Comment on Highchair Cushion Cover by LibMindcom

LibMindcom — Fri, 18 May 2012 02:56:00 +0000

I don’t I just traced the cushion that came with the chair. It really does follow the shape of the seat, so if you use the seat measurements and make your own cushion you should be golden. Just remember to sew holes where the seat buckles will thread through. The cushion that came with the seat has two velcro straps that go under the chair and hold the cushion down, this seems like a very sturdy and easily removable design that you might copy. Good luck and please post a link here to photos if you make your own!

Comment on Merry Muscles Review by Heather Veit Garrett

Heather Veit Garrett — Thu, 17 May 2012 23:32:00 +0000

I’ve been trying to find one of these used, if anyone has one they’d like to sell let me know! I’d be very excited… email heatheriveit at gmail .com

Comment on Highchair Cushion Cover by Kelli Sipe

Kelli Sipe — Thu, 10 May 2012 03:57:00 +0000

Do you happen to have a pattern that you would be willing to share? Mine didn’t come with a pad and I have been looking for a pattern for the pad. They also look kinda thin and I would like to make my own in cute patterns for my lil’ guy!

Comment on Ted Haggard in Bed with George W Bush by Beyond Folks’ Understanding « prairiesister

Beyond Folks’ Understanding « prairiesister — Wed, 25 Apr 2012 01:27:23 +0000

[...] Consider George W. spoke with Ted Haggard, fundamentalist pastor and ex-leader of the National Association of Evangelicals, ex-leader of New Life Ministries weekly, seeking spiritual advice. [...]

Comment on 5 Steps to a Non-Toxic Lifestyle by Deodorant crystal

Deodorant crystal — Sat, 07 Apr 2012 15:05:00 +0000

Great features i really like this post and also the products and also the functioning of that products is awesome i want to try this….
Thanks for sharing

Comment on Can Something come from Nothing? by Wffft

Wffft — Thu, 05 Apr 2012 03:24:00 +0000

Matter is finite… The concept that matter may not be finite in some place outside of our known universe is based on a bigger stretch than any theist belief

Comment on Baby Sleeping Sack: A Tutorial by Rebecca

Rebecca — Tue, 03 Apr 2012 12:46:00 +0000

This is exactly what I was looking for – thank you so much! :)

Comment on Can Something come from Nothing? by Chandruspike

Chandruspike — Sat, 31 Mar 2012 18:54:00 +0000

the question who created the creator does not make sense because : if some”thing” Created the creator , it could have as well created the universe!
Infinite Regress logic is inapplicable to what people call god because , god by definition is beyond space , time , matter etc. God is “defined” as an absolute reality according to many relegions.

Comment on Evolution by Mac

Mac — Mon, 26 Mar 2012 03:41:00 +0000

Wondering why you cite Haeckel’s drawing when even the illustrious Stephen Jay Gould, hardly a champion of creation or of intelligent design, wrote:
“… our justified criticism must fall upon the third man in the topsy-turvy drama, the would-be hero of a new world order: German naturalist Ernst Haeckel (1834-1919), the primary enthusiast and popularizer of Darwin’s great innovation. Haeckel’s forceful, eminently comprehensible, if NOT ALWAYS ACCURATE, books appeared in all major languages and surely exerted more influence than the works of any other scientist, including Darwin and Huxley (by Huxley’s own frank admission), in convincing people throughout the world about the validity of evolution.” [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_2_109/ai_60026710/]
[CAPS used as no italics, underline or bolding is available.]
“No character in the early days of Darwinism can match Haeckel for enigmatic contrast of the admirable and the DUBIOUS.”
“But Haeckel also prepared his own illustrations for his technical monographs and scientific books–and here he did claim fidelity to nature, as standard practice and legitimate convention also required. Yet Haeckel’s critics recognized from the start that this master naturalist, this more than competent artist, took systematic license in “IMPROVING” his specimens to make them more symmetrical or more beautiful. In particular, the gorgeous plates for his technical monograph on the taxonomy of radiolarians (intricate and delicate skeletons of single-celled planktonic organisms) often “ENHANCED” the actual appearances (already stunningly complex and remarkably symmetrical) by INVENTING structures with perfect geometric regularity.”
“This practice CANNOT BE DEFENDED in any sense …” [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1134/is_2_109/ai_60026710/pg_2/?tag=content;col1]
“‘Improved’ illustrations MASQUERADING AS ACCURATE drawings spell much more trouble in popular books intended for general audiences lacking the expertise to separate a misleading idealization from a genuine signal from nature. And here, in depicting vertebrate embryos in several of his most popular books, Haeckel TOOK A LICENSE that subjected him to harsh criticism in his own day and that, in a fierce brouhaha (or rather a tempest in a teapot), has resurfaced in the last two years to haunt him again and even to give some false comfort to creationists.” [Gould was certainly no friend to creationists.]
“Haeckel remains most famous today as the chief architect and propagandist for a famous argument that SCIENCE DISPROVED LONG AGO but that popular culture has never fully abandoned, if only because the standard description sounds so wonderfully arcane and mellifluous: “ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny,” otherwise known as the theory of recapitulation or, roughly, the claim that organisms retrace their evolutionary history (or “climb their own family tree,” to cite an old catchphrase) during their embryological development. Thus, the GILL SLITS of the early human embryo SUPPOSEDLY repeat our distant ancestral past as a fish, while the transient embryonic tail, developing just afterward, marks the later reptilian phase of our evolutionary ascent. (My first technical book, Ontogeny and Phylogeny [Harvard University Press, 1977], includes a detailed account of the history of recapitulation–an evolutionary notion exceeded only by natural selection itself for impact upon popular culture.)”
PLEASE go to the genuine article at the above URLs before you snort and puff at my supposed lifting the quotations out of context. READ the whole article.
Going on:
“… Haeckel drew the earliest stages (first row), showing tails below and GILL SLITS just under the primordial head, as virtually identical for all embryos, whatever their adult destination. Haeckel could therefore claim that this near identity marked the common ancestry of all vertebrates–for, under the theory of recapitulation, embryos pass through a series of stages representing successive adult forms of their evolutionary history. An identical embryonic stage can only imply a single common ancestor.
“To cut to the quick of this drama: Haeckel had EXAGGERATED the similarities by idealizations and omissions. He also, in some cases–in a procedure that can only be called FRAUDULENT –simply copied the same figure over and over again. At certain stages in early development, vertebrate embryos do look more alike, at least in gross anatomical features easily observed with the human eye, than do the adult tortoises, chickens, cows, and humans that will develop from them. But these early embryos also differ far more substantially, one from the other, than Haeckel’s figures show. Moreover, Haeckel’s drawings never fooled expert embryologists, who recognized his FUDGINGS right from the start.”
So much for scientific objectivity – honesty, even? Mankind are flawed, especially when money, fame and power are in the offing.
“Haeckel’s drawings, DESPITE their NOTED INACCURACIES, entered into the most impenetrable and permanent of all quasi-scientific literatures: standard student textbooks of biology. I do not know how the transfer occurred in this particular case, but the general (and highly troubling) principles can be easily identified.”
“No one ever surpassed Haeckel in fame and availability as a Darwinian spokesman and a noted professor at the University of Jena. So textbook authors borrowed his famous drawings of embryonic development, probably quite unaware of their noted INACCURACIES and outright FALSIFICATIONS–or (to be honest about dirty laundry too often kept hidden) perhaps well enough aware, they then rationalized with the ever tempting and ever dangerous argument ‘Oh well, it’s close enough to reality for student consumption, and it does illustrate a general truth with permissible idealization.’ (I am a generous realist on most matters of human foibles. But I confess to raging fundamentalism on this issue. The smallest compromise in dumbing down by INACCURACY DESTROYS INTEGRITY and places an author upon a slippery slope of no return.)”
Integrity also, it seems, is sacrificial when money, fame and power, or any combination thereof, are in the offing.
“Once ensconced in textbooks, misinformation becomes cocooned and effectively permanent, because, as stated above, textbooks copy from previous texts.”
“We should therefore not be surprised that Haeckel’s drawings entered nineteenth-century textbooks. But we do, I think, have the right to be both astonished and ashamed by the century of mindless recycling that has led to the persistence of these drawings in a large number, if not a majority, of modern textbooks!”
And on evolutionist websites?
“Michael Richardson, of the St. George’s Hospital Medical School in London, a colleague who deserves nothing but praise for directing attention to this old issue, wrote to me (letter of August 16, 1999):
” ‘If so many historians knew all about the old controversy [over Haeckel's falsified drawings], then why did they not communicate this information to the numerous contemporary authors who use the Haeckel drawings in their books? I know of at least fifty recent biology texts which use the drawings uncritically. I think this is the most important question to come out of the whole story.’ ”
[NOTE: Gould's presentation of this extract from a personal letter from a fellow evolutionist is sometimes quoted as from Gould.]
See also: Richardson, Anatomy and Embryology, vol. 196 (1997) following his article in Developmental Biology, vol. 172 (1995).
“In these articles, Richardson and his colleagues discussed the original Haeckel drawings, briefly noted the contemporary recognition of their INACCURACIES [to put it mildly!], properly criticized their persistent appearance in modern textbooks, and then presented evidence (discussed below) of the differences among early vertebrate embryos that Haeckel’s tactics had COVERED UP and that later biologists had therefore forgotten.”
“If evolution rests upon such flimsy support, perhaps we should question the entire enterprise and give creationists, who have always flubbed their day in court, their day in the classroom.”
Creationists, like evolutionists, are believers in their respective religious and quasi-religious faiths. Neither can actually prove, in a scientific sense, the fundaments of their faiths as 1) neither can be repeated, and 2) neither has ever been observed. Both are surmisings from interpretations of evidence. The (Christianist) creationist includes in the evidence his favorite edition of the Bible and the evolutionist excludes all editions of the Bible. (Other religious faiths have varying creation or origin accounts.)
A favorite of evolutionists is the “fossil record.” Yet it is unknown concerning any particular fossil whether it produced any offspring. Each fossil, for all we know, was the end of its line. Extremely rarely can any other fossil be proved to have been the ancestor of the one fossil. An exception is when the fossil of a mother is found to contain the fossil of its unborn offspring – and it is quite evident that the offspring had none! End of its line for certain!
Fossil dating is dependent on dating of surrounding strata. Dating of strata is dependent on dating of fossils contained therein. Again, an exception: when the fossil is of an identifiable recent inhabitant, as a fossilized leg of a human wearing a boot that is identifiable, even by the manufacturer’s label. ;-)

Comments for LiberatedMind