Do Not Be Deceived By Faked Embryo Drawings

Do Not Be Deceived By Faked Embryo Drawings

Since the 1860’s faked embryo drawings have been used by evolutionists to mislead many into believing that Darwinian evolutionary theory is scientifically true. 

“Your eyes could see my embryo” (Psalm 139:16 NJB).


Georges Romanes’ 1892 copy of Ernst Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo drawings, from his book Darwin Illustrated. 

“Watch out that no one deceives you” (Matthew 24:4 NIV).

But unsuspecting people, including schoolchildren, many have been deceived by such drawings purportedly representing actual biological embryos.

Notice what the neutral source Wikipedia reveals:

“Michael Richardson and his colleagues in a July 1997 issue of Anatomy and Embryology, demonstrated that Haeckel falsified his drawings in order to exaggerate the similarity of the phylotypic stage. In a March 2000 issue of Natural History, Stephen Jay Gould argued that Haeckel “exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions.” As well, Gould argued that Haeckel’s drawings are simply inaccurate and falsified. On the other hand, one of those who criticized Haeckel’s drawings, Michael Richardson, has argued that “Haeckel’s much-criticized drawings are important as phylogenetic hypotheses, teaching aids, and evidence for evolution”. But even Richardson admitted in Science Magazine in 1997 that his team’s investigation of Haeckel’s drawings were showing them to be “one of the most famous fakes in biology.”

Some version of Haeckel’s drawings can be found in many modern biology textbooks in discussions of the history of embryology, with clarification that these are no longer considered valid.”—Wikipedia

“What I am saying is true and reasonable” (Acts 26:25 NIV).

Is it “true and reasonable” to continue to recycle Haekel’s faked embryo drawings as thought they are factual? Since the expose’ of Haekel’s faked drawings a generation ago, many biology science books have replaced them with photographs of actual embryos, but they continue misleading people about the actual patterns of vertebrae development. 

“From the soil Yahweh God fashioned all the wild animals and all the birds of heaven” (Genesis 2:19 NJB).

It’s “only by semantic tricks and subjective selection of evidence” by “bending the facts of nature” that it can be asserted that the early stages of vertebrates “are more alike than their adults.” — William Ballard, BioScience, 1976

Direct creation by “Yahweh, the Creator” (Psalm 45:18 NJB) makes sense, in harmony with true scientific facts.

5 thoughts on “Do Not Be Deceived By Faked Embryo Drawings

  1. BA: Since the 1860’s faked embryo drawings have been used by evolutionists to mislead many into believing that Darwinian evolutionary theory is scientifically true.

    GW: There are rare cases of fake information being presented to support evolution, just as there are rare (but more) cases of fake information being presented to support God theory. How many burial cloths of Jesus are being held or exhibited throughout the world?

    BA: “Your eyes could see my embryo” (Psalm 139:16 NJB).

    GW: In this verse, “your” refers to “God’s.” But God does not exist, and so the verse is false. Could we say it is fake?

    BA: Georges Romanes’ 1892 copy of Ernst Haeckel’s fraudulent embryo drawings, from his book Darwin Illustrated.

    GW: They might be fraudulent. So what? See above.

    BA: “Watch out that no one deceives you” (Matthew 24:4 NIV).

    GW: Yes, watch out that the purveyors of God do not deceive you.

    BA: But unsuspecting people, including schoolchildren, many have been deceived by such drawings purportedly representing actual biological embryos.

    GW: But many more unsuspecting people, especially children, have been deceived by Bible authors, preachers, faith healers, and purveyors of Christian propaganda.

    BA: Notice what the neutral source Wikipedia reveals: “Michael Richardson and his colleagues in a July 1997 issue of Anatomy and Embryology, demonstrated that Haeckel falsified his drawings in order to exaggerate the similarity of the phylotypic stage. In a March 2000 issue of Natural History, Stephen Jay Gould argued that Haeckel “exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions.” As well, Gould argued that Haeckel’s drawings are simply inaccurate and falsified. On the other hand, one of those who criticized Haeckel’s drawings, Michael Richardson, has argued that “Haeckel’s much-criticized drawings are important as phylogenetic hypotheses, teaching aids, and evidence for evolution”. But even Richardson admitted in Science Magazine in 1997 that his team’s investigation of Haeckel’s drawings were showing them to be “one of the most famous fakes in biology.”

    GW: This sounds correct to me. News flash! Some people are dishonest some of the time.

    BA: Some version of Haeckel’s drawings can be found in many modern biology textbooks in discussions of the history of embryology, with clarification that these are no longer considered valid.”—Wikipedia

    GW: Yes, and that is a good thing. Show the difference between the faked and the real embryos.

    BA: “What I am saying is true and reasonable” (Acts 26:25 NIV).

    GW: To whom does the “I” refer here? Is it God? If so, then the verse is false. God doesn’t say anything since God does not exist. This has been proven. Does the “I” refer to Paul or Jesus? Not everything they said was true and reasonable. They both claimed that God exists. And that is neither true nor reasonable.

    BA: Is it “true and reasonable” to continue to recycle Haekel’s faked embryo drawings as thought they are factual?

    GW: No. But it is correct to recycle them to show that they were faked.

    BA: Since the expose’ of Haekel’s faked drawings a generation ago, many biology science books have replaced them with photographs of actual embryos, but they continue misleading people about the actual patterns of vertebrae development.

    GW: In what way? Photos of actual embryos cannot mislead. Only people can mislead by speaking irrationally about the embryos, but most biologists speak rationally about them.

    BA: “From the soil Yahweh God fashioned all the wild animals and all the birds of heaven” (Genesis 2:19 NJB).

    GW: This verse is false. God did not fashion anything at all. Why? Because God did not exist. If he did exist, he would be as obvious as the Sun. Everyone would know that he exists. God would not play Hide and Seek. He would not be that dishonest or stupid. But maybe your own deity (not God) does exist and is that dishonest or stupid. Eh?

    GW: Why is it so hard for you to imagine that complex living things could be produced through natural processes? What we have here is a failure of both imagination and reason.

    BA: It’s “only by semantic tricks and subjective selection of evidence” by “bending the facts of nature” that it can be asserted that the early stages of vertebrates “are more alike than their adults.” — William Ballard, BioScience, 1976

    GW: I think Ballard is mistaken. Look at the date: “1976″. That means a great deal. We could run an experiment to test his hypothesis. How would you design it rationally?

    BA: Direct creation by “Yahweh, the Creator” (Psalm 45:18 NJB) makes sense, in harmony with true scientific facts.

    GW: God and belief in God are not needed for there to be facts about nature. Duh.

    GW: If you are going to continue to evade my proofs that God does not exist, then why don’t you talk about the ridiculous Christian idea of atonement through Jesus Christ? I’d be happy to debate on that.

    1. “God . . . sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins . . . the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world” (1 John 4:10,14 NIV). The gospel is very much about Jesus being the Savior of mankind to rescue humans from eternal death resulting from sin

      1. That’s pretty much the way I understood this atonement doctrine.

        And it is not only false, it is irrational, ridiculous, and unethical. God would never set up an atonement system like that. Person X commits a sin. If X is not forgiven by God for the sin then God will either ensure that X becomes nonexistent forever (as you apparently believe) or is tortured forever in some other realm (as most Christians apparently believe). That is unethical to start. The purpose of punishment is reformation and deterrence. Causing eternal nonexistence or torment may help with deterrence (of others from sin) but does not enable reformation of X. Then, according to the atonement doctrine, somehow Jesus died for our sins, which mysteriously means that his death substitutes for the punishment which we deserve, but only if we accept Jesus Christ as our savior and God grants mercy or forgiveness to us. If these things happen, then God withholds eternal nonexistence or torment and welcomes us to be his eternal companion in heaven. This is also unethical. People should always get the reward and punishment they deserve. That is perfect justice, and if God did exist, he would implement it. No forgiveness, mercy, grace, atonement, or punishing one person for the sins of others. The doctrine of atonement through Jesus Christ is among the top five DUMBEST ideas of all time! Nobody at all should believe it.

        Even theists should not accept this stupid idea. They should not be Christians.

        1. According to Numbers chapters 28 and 29, “burnt offerings” (Numbers 29:39 NIV) were to be made by God’s people, the Israelites, “each day” of the year (Numbers 28:3 NIV), plus additional “burnt offerings” every “Sabbath day” (Numbers 28:9 NIV), “on the first of every month” (Numbers 28:11 NIV), and even more on other festival days they were commanded to observe in the spring and fall each year.

          What was a burnt offering? An animal was slaughtered by Israel’s priests at the Tabernacle, or Tent of Meeting, and later at the Temple in Jerusalem, and then its body was skinned, “cut into pieces”, placed on an altar with a wood fire burning, and then “the priest [was] to burn all of it on the altar” (Leviticus 1:5-9 NIV). The purpose of the burnt offering was to “make atonement for” an individual, a family, or the nation of Israel as a whole (Leviticus 1:4 NIV). How does this relate to Jesus’ sacrifice of his body?

          “When Christ came into the world, he said: ‘Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased”—Hebrews 10:5,6 NIV

          “Burnt offerings” of animals did not eliminate sin, but only provided temporary atonement. Why?

          “The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming–not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeatedly endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins”—Hebrews 10:1,4,11 NIV

          Rather, it is “this priest [Jesus Christ] offered for all time one sacrifice for sins” (Hebrews 10:12 NIV). What sacrifice did Jesus Christ offer? – It was “himself to God as a single sacrifice for sins, good for all time” (Hebrews 10:12 NLT), “with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect” (1 Peter 1:19 NIV), his perfect, sinless “body” (Hebrews 10:10).

          What kind of “body” did Jesus Christ have?

          “Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity . . . fully human in every way” (Hebrews 2:14,17 NIV)

          “He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself”–Hebrews 7:27 NIV

          Although Jesus, was, in effect, a whole burnt offering, his body was not literally burned up. 

          “How much more, then will the blood of the Christ,  who . . . offered himself unblemished to God”—Hebrews 9:14 NIV

          “He was put to death in the body”—1 Peter 3:18 NIV

          “Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many”—Hebrews 9:28 NIV

          “Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures”—1 Corinthians 15:3

          1. BA1: According to Numbers chapters 28 and 29, “burnt offerings” (Numbers 29:39 NIV) were to be made by God’s people, the Israelites, “each day” of the year (Numbers 28:3 NIV), plus additional “burnt offerings” every “Sabbath day” (Numbers 28:9 NIV), “on the first of every month” (Numbers 28:11 NIV), and even more on other festival days they were commanded to observe in the spring and fall each year.

            GW1: If God did exist, he would never command human persons to engage in these acts. They are just superstitions. The verses are just mistaken.

            BA1: What was a burnt offering? An animal was slaughtered by Israel’s priests at the Tabernacle, or Tent of Meeting, and later at the Temple in Jerusalem, and then its body was skinned, “cut into pieces”, placed on an altar with a wood fire burning, and then “the priest [was] to burn all of it on the altar” (Leviticus 1:5-9 NIV). The purpose of the burnt offering was to “make atonement for” an individual, a family, or the nation of Israel as a whole (Leviticus 1:4 NIV). How does this relate to Jesus’ sacrifice of his body?

            GW1: Was Jesus burnt after his crucifixion? No, of course not.

            BA1: “When Christ came into the world, he said: ‘Sacrifice and offering you did not desire, but a body you prepared for me; with burnt offerings and sin offerings you were not pleased”—Hebrews 10:5,6 NIV

            GW1: Who is the “you” in the quote of Christ? Is it supposed to be God? If so, it is meaningless since God does not exist. If God was not pleased with “burnt offerings and sin offerings,” then why would God command the Israelites to make them? That makes no sense. See, he would never do that.

            BA1: “Burnt offerings” of animals did not eliminate sin, but only provided temporary atonement. Why?

            GW1: Nobody and no action can eliminate sin! The past can’t be added to, deleted from, or modified. It is what it is. However, punishment which was promised could be altered before it was administered. Punishment could be withheld or reduced or even increased. If God wanted to withhold punishment, he would just tell the sinner that he had withheld it. No problem. But if God did exist, he would NEVER do that. He would exactly deliver the punishment he had promised. It he didn’t, then he would be either unreliable, dishonest, or both. God would be neither. Thus, if God did exist, he would state the rules and the consequences. If a person broke the rules, then God would implement the planned punishment. Very simple. Deviations from this system would be unethical, and as we both agree, if he did exist, God would be perfectly ethical or moral.

            BA1: “The law is only a shadow of the good things that are coming–not the realities themselves. For this reason it can never, by the same sacrifices repeatedly endlessly year after year, make perfect those who draw near to worship. It is impossible for the blood of bulls and goats to take away sins. Day after day every priest stands and performs his religious duties; again and again he offers the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins”—Hebrews 10:1,4,11 NIV

            GW1: That’s right. Sins can’t be undone. They are vested. You can change the expected punishment, but you can’t change the sin. What is done is done.

            BA1: Rather, it is “this priest [Jesus Christ] offered for all time one sacrifice for sins” (Hebrews 10:12 NIV). What sacrifice did Jesus Christ offer? – It was “himself to God as a single sacrifice for sins, good for all time” (Hebrews 10:12 NLT), “with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect” (1 Peter 1:19 NIV), his perfect, sinless “body” (Hebrews 10:10).

            GW1: Yes, this idea is false, irrational, unethical, and just plain ridiculous. As I said, it is one of the five dumbest ideas of all time. I don’t know why you, a man of the 21st century, would believe this silly ancient idea. It’s worse than believing that the Earth is flat.

            BA1: What kind of “body” did Jesus Christ have?

            GW1: Jesus of Nazareth had a regular human body, Jewish model. Jesus Christ did not exist.

            BA1: “Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity . . . fully human in every way” (Hebrews 2:14,17 NIV)

            GW1: Yes, Jesus of Nazareth was a human person.

            BA1: “He sacrificed for their sins once for all when he offered himself”–Hebrews 7:27 NIV

            GW1: This is complete nonsense! It would be unethical for one not-guilty person to be given or to take the punishment for billions of guilty persons. Scapegoating is immoral.

            BA1: Although Jesus, was, in effect, a whole burnt offering, his body was not literally burned up.

            GW1: This is a contradiction: Jesus was burnt offering and not a burnt offering at the same time.

            BA1: “How much more, then will the blood of the Christ, who . . . offered himself unblemished to God”—Hebrews 9:14 NIV

            GW1: However, Jesus of Nazareth was not unblemished. He sinned several times.

            BA1: “He was put to death in the body”—1 Peter 3:18 NIV

            GW1: In the body? Is there something else? Are you implying that there is a soul which leaves the body at death for those who are saved by God? Really? Prove that a soul exists for anybody. You won’t because you can’t.

            BA1: “Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many”—Hebrews 9:28 NIV

            GW1: Yes, that is the ridiculous idea that some people believe, apparently what you believe.

            BA1: “Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures”—1 Corinthians 15:3

            GW1: The scriptures are just wrong about this. God would never allow this, if he did exist. And it wouldn’t happen, if he didn’t exist, and he doesn’t. We now have proofs that God does not exist. But thanks anyway for discussing atonement with me. You have confirmed what I thought.

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com