Science Vs. Casey Luskin (Haeckels Embryos, Fox News)

Mortison77577 Says:

Jan 11, 2010 - @neveruse513 Yeah they are still in modern textbooks.

Mortison77577 Says:

Jan 11, 2010 - @chilleffect Not necessarily. A group of Texas creationists was happy with just removing the pictures as far as I know. But arguments should be evaluated on the basis of their own merits, not the people who make them.

neveruse513 Says:

Jan 11, 2010 - I trust you understand the difference between recapitulation theory and embryological homology. Could you please point me to a textbook using haeckel's embryos outside of a historical context?

chilleffect Says:

Jan 11, 2010 - @Mortison77577 true. but what I'm saying is that when is the argument of what should be in the biology books really going to end? and the majority of the arguments are from creationist. that can't be denied. To argue about what something is and have it taken out of a book because it might not be true is a good thing. but to argue about something cause it contradicts what you believe and not based on facts is what really is going on in the biology book battles.

TheGreaterSatan Says:

Jan 12, 2010 - I just looked through my girlfriend's first year biology textbook for Haeckel's embryo's. Nothing. Not that it really matters anyway. This is just another case of straw-grasping by the creationists.

pienipaha Says:

Jan 16, 2010 - I have never seen those drawings shown in any school books in my time. I have seen them on certain books (that were not school books) but the book series that features them in one issue is really, really old.

thefutureboom Says:

Jan 18, 2010 - SOME Texas are NOT ill hearted, they truly believed creationism was a valid scientific theory, but after some people informed they, they fully understood and accepted that creationism was not science funny thing is the churches want creationism "taught" in school, I wonder if they would be so open to evolution taught in churches taught in

Mortison77577 Says:

Jan 22, 2010 - @chillefect: On the Haeckel's embryo's thing, it looks like the argument has already ended. They don't use those drawings in new textbooks anymore, it's just that some old textbooks that are still in use still have them. The latest I know of is a 2003 edition. If the creationist arguments are reasonable in and of themselves, then they should be listened to. People should not just say "a creationist said it, therefore it's wrong."

captain150 Says:

Jan 25, 2010 - 1:45 that douche was pwned. And par for the course for Faux News, news for fucking retards, entertainment for the rest of us.

jzuidema Says:

Jan 27, 2010 - those parts with the scientist and creationist going through textbooks in search of Haeckels drawings, are those part of an interview or program or something which is also accesible through youTube?

greywolf424 Says:

Jan 31, 2010 - "Yeah they are still in modern textbooks. " BOLD FACED LIE.... POST THE TITLE OF THE BOOK AND ISBN OF THE BOOK. SAFE YOU SAY WE WILL NEVER HEAR FROM YOU AGAIN.

Mortison77577 Says:

Feb 6, 2010 - greywolf424: I don't know if that was directed at me, but Haeckel's fake embryo drawings are in modern textbooks. One example is Biology, Raven and Johnson 6th edition, 2002. I don't know what the ISBN is for that, but it might not be to hard to find out.

Mortison77577 Says:

Feb 6, 2010 - captain150: It's really the other way around. Randy Olson was pwned beause he was later forced to admit that Haeckel's embryos are in modern textbooks. Just beause they weren't in the group that John Calvert had doesn't mean they're not in some.

Mortison77577 Says:

Feb 6, 2010 - Also type Intelligent Design/Evolution Debate (2 of 8) into the search field and start watching at seven minutes and 47 seconds. Ken Miller admits on camera that Haeckel's embryos were in his textbook and that they are wrong. This guy is very much oppossed to creationism, so why would he admit that they're were in his textbook if they were not?

greywolf424 Says:

Feb 6, 2010 - "so why would he admit that they're were in his textbook if they were not? " YOU'RE LYING

Mortison77577 Says:

Feb 6, 2010 - greywolf424: I guess you're joking here, but if you're not, then you really are making a mockery of yourself. Just check out the example that I mentioned.

greywolf424 Says:

Feb 6, 2010 - I did, and as usual for creationist low life fucks... YOU WERE DISTORTING FACTS

greywolf424 Says:

Feb 6, 2010 - Oh and bottom line, it doesn't change the FACT these two videos explain quite clearly and demonstrate how creationists will commit fraud and perjury to advance their agenda. watch?v=PMLBc-IFyes watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg

greywolf424 Says:

Feb 6, 2010 - No matter what you post I will never buy into your bullshit cult and I will fight to my last breath to see it abolished.

Mortison77577 Says:

Feb 6, 2010 - greywolf424: You sound a lot like a religious fanatic to me.

Mortison77577 Says:

Feb 6, 2010 - And yeah, with those two examples it does show that creationists have lied, but that has nothing to do with what we're discussing here.

captain150 Says:

Feb 6, 2010 - So? Let's say it is in ONE textbook. Who gives a damn? Notice how scientists admit when they are wrong? I have almost never seen a creationist do that. Where was that cunt Bill Buckingham's admission of guilt for all his lies and manipulation?

Mortison77577 Says:

Feb 7, 2010 - captain150: Actually, a few scientists have had a hard time admitting that they were wrong, but what's really scary are people like greywolf424 who refuse to admit that they're wrong no matter what. If people claim to stand for science they should rise above what the creationists do.

ChristJesusReigns Says:

Feb 26, 2010 - @greywolf424 You can't buy into a cult because you're already in one.

ChristJesusReigns Says:

Feb 26, 2010 - @captain150 Are you a CREATure? And if you say yes, can you tell me what the 1st definition of CREATure is via Merriam Webster's online dictionary?