Originally posted by RJHinds
It is not really objective when someone bases their science on their belief that God does not exist and that the theory of evolution is true before it has been proven. Being objective should include any possibility.

Agreed. Anyone who is not objective and open to changing their conclusions based on new evidence is anti-science. I am glad we can agree on something.

Originally posted by PatNovak
Agreed. Anyone who is not objective and open to changing their conclusions based on new evidence is anti-science. I am glad we can agree on something.

This non-objective attitude seems to be one reason why there were so many frauds commited by evolutionary scientists in an attempt to fill in the missing links in the fossil record that Darwin needed for his theory to look scientific.

Originally posted by RJHinds
This non-objective attitude seems to be one reason why there were so many frauds commited by evolutionary scientists in an attempt to fill in the missing links in the fossil record that Darwin needed for his theory to look scientific.

It is nice that the scientific community and the peer review process was ultimately able to expose those frauds, so that current evolutionary theory is not mistakenly based on them.

Originally posted by PatNovak
It is nice that the scientific community and the peer review process was ultimately able to expose those frauds, so that current evolutionary theory is not mistakenly based on them.

However, these frauds have appeared in textbooks to teach others that evolution is true, so the students have been propagandised to believe evolution is fact, not fiction.

Originally posted by RJHinds
However, these frauds have appeared in textbooks to teach others that evolution is true, so the students have been propagandised to believe evolution is fact, not fiction.

So I know what you are referring to, please provide examples of textbooks containing fraudulent evidence concerning evolutionary theory.

Originally posted by PatNovak
So I know what you are referring to, please provide examples of textbooks containing fraudulent evidence concerning evolutionary theory.

What do Modern Textbooks Really Say about Haeckel's Embryos?

I. Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (5th ed, McGraw Hill, 1999)*

II. Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (6th ed, McGraw Hill, 2002)*

III. Textbook III. Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (3rd ed, Sinauer, 1998)

IV. Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (8th ed, Wadsworth, 1998)

V. Joseph Raver, Biology: Patterns and Processes of Life (J.M.Lebel, 2004, draft version presented to the Texas State Board of Education for approval in 2003)

VI. Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity and Diversity of Life (Wadsworth, 2004, draft version presented to the Texas State Board of Education in 2003)

VII. William D. Schraer and Herbert J. Stoltze, Biology: The Study of Life (7th ed, Prentice Hall, 1999)

VIII. Michael Padilla et al., Focus on Life Science: California Edition (Prentice Hall, 2001)

IX. Kenneth R Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology: The Living Science (Prentice Hall, 1998)

X. Kenneth R Miller & Joseph Levine, Biology (4th ed., Prentice Hall, 1998)

http://www.discovery.org/a/3935

Lies in our textbooks

YouTube

Originally posted by RJHinds
What do Modern Textbooks Really Say about Haeckel's Embryos?

I. Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (5th ed, McGraw Hill, 1999)*

II. Peter H Raven & George B Johnson, Biology (6th ed, McGraw Hill, 2002)*

III. Textbook III. Douglas J. Futuyma, Evolutionary Biology (3rd ed, Sinauer, 1998)

IV. Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggart, Biology: The Unity ...[text shortened]... /www.discovery.org/a/3935

Lies in our textbooks

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifRoWrPi9_k

I will grant you that the Haeckel embryos probably should not be in text books. However, even the website you linked to said "we are not claiming that Haeckel's embryo drawings and recapitulation theory are the bedrock of evolutionary biology in 2007." This does not really support your claim that people believe evolutionary theory because of fraudulent evidence.

The youtube video was not about fraudulent information in textbooks (and wasn't even about evolution), but was about things that Kent Hovind thinks are untrue. Even if he were correct, this would not be fraud, because fraud requires intent. I am pretty sure the only fraud Kent Hovind has any knowledge of is tax fraud, as that is what he is currently in prison for.

Originally posted by PatNovak
I will grant you that the Haeckel embryos probably should not be in text books. However, even the website you linked to said "we are not claiming that Haeckel's embryo drawings and recapitulation theory are the bedrock of evolutionary biology in 2007." This does not really support your claim that people believe evolutionary theory because of fraudulent evid ...[text shortened]... ud Kent Hovind has any knowledge of is tax fraud, as that is what he is currently in prison for.

Haeckel embryos was something that I could quickly find, with the textbooks that they were in, that has remained in modern textbooks, even though it has been known to be a fraud for a very long time.

I am not sure if any of the modern textbooks still have the so-called ape men frauds and the drawings of the imagined change of the ape to man that they used to have or not. But those frauds that were taught as a fact of evolution must of had a strong effect on young people to believe the theory of evolution was also fact.

I could keep looking and see if anyone else has indicated which textbooks still have these false teachings in them if you don't want to call them frauds. But I think I have made my point and there is no point wasting any more time on it.

I guess I could have picked a different video than that one from Kent Hovind on "Lies in the Textbooks", but I found it very quickly also and I did not know that you were already aware of his teachings. However, since he was a high school science teacher for 17 years and collected science books, I thought this quicker video might be better. But it appears in this one he doesn't point out many textbooks with the known frauds that I was thinking about. Those must be on one of those real long 2 hour videow of his.

Now as far as your ad hominem attack on the man for making a mistake concerning the IRS, if he is in fact really quilty, that does not nullify the fact that he does know the science and there were lies in at least some of the textbooks regardless if they were put there by mistake or not.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Haeckel embryos was something that I could quickly find, with the textbooks that they were in, that has remained in modern textbooks, even though it has been known to be a fraud for a very long time.

I am not sure if any of the modern textbooks still have the so-called ape men frauds and the drawings of the imagined change of the ape to man that they used ...[text shortened]... were lies in at least some of the textbooks regardless if they were put there by mistake or not.

Here are some words on this:


''Late 20th and early 21st century critics Jonathan Wells and Stephen Jay Gould have objected to the continued use of Haeckel's embryo drawings in textbooks. Wikipedia
Explore: Jonathan Wells, Ernst Haeckel
Von Baer's embryo drawings display that individual development proceeds from general features of the developing embryo in early stages through differentiation into special features specific to the species, establishing that linear evolution could not occur. Wikipedia
Explore: Karl Ernst von Baer
He [Ernst Haeckel] supported the theory with embryo drawings that have since been shown to be oversimplified and in part inaccurate, and the theory is now considered an oversimplification of quite complicated relationships. Wikipedia
Explore: Ernst Haeckel''

This is an example of how science works. People believed in those drawing for a couple of centuries but eventually they were shown to be oversimplified and should not be in textbooks.

That still does not prove creationism to be correct.

It's just another example of creationists jumping on anything they can to kill evolution in their political bid for the power to force creationism in science classes as if it was a science.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Haeckel embryos was something that I could quickly find, with the textbooks that they were in, that has remained in modern textbooks, even though it has been known to be a fraud for a very long time.

I am not sure if any of the modern textbooks still have the so-called ape men frauds and the drawings of the imagined change of the ape to man that they used ...[text shortened]... were lies in at least some of the textbooks regardless if they were put there by mistake or not.

There are two things at play here. One is your assertion that there is fraudulent and/or incorrect information in textbooks. This I will grant you, although it is far more rare than you seem to believe.

The second is your assertion that people believe in evolution because of fraudulent/incorrect information. This you have thoroughly failed to demonstrate. Just because people come to a different conclusion than you does not mean that the information they used to come to that conclusion was faulty.

Originally posted by PatNovak
There are two things at play here. One is your assertion that there is fraudulent and/or incorrect information in textbooks. This I will grant you, although it is far more rare than you seem to believe.

The second is your assertion that people believe in evolution because of fraudulent/incorrect information. This you have thoroughly failed to demonstrate ...[text shortened]... ion than you does not mean that the information they used to come to that conclusion was faulty.

He also just brought up Piltdown man, a fraud from the 19th century as an example of how evolution uses fraud to deceive the public, in one vast multidisciplanarian scientific conspiracy, like mathematicians, geologists, nuclear scientists, biologists, organic chemists, astronomers are all in a vast secret atheistic conspiracy where they have these secret meetings, secret handshakes and such, all to deprive creationists the right to disseminate their dogma as if it were science.

That is what RJ truly believes.

Originally posted by sonhouse
He also just brought up Piltdown man, a fraud from the 19th century as an example of how evolution uses fraud to deceive the public, in one vast multidisciplanarian scientific conspiracy, like mathematicians, geologists, nuclear scientists, biologists, organic chemists, astronomers are all in a vast secret atheistic conspiracy where they have these secret m ...[text shortened]... s the right to disseminate their dogma as if it were science.

That is what RJ truly believes.

Piltdown is old news. And the fraud was discovered by the scientific community itself. That's how science work, everyone checking eachother.

The frauds of creationism, however, is backed up by other creationists. And of course by RJHinds.

When will our friend learn anything? Anything at all would be nice.

Originally posted by sonhouse
Here are some words on this:


''Late 20th and early 21st century critics Jonathan Wells and Stephen Jay Gould have objected to the continued use of Haeckel's embryo drawings in textbooks. Wikipedia
Explore: Jonathan Wells, Ernst Haeckel
Von Baer's embryo drawings display that individual development proceeds from general features of the developing embr ...[text shortened]... heir political bid for the power to force creationism in science classes as if it was a science.

That's not the way science should work!

I don't mind scientists speculating and playing around with those speculations among themselves. However, they should be sure the information they give to the general public is real science and not just speculative nonsense meant to deceive. And certainly, they should not put those fraudulent and misleading information, like Haeckel's embryo drawings, in the textbooks to teach as real science.

Originally posted by RJHinds
[b]That's not the way science should work!

I don't mind scientists speculating and playing around with those speculations among themselves. However, they should be sure the information they give to the general public is real science and not just speculative nonsense meant to deceive. And certainly, they should not put those fraudulent and misleading information, like Haeckel's embryo drawings, in the textbooks to teach as real science.[/b]

Yeah, something like creationists leading people on in their political based BS with all the bent data, outright lies, suppositions and such. How many creationist BS books have been written with their political agenda in back with no regard for actual science? Hmm?

Originally posted by PatNovak
There are two things at play here. One is your assertion that there is fraudulent and/or incorrect information in textbooks. This I will grant you, although it is far more rare than you seem to believe.

The second is your assertion that people believe in evolution because of fraudulent/incorrect information. This you have thoroughly failed to demonstrate ...[text shortened]... ion than you does not mean that the information they used to come to that conclusion was faulty.

Just ask any student why they believe in evolution and they will attribute it to what they were taught in school.

YouTube