Does Biology make sense without Darwin?

[Audie]

That is an overstatement. He was a bit sloppy in some of his work and he copied some work, but his work itself was not fraudulent. He was merely mistaken. He was correct in some concepts and that is why some of his work is reproduced with photographs these days. This is simply an ad hom on your part against Haeckel.

Now you too are infested with the vice of calling ad hom,
no matter how inappropriately.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you feel Haekel's embryo drawings were good science?
Sadly hardly the only fraud regarding evolution, one of the most notorious being Piltown

They were not good science. At least by today's standards. That does not mean that they were fraud. Claiming that they are a fraud puts a huge burden of proof upon you. Being wrong does not mean that they are a fraud.

Piltdown was shown to be a fraud. But why even bring this up? By your standards Christianity has been disproven using this "logic". Are you sure that you want to continue in this manner?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now you too are infested with the vice of calling ad hom,
no matter how inappropriately.

In this case it was an ad hom. He tried to claim that Haeckel was a fraud, a claim that he has not substantiated, and tried to us it in his argument that evolution is false. Quite the stretch. Haeckel was sloppy and a bit lazy at worst. The charge of "fraud" means that he deliberately tried to mislead.

I will call Kent Hovind a fraud, though he also appears to have a severe cognitive dissonance that causes his fraudulent acts. Even so the government was not very forgiving when he perpetuated fraud against them and he got to spend roughly ten years in the gray bar hotel as a result.

 

[Audie]

So you feel Haekel's embryo drawings were good science?
Sadly hardly the only fraud regarding evolution, one of the most notorious being Piltown

You sure have a time with simple things.

He did his evident best at the time,
the drawings tend to be very good.

He had a mistaken hypothesis in mind,
much as Lowell did seeing canals, and
as creos do all the time with, say,
"flood" evidence. Shall we charge you with
"fraud"? Better than with Haekel, as you
have no excuse to not know better.

Piltdown is of unknkwn origin and purpose.
Labelling it fraud is making things up, that
(sadly) being the only known source of
Creodata. Making things up. Sometimes
AKA "fraud". Tsk, on doing just what you accuse
others of, built right into the accusation!

Shall we list specific creofrauds?
Carved Paluxy man-tracks, say.
That is a deliberate fraud.

Of course, to be fair, frauds do not
disprove creationism.

In fact, there is no point in a discussion of
them, unless you want to play more of your
silly "fraud" game.

Why did you bother to post to links confirming
news of 150 yrs ago?

Never mind, you already admitted you
were confused. (All of science v life
sciences, if you forget already)

 

[Audie]

They were not good science. At least by today's standards. That does not mean that they were fraud. Claiming that they are a fraud puts a huge burden of proof upon you. Being wrong does not mean that they are a fraud.

Piltdown was shown to be a fraud. But why even bring this up? By your standards Christianity has been disproven using this "logic". Are you sure that you want to continue in this manner?

No it WAS NOT shown to be a "fraud".

You is as careless with your words as a creo.

Fraud requires intent. Who made it, and what
was his intent?

Do you know of a similar thing that happened
in Germany, many years earlier, involving carved
fossils planted for another to find?

Unlikely our joker with Piltdown did not
know it.

Scientists are far from above playing practical
jokes. Often that kind of joke backfires.

It sure did on the Germans. Mr. Pilt never
confessed. He probably knew how that
worked out for the Germans.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No it WAS NOT shown to be a "fraud".

You is as careless with your words as a creo.

Fraud requires intent. Who made it, and what
was his intent?

Do you know of a similar thing that happened
in Germany, many years earlier, involving carved
fossils planted for another to find?

Unlikely our joker with Piltdown did not
know it.

Scientists are far from above playing practical
jokes. Often that kind of joke backfires.

It sure did on the Germans. Mr. Pilt never
confessed. He probably knew how that
worked out for the Germans.

There is no doubt that Piltdown man was constructed falsely. Even if one does not know why it was made that alone is enough to know that it was a fraud.

One can have a fraud for an idea just as one can have a fraud against an idea. By falsely constructing such an object one is clearly trying to mislead others regardless of motive.

 

[Audie]

In this case it was an ad hom. He tried to claim that Haeckel was a fraud, a claim that he has not substantiated, and tried to us it in his argument that evolution is false. Quite the stretch. Haeckel was sloppy and a bit lazy at worst. The charge of "fraud" means that he deliberately tried to mislead.

I will call Kent Hovind a fraud, though he also appears to have a severe cognitive dissonance that causes his fraudulent acts. Even so the government was not very forgiving when he perpetuated fraud against them and he got to spend roughly ten years in the gray bar hotel as a result.

Did he try "therefore ToE false"?
I did not see it. Still aint a ad hom.

"Your witness is a proven liar in his testimony"
does create a problem, tho it is hardly an ad hom.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Did he try "therefore ToE false"?
I did not see it. Still aint a ad hom.

"Your witness is a proven liar in his testimony"
does create a problem, tho it is hardly an ad hom.

I have seen it used against the theory of evolution in that way many times. Now he may not have openly made that claim, his intent was still clear.

 

[Audie]

There is no doubt that Piltdown man was constructed falsely. Even if one does not know why it was made that alone is enough to know that it was a fraud.

One can have a fraud for an idea just as one can have a fraud against an idea. By falsely constructing such an object one is clearly trying to mislead others regardless of motive.

You is as loosey goosey in your
definition as a creo.

You ever see a political statement,
a magic trick, advertising, or a poker
face that was not ( gasp, shudder)
fraud!!?

 

[Audie]

I have seen it used against the theory of evolution in that way many times. Now he may not have openly made that claim, his intent was still clear.

So you say.

No ad hom.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You is as loosey goosey in your
definition as a creo.

You ever see a political statement,
a magic trick, advertising, or a poker
face that was not ( gasp, shudder)
fraud!!?

I hate to play the dictionary game, but since you want a more precise definition this is the first one I came across (though that does not admittedly make it the best):

"
Definition of fraud
1a : deceit, trickery; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right

• was accused of credit card fraud

b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : trick

• automobile insurance frauds

2a : a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : impostor

• He claimed to be a licensed psychologist, but he turned out to be a fraud.

; also : one who defrauds : cheat
b : one that is not what it seems or is represented to be

• The UFO picture was proved to be a fraud."

Piltdown Man appears to meet that definition, Haeckel not so much.

By the way, when most adults go to a magic show they know that the magician intends to fool them. An open case of trickery does not appear to meet the definition since there is no "perversion of truth".

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you say.

No ad hom.

If his intent was clear it was an ad hom. It amounted to 'Haeckel was a fraud, therefore evolution is wrong'. Why else even bring up Haeckel in a debate? It is more than a mere red herring.

 

[Audie]

If his intent was clear it was an ad hom. It amounted to 'Haeckel was a fraud, therefore evolution is wrong'. Why else even bring up Haeckel in a debate? It is more than a mere red herring.

And so are you but, whatevs.

It is too hot outside, but going out anyway.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And so are you but, whatevs.

It is too hot outside, but going out anyway.

How so?

Have fun. Yesterday it got to 77 Fahrenheit here (25C) and I heard someone complain that it was "hot as hell". LOL!

 

[ecco]

https://quizlet.com/116897760/biology-chapter-16-flash-cards/
Bio flash cards
Q What is evolution often called
A grand unifying theory of life sciences

What, he asked, is quizlet.com?

https://www.google.com/search?q=wha.....69i57j0l4.6551j1j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Anyone can use Quizlet to study and learn content created by other users,​

​

You did link other sources. But the fact that you linked Quizlet really shows your desperation.

​

 

[ecco]

150 years ago Haekle's embryo drawings were news now they are known as fraud

How many Creationists have fraudulently claimed to have "found Noah's arc"?

Noah's Ark Found in Turkey?
The expedition team is "99.9 percent" sure.
PUBLISHED APRIL 30, 2010


Has the Ark Been Found?
by Tim Chaffey on August 19, 2016


It must be true. AIG has a picture of it. https://answersingenesis.org/noahs-ark/noahs-ark-found/noahs-ark-mount-ararat/