|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 1/3 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
lfen Member (Idle past 4698 days) Posts: 2189 From: Oregon Joined: |
But I doubt you want to hear that. I'm sorry. Hear what? lfen
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
It is somewhat shocking to witness how little reference to the OP there has been. Like, I thought the idea of debate was to deal with things like OP's and Mechanisms.
(Edited by Ian. I take the above back. Just seen some posts come in which does deal with it. And at first glance some of it looks worrying for my stance. And that's the way I like best. But now the hedge!!) Hat's off to those who attempt to though. Anyway, I'm off to cut the hedge but given that there is so much off-topic, I'll take the liberty of some myself before I go. Professor Louis Bounoure, President of the Biologial Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum before becoming Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific research said (rather witheringly): "Evolutionism is a fairy-tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless"(Cited in The Advocate, 8th March 1984. P.17) (although he didn't provide proof with it ) Ernest Chain, co-holder of a 1945 Nobel Prize for his work in the use of penicillen...and acknowledged genius... said: "To postulate that the development and survival of the fittest is entirely a consequence of chance mutations seems to me a hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts. These classical evolutionary theories are a gross over-simplification of an immensely and intricate mass of fact and it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically (you taking this in Ringo) and readily and for such a long time, by so many scientists, without a murmur of protest"(Cited by Edward F. Block in; Special Creation vs Evolution, Southwest Bible Church, P.5) (Dunno if 'chance mutation' is still the main mechanism now, but the point is that this genius looked at a bunch of his fellow scientists - who were all presumably marching along to whichever version of the tune 'Scientific Method' was playing then - and thought to himself "This ain't science!") Yale University physical anthropologist David Philbeam openly admits: "I know that, at least in paleoanthropology, data is so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. Theories have, in the past, clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of actual data"(David Pilbeam, Rearranging our family tree', in Human Nature, June 1978, P45.) (Hmmm..."Objectivity uber alles" it ain't) We'll leave the last word to Darwin in a letter to his fried Asa Gray when he said of his theory that; "[ones]Imagination must fill up the very wide blanks"Zoologist, 16: (p.6299) (I couldn't agree more....) Good Saturday all This message has been edited by iano, 30-Jul-2005 06:40 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
sidelined Member (Idle past 5929 days) Posts: 3435 From: Edmonton Alberta Canada Joined: |
iano
Given that science is complex, how could anyone be sure evolution was true without achieving the necessary degree of education and experience which would allow them to evaluate for themselves the complex evidence involved? If the answer is they couldn't then... The layperson accepts much at face value and this is true of even experts in one field who try to venture into the expertise of another field.The best one can do is if one disagrees with a given aspect of an issue is to educate themselves to the level of commitment that they have.If,after all that,you are still disatisfied then you will remain disatisied. This is not a failure or success of the theories or facts but a failure of the person to commit to the hard work necessary to rise to the intellectual level necessary to argue a position. One might point out that technology that is succesfully deployed as a result of the theories is ample backing for the success of a theory's validity.Most of modern medicine {bdepends[/b] on the validity of Evolutionary theory to account for its ability to cure ills and improve life for people. So the best you can do is to question and raed up on the means by which conclusions are reached and remember that doubt is a good thing,not the only thing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
iano Member (Idle past 1962 days) Posts: 6165 From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland. Joined: |
I haven't thought through what you've said SL and if I do I'll be cutting the hedge in the dark. But I'll take your tone with me as a reminder of how it is a person can best present a view: calmly and rationally - without wisecrack or dig. I'm here to learn and that's the best lesson I've had all day....
I must do better at thatI must do better at that I must do better at that :0
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 433 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
iano writes: I thought the idea of debate was to deal with things like OP's and Mechanisms. Problem is, the "mechanism" is irrelevant unless you can establish that the phenomenon is real. I could just as easily propose a mechanism for the manufacture of green cheese on the moon:
quote: What's wrong with my mechanism? No evidence to back it up. No traces of lactose in them moon rocks. No green cheese, so no mechanism is needed. Just the same, you've provided no evidence to back up your hypothesis. So, show us some evidence that there is indoctrination. Then we'll evaluate the evidence and decide whether or not it supports your hypothesis. Then, if we decide that your hypothesis is valid, we'll look at your mechanism and see if it is plausible. People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4149 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
When you turned up I thought from the op that at last we had another creationist who might give us something worth debating.. Sadly it seems you are just like the rest, constantly evading the issue and unable to support what is said.
To make things even worse you (with the post I am addressing) then perform the classic creationist trick of both arguing the scientist not the science AND quoting-mining. I was so hopeful....
quote: Creationist Lies
quote: Evolution is the result of random mutation AND natural selection. An argument that evolution couldn't not happen just by chance is a waste of bandwidth because evolutionists DO NOT claim that evolution happened just by chance.
quote: Ringo - like the rest of us is taking in the fact that you will repeat any old crap you find on the net without the faintest clue what you are on about.
quote: Where did Darwin say this and in what context ? (let me give you a clue the letter is from 1857). This is not promising is it? You are 3/3 in regards to all the classic creationist tricks. 1 = Making a premise and then asking others to disprove it rather than provide any positive support for it. 2 = Arguing the scientist rather than the science 3 = Quoting mining - both in giving distorting quotes and some that never actually existed. This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 30-Jul-2005 03:09 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4920 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Here is his bio or web-page at the university.
http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/...y/faculty/gvandyke/gvandyke.html
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Hello, sidelined.
I was thinking about this very point myself. I was planning on replying to it, but I was waiting to see how the points we were exchanging were going to turn out first. You have made essentially the same points that were occurring to me. I would add that the layperson does, usually, have a choice of how much work to put into verifying the claims of a scientific community, depending on how deeply she wants to become involved. There are facts and data that are either undisputed even by the anti-evolution crowd, or are easily verified. There are some facts that may require a little effort to verify -- for example, actually driving into a forest and looking at how animals behave. And there are facts that would be incredibly difficult to verify -- like going to a museum that houses one of the six specimens of Archaeopteryx and examining it closely (provided that you are allowed to get close to it!). The interpretation of the data can also be scaled according to the degree of training required to see the conclusions. Some conclusions are immediately obvious; some would require reading a couple of popular science articles in order to find out what one is looking for in the data; and some conclusions can be arrived at only after extensive training teaches you how to use the equipment properly, how to make the measurements, and so forth. Evolution is much more amenable than, say, high energy particle physics in that there is plenty of data that is either universally accepted or easily observed, and the interpretations are fairly obvious. If a person wants to read a few non-technical books, and go into a forest or nearby natural history museum, more data is available. Finally, if the person is intrigued enough, she can certainly take part in more extensive training and take part in more strenuous research activities. So, when the question comes up as to how we, the untrained, can verify the claims of scientists, an interested person can start out pretty simply without leaving her home computer. As you say, if the person is more interested, she can progressively increase her efforts to examine more data directly and to understand how the data is collected and measured. The only limit to her ability to verify the evolutionary scientists' claims is determined by her interest and the amount of resources she is willing to commit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4920 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
If you are not aware, although I feel sure you are, of the lists of PhDs and other scientists that reject evolution, such as the fellows at the Discovery Institute, then you shouldn't be posting on this forum but get up to speed.
I am not about to waste my time on every single thread looking up and rehashing basic knowledge. The fact that many scientists reject evolution is a fact attested to in writing by scientists. You just choose to ignore that are wasting time and space for people.
Bios
| Answers in Genesis
This message has been edited by randman, 07-30-2005 02:51 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4149 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
With 3 publications - the most recent of which is 12 years ago - he appears to be a lecturer (and I'm sure he does a great job of it) rather than what we would term a professor (A professor generally has a string of publications in A-rated journals and is seen as having made a significant contribution in his field).
I don't see which of those 3 papers addresses the issue you have raised - can you identify it for us?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CK Member (Idle past 4149 days) Posts: 3221 Joined: |
How many have a qualification in an area that would make then qualified to comment on TOE and how many are called Steve?
I am reading for a PhD in information sciences - does this make me an expert in other areas? of course it does not. Could you tell me why a dentist is an expert about the TOE? Duane Gish? - A man who purchased his Phd (there is a great site about his "thesis" from someone who saw it)
(I don't know some of those areas guys - can we identify which we feel would be experts in this area?) quote: This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 30-Jul-2005 03:03 PM This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 30-Jul-2005 03:04 PM This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 30-Jul-2005 03:08 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4920 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
You have not yet demonstrated that these "evolutionary messages" are as pervasive in the environment of the greatest number of biological scientists as you claim, nor that the exposure to these messages are sufficient to cause the kind of indoctrination you are claiming. That's a bogus argument and you know it. Be honest. Anyone growing up in America and not severely sheltered is indeed exposed, from children's animation to science TV shows to mandatory education classes, to an incredible level of indoctrination. Evolution could well be argued the as the dominant religious doctrine in America. If you want to demand "proof" of such a macro-study, you know full well no one here has the individual resources to conduct such a study, and you are merely trying to kill an argument with sophistry. Maybe there is somewhere a study that details on average how many times the average American is told evolution is true. That would be interesting, but hardly necessary to hold an intelligent discussion based on what nearly every one of us has experienced in this nation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4920 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Brad, I know that post was not directed to me, but can you break that down to normal English?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4920 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
If evolution is so complicated that a PhD or highly educated person cannot hope to grasp whether it is true or not, then it should not be taught in introductory courses, not in high school nor college.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
quote: Actually, what would be interesting would be a study that shows that being told "evolution is true" a bunch of times produces an inability to examine data objectively. That is what is at issue here. -
quote: Why don't you grow up, you arrogant little shit?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024