Talking some sense into randman

In my opinion, your argument does not hold water, nor your reasons and interpretation, and in your opinion, you think my argument does not, nor my reasons given. At some point, you are going to have to accept that we disagree without resorting the nasty habit of pretending no one responded to you, or that your critics are unreasonable, false, or dishonest. I just genuinely think your reasoning is flawed and that you are wrong.You cannot seem to accept that without trying to smear my character and fabricate things about not responding. Once again, we just have a fundamentally different perception of what occurs. That's because what you call clear biblical evidence is simply an interpretation of the Bible, and one that is not consistent with a great many Bible scholars, and not consistent in my opinion with the truth. Anyone that has followed these debates and is honest, and apparently you have not followed them or are dishonest knows I have backed up my comments on "gill slits" quite extensively. As far as daughter's lesson, I am not about to provide to this crowd the location of my daughter's classroom. If you think I am lying about the diagram, fine. I really don't care. I think honest people would look at the materials out there and see I am telling the truth. She certainly did when I showed her a more up to date modeling of what a Neanderthal girl would look like (which was in the news this past summer btw).I also think you know this argument, and probably followed those threads, and thus know I am telling the truth about excessive ape-like depictions of Neaderthals, but are deliberately trying to waste my time and are deliberately slandering me knowingly, and frankly, though I want to discuss issues with some, I am not interested in conversations with people that cross that line, as I feel you have done.This message has been edited by Admin, 11-20-2005 09:10 AM

Hey Randman,Can you post a few of the links you are talking about here. I believe you, I just don't want to have to dive through your 2500 posts to find them.I spent a lot of time studying H. N. and would be interested to see that people are still misrepresenting them.Historical note (which I'm sure you know, but this is for the spectators):The reason that neanderthals were originally portrayed as stooped over brutish thugs was largely due to the fact that the first find was of an artheritic old man. He was stooped as a result of his degenerative disease. Had they been able to recognize that at the time, perhaps none of this misconception would have taken hold.

Well, for starters, education is not controlled by a monopoly of evolutionists. It's controlled by regional board of educations who make decisions based on budget and committee.I'm absolutely positive that you are correct in your assertion that there are schools in the US that are using textbooks which contain outdated or incorrect information.I'd just like an example or two of these so I can see it for myself. I really want to find a modern biology text book that is suggesting gill slits. I'd like to see who published it and when. I'd like to see who wrote it.

Links to threads where Neanderthals were discussed.The first thread confirms that the experience of others were similar to mine in Neaderthals being presented as ape-like subhumans. Keep in mind this has been known to be wrong since the early 50shttp://EvC Forum: Misrepresentations of Neanderthals -->EvC Forum: Misrepresentations of Neanderthals http://EvC Forum: Lucy and Secular Humanism -->EvC Forum: Lucy and Secular HumanismMore from same thread. This is the same more recent depiction I showed my daughter (note I quote another poster here, Andya Primanda). This was one of my links and comments. http://www.answersingenesis.org/...on/v17/i1/neanderthal.aspBy the way, I am accusing them of using the images falsely, whether of error or fraud, I cannot say obviously, but I can say that in my opinion, I think the evolutionist community has tended to depict things in a slanted fashion, and even when they finally, after years and years of being called on it by their critics, sometimes even decades, evolutionists still seem slow to admit the implications of how what they told everyone before was bogus.In fact, the same dogmatic attitude is asserted, even more so.You tell me.Why after 1950 did evolutionists still depict Neanderthals as more or less subhuman? [/qs]This message has been edited by randman, 11-20-2005 03:46 AM

Nuggins, I am having a hard time fixing the first reply. Note that the last paragraph was a quote from a different thread, not directed at you.As you can see though, there are links showing where false depictions of Neanderthals were used prominently until quite recently and perhaps used still, and there is no reason for this after 1950.Does that give you an example or 2 of what I am talking about. Human gill slits are discussed on earlier threads as well. All of these claims I have made have been thoroughly backed up. That others claims this is not so, considering the evidence linked to, is baffling. It's as if there is just a resistance to admit things like presenting Neanderthals as apelike subhumans never occurs and never occurred.

Rand,I think I've figured it out. Here's the problem. You are trying to argue with us about studies being done in real science by pointing what's being taught in grade school textbooks.If your biggest point is this: "Many textbooks have factual mistakes in them." I totally agree. I think that many history textbooks are horribly misleading - for example. I'm sure that physics books gloss over very important facts about gravity, etc.But what's in a 5th grade science text isn't exactly top flight biology. It's what a 5th grader can understand about very complex topics.Do I think that they should be lied to - Hell, no! But here's the thing - we live in a free market economy.A publisher puts out a book. A school board buys it. The publishers goal is not fact, it's profit. They are trying to make a book that the school board wants to buy. The school board should be checking for facts, but their goal is keeping the parents from throwing a fit.What you are advocating is socialist control of the education system. And, from what I've seen of your other posts, I don't think that that jives well with you political views. If we had a centralize authority with complete power, we could correct these problems once and for all.In the meantime, take a breath. Realize that just because something is in a 5th grade textbook doesn't mean it's central to the theory of evolution.As for me (and hopefully the rest of the ToErs) we'll try to recognize that you are talking about 5th grader science, not professional science.edit - fixed my triple negative - what can I say, it's late.This message has been edited by Nuggin, 11-20-2005 04:35 AM

For fun, I just googled human gill slits and found an evo teaching the exact misrepresentation I was talking about.. http://www.txtwriter.com/...rounders/Evolution/EVpage11.htmlMoreover, his diagrams are suspiciously similar to Haeckel's. THis the guy producing the educational web-site. http://www.txtwriter.com/Onscience/index.htmlSo he taught biology at a university for 30 years, publishes in a paper, and now produces an educational web-site.This totally vindicates me here, and yet I doubt many evos will own up to it. Here we have an evolutionist claiming "one of the strongest pieces of evidence", just as I claim is done but people here deny it is presented as strong evidence for evolution, and goes on to say this evidence is human gill slits, which is just bogus, and he throws in depictions that appear to be based on Haeckel's fabrications.But somehow many evos here insist I am lying, making this stuff up, etc, etc,...

It's more than that. It's what is taught in high school, college, to the public, etc,...Here is the George Johnson guy claiming human gill slits I just showed you on another post. This is mainstream evolutionism. He is an evolutionist, a college professor, and author of a widely-used high school biology textbook. Pretending somehow evolutionists are not responsible for these false teachings is frankly absurd. Who do you think is making these claims?Get real.Plus, the evos here and elsewhere are partly to blame because evos so vehemently oppose their critics having a voice in education, claiming IDers and other critics are not scientifically valid.Hey, news story, anyone with half a brain is qualified enough to point all the continual, seemingly perpetual lies hoisted onto students by the evolutionist community. If you guys are not willing to clean up your act, and not willing to let critics clean it up for you, then you are responsible. End of story.

While you make some good points in this post, I would like to point out this: I think there are a number of reasons that creationists don't show up / stick around. I'll use a war analogy, cuz I like tanks.When army one has 1,000,000 men armed with machine guns, tanks and planes, and army two has 100 men armed with sticks, you shouldn't expect army two to stick around and fight.YEC hold a silly position. I know that I'm being insulting and talking down about someone's belief system, but come on. Even you, who argue against ToE, don't buy into the 4,000 year timeline.Their position is fine for rallies and tent revivals, but when they step out on the battlefield, they just get overwhelmed and turn tail.Only the ones completely blinded by Faith are willing to charge headlong into the fray. And, sadly, no matter how much we fight, they will never be convinced.You can lock a crazy man in an asylum, but you can't convince him he's in there.

Sorry to do a multiple post, but with all due respect, these misrepresentations are presented as central evidence for the theory of evolution. http://www.txtwriter.com/...rounders/Evolution/EVpage11.htmlHere is a bogus claim suggesting the transitions have been mostly found or are clearly demonstrated when the vast majority of features are totally absent in how they arose. http://www.txtwriter.com/...rounders/Evolution/EVpage16.htmlthe old tree trunk peppered moth claim http://www.txtwriter.com/...rounders/Evolution/EVpage07.htmlHere he claims the fossil evidence is one of the 2 main cores of data supporting evolution, something evos here claim is not taught. Keep in mind this is a college professor that taught all this to his college students. http://www.txtwriter.com/...rounders/Evolution/EVpage01.htmlNeed more?

I don't think YECism is sillier than evolutionism, but that's a different thread topic.

Thanks for the extensive posting of links and picks.I looked at the google threesome and had this thought:
"Where the hell are their clothes?!"Why is it that all these pictures show these guys running around practically naked? they lived during the Ice Age, key word ICE!!!I suspect that many of the pictures in the textbooks that show Neanderthals as being brutish are mistakes by the authors / editors.Textbooks and teachers often repreat mistakes. "The Lies My Teacher Told Me" is a great book that goes into some detail about why this is.Here's an example though - "Columbus discovered that the world was round." I'm sure we can find plenty of grade school texts that teach this myth. It's BS. We know it's BS. But, if the school board has to choose between three different text books and they all have that passage, what are they gonna do?

I agree, he is mispeaking. I've been trying to catch up with this thread. It's a lot of reading.Somewhere in the middle, someone posted an image and explained the gill slit thing. It's makes sense to me.What this guy should be saying is something like this:"Human embryos exhibit the same structures found in the embryos of other species. For example, a structure in the embryo of fish which becomes gills is also present in the embryo of humans. However, in humans that structure becomes part of the jaw bone."I think the problem with that kind of statement is the whole "sound bite" thing. People are trying to get a point across and so they simplify something too much, thus altering the facts.If he's teaching an a university level, he should be more careful with his wording.

It's not just the textbooks. It's the teachers and professors and literature put out to the public. Dismissing this as merely the result of faulty textbooks is an error.These falsehoods are presented, often for decades. That should tell you a couple of things.1. Most students, teachers and professors never look into the facts for themselves.2. Critics of evolution are kept out of classrooms and education when allowing their criticisms would assist students and the community in general in knowing the facts, and thus correct some of these mistakes. The evo claims therefore that they don't want creationist criticisms taught for the sake of science is bogus. They are trying to maintain doctrinal purity, and have done so at the expense of real science, and yet the evo community as a whole really believes they are protecting science, and gloss over the continual and seemingly perpetual dissemination of overstatements, hoaxes, faulty logic, etc,...as factual evidence.

He is or was teaching as a college professor. "Altering the facts" unfortunately has been a very prominent mainstay within evolutionism as it is taught, imo. I don't think this guy is worse than others. Heck, he's probably one of the better ones which is why he is on some task-force for bettering science education, which probably includes keeping out all ID criticism.