God

[frazdog 252]

as what fm said.

ernest hackel was found guilty of forgerey by his own uni hutch.i suggest you watch hilarious video on general few lads like you on it bye Despite the exposure of the fraud, Darwin and the biologists who supported him continued to regard Haeckels drawings as a reference source. And that further encouraged Haeckel. In the years that followed he produced further series of comparative embryo illustrations. He prepared diagrams showing fish, salamander, turtle, chicken, rabbit and human embryos side by side. The noteworthy aspect of these was how the embryos of these different life forms initially resembled one another very closely and gradually diverged over the course of their development. The similarity between the human and fish embryos in particular was very striking indeed. So much so that fictitious gills could be seen in the human embryo drawings, just as in those of the fish. Under the scientific guise he gave these illustrations, Haeckel launched his theory of recapitulation: Ontology Repeats Phylogeny. The meaning of the slogan was this; according to Haeckel, during the developmental process it undergoes in the egg or the mothers womb, every living thing repeats the evolutionary history of its species, right from the very beginning. For example, the human embryo in the mothers womb first resembles a fish and then, in subsequent weeks, a salamander, a reptile and a mammal, finally evolving into a human being.

 

 

 

 

But this was a huge fraud.

 

 

In the 1990s the British embryologist Michael Richardson examined vertebrate embryos under the microscope and determined no resemblance to Haeckels drawings. Following their study, Richardson and his team published genuine photographs of embryos in the August 1997 issue of the journal Anatomy and Embryology. It appeared that Haeckel had taken various template designs and distorted them in various ways so that the embryos would resemble one another. He added imaginary organs to embryos, removed organs from others and depicted embryos of very different sizes as being the same in scale. The clefts that Haeckel depicted as gills in the human embryo had in fact nothing to do with gills at all. They were actually the middle ear canal and the beginnings of the parathyroid and thymus glands. The embryos did not in fact resemble one another at all. Haeckel had made all kinds of distortions in his illustrations.

 

 

An article about Haeckels drawings, for long maintained on the agenda as false evidence of evolution, appeared in the September 5, 1997, issue of Science magazine titled Haeckels Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered, following which the whole scientific world agreed that there had been a fraud. The article contained the following lines:

 

 

Not only did Haeckel add or omit features, Richardson and his colleagues report, but he also fudged the scale to exaggerate similarities among species, even when there were 10-fold differences in size. Haeckel further blurred differences by neglecting to name the species in most cases, as if one representative was accurate for an entire group of animals. In reality, Richardson and his colleagues note, even closely related embryos such as those of fish vary quite a bit in their appearance and developmental pathway. "It (Haeckel's drawings) looks like it's turning out to be one of the most famous fakes in biology,"[ii]

 

 

In March 2000 the Harvard University evolutionist and paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould said that he had long been aware of this fraud. But he had preferred to remain silent, as required by the system of the Dajjal.[iii] Once the public had learned that the drawings were fraudulent, Gould stated that it was academic murder for them still to be used and said: "We do, I think, have the right, to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks."[iv]

 

Haeckels fraud was so blatant and so great that he was accused of fraud by five different professors and found guilty by the Jena University court.[v]

Sir Gavin de Beer, from Great Britains Natural History Museum, described this terrible disgrace as follows:

 

 

Seldom has an assertion like that of Haeckels theory of recapitulation, facile, tidy, and plausible, widely accepted without critical examination, done so much harm to science.[vi]

 

 

These false illustrations of Haeckels in fact achieved their intended aim on behalf of evolution. Although they had been declared to be false, they still had a negative impact as a great many people still imagined them to be genuine, and despite their scientific invalidity they still negatively altered the general views regarding human beings and themselves of people still undergoing education in schools. Henry M. Morris, founder of the Creation Research Society and the Institute of Creation Research analyzed the state of affairs in these terms:

 

 

Ever since Darwinand especially since Freudpsychologists have assumed that man is merely an evolved animal and have evaluated his behaivoral problems on an animalistic basis. Experiments with monkeys or other animals (even with insects) are used for guidance in dealing with human problems...

 

The bitter fruit of the recapitulation theory (long since discredited scientifically) continued to grow in many areas of society...[vii]

 

 

Amazingly enough, Haeckels fraudulent illustrations, described as a scientific disgrace and treated with amazement even by some evolutionists when put forward as evidence, still maintain their place in various text books. This astonishing state of affairs shows the exact scale of the Darwinist deception. The University of California molecular biologist Jonathan Wells describes the situation thus:

 

 

Many textbooks use slightly redrawn versions of Haeckels embryos. One example is the 1999 edition of Peter Raven and George Johnsons Biology, which accompanies its drawings with the following caption: Notice that the early embryonic stages of these vertebrates bear a striking resemblance to each other. The text also informs students: Some of the strongest anatomical evidence supporting evolution comes from comparisons of how organisms develop. In many cases, the evolutionary history of an organism can be seen to unfold during its development, with the embryo exhibiting characteristics of the embryos of its ancestors.

 

 

Other examples include the 1998 edition of Cecie Starr and Ralph Taggarts Biology: the Unity and Diversity of Life, which accompanies its drawings with the mis-statement that the early embryos of vertebrates strongly resemble one another; the latest edition of James Gould and William Keetons Biological Science, which reports: One fact of embryology that pushed Darwin toward the idea of evolution is that the early embryos of most vertebrates closely resemble one another; and Burton Guttmans 1999 textbook, Biology, which accompanies its redrawn version of Haeckels embryos with the following: An animals embryonic development holds clues to the forms of its ancestors.[viii]

 

 

The fact that Haeckels false illustrations are still used in biology text books, as if they represented proof of evolution, is without doubt no simple error. Although being forgeries, these illustrations are deliberately included in text books. The main reason for this is without doubt that they represent significant false evidence for the key point of Darwinism, the falsehood that man is an irresponsible animal. Jonathan Wells makes this comment about this lie deliberately maintained by Darwinist scientists:

 

 

Haeckels embryos seem to provide such powerful evidence for Darwins theory that some version of them can be found in almost every modern textbook dealing with evolution. Yet biologists have known for over a century that Haeckel faked his drawings; vertebrate embryos never look as similar as he made them out to be. Furthermore, the stage Haeckel labeled the first is actually midway through development; the similarities he exaggerated are preceded by striking differences in earlier stages of development. Although you might never know it from reading biology textbooks, Darwins strongest single class of facts is a classic example of how evidence can be twisted to fit a theory.[ix]

 

 

Although Darwinists were delighted in the short term that a lie planned by the dajjal was put forward as false evidence for a heretical theory and had such an impact, it in fact heralded terrible disappointment for them. Through Haeckel's drawings, people saw the scale of the deception to which a senior scientist would go in the name of Darwinism. It was thus once again proved how Darwinism was in constant need of a lie. People clearly saw how evolutionists could turn a blind eye to fraud. Haeckel's fraud was another significant piece of evidence of the destruction of the theory of evolution and the system of the dajjal. This fraud may have been met with silence in the 20th century, but the 21st century has seen this and similar frauds exposed and the genuine scientific evidence put on display. The more frauds have been exposed and the more genuine scientific evidence produced, the more the collapse of Darwinism has become ever more apparent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong, New York: Ticknor and Fields 1982, p. 204

[ii] Science, 5 September 1997, Elizabeth Pennisi

[iii] Ann Coulter, Godless The Church of Liberalism, Crown Forum Publishing, 2006, p. 240

[iv] http://www.arn.org/docs/richards/jr_sciedreport.htm

[v] Hank Hanegraaff, Fatal Flaws "What Evolutionists Don't Want You To Know", W Publishing Group, 2003, p. 70

[vi] Hank Hanegraaff, Fatal Flaws "What Evolutionists Don't Want You To Know", W Publishing Group, 2003, p. 70

[vii] Henry M. Morris, The Long War Against God, Master Books, 2000, p. 32

[viii] Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, Regnery Publishing, Inc., p. 103

[ix] Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, Regnery Publishing, Inc., pp. 82, 83

Desktop View

 

* Home

 

* A++

* A--

[hutch6 550]

My apologies guys if this doesn't sit right with you but I'm just ploughing my way through this - http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

[frazdog 252]

all that writings an they didnt show one eg of macro evoloution hutch.

[shepp 2,285]

shepp, honestly mate, leave it, you have proved yourself to the be the most willingly ignorant and unintelligent member on this thread, in my humble opinion of course. The whale video for example, honestly, quite laughable, if you put your faith in videos such as that, I think you are everything you have accused us on the opposite to you of being. Think about it closely, for a wolf like creature to evolve into whale like creature over millions of years, at some rather dragged out point it would have been a creature struggling for breath in water no? Think about it - it would Never have survived.

 

History is rich with eye witnessed accounts of the life and death of Jesus Christ and some folk willingly accepted death as a consequence for believing upon Him who died for their sins, it's fascinating area of evidence, one which should be explored independently and beyond the realms of which what essential is a hunting site.

 

For those genuinely interested in the accuracy of an authorised modern day bible, check out the dead sea scrolls, they testify wonderfully well to the authenticity of the good book.

 

I know I always say it, "do your own research" I guess it sounds a little daunting, maybe even demoralising, after all there's a whole lot of information out there, but if you're genuinely interested, don't be lazy or act like a sheep and follow like lamb to the slaughter. Start again from scratch, learn thoroughly, research extensively, with an unbiased mind and perhaps you'll be led like me and a multitude of others to ask God the ultimate question, will You reveal Yourself to me?

 

I'm not particularly intelligent or disciplined, if I can do it, anyone reading this can too.

 

P.s Avoid Wikipedia, it's hardly a trustworthy source of information on these things.

 

Now for goodness sake, someone, please, lock this thread!

You really are one deluded brain washed twat!

 

Of course if the world was 6,000 years old the animal in the video would be fighting for breath. But in reality life on earth is many millions of years old and the process evolution works in very small stages.

Micro evolution or over time adding up to macro evolution.

 

If having an imaginary friend gives you comfort then good for you, but don't embarrass yourself by thinking your creationist bollocks can have any scientific logic or credibility.

 

God may exist, although unlikely, and has overseen all that has evolved, but to believe the bible is some kind of reference book on the world and science is frankly laughable.

Edited September 15, 2014 by shepp

[shepp 2,285]

You believe a 600 year old giant can build a wooden boat to carry two of every animal on the planet, but can't believe one animal can evolve into another over millions of years.

You are truly beyond parody.

[hutch6 550]

That Ray Comfort is a bit of one sided person.

[frazdog 252]

nah lad hes asking simple qs an he gives them time to answer.that you need beleif an faith to beleive in evoloution same as the bible,thats the point im making its a religon not science hutch.

did you watch the whole vid what did you think of the drowning q hutch

 

an shepp you have the cheek to call fm deluded mate hes right you havent a clue about your beleif faith which.is evoloution

[gnasher16 31,442]

 

shepp, honestly mate, leave it, you have proved yourself to the be the most willingly ignorant and unintelligent member on this thread, in my humble opinion of course. The whale video for example, honestly, quite laughable, if you put your faith in videos such as that, I think you are everything you have accused us on the opposite to you of being. Think about it closely, for a wolf like creature to evolve into whale like creature over millions of years, at some rather dragged out point it would have been a creature struggling for breath in water no? Think about it - it would Never have survived.

 

History is rich with eye witnessed accounts of the life and death of Jesus Christ and some folk willingly accepted death as a consequence for believing upon Him who died for their sins, it's fascinating area of evidence, one which should be explored independently and beyond the realms of which what essential is a hunting site.

 

For those genuinely interested in the accuracy of an authorised modern day bible, check out the dead sea scrolls, they testify wonderfully well to the authenticity of the good book.

 

I know I always say it, "do your own research" I guess it sounds a little daunting, maybe even demoralising, after all there's a whole lot of information out there, but if you're genuinely interested, don't be lazy or act like a sheep and follow like lamb to the slaughter. Start again from scratch, learn thoroughly, research extensively, with an unbiased mind and perhaps you'll be led like me and a multitude of others to ask God the ultimate question, will You reveal Yourself to me?

 

I'm not particularly intelligent or disciplined, if I can do it, anyone reading this can too.

 

P.s Avoid Wikipedia, it's hardly a trustworthy source of information on these things.

 

Now for goodness sake, someone, please, lock this thread!

You really are one deluded brain washed twat!

 

Of course if the world was 6,000 years old the animal in the video would be fighting for breath. But in reality life on earth is many millions of years old and the process evolution works in very small stages.

Micro evolution or over time adding up to macro evolution.

 

If having an imaginary friend gives you comfort then good for you, but don't embarrass yourself by thinking your creationist bollocks can have any scientific logic or credibility.

 

God may exist, although unlikely, and has overseen all that has evolved, but to believe the bible is some kind of reference book on the world and science is frankly laughable.

 

 

Is it any more laughable than believing the world started from absolutely nothing ?......With every respect Shepp your calling someone a brainwashed twat.....but are they any less brainwashed in one direction than you are in the opposite direction... better or worse ?

Edited September 15, 2014 by gnasher16

[hutch6 550]

nah lad hes asking simple qs an he gives them time to answer.that you need beleif an faith to beleive in evoloution same as the bible,thats the point im making its a religon not science hutch.

did you watch the whole vid what did you think of the drowning q hutch

 

an shepp you have the cheek to call fm deluded mate hes right you havent a clue about your beleif faith which.is evoloution

 

I did yes.

 

He asks for an example of evolution he can see right now but when they can't give him one he doesn't give them an example of a example of God they can see right now either so it's by the by. He also states that the actions of the SS in World War II was evolution - survival of the fittest - which is way way way off the mark and makes him look like an idiot.

 

The question about the person and the pet is "Your dog and your rotten neighbour are drowning in a pool which would you save?" He doesn't define what he means by "rotten". Has the neighbour murdered or are they just rotten because they don't empty their bins or say "Hello" on a morning when you see them?

[hutch6 550]

In another of his videos he is asked about stoning children to death in the bible and he says it doesn't yet it clearly does if you research it.

He is then asked about two guys walking down the road and a group of kids insult them for being bald and God sends two she-bears to kill the children, he argues "Did it happen?", the guy who mentioned it says "I don't believe it happened" to which Ray responds "well if you don't believe it didn't happen then it didn't happen so don't get upset about it". Talk about making shit work for you when you want it to. He is better at answering a question by not answering it than any other person who I have seen.

[frazdog 252]

hutch mate thats his point you need beleif faith for evoloution.no one can give an eg cause its a beleif faith.

 

an everybody running round saying its science an fact when its neither.

 

no rotten neighbor was mentioned just neighbor i cant beleive your defending that mate thats just ridiculos

[Mr Muddy 141]

ok muddy didnt intend to be rude mate its a debate.

i hear what your saying about hebrew,its very interesting,the letters an words have meanings,you should look up what the first ten names in the bible mean,its awesome.

as i said before i have no problem with science an history,sure the bible is all historical events that took place,this has already been proven.

 

i encourage people to look up history,to find the truth spit out the lies.

yes israelites worshipped diff gods, idols, statues, running after their own lusts,this is known fact,they defected from the one true god,thats why they crucified jesus,they did not know the father nor me,thats what jesus said.

you say cavemen ape men dinosaurs,lad ive no problem debating these as i know the evidence for all an im confident in the truth.

 

Fair enough, apology accepted.

 

Serious question – open to everyone:

 

Why would you be, or expect anyone else to be impressed that a bible (or its later translation) that was actually written in a relatively small part of the world a few thousand years ago, was fairly accurate about the names, places and events that also happened in that same relatively small part of the world a few thousand years ago?

 

If I told you about something that happened in my village last year, and could prove it, with newspaper cuttings or something; I would expect you to believe me too.

 

And just because there’s proof of something in the bible that’s perfectly plausible – Herod was a bit of a b*****d, or whatever - why does that mean you should blindly accept all the unverifiable supernatural stuff?

 

If I told you about the proven thing that happened in my village last year, but then told you there were fairies at the bottom of my garden; you would have to be barking mad to believe me – about the fairies at least.

 

So why have blind faith in the Bible?

[hutch6 550]

hutch mate thats his point you need beleif faith for evoloution.no one can give an eg cause its a beleif faith.an everybody running round saying its science an fact when its neither.no rotten neighbor was mentioned just neighbor i cant beleive your defending that mate thats just ridiculos

I think you need to listen to it again, he definitely says "rotten neighbour".

 

Of course it's faith, it happened over billions of years before humans were around an we learnt to document stuff but I find it more logical to believe than intelligent design.

[frazdog 252]

i have blind faith yes muddy,but the bible is accurate in every sense of the way,the supernatural is not hard for me to beleive cause i experienced it.

 

once i was born again spirtually it has changed my life,i understood the scriptures far better, before i didnt understand when you lay down your life to jesus an follow him you change completley.

 

its hard to describe mate but jesus is with me all day every day an it shows,its incredible

[Tiercel 6,986]

Well after over a 100 pages I am no closer to finding the truth. There is not one argument in this thread that has swayed me one way or another. The closest I have come to it is Remy bolts posts. Fraz being an agnostic means I have an open mind, it is not an affiliation nor a religion.

 

The problem I have is that all the clips you and your opponents have shown, they all have their own agenda, an edited video will never show the whole truth as the maker of the video will always want it slanted in their favour, no matter how impartial they sate their aims are.

 

There are some truths that are universal and transcends all religions, faiths or non-faiths. We are born, we live, hopefully propagate and then we die. Those are tangible events that every one can see. So far in my life I have been happy knowing these truths. I have never wanted more. As I have done three out of the four mentioned and it is only a matter of time before I have a full house. When that does eventually happen, I would like to think that the memory of my life will live on for a little while, but in truth it will soon fade into obscurity exactly the same as every other person on earth.

 

I am quite happy for that to happen as I am no one special. Kids apart I have not made any difference to any ones life, no one has gone away from meeting me thinking, I am glad I met him he really has changed my life!

 

The sooner people grasp that if you are content with knowing that you will always live on in your children and their children in perpetuum the happier with their lives people will be. In a way it is a type of immortality.

 

TC

 

Edited to add.

 

exactly the same as every other person on earth. Should read. exactly the same as nearly every other person on earth.

Edited September 15, 2014 by tiercel