Science Self Correcting?

[ikester7579 20]

Someone sent me this video and I'd thought I would share.

 

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

In case the history of this is not known, here is some of it. I'm sure there are better videos that are documentaries. Feel free to post any.

 

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[ikester7579 20]

I hear this thing about science being so moral and willing to correct itself. Now we have proof showing that when able to it will slip in known proven lies.

 

Now one could use the excuse that it's the publisher's fault. Well are not the people who write this scientific book qualified to do so? So why did they slip this in? Why was it approved and accepted by the school board? It's because Science has this thing about never being wrong. And that even if someone fudges things and admits to it. As long as it supports what they want to be true they will try to use it.

 

This also shows that science has no checks and balances as far as actually finding truth. And will push anything to prove evolution. Because why else try and use a known frauded evidence? There is no excuse. Not when it comes to lying to our kids.

[bobabelever 1]

Dem's peeples gots more money then we peeples doos.

[jason777 1]

A false philosophy is one that is always in need of self correction. A ridiculous philosophy is one that is always in need of correction and then keeps the part that needed correction.

[jason777 1]

Dem's peeples gots more money then we peeples doos.

51982[/snapback]

Funny man. Can I show this post to my english teacher tomorrow? She gives us extra credit if we can find a spelling mistake and show it to her. LOL

[bobabelever 1]

Funny man. Can I show this post to my english teacher tomorrow? She gives us extra credit if we can find a spelling mistake and show it to her. LOL

51986[/snapback]

absawutlee

[ikester7579 20]

Well I guess no atheist has anything to say. So this must be the perverbual getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar. I have had atheists here on this forum challenge me to find a "current" book doing this. As if that makes it okay if I cannot even though less than 10 years ago it was in several books. Now we have a current book and no one has anything to say. How ironic the shoe is on the other foot and now there is total silence.

[Guest Tommy]

Well I guess no atheist has anything to say. So this must be the perverbual getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar. I have had atheists here on this forum challenge me to find a "current" book doing this. As if that makes it okay if I cannot even though less than 10 years ago it was in several books. Now we have a current book and no one has anything to say. How ironic the shoe is on the other foot and now there is total silence.

52215[/snapback]

I am not an atheist but would point out that text books are teaching aids and not usually peer reviewed. The teacher using the text may not be a biology major or, if they are, not necessarily aware of the issue or motivated to complain. It may then be that critics of evolution are the first to bring use of the drawings to the publisher's attention.

 

Haeckel wrote after the OoS but was influenced by Lamarck and other sources. His Lamarckian notion that ontogeny should reflect phylogeny has been refuted by genetics and the realization that new features don't have to be added at the end of embryonic development. However, homology is still observed in embryos and to deny this would be to be as misrepresentative as Haeckel.

[Guest tharock220]

Ernst Haeckel lying does not discount the field of embryology. Comparative morphology, even in embryos, is still used.

[ikester7579 20]

I am not an atheist but would point out that text books are teaching aids and not usually peer reviewed.  The teacher using the text may not be a biology major or, if they are, not necessarily aware of the issue or motivated to complain.  It may then be that critics of evolution are the first to bring use of the drawings to the publisher's attention.

So the people who write the books are not qualified to do this?

 

Also, you passing this off to the people who complain, is an example of not wanting to correct this. Evolutionists and scientists are responsible for keeping books correct. Not the creationists. Passing the buck shows by example that no one from those who believe in evolution care whether it's truth or lies that support their theory. Only that it's top dog and always trumps everything else. Proving again that science is not self correcting, but would rather blame others for their inability to do so.

 

Haeckel wrote after the OoS but was influenced by Lamarck and other sources.  His Lamarckian notion that ontogeny should reflect phylogeny has been refuted by genetics and the realization that new features don't have to be added at the end of embryonic development.  However, homology is still observed in embryos and to deny this would be to be as misrepresentative as Haeckel.

52222[/snapback]

That's what I thought. Like Haeckel said: that spontaneous generation must be true, not because it had be proven in a laboratory, but because other wise it would be necessary to believe in a Creator

 

Also, claims that the folds in the neck are gill slits does not make it true. Claiming it does not make it reality. If you guys really wanted to prove this, there are enough aborted babies at this stage you could use to do this. But instead this is never done. So the only thing that supports this is a visual claim to what this might be. And I believe the reason no one will confirm this by taking and examining this medically, is because it's not true. And it would be one less lie to try and prove evolution with.

 

And because this is only accepted as evidence through word of mouth and visual, and can be proven further by examination if true. Makes a very questionable claim, and at best a hypotheses.

 

So what is science afraid of, that a claim that has been around for decades, won't be closer examined? It's because it a huge lie that would be a big blow because of how long it's been allowed to be taught as actual science.

 

Of course you could pawn that off as well as someone else should do this. Which proves again that science is not self correcting.

[jason78 0]

Of course you could pawn that off as well as someone else should do this. Which proves again that science is not self correcting.

52235[/snapback]

It doesn't prove a thing. I'm sure that if you compare the science journals of today to those of ten or twenty years ago you'll find that a lot of theories have been revised in the face of new evidence.

[ikester7579 20]

It doesn't prove a thing.  I'm sure that if you compare the science journals of today to those of ten or twenty years ago you'll find that a lot of theories have been revised in the face of new evidence.

52243[/snapback]

Changing one theory or hypothesis, while ignoring what is wrong with another, does not make it right. This problem is not new, now is it? So what is the problem with correcting it?

 

No one would be trying to justify this unless they were okay with it. So the points made here are mute and only prove what we creationists have known for a long time.

[Guest Tommy]

So the people who write the books are not qualified to do this?

An author proofreads the draft; if the embryo drawings were subsequently left in it suggests that the author was not aware of their contentious nature, people make mistakes. A scientist knows the current theories but not necessarily the history of science. Given that embryonic homology does support evolution (and from an interesting perspective) it is hardly surprising apparently persuasive illustrations are employed by those unaware of their controversy.

Also, you passing this off to the people who complain, is an example of not wanting to correct this. Evolutionists and scientists are responsible for keeping books correct. Not the creationists. Passing the buck shows by example that no one from those who believe in evolution care whether it's truth or lies that support their theory. Only that it's top dog and always trumps everything else. Proving again that science is not self correcting, but would rather blame others for their inability to do so.

52235[/snapback]

There is no pawning or passing the buck, there is only admission of an innocent mistake. Evolution is only top dog because its predictions are supported by a wealth of observations and there are no empirical alternative theories. The ToE does not need Haeckel's embryo drawings, it is already supported by observed biogeography, observed speciation, observed phylogeny, observed paleontological specemins etc. To propose that the misuse of the drawings was willful and intentional is absurd and to use such an anomaly to discredit the integrity of science is frankly cynical.

[Guest Tommy]

No one would be trying to justify this unless they were okay with it. So the points made here are mute and only prove what we creationists have known for a long time.

52247[/snapback]

This is an attempt to pre-empt rebuttal and speaks volumes about the weakness of your argument.

[ikester7579 20]

An author proofreads the draft; if the embryo drawings were subsequently left in it suggests that the author was not aware of their contentious nature, people make mistakes.  A scientist knows the current theories but not necessarily the history of science.  Given that embryonic homology does support evolution (and from an interesting perspective) it is hardly surprising apparently persuasive illustrations are employed by those unaware of their controversy.

Then the person who authors the book is not qualified to do it if he does not know that Haeckels drawings were debunked more than 50 years ago. You see this show how fraud and lies repeat themselves when certain groups ignore their past mistakes in favor of looking superior to everyone else while implying that there group never makes mistakes.

 

It's like always implying absolutes where absolutes are not suppose to exist. Openly, purposely making mistakes to test the water to see if they can get by using fraudulent information. I find it ironic that not one atheist-evo is appalled at this, but instead try to justify it. Which again proves what we creationists have known for a long time.

 

There is no pawning or passing the buck, there is only admission of an innocent mistake.  Evolution is only top dog because its predictions are supported by a wealth of observations and there are no empirical alternative theories.  The ToE does not need Haeckel's embryo drawings, it is already supported by observed biogeography, observed speciation, observed phylogeny, observed paleontological specemins etc.  To propose that the misuse of the drawings was willful and intentional is absurd and to use such an anomaly to discredit the integrity of science is frankly cynical.

52250[/snapback]

Why does it always take a creationist to point out the mistakes? It because evos don't care as long as their beloved theory trumps everything else.

 

Integrity of science? Were's the integrity here? All I see are a bunch of evos trying to justify using frauded evidence.

[ikester7579 20]

This is an attempt to pre-empt rebuttal and speaks volumes about the weakness of your argument.

52251[/snapback]

It's weak only in your mind because you have the inability to tell between lies and truth.

 

Are you appalled that someone is using fraudulent evidence to prove evolution? Of course not. That is why the point is mute. Lying for evolution is an accepted process, because the truth cannot prove it so lies like this are needed.

 

So are any of you guys even interested in the correction of this? No? Thought so. Lying to kids is evos favorite past time. And if not, then prove it.

[jason777 1]

I heard they can't afford to rewrite a text everytime something is proven wrong. Whoops,it was proven wrong many decades ago. We can solidly confirm that as another lie. Look up how many new texts have been printed in the last fifty years.

 

I'm taking a machine tool tecnology course and the 1914 edition of the Machinery Handbook is just as accurate as the latest 28th edition. I guess lies are only needed in biology.

 

 

 

 

Enjoy.

[Guest Tommy]

Why does it always take a creationist to point out the mistakes?

Because you don't have anything better to do.

 

It because evos don't care as long as their beloved theory trumps everything else.

The ToE trumps everything else because it doesn't have any serious competition.

 

Integrity of science? Were's the integrity here? All I see are a bunch of evos trying to justify using frauded evidence.

52255[/snapback]

Trying and succeding in pointing out a mistkae. This is a responsibility creationists will never have to face since they lack any scientific credibility.

[Guest Tommy]

Lying to kids is evos favorite past time. And if not, then prove it.

52256[/snapback]

Where is the evidence of any trained biologist willfully misleading children? YOU have made a very serious allegation and thus YOU are in the dock. If I were you I would seriously prepare a case. If you cannot back up your accusation YOU are effectively slandering the reputation of your movemnt.

[ikester7579 20]

Because you don't have anything better to do.

LOL, is that the best you can do?

 

The ToE trumps everything else because it doesn't have any serious competition.

That is because only evos control what competes with their beloved theory. And it's been proven hear that things are allowed to slide as long as they support or conform to current accepted evo views. Each post you make confirms this.

 

Trying and succeding in pointing out a mistkae.  This is a responsibility creationists will never have to face since they lack any scientific credibility.

52262[/snapback]

You swing that term credibility as if you are superior to everyone else just because you believe a certain way. I'm glad I don't meet the credibility of a group that approves of lies and tries to justify them, blames them on other people, and try to pass off the buck on fixing it.

 

Nice try.

[ikester7579 20]

Where is the evidence of any trained biologist willfully misleading children?  YOU have made a very serious allegation and thus YOU are in the dock.  If I were you I would seriously prepare a case.  If you cannot back up your accusation YOU are effectively slandering the reputation of your movemnt.

52263[/snapback]

Just as I thought. when you are losing you threaten. What's the matter, your science cannot save you?

[AFJ 33]

Evolution is only top dog because its predictions are supported by a wealth of observations and there are no empirical alternative theories.  The ToE does not need Haeckel's embryo drawings, it is already supported by observed biogeography, observed speciation, observed phylogeny, observed paleontological specemins etc.  To propose that the misuse of the drawings was willful and intentional is absurd and to use such an anomaly to discredit the integrity of science is frankly cynical.

52250[/snapback]

This whole issue speaks to trustworthiness and competence. This issue is not 'the chemical properties of lithium' --it is our origin!!! If atheistic evolution is wrong as a whole, then were talking the eternal destiny of souls. If creationism is wrong as a whole, we just die and that's it.

 

So then, my question is how many other so called supporting evidences are, unbeknownst to the general public, in controversy(e.g. bird/ dinosaur), making it unready to plaster in a textbook, and not qualifying as evidence? Or how many other illustrations are wrong, outdated, or sparsely evidenced( I have seen sparsely evidenced, elaborate illustrations in textbooks pointed out by creation scientists)? How many other overlooked facts are not mentioned, or under researched hypotheses put forward in curriculums?

 

Meanwhile an entire generation is again passed the grail of evolution, of course, with intellectual prestige--all on the same page--who will even be motivated to call into check this pan-mentality. Only those with a gospel revelation.

 

Evolution teaching--add it up, and it could all be an unintentional, but inter connected self supporting lie, rather than self correcting science.

[Guest Tommy]

That is because only evos control what competes with their beloved theory. And it's been proven hear that things are allowed to slide as long as they support or conform to current accepted evo views. Each post you make confirms this.

It's been proven here that text book authors make mistakes just like anyone else. Each post I make undermines your attempt to score a petty propaganda point.

 

You swing that term credibility as if you are superior to everyone else just because you believe a certain way. I'm glad I don't meet the credibility of a group that approves of lies and tries to justify them, blames them on other people, and try to pass off the buck on fixing it.

52264[/snapback]

I swing the term credibility as it is a characteristic of the ToE. Accusing science of lying or passing the buck is baseless and priggish.

[Guest Tommy]

Just as I thought. when you are losing you threaten.

You accuse trained biologists of willfully misleading children then accuse me of threatening you when you are called to give evidence to support your very serious accusation. I am interested to know why you think I am "losing".

 

What's the matter, your science cannot save you?

52265[/snapback]

Science explains speciation and the natural history of Earth and thus falsifies the Genesis account.

[Guest Tommy]

If atheistic evolution is wrong as a whole, then were talking the eternal destiny of souls.  If creationism is wrong as a whole, we just die and that's it. 

52279[/snapback]

This reminds me of Pascal's wager - i.e. gutlessly adopting a belief for the sake of safety. Some people believe those bits at the end of chain letters which tell you bad fortune will befall you if you don't pass it on. Personally, I rip up such letters. The concepts of heaven and hell are exactly the same form of manipulation and are the driving force behind evangelism.