Four questions for YECs - (and a little history of creationism vs evolution)

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

In your example, Earnest Haekle faked his embryo drawings, and now hundreds of years later colleges still teach his fake evolution theory, based on fake drawings. 

You were very misled about that.  Von Baer debunked Haeckel's drawings in 1828.   No modern biology text teaches recapitulation.  They use photographs of embryos to show why similarities were based on variation of the same tissues, not a replay of evolution.   See my response to retrobyter.   If you'd like a more detail discussion of why recapitulation is not taught today and what really is happening in embryogenesis,we can spend some time on it.

 

[The Barbarian]

1 hour ago, Sparks said:

Just because you can find a White Paper cited, it means nothing about the truth of it.

Turns out, the calibration was correct.   We have very good records from Roman times confirming the fact.   No point in denying this.   And it's interesting that the error, tiny as it was, is precisely the error found by theoretical work that was since used to improve the precision of Ar/Ar dating.   Rather impressive that it works on things as recent as 2,000 years ago.

 

[Sparks]

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

Turns out, the calibration was correct.   We have very good records from Roman times confirming the fact.   No point in denying this.   And it's interesting that the error, tiny as it was, is precisely the error found by theoretical work that was since used to improve the precision of Ar/Ar dating.   Rather impressive that it works on things as recent as 2,000 years ago.

Demonstrate the calibration method.  What was it calibrated to?

[Sparks]

5 hours ago, The Barbarian said:

You were very misled about that.  Von Baer debunked Haeckel's drawings in 1828.   No modern biology text teaches recapitulation.  They use photographs of embryos to show why similarities were based on variation of the same tissues, not a replay of evolution.   See my response to retrobyter.   If you'd like a more detail discussion of why recapitulation is not taught today and what really is happening in embryogenesis,we can spend some time on it.

 

They are still used in Biology books.  A list appears here:

Haeckel’s Fraudulent Embryo Drawings Are Still Present in Biology Textbooks

[The Barbarian]

10 minutes ago, Sparks said:

They are still used in Biology books.  A list appears here:

Not one of them is actually shown to have them.  Do you have even one example of Haeckel's drawings shown as support for recapitualtion?    I already know that you don't.  Remember, I used to review biology textbooks.   

I noticed the weasel wording from that website:
Show embryo drawings that are either Haeckel’s originals or highly similar or near-identical versions of Haeckel’s illustrations — drawings that downplay and misrepresent the differences among early stages of vertebrate embryos

Here's an example...

https://live.staticflickr.com/1214/1139590175_f033109a49_b.jpg

This kind of thing infuriates creationists, since the photographs show the same things that drawings did.  The facts haven't changed, the explaination for them changed.  We don't resemble fish early on because we are fish in utero; we resemble fish because we have a common ancestor with fish and our structures form from the same tissues that fish have.   They just form different things, and this begins immediately in utero.  You've been hornswoggled because you had no idea how this actually works.   If you learn more, you won't be so easy to fool. 

And as I pointed out your source just threw out titles but carefully avoided showing and evidence for the claim.   Now you know why.

If you do actually find a biology book written in the last 50 years that endorses Haeckel's claims,be sure to show us.   It would certainly be a huge deal in science education.

 

[The Barbarian]

24 minutes ago, Sparks said:

Demonstrate the calibration method.  What was it calibrated to?

In this case, they used Roman records (the Romans were obsessive record-keepers) and confirmed the actual date of the flow.   They then compared the blind analysis from a certified lab, and (remember this was before the 0.0063 correction was established) and the analysis was off by a tiny amount which was almost exactly the correction factor.
Pretty cool.

 

[The Barbarian]

7 hours ago, Retrobyter said:

And, those who believe in Creationism are not only pooh-poohed as crackpots, they are BANISHED from the schools, colleges, and universities! They cannot receive tenure, and they are ousted if they even SUGGEST that they believe in it! Both students AND FACULTY have been indoctrinated into this false religion!

Sorry, I actually spent a lot of time in biology departments and I know better than that.  For example, I took my first course in immunology from a professor who was a YE creationist.   He was a tenured full professor at a large state university.   I knew several others, and I know of more.

There's no way to sugar-coat this; they lied to you.  

[Sparks]

12 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

In this case, they used Roman records (the Romans were obsessive record-keepers) and confirmed the actual date of the flow.   They then compared the blind analysis from a certified lab, and (remember this was before the 0.0063 correction was established) and the analysis was off by a tiny amount which was almost exactly the correction factor.
Pretty cool.

You misunderstand.  How did they calibrate the instrument. 

Remember you are converting the isotope values to time.  What did they use to calibrate the spectrometer?

[Sparks]

17 minutes ago, The Barbarian said:

Not one of them is actually shown to have them.  Do you have even one example of Haeckel's drawings shown as support for recapitualtion?    I already know that you don't.  Remember, I used to review biology textbooks.   

I noticed the weasel wording from that website:
Show embryo drawings that are either Haeckel’s originals or highly similar or near-identical versions of Haeckel’s illustrations — drawings that downplay and misrepresent the differences among early stages of vertebrate embryos

Here's an example...

https://live.staticflickr.com/1214/1139590175_f033109a49_b.jpg

This kind of thing infuriates creationists, since the photographs show the same things that drawings did.  The facts haven't changed, the explaination for them changed.  We don't resemble fish early on because we are fish in utero; we resemble fish because we have a common ancestor with fish and our structures form from the same tissues that fish have.   They just form different things, and this begins immediately in utero.  You've been hornswoggled because you had no idea how this actually works.   If you learn more, you won't be so easy to fool. 

And as I pointed out your source just threw out titles but carefully avoided showing and evidence for the claim.   Now you know why.

If you do actually find a biology book written in the last 50 years that endorses Haeckel's claims,be sure to show us.   It would certainly be a huge deal in science education.

I gave you a link that showed dozens of them.

[The Barbarian]

2 hours ago, Sparks said:

I gave you a link that showed dozens of them.

Not one of them is actually shown to have them.  Do you have even one example of Haeckel's drawings shown as support for recapitulation?

If not, just say so, and we're done.  Or if you have it, link to it so we can see for ourselves.   That website has a reputation for dishonesty, so when it merely makes a claim without providing evidence, it's very likely, that the person there is back to their old tricks.