1 2 3
Yeah, or the creationists are making up bullshit that never happened to try and prove their own backward ass point. Deception works both ways fucktard.
12/30/2006 2:51:32 AM
What law do they think he broke?
12/30/2006 2:59:26 AM
ikester7579 killed JFK and regularly kicks puppies for his own amusement, but of course the creationist websites omit these facts. Why must you ignore the truth, creationists?
12/30/2006 3:20:13 AM
Fraud is wilfully obtaining monies by deception. Even Creationist propaganda is not fraud as although it is false, you are buying a book or a video - if you're dumb enough to believe the contents, that's your fucking problem.
Oh and while we're correcting your stupidity. Anti-semitism was almost exclusively a Christian pasttime for the last 2,000 years. It's quite popular with Muslims at the moment since Israel was created, but oddly the anti-semetic \"texts\" they're using are old Christian ones.
And as for Haeckel, hundred of years old and debunked = everything since then is bad, thousands of years old and debunked = it's still good? WTF!
Put on trial for fraud by a University? Is there some Creationist getting paddled I don't know about?
12/30/2006 3:25:24 AM
Yes. The only logical explanation for this piece of evidence existing solely on creationist websites is that there's a worldwide atheist conspiracy to censor that knowledge from every other site. It can't possibly be because creationists just made it up.
12/30/2006 3:37:56 AM
Sorry, ikester, but the only thing I heard come out of your mouth was \"bah ram ewe.\"
12/30/2006 3:46:15 AM
Or, just maybe, it's another piece of creationist twaddle being peddled to you Fundies as if it was a fact. You know, like men missing a rib, the inaccuracy of carbon dating and Darwin's deathbed conversion.
12/30/2006 4:24:18 AM
Napoleon the Clown
The Evil Athiest Conspiracy: Erasing historical documents that never existed.
12/30/2006 4:39:49 AM
Why does he even think that a university could \"put someone on trial\"? As ludicrous as the specific claim about Haeckel is in the first place (and the \"atheist conspiracy\" even more so!), this detail gets sort of bypassed. Universities do not conduct trials for fraud; they have no such authority.
12/30/2006 4:54:12 AM
David D.G.: actually a lot of universities
, certainly most in the UK, have an academic court system which can conduct trials for academic dishonesty, but the biggest sanction they have is firing people, I think.
12/30/2006 5:25:29 AM
So either atheists are hiding the truth or fundies are lying. Gee I wonder which one it is?
12/30/2006 6:16:48 AM
See Ikester - the problem is this.
Haeckel did exist, no one disputes this.
He was a physician - no one disputes this.
- you know, by hand - of actual embryos, were slightly
inaccurate, as were some of the conclusions he drew from them - Recapitulation theory etc, and while strong Recapitulation theory does not hold, small parts of it is certainly still relevant in phylogeny and ontogeny. You know the real evolutionary data that creationist sites refuse to touch!
With me so far?
Good, now the things is, those drawings are more accurate than inaccurate, and here's the really fucking important bit you idiot...IF
people believed in strong Recapitulation theory, those drawings would be in all the textbooks. There would've been further work done on it. There would've been photos. It would've been on all the \"atheist\" websites.INSTEAD
the only place you see it is being gossly misrepresented as a strawman in Creationist websites.
In summary, he was half right - you are completely wrong!
12/30/2006 6:29:22 AM
This is great. Evolutionist-atheist are denying this by omitting it from their websites. I can only find it listed on creationists websites [...]
No shit! Last time I checked, creationist websites were full of all sorts of other rubbish too. Don't concentrate on just one case of complete bollocks; give them all a chance! Bwahahahahahaha!
12/30/2006 6:47:01 AM
Napoleon, shut up. Don't let them on to the fact we still don't exist. They might get suspicious about the people they consider intelligent.
12/30/2006 7:58:41 AM
WHAT \"atheist conspiracy\"? There is no \"atheist conspiracy\"! There has never been an \"atheist conspiracy\"! Why, it is to laugh! Ha! Ha!
Plus, we've never even HEARD of Haeckel! Why, we -
12/30/2006 8:15:02 AM
Alternative bizarro universe. One, holocaust denyers are not, by far, atheist. The most prominent bulk are either Christians or Neopagans. And second, Haeckel just proposed a false theory, thus it can´t be taken into account into scientists sites. It´s not ommited, it´s just IRRELEVANT. And put into trial, is not in a tribunal. They just rejected in A SCIENTIFIC BASIS(of course, don´t expect a fundie to understand that) and can´t be compared to the holocaust. It may make sense to you, who are, like most creationists, an idiot, but not to us.
12/30/2006 9:15:22 AM
Perhaps it isn't on the websites because it's a pure fabrication...? No? OK then, how 'bout the fact that his theories are not in fact widely accepted by anyone...?
12/30/2006 2:38:14 PM
Or, you know, all the creationists COULD be making shit up.
12/30/2006 3:46:59 PM
Jezebel's Evil Sister
For the sake of argument, let's just pretend for a moment that ikester7579 isn't a lying fucktard and that the \"evolutionist-atheist\" really did commit a vast, world-wide conspiracy to omit Haeckel's trial from their website.
So what? The Internet is not the only, or first, source of information about supposed historical events. Where are the trial transcripts and contemporaneous newspaper reports and memoirs, etc. to support your claim?
Oh, didn't think you could find any. Nevermind, everyone, we can just go right on acknowledging that ikester7579 is, indeed, a lying fucktard.
12/30/2006 7:18:43 PM
You find it on Creationist Web sites only? Hmmmm. Mighty suspicious.
12/30/2006 9:08:21 PM
Well, ikester, you could haul your ass down to your local library and research Haeckel for yourself. Bypass the internet and look at books.
Or you could remain lost in fundyland, spewing lies every time you open your mouth. Up to you.
12/31/2006 3:19:32 AM
Marnanel: I confess I don't know about the U.K., but I'm pretty sure that in the U.S., such a \"trial\" is actually called a \"review\"; the term \"trial\" is strictly legalistic, as is the term \"fraud,\" so a school could never \"put someone on trial for fraud\" -- only the legal system can do that.
If the guy meant that he should be able to find that Haeckel was up for review on a charge of academic dishonesty, then that's what he should have said.
12/31/2006 5:26:21 AM
Well, there was this article on Wikipedia about a Secret Court
at Harvard University in 1920 to kick out homosexuals, but said court had absolutely no legal standing.
12/31/2006 3:21:20 PM
Michael Pitman, a creationist, wrote \"Charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court at Jena, he agreed that a small percentage of his embryonic drawings were forgeries\" (Adam and Evolution, Michael Pitman, 1984, p. 120)
The above turns out, itself to have been a fraud, or at least hearsay that Pitman failed to check. K. Sander & R. Bender wrote in Science \"To our knowledge, no respectable historical source mentions this conviction of Haeckel, we conclude that the claim for it must be based on hearsay, not fact.\" (SCIENCE, K Sander & R Bender, July 17, 1998).
Several creationist websites mention the correction - see this example
. Ikester could have found this out in the same five minutes it took me.
12/31/2006 10:05:35 PM
Uh, scusi per favore?
The little pool of drool never bothered to name one of those websites, huh?
Probably because he pulled that out of his ass.
1/1/2007 11:35:55 AM
1 2 3