Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

No Joke: Richard Dawkins Still Peddling Haeckel’s Fraudulent Embryo Diagrams!
Evolution News & Views ^ | October 8, 2009 | John West, Ph.D.

Posted on 10/08/2009 9:46:39 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts

No Joke: Richard Dawkins Still Peddling Haeckel’s Fraudulent Embryo Diagrams!...

(Excerpt) Read more at evolutionnews.org ...


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: antiscienceevos; belongsinreligion; catholic; christian; corruption; creation; darwindrones; evangelical; evofraud; evolution; fraud; godsgravesglyphs; intelligentdesign; judaism; notasciencetopic; propellerbeanie; protestant; science; templeofdarwin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last

1 posted on 10/08/2009 9:46:39 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: metmom; DaveLoneRanger; editor-surveyor; betty boop; Alamo-Girl; MrB; GourmetDan; Fichori; ...

Ping!


2 posted on 10/08/2009 9:49:22 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Why not? It makes killing unborn babies easier.


3 posted on 10/08/2009 9:49:23 AM PDT by Blood of Tyrants (The Second Amendment. Don't MAKE me use it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

How does it go??? If a lie gets repeated often enough and long enough people will believe it?


4 posted on 10/08/2009 9:50:40 AM PDT by smartymarty (When you know why you believe what you believe, leadership is inevitable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

“Global warming” proves that “Darwinism” is not the only science fraud in the henhouse.


5 posted on 10/08/2009 9:51:08 AM PDT by fishtank (The denial of original sin is the root of liberalism.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: smartymarty

Except now that the Haeckel embryos are known frauds, repeating the fraud makes Darwkins look ignorant and/or a liar and a fraud himself.


6 posted on 10/08/2009 10:00:07 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
I always wondered what happened to old lively lips.


7 posted on 10/08/2009 10:01:56 AM PDT by Dewey Revoltnow (People don't respect that which they don't earn.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Dewey Revoltnow

That’s Dawkins not Dawson.


8 posted on 10/08/2009 10:03:43 AM PDT by US Navy Vet
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Here’s a common double-standard that we should be pretty familiar with by now. Evolutionists can used whatever bogus and debunked evidence they want to prop up their “theory”, but if their opponents mention any of these things, the apologists say “Nobody ever uses that anymore, you just don’t know the current state of evolutionary theory”.

These jokers should be thanking creationists for bringing some much needed critical examination to their work. It’s an essential part of their scientific method, which they have neglected to pursue themselves. Without us, they would allow errors to continue to perpetuate as long as they seem convenient to influence popular opinion.


9 posted on 10/08/2009 10:03:59 AM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Lololol.......Citing Dawkins in a science arguement is the same as citing Fred Phelps in a discussion of Christian theology.


10 posted on 10/08/2009 10:11:52 AM PDT by Psycho_Bunny (ALSO SPRACH ZEROTHUSTRA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman

==These jokers should be thanking creationists for bringing some much needed critical examination to their work

Hey, I think we may agree on something :o)


11 posted on 10/08/2009 10:16:20 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

[[No Joke: Richard Dawkins Still Peddling Haeckel’s Fraudulent Embryo Diagrams!]]

I’m afrai Richard Dawkins IS a joke- and it’s no wonder He’s afraid to debate ID scientists, because he knows as soon as he does, he will be exposed as the blatant liar and deceiver that he is, and if he’s still using the embryo diagrams as his ‘evidence’, then he’s going to come off looking rather innept and unqualified and he knows that- His tactic is simpyl to state whatever he wants, whenver he wants, and refuse to be held accountible for his assinine claims- that way’ in his mind, he’s ‘never wrong’.

Dawkins is losing his mind- He’s no longer relevent


12 posted on 10/08/2009 10:16:43 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Boogieman
It’s an essential part of their scientific method, which they have neglected to pursue themselves.

Didn't think that Evolution or Creation held up well against the scientific method?

13 posted on 10/08/2009 10:20:43 AM PDT by Eagle Eye (Kenya? Kenya? Kenya just show us the birth certificate?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Especially when he could have used actual pictures.
14 posted on 10/08/2009 10:46:33 AM PDT by <1/1,000,000th%
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

Dawkins is like the guy at the end of the bar; he’s always good for some outrageous statement made more newsworthy by his unshakable belief in his correctness.


15 posted on 10/08/2009 10:49:38 AM PDT by count-your-change (You don't have be brilliant, not being stupid is enough.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts
Incredibly, I have a few friends who insist Haeckel's diagrams are still relevant and the theory of recapitulation has not been discredited... but my friends are about as liberal as they come.

Even after loaning my copy of Gould's book Ontogeny and Phylogeny, my liberal friends would deny deny deny. Sad, really.

16 posted on 10/08/2009 10:57:55 AM PDT by scripter ("You don't have a soul. You are a soul. You have a body." - C.S. Lewis)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: scripter
It is absurd how many evolutionists continue to cling to Haeckel's fraud, isn't it?

The way I try to explain it for them is like this: Haeckel's fraud was based on a pre-modern conception of inheritance in which evolution occured by adding onto the development of life with new stages of development. Thus, once upon a time some worms started living longer, and grew into fish. They still went through their worm stage growing up, but then became fish. And then some evolved an amphibian stage, and then a reptile stage got added to that, and so on.

By contrast, modern evolutionary theory recognizes that evolution occurs by random mutations that can affect any stage of the life process. Thus the early stages of life are just as susceptible to mutational change as any other stage. Haeckel's fraud is thus not even consistent with modern evolutionary theory; it is literally a pre-Mendelian evolutionary concept, a throwback to the mid-19th century that should have long since been discarded by evolutionists themselves.

17 posted on 10/08/2009 11:12:14 AM PDT by Liberty1970 (Democrats are not in control. God is. And Thank God for that!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: scripter

Mike Savage calls liberalism a “mental disorder”. I’m afraid that disordered minds may be in the majority today. I can certainly understand why, after so many years of brainwashing, Hitler’s ideas were accepted by so many among the young. There comes a point when a polluted brain loses its capacity to reason, understand or accept truth. Bob


18 posted on 10/08/2009 2:42:11 PM PDT by alstewartfan (I)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: GodGunsGuts

What, an evo-promoter is a total fraud?

How surprising!


19 posted on 10/08/2009 5:31:21 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (The beginning of the O'Bomb-a administration looks a lot like the end of the Nixon administration)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Psycho_Bunny
Lololol.......Citing Dawkins in a science argument is the same as citing Fred Phelps in a discussion of Christian theology.

Our as citing Dr. Orly Taitz as a expert at constitutional law.

20 posted on 10/08/2009 5:37:51 PM PDT by MilspecRob (Most people don't act stupid, they really are.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-31 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson