, you’re not holding yourself to weaker standards of proof than the ones you apply to evolutionists. 😎
 
You can’t really ask that question the way you’re formulating it.
 
TheOldColonel said:
How can one be asked to ascent to a proposition you’ve yet to prove?

So far, your claim is just a theory and a conspiracy theory at best.

Surely, you’re not holding yourself to weaker standards of proof than the ones you apply to evolutionists. 😎
Click to expand...
Uriel1 said:
Haeckel’s drawings were and remain profoundly wrong, but were used in text books to deceive both teachers and kids for 120 years from the 1870s when the drawings were published, up to 1997 when publishers were forced to admit the fraud/conspiracy.
Click to expand...
Res ipse loquitur
The fact that text books retained Haeckel’s drawings which were so profoundly wrong for so long until they were forced to remove them says it all.
HAECKEL’S PROPOSITION WAS A THEORY SUPPORTED BY UNSCIENTIFIC NONSENSE DRAWINGS FOR 120 YEARS
 
It appears, that for you , so much hinges on this one conclusion being wrong. Yet, you fail to explain how it is wrong and merely keep repeating that it was a lie. Indeed, you should demonstrate both how it is wrong and how it is a lie.

Surely, you are not counting on one wrong conclusion to serve as proof that all similar conclusions on the same topic are also wrong. Now who’s being un-scientific?
 
TheOldColonel said:
It appears, that for you , so much hinges on this one conclusion being wrong. Yet, you fail to explain how it is wrong and merely keep repeating that it was a lie. Indeed, you should demonstrate both how it is wrong and how it is a lie.
Click to expand...
Haeckel’s drawings source Wiki

Contemporary criticism of Haeckel: Michael Richardson and Stephen Jay Gould[edit]​

"Michael Richardson and his colleagues in a July 1997 issue of Anatomy and Embryology ,[32] demonstrated that Haeckel falsified his drawings in order to exaggerate the similarity of the phylotypic stage. In a March 2000 issue of Natural History , Stephen Jay Gould argued that Haeckel “exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions.” As well, Gould argued that Haeckel’s drawings are simply inaccurate and falsified.[33] On the other hand, one of those who criticized Haeckel’s drawings, Michael Richardson, has argued that “Haeckel’s much-criticized drawings are important as phylogenetic hypotheses, teaching aids, and evidence for evolution”.[34] But even Richardson admitted in Science Magazine in 1997 that his team’s investigation of Haeckel’s drawings were showing them to be “one of the most famous fakes in biology.”[35]

Some versions of Haeckel’s drawings can be found in many modern biology textbooks in discussions of the history of embryology, with clarification that these are no longer considered valid"
 
Last edited:
Uriel1 said:
Haeckel’s drawings source Wiki
Click to expand...
So, one scientist made a mistake. Is Christianity wrong because there are many fake relics out there? At one time there were about a dozen claimed Holy Prepuce relics of Jesus – does that invalidate Christianity?

Does the existence of so many different denominations invalidate Christianity. Most of those different denominations must originate from human error.

If the presence of one error invalidates evolution, then a lot of other things are also invalidated.

rossum
 
rossum said:
So, one scientist made a mistake.
Click to expand...
No, he didn’t make a mistake - he committed a fraud which “science” covered up for 120 years
and this is the second fraud I named, Piltdown being the first, which “science” also covered up.
 
Last edited:
Uriel1 said:
No, he didn’t make a mistake - he committed a fraud which “science” covered up for 120 years
and this is the second fraud I named, Piltdown being the first, which “science” also covered up.
Click to expand...
So all those fraudulent relics scattered in churches and cathedrals show that Christianity is false? All those fraudulent “Faith Healers” show that Christianity is false?

Foot. Aim. Fire.

rossum
 
rossum said:
So all those fraudulent relics scattered in churches and cathedrals show that Christianity is false? All those fraudulent “Faith Healers” show that Christianity is false?

Foot. Aim. Fire.
Click to expand...
Catholics do not depend on these for our faith.
 
Really?

Evolutionary theory did, but now can’t, depend on Haeckel which was a fraud, and it did, but now can’t, depend on Piltdown (which was also a fraud) for its evidence.

Jesus demonstrated his Divinity by rising from the dead, but evolutionary theory needs to produce falsifiable proof and cannot.

Heackel & Piltdown are just fraud after fraud

Sent using BlackBerry® from Orange
 
Last edited:
Uriel1 said:
Evolutionary theory did, but now can’t, depend on Haeckel which was a fraud, and it did, but now can’t, depend on Piltdown (which was also a fraud) for its evidence.

Jesus demonstrated his Divinity by rising from the dead, but evolutionary theory needs to produce falsifiable proof and cannot.

Heackel & Piltdown are just fraud after fraud
Click to expand...
LOL The precambrian Rabbit.
Not at all. Evolutionists postulate a series of changes from a common ancestor with the mouse, but have failed to produce any fossil chain of intermediate species. This is not a third fraud, but it is the first failure.

Jesus rose from the dead; we know that to be true, and evolutionists have failed to produce the fossil chain which we also know to be true
 
Uriel1 said:
LOL The precambrian Rabbit.
Click to expand...
Something you are unable to show us. All you can do is laugh, because you have no evidence.
Not at all. Evolutionists postulate a series of changes from a common ancestor with the mouse
Click to expand...
Yes, and that common ancestor lived well after the Precambrian. That is why a Precambrian rabbit would falsify evolution; a descendant species appearing well before its ancestor.
but have failed to produce any fossil chain of intermediate species.
Click to expand...
But instead have produced a great deal of DNA evidence on the ancestry of rodents and Lagomorphs.

I await your showing us Noah’s bones, or the bones of any of his sons.

rossum
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top