In partnership with CBSSports.com
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I learned about Ernst Haekels embryos in school. About 150 years after he was put on trial by his peers for falsifying his data.
This post was edited by DostaDawg 17 months ago
I am not trying to defend one side or the other necessarily, but homology is what evlolutionists call it I believe. To a creationist, they would say that this points to a common creator. "Because cars have similar scructures does not automatically mean they evolved from a skateboard."
And they caught him, and no longer use his data for the basis of evolution. When you're a scientist and you lie, you get caught.
So, what's the issue?
He didn't "falsify" his data, he modified embryo drawings to remove "inessential" parts. Whether you view that as "falsification" is a personal opinion, but leading scholars of the time didn't think it was worth putting him on trial over.
The Future Is Bright! Hotty Toddy
No falsification went on there... Pure honest science.
Again, you can view it how you want, but I think characterizing it as a "falsification" is excessive. Haeckels modified his drawings in order to solely emphasize what he viewed as the "essential" parts. Whether he should have left them alone is a matter for debate, but it's not like he was trying to fool everyone into believing that certain parts didn't exist for some unknown malicious reasons. He was trying to present his work in a more clear, concise manner, and he felt this was the best way to do it.
So what I did to your post is ok because I modified some things I felt were irrelevant?
This is astonishing.
As the authority on my own posts, I'm not a fan of your edits. The point was that the authorities at the time (professors and academics) didn't think it was a big enough deal to pursue any kind of a court case or action against him.
Not the post I "fixed". You were defending his actions.
You do realize there's a difference between defending someone's actions and clarifying what actually happened, right?
While I would have found another way to make the point that he was going for, I was just providing a more accurate picture of what actually happened.
I just sifted thru this entire thread. My brain hurts
On Twitter: @Niebuhr247
It is significant that these errors were uncovered and corrected from within the scientific community. In contrast, creationists rarely expose their own errors, and they sometimes fail to correct them when others expose them.
chicken lysozyme apologetic - look it up if you want to see a creationist making up and using false data even when he is busted on it
How about the Paluxy River tracks?
This post was edited by OmegaBuckeye 17 months ago
Yep. Sounds about right.
How bout those Christian scandals that I could care less about lol
Child rape isn't high on your priority list?
Have they been corrected? Ontogeny recapitulating phylogeny is something I learned in school. This is not good evidence for evolution, and yet it was in my textbook 100 years later. When were these errors uncovered and corrected? I am not trying to get into a creation vs evolution debate. Just trying to point out that there is bad science on both sides.
In 10th grade, my textbook said that 4 billion years ago, the first signs of life must have emerged from this primordial soup. Don't tell me that is "science". It is pure conjecture. Is it true? I have no idea. For all we know, life could have come from a meteor, or a lightnight strike, or a "creator" or this primordial soup. Science involves things that can be tested, observed, and studied. There is a place for guesswork in science. Just don't teach me that this is how it "must" have happened (Their word).
Are we going to give examples? Piltdown man? I said there is bad evidence on both sides. I don't really know about your contract between creationists vs evolutionists and how they correct themselves. I don't really follow creationists or evolutionists.
None of this is evolution. That's abiogenesis.
What does it have to do with Christianity?
Again, not seeing the link between what I believe and rape. If a scientist raped a girl would that make evolution any less true?
No reason to be condescending. Without abiogenesis, the theory of evolution falls apart. It is absolutely one of the pillars of evolution.
Oh you're talking strictly about creationism. Sorry.
Yeah, let me go find some articles that show 'fossils' in that stupid creationist museum in Kentucky were completely fabricated.
This statement is proof positive that you have no idea what you are talking about. They are two entirely separate theories.
Let me understand this. Abiogenesis, the process by which life arises from inorganic matter, has nothing to do with evolution in your understanding. Again, not sure why we can't have a conversation sans insults. So, your theory is that there is a creator, that he created Life, and
then set the wheels of evolution into motion?
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports