Comments on: list http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/02/12/list/ Two prophets, living together. Sat, 11 Feb 2012 00:52:27 +0000 hourly 1 By: Hobbes http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/02/12/list/#comment-72586 Hobbes Sat, 16 Feb 2008 14:48:50 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/02/12/list/#comment-72586 Yes, JohnnieCanuck, I did take that version. Same thing concerning Piltdown Man. It is science that discovers frauds within its ranks. That is the very reason science can be trusted. Fundamentalists always miss that point. Religion doesn’t appreciate critical review. If it did, it would self destruct. --The unexamined belief is not worth believing-- Yes, JohnnieCanuck, I did take that version. Same thing concerning Piltdown Man. It is science that discovers frauds within its ranks.

That is the very reason science can be trusted. Fundamentalists always miss that point. Religion doesn’t appreciate critical review. If it did, it would self destruct.

–The unexamined belief is not worth believing–

]]> By: JohnnieCanuck http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/02/12/list/#comment-72364 JohnnieCanuck Fri, 15 Feb 2008 02:58:10 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/02/12/list/#comment-72364 Did you get the version of the course that showed how Ernst Haeckel's theory that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" was flawed and that the famous drawings are not accurate? There may still be textbooks with those drawings being used in classes. This has been a favorite of creationists looking for a defence from the Theory of Evolution. They find no shame in attacking a discredited 140 year old idea as if it were still considered valid. Perhaps it's their own adherence to ancient texts that makes it seem worth attacking. Curious that Haeckel's problem was that he thought up the theory and then adjusted his results to conform to it. This is what we see creationists doing all the time and here they are faulting someone known to have gotten it wrong while using their methodology. Did you get the version of the course that showed how Ernst Haeckel’s theory that “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny” was flawed and that the famous drawings are not accurate? There may still be textbooks with those drawings being used in classes.

This has been a favorite of creationists looking for a defence from the Theory of Evolution. They find no shame in attacking a discredited 140 year old idea as if it were still considered valid. Perhaps it’s their own adherence to ancient texts that makes it seem worth attacking.

Curious that Haeckel’s problem was that he thought up the theory and then adjusted his results to conform to it. This is what we see creationists doing all the time and here they are faulting someone known to have gotten it wrong while using their methodology.

]]> By: Daniel http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/02/12/list/#comment-72198 Daniel Wed, 13 Feb 2008 05:08:49 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/02/12/list/#comment-72198 God is on my offoflogy. True in both senses. God is on my offoflogy.

True in both senses.

]]> By: Hobbes http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/02/12/list/#comment-72190 Hobbes Wed, 13 Feb 2008 03:24:01 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/02/12/list/#comment-72190 Clever, PR. You took that course, too. Clever, PR. You took that course, too.

]]> By: Poor Richard http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/02/12/list/#comment-72127 Poor Richard Tue, 12 Feb 2008 14:44:35 +0000 http://www.jesusandmo.net/2008/02/12/list/#comment-72127 "Offoflogy recapitulates foolology," as Poor Dick says. “Offoflogy recapitulates foolology,” as Poor Dick says.

]]>