Biblical Creationists never do any 'real' science ...

[USIncognito]

There's a quack on every corner ........ a person would have to be lobotomized to not see the fakeries / deceptions that Haeckel perpetrated so that his religion
(Evolution) would be accepted. All you have to do is look at the actual embryos and compare them with the drawings that Haeckel produced (and he was a skillful artist) to see what his game plan was. 'nuff said ... this is old news.

Why, in the last 130 years or so, haven't any Creationist scientists produced "accurate" drawings?

It can't be because they don't do any real science, could it?

[Jorge]

Why, in the last 130 years or so, haven't any Creationist scientists produced "accurate" drawings?

It can't be because they don't do any real science, could it?

******************************************************************************************************

[sigh ... ]

Why produce a DRAWING when we can have photographs of the actual item?

Jonathan Wells is no Biblical Creationist but that's okay, the Truth does not
care about such things. In his book *, Wells has pictures of the actual embryos
compared to the ones that Haeckel fraudulently manufactured with deception
as his only goal -- deception so as to get converts into Evolutionism.

Try doing some research before you start blathering.

* Icons of Evolution

Jorge

[JonF]

Did Wells produce those photos ... or did he just copy them from someone who did the real work?

[Jorge]

Did Wells produce those photos ... or did he just copy them from someone who did the real work?

************************************************************************

What the heck is wrong with you people ?

Your question never even crossed my mind because it is IRRELEVANT.
As long as the photos are genuine, what does it matter WHO produced them?

It is no mystery why you people are so screwed up!

Jorge

[JonF]

************************************************************************

What the heck is wrong with you people ?

Your question never even crossed my mind because it is IRRELEVANT.
As long as the photos are genuine, what does it matter WHO produced them?

It is no mystery why you people are so screwed up!

Jorge

It's relevant to the topic of this thread.

[rogue06]

******************************************************************************************************


Why produce a DRAWING when we can have photographs of the actual item?

Because a drawing can depict details better than photographs can in many instances. Often when I'm reading about a fossil discovery it will be accompanied by photos and drawings of what the photos depict for clarification

[Jorge]

It's relevant to the topic of this thread.

*****************************************************************************************

(1) If you want to get technical and picky, then it is NOT relevant because Jonathan Wells is not a Biblical Creationist.

"Did Wells produce those photos ... or did he just copy them from someone who did the real work?"

(2) You must be really, really uninformed if you think that Biblical Creationist scientists do not do "real work" in science.

Beginning with myself (I did scientific research with the Air Force for over 7 years and then umpteen more years
in private industry) and then adding people like John Baumgardner, John Sanford, and a host of others, a great
many Biblical Creationists do "real work" in science. Get a clue !

Jorge

[Jorge]

Because a drawing can depict details better than photographs can in many instances. Often when I'm reading about a fossil discovery it will be accompanied by photos and drawings of what the photos depict for clarification

********************************************************************

You are falling-down drunk if you expect me to buy that piece of crap, lawyer-like explanation.

Jorge

[Wally]

You must be really, really uninformed if you think that Biblical Creationist scientists do not do "real work" in science.

Beginning with myself (I did scientific research with the Air Force for over 7 years and then umpteen more years
in private industry) and then adding people like John Baumgardner, John Sanford, and a host of others, a great
many Biblical Creationists do "real work" in science. Get a clue !

Jorge

As long as the work is not in fields that relate to YEC or Creationism, there's no reason Biblical Creationist can't do real science. We all have to recognize our prejudices and work to minimize them in our endeavors. Although I could probably do a better job at apologetics than you, It wouldn't have much credibility given my lack of faith.

[rogue06]

Because a drawing can depict details better than photographs can in many instances. Often when I'm reading about a fossil discovery it will be accompanied by photos and drawings of what the photos depict for clarification

********************************************************************

You are falling-down drunk if you expect me to buy that piece of crap, lawyer-like explanation.

Jorge

facepalm3.gif

In the words of Bugs Bunny: "What a maroon."

This should suffice to illustrate what I mean



As we can see "d" is a sketch of what the photograph "c" shows and likewise "f" is a sketch of what the photograph "e" shows. Notice how the sketches reveal far more detail than the photos are able to capture. This is why sketches are still used.

[Tiggy]

Because a drawing can depict details better than photographs can in many instances. Often when I'm reading about a fossil discovery it will be accompanied by photos and drawings of what the photos depict for clarification

You are falling-down drunk if you expect me to buy that piece of crap, lawyer-like explanation.

Jorge

The use of drawings to illustrate fine details that photos don't bring out is standard practice in scientific fields like biology and paleontology Jorge.

The reason you don't know that simple fact is that all you ever look at is idiot swill from places like AIG and ICR. You've never read a proper scientific journal in your life.

- T

[USIncognito]

Interesting article from a couple of years ago on Haeckel by Robert J. Richards* called Haeckel’s embryos: fraud not proven (pdf file)

Thank you for that link rogue. I've read a number of rehabilitations of Haeckel's reputation and that one is the most succinct and corrects a few misconceptions I still had.

[USIncognito]

Why produce a DRAWING when we can have photographs of the actual item?

Did you miss the part about "the last 130 years"? And who did those photographs Jorge? Creationists or real scientists?

* Icons of Evolution

Bahahahahahaha! Icons of Evolution is an icon of Creationist deceit. Wells does nothing of the sort, and NCSE dissected his garbage 5 years ago.
http://ncse.com/creationism/analysis...eckels-embryos
(go ahead and take the link, despite being NCSE, your computer won't catch fire)
Did you take the link rogue provided? If so, did you read and comprehend it?

And I'm the one who needs to do some research? You're a broma Ese.

[Jorge]

facepalm3.gif

In the words of Bugs Bunny: "What a maroon."

This should suffice to illustrate what I mean



As we can see "d" is a sketch of what the photograph "c" shows and likewise "f" is a sketch of what the photograph "e" shows. Notice how the sketches reveal far more detail than the photos are able to capture. This is why sketches are still used.

************************************************************************************

I NEVER said that drawings / sketches weren't useful, you BLOCKHEAD!

But for the purposes of showing that Haeckel was a LIAR, a photo tells the
story in a glance. You are truly warped, R06 ... I mean, TRULY warped.

Jorge

[Jorge]

Although I could probably do a better job at apologetics than you, It wouldn't have much credibility given my lack of faith.

***************************************************************************

I'll be cleaning my computer screen for the next few minutes - I spat out what I was eating after reading the above.

Jorge