Guest guest Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 On 9/12/06, <bible770@...> wrote: > > He was tried and proven to be a fraud...yet people still bought it, and it is still > > >being taught in the science books today. > > That's an outright lie. > what part of this is an outright lie? The part that it is still being taught in science books. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 Hi , > let's see how the out come is......but let's also investigate what he has been >teaching. I'm sure that if you try, you will definitely be able to dig up some >more " dirt " on him. That is of no interest to me. What is of interest is the truths >that he has been teaching about evolution. As stated,,,,,,he is having a >hard time getting any evolutionist to debate him. Hovind usually finds himself debating other creationists, like Hugh Ross. They'll debate whether the earth is only 6,000 years old or whether it is billions of years old but life is only 6,000. Most people will not fulfill every request made from them, and in the case of scientists, they spend most of the time trying to do research, advance knowledge, and publish their work. To the extent that a small proportion of scientists would engage in a formal " debate " with anyone at all, nearly all of them would do so with another scientist whose work they take seriously. Hovind is neither a scientist nor taken seriously by scientists. Thus, scientists would not waste their time. But really, most scientists don't, I don't think, spend their time " debating " people anyway. They publish their work in the forum of scientific journals, and focus on supporting or refuting their own hypotheses. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 - All discussions of religion require the RELIGION tag in the subject line of the message. >I'm sorry if that offends you, however, it is fact. " For it is >written, (as I live) saith the Lord, every knee shall bow to me and >every tongue shall confess to God so then everyone of us shall give >an account of himself to God. " Romans 14:11-12 - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 - >I think by the emails,,,it is evident who the " evil " one is here. Ad-hominem rhetoric is NOT ALLOWED ON THIS LIST. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 Was simply defending myself ......and I apologize for that. Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt - >I think by the emails,,,it is evident who the " evil " one is here. Ad-hominem rhetoric is NOT ALLOWED ON THIS LIST. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 - >Was simply defending myself ......and I apologize for that. I'm sorry I've been away for a little while and didn't nip this in the bud earlier, but it's not allowed from anyone, regardless of the provocation, whether imagined or real, and I'm going to be very firm about enforcing that from now on. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 It's ok and thank you. I couldn't understand why it got so vicious so quickly, but no harm done. Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt - >Was simply defending myself ......and I apologize for that. I'm sorry I've been away for a little while and didn't nip this in the bud earlier, but it's not allowed from anyone, regardless of the provocation, whether imagined or real, and I'm going to be very firm about enforcing that from now on. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 >It shows a picture of one of Haeckel's forged drawings. If Hovind is >saying this is found in modern textbooks, he is a shameless liar. unless you have seen every modern textbook, you can't say for sure that this is a lie. His forged drawings were in my high school biology book in the late 70's as well as college textbooks after that. I have seen them in textbooks dating to the mid 90's anyway. I don't know about recent ones but I can say for sure that these drawings have been used at least in the last 10 or 12 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 , > unless you have seen every modern textbook, you can't say for sure > that this is a lie. His forged drawings were in my high school biology book > in the late 70's as well as college textbooks after that. I have seen them > in textbooks dating to the mid 90's anyway. I don't know about recent ones > but I can say for sure that these drawings have been used at least in the > last 10 or 12 years. That's a good point. I've never seen them, but I have only seen a handful of textbooks. Nevertheless, I'm suspicious that Hovind is conflating the use of more realistic illustrations of embryology used to show that all vertebrate embryos, for example, exhibit a stage wherein they look like all the others. That point is very true, and the distinction between it and Haeckel's misuse of embryological illustrations is subtle enough that such a conflation would be very unsurprising. You may be right that some textbooks have used it, but I would like to actually see an example before I believe it. I've read a bit on evolution, pro and con, since I was a teenager, and I've never seen anyone use Haeckel's theory or his pictures in support of evolution, and evolutionists I've read have been quite willing to openly criticize Haeckel. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 12, 2006 Report Share Posted September 12, 2006 On 9/12/06, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote: > You may be right that some textbooks have used it, but I would like to > actually see an example before I believe it. I've read a bit on > evolution, pro and con, since I was a teenager, and I've never seen > anyone use Haeckel's theory or his pictures in support of evolution, > and evolutionists I've read have been quite willing to openly > criticize Haeckel. Just popping in to admit that I was completely wrong, and Hovind was not lying. Here is a textbook company admitting their own error which they did not fix until the late 1990s: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/embryos/Haeckel.html Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2006 Report Share Posted September 13, 2006 On 9/13/06, Furbish <efurbish@...> wrote: > On 9/13/06, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote: > > However it occurs, reproductive isolation is necessary for speciation. > > I'm thinking: chihuahua and mastiff. Not knowing what a mastiff is, I don't follow. Is this an example of two breeds of dogs that cannot interbreed? Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2006 Report Share Posted September 13, 2006 On 9/13/06, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote: > On 9/13/06, Furbish <efurbish@...> wrote: > > On 9/13/06, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote: > > > However it occurs, reproductive isolation is necessary for speciation. > > > > I'm thinking: chihuahua and mastiff. > > Not knowing what a mastiff is, I don't follow. Is this an example of > two breeds of dogs that cannot interbreed? > > Chris Just a little jokelet. A mastiff is a huge dog. Size as a reproductive barrier. Unless you've got a good squatter and a good jumper, etc. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2006 Report Share Posted September 13, 2006 > >On 9/13/06, Furbish <efurbish@...> wrote: >> On 9/13/06, Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote: >> > However it occurs, reproductive isolation is necessary for speciation. >> >> I'm thinking: chihuahua and mastiff. > >Not knowing what a mastiff is, I don't follow. Is this an example of >two breeds of dogs that cannot interbreed? This is very coincidental because I also thought of the example of a Chihuahua mating with a mastiff before posted it. As you know, I have a Chihuahua, and yesterday, I petted a mastiff, and so mastiffs were on my mind. Mastiffs are very large dogs. I think they run 100 lbs. or more. They are a little smaller than great danes judging by the one I saw yesterday, although I think that might've been a small one. Chihuahua's are typically between 6-10 lbs. or thereabouts. So the problem with them mating is one of size. *Maybe* a Chihuahua male could impregnate a Mastiff bitch with help, but there's no way a Mastiff stud could get his weener into a Chi. OTOH, I've seen dogs that were the offspring of parents of very disparate sizes, and assuming they didn't have help, I can't figure out how they did it! Suze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2006 Report Share Posted September 13, 2006 On 9/13/06, Furbish <efurbish@...> wrote: > Just a little jokelet. A mastiff is a huge dog. Size as a > reproductive barrier. Unless you've got a good squatter and a good > jumper, etc. Ah, I see. That's less a joke and more a perfect example of how selective pressure is leading to speciation in dogs. Chris -- The Truth About Cholesterol Find Out What Your Doctor Isn't Telling You: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2006 Report Share Posted September 13, 2006 At 10:30 AM 9/13/2006, you wrote: >On 9/13/06, Masterjohn ><<mailto:chrismasterjohn%40gmail.com>chrismasterjohn@...> wrote: > > However it occurs, reproductive isolation is necessary for speciation. > >I'm thinking: chihuahua and mastiff. I always thought chihuahuas were rodents so they couldn't mate with a mastiff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2006 Report Share Posted September 13, 2006 > > I'm thinking: chihuahua and mastiff. > >Not knowing what a mastiff is, I don't follow. Is this an example of >two breeds of dogs that cannot interbreed? A mastiff is a very large dog, bigger than a St. Bernard if I remember correctly. The physical act would no doubt be impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 13, 2006 Report Share Posted September 13, 2006 I don't know; if the Chihuahua was ambitious and got a running start and ... :-)) then there is always artificial insemination. Re: Re: EVOLUTION: was Re: Salt > > I'm thinking: chihuahua and mastiff. > >Not knowing what a mastiff is, I don't follow. Is this an example of >two breeds of dogs that cannot interbreed? A mastiff is a very large dog, bigger than a St. Bernard if I remember correctly. The physical act would no doubt be impossible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 14, 2006 Report Share Posted September 14, 2006 Suze, > OTOH, I've seen dogs that were the offspring of parents of very >disparate sizes, and assuming they didn't have help, I can't figure out >how they did it! Well, I have neighbors who had a bitch German Shorthair Pointer and a, um, a bigger dog that looks Labarodorish. Well, he got fixed, but they didn't keep her away from him long enough and she got bred. She died shortly after birth due to complications (she got ripped up, even with a c-section, I think). I am not vet, and I am sure, Suze, that you know way more about dogs than I do. But in this case, size was a factor for disaster, and the size difference was not that great (55 lbs. vs. 85 lbs. about). And it may not have been weight but dimensions, I dunno. What do you think? Deanna Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.