anonemouse

And that's true, but I think in this case it has been rejected by the majority of the group. I think it has basically been a case of authors that were too lazy to have other drawings made.

What I am getting from it is that any photo of an embryo would be misleading. I think the photo in the Figure 3 link is one that Well's apparently thought would be misleading. I personally don't see how it is.

No, he's referring to photos of actual embryos, not photos of embryo drawings. The paragraph that you originally quoted was referring to one author's (Balinski) textbook. I think most authors do explain the errors in the drawings, such as the author he used as an example did (Cambell's Biology).

He also says this:

Because some of it is relevant. Please, read the "Are Textbooks Really That Bad?" section of the site I posted.

Complex Structures by Chance

Here is some information on Haeckel's embryos, if anyone is interested.

No, I don't think that something being complex necessarily means it was designed. To use your architect analogy, I believe that evolution is the architect. The theory of creationism and design are much older than the theory of evolution. They've already had their heyday, so to speak.

It really isn't, IMO. There is a correlation between declining numbers of pirates and rising temperatures. Remember, though, a correlation doesn't mean the two are related. But my point still stands. If I were to use your "no evidence against a theory equals evidence for it" idea, then I could reasonably say that the decline in pirates has caused global warming, because there is no evidence saying that it hasn't. Of course, there is no evidence supporting that hypothesis, except for the fact that there is no evidence proving it wrong. Here's another analogy: My cat died right after the lightbulb in my lamp blew. I could theorize that the lightbulb blowing caused my cat to die. By your line of thought, since no one can produce incontrovertible evidence that my bulb blowing did not cause my cat to die, there is evidence that it did cause my cat to die. Like you said, it is slightly idiotic.

I think I may not have been very clear. Generally, a scientific theory is accepted by scientists before it is accepted by lay-people. It was that way with evolution. 150 years ago, If you went and asked the average Joe on the street how humans came to be, he would say that God created us. It took evolution a long time before it was accepted enough to be taught in school. In other words, in order for a theory (at least a controversial one) to be taught in school, it has to be accepted by the majority of mainstream science.

No, I don't believe it is the same thing. In order for a hypothesis to be taught as a scientific theory in science classes, it has to be accepted by the majority of the scientific community, not just you. For example, BJean posted a graph in one of the other threads that showed that global warming was caused by declining numbers of pirates. By your statement, because there isn't evidence to contradict that hypothesis, there is proof that it is correct. In other words, the decline in pirates caused global warming, since we can't prove it didn't.

Not having evidence against a hypothesis does not equal evidence for it. Personally, I have no issue with people wanting to learn creationism or ID. I don't think they're right, but I think they should be able to learn it if they want to. The only issue I have with it is when it is taught in a science class. I think ID and creationism should be relegated to religion and/or philosophy classes, not biology classes.

So wait, you can say something, but when someone turns it around on you, it isn't a serious post? Pot, meet kettle.

*cough* I only wanted to put *cough*, but it's making me write a longer sentence.

From http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/jun01.html:

That one makes me want to shoot my TV.

I definitely see your point. I just think that a lot of creationists (and other scientists, probably) manage to chop off the bits and pieces of quotes that don't further their agenda, essentially putting words in the mouths of the people they are quoting. I think shortening a quote is fine, as long as the original intent of the quote is saved. In many cases, though, the shortening of evolutionist's quotes have totally twisted what they were actually saying.

I've done some here and there, mainly for papers and research projects in classes.

But this wasn't his full quote, either. I think you have to admit that that quote sounds a little more strict (not the word I'm looking for, but I can't think) than what he actually said. This is what he actually said (emphasis is mine): He also made this quote 25 years ago. I would imagine that geological research has advanced in that time period. My point is that I would argue that cherry-picking the words in someone's quotes or consiously leaving phrases out that might contradict your stance is mis-quoting them.

Believe me, I'm having fun. :)To be quite honest (and I hope this doesn't come across as offensive), not many people that I talk to about evolution have really done their own homework, like you have. I think most people take what they are told as the absolute truth and don't do any research into things themselves. Of course, I currently live in Kentucky, also.:rolleyes

You can see exactly what Ambrose said, along with some more detail here.

About whether ID = Creationism I never said anything about Edmund Ambrose. But if you want, I can see if I can find something.

Here are another couple of sites about supposed evolutionist "quotes". http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/misquotes.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

Gadgetlady, you might be interested in this site, which deals with so-called "quotes" from evolutionists. Some of the folks that were cited as saying something on the page that you linked are mentioned.

I think one of the reasons that former creationists turned evolutionists are harder to find is because, in general, evolutionists don't see evolution theory as life-changing. I don't think you can deny that creationists see "creation science" as intrinsic to their beliefs and their personal lives. As someone who believes deeply in evolution, I still don't consider it as something that really affects me. To me, it just happens, and that's all there is to it. All the scientists that I know don't base all their beliefs on evolution. On the other hand, the entire belief system of creationists hinge on there being a "creator".