Why TOE is not accepted

Nature dosn't care.There is no proof of heaven/hell, why worry about it?

But if I say evolutionism strikes me as brainwashing, then I am asked on threat of banning to document that.Seems like a double-standard.Btw, I don't think I have used brainwashing, but have used terms like indoctrination, which I have offered evidence for.

You will not discuss scientific matters in other threads unless you are prepared to back them up. You will not hide on this side of EvC and spout off with unsupported assertions. If you bring up scientific issues you will be called on either being off topic or not supporting them or both.

Yaro, the faked drawings were used in most textbooks until 1998, according to one textbook author who corrected the problem after Richardson's studies.Imo, the fact you guys have such a hard time recognizing the simple truth here, that the use of these drawings showed that evolutionists in presenting "facts" were presenting something that was not a fact, and did so for over 100 years is amazing.Also, it does not matter if you call someone not a "creationist." I may not be a creationist under someone's definition, but clearly you have failed to prove evolutionists corrected Haeckel's errors.When are you going to back up your claim?Also, what an evolutionary biologist does in his work is not all that germane to my claims since my claim really deals with how evolution is taught and believed. A particular area of study, such as evolution of some species or whatever, is not what I was referring to. That may be real science, but the general arguments and the way evolution is presented and believed is the area I consider reflective of ideological indoctrination.Why were Haeckel's drawings in textbooks despite creationists denouncing them?Clearly because evolutionists failed to closely examine if what they claimed was factual was indeed factual.The drawings worked, very well, if the goal was to get people to believe.They failed miserably if the goal was education.That's something I frankly am surprised you guys don't get.

I have reviewed some of your posts and others talking to you.You have brought up the Haekel drawings again and again. You will take that to the correct thread and complete the discussion there.You failed to show that, beyond the early days the drawings are actually fake.You claim that the pharengyal arches are not what they are and have not supported that position. Do so or drop the comments.You makes claims that suggest a huge body of evidence is false. In addition you attempt to give the impression that you are familiar with it. You have not supported those claims with other than very minor points which you fail to support in detail. You are not familiar with the evidence other than some reading from creationist sources.Take each of these following items to the appropriate thread or start one if you feel that is better. This is not the place to cover all of these. They are all science topics so they will have to be discussed with that rigor.In particular:
Message 6
You claim to have looked into the evidence. Please list the 10 major areas of evidence and give your reasons for concluding that each is wrong. (Note the Haekel drawings are a teeny, tiny miniscule footnote off to one side and not a major part of the evidence) Message 10
You suggest that it is incorrect to deride the critics of evolution as unscientific. Please supply the science that the various critics use.You also suggest that it is biases that cause the problem. Please take 2 or 3 major areas and show what the correct unbiased conclusions would be. Be prepared to support these in detail. Message 12
You suggest that there are not enough (or no) transitional fossils. Take this to the threads that discuss transitionals and cover off the major ones such as various molluscs over many millionso of years, trilobites, and the various transtions leading to both mammals and birds. Since Message 22
Evasion instead of stating that you have examined the evidence or not. Message 24
Made claims about Darwin's use of embryonic sequences. These were rebuted. You did not answer the rebutals directly.You suggest that other "just-so" stories can explain the evidence. You were let off lightly and not asked for yours. Please supply it. Message 41
You claim that we don't see gradual evolution in the fossil record. Please cover the many cases where we do. Explain your use of the word gradual. Message 86
More on your interpretations of QM. I'll get back to this in a more appropriate thread. Message 88
If you postulate a limit in the genome you will have to support it with other than your conjecture. Message 107
You were asked specific questions that you appear to have missed responding to. Message 118
Once again a tiny minor point that you have not finished supporting is brought up. You then ignore all the other evidence and don't show how the delusions of the scientists have produced wrong conclusions in each specific major case. Do so!You seem to hang almost your entire argument on the Haekel drawings. I suggest you complete your work in that thread.Also if other have newer unanswered questions in this thread I'd like them pointed out.You have some of your details. Now it is your turn to do some work and stop wasting intellegent people's time.

I disagree. I see the Wedge document as a backlash of the pre-existing social/quasi-religious/political nature of evolution.The concept of a Designer, imo, is excluded a priori by evolutionists.

Take this to the correct thread. Do not bring it up here again without completing the answers to points in that thread.For one thing, over there, you were asked to show in detail what is wrong with the more recent embryology examples. Since some of them show actual pictures it is hard to understand how they are faked. You have, that I can recall, never answered the questions about that.You also seem to think that it is some major underpining for evolutionary theory. This is, IMO, not the case at all and you have never supported such a notion. You seem to be a bit of a one trick pony.

This is the kind of post that should be censured. You can argue Faith's evidence is wrong but pretending there is 0 evidence is essentially lying. She is presenting evidence as creationists do, and you are wrong to pretend otherwise.

OK, but that's not exclusive evidence of evolution. The Bible, for example states first the plants were created, then sea animals, and then land animals and man fairly late in the process. There are a few discrepancies such as evolutionists' views of whale evolution, but pretty much this old book, as some say, got the pattern right in what appears first in the fossil record.Why do you think that is?Maybe that's evidence there is more to the Bible than what skeptics claim?Why for example did the Bible get it right on the Big Bang and dark matter and energy?How did they know about that?How about the Bible speaking of birds created from the sea prior to man, but later in the same era as man and created from the ground? How did the writers of the Bible know about dinosaur era birds?My point is that the data does not exclusively support ToE. The fact that there were single-cell organisms in one level, and then with the Cambrian explosion, a huge complexity, is not supportive necessarily of ToE.For example, has life gotten correspondingly more complex since the dinasaurs until today as it did from microbes to the dinosaurs?I'd argue it hasn't. So in fact, life has not gotten more complex for about 200 million years or some such, and to me, that's very strong evidence against materialistic evolutionary theories.

Bull Ned. I did answer, and you are dissembling.I never even said anything was wrong with using actual photographs.As far as a major underpinning, historically embryology has been used that way, and it is still used as a major piece of evidence for evolution, and I did substantiate that.That thread, btw, was closed. The new thread started off in different directions from these areas which is why I didn't post on it until the other day.To me, you are not making honest claims here.

This topic is covered elsewhere. If you wish to suport your claims do so there. It is apparent with very little thinking that your idea here is absurd since you have everything being created within days of each other not enough time to die and be neatly ordered in layers of the earth. In addition, most of you creationists collegues would suggest that it was the flood that made the ordering long after the creation week. Which is it that you subscribe to. Take this to the fossil ordering thread.Meantime get to the many outstanding issues that you do have.I am not feeling particularly patient.

Again take it to that thread.There are lots and lots of things for you to catch up on.It is simply not the case that embryology is all that significant. Only because you are not aware of much evidence do you think it is. Meanwhile, take it to the appropriate thread. Do NOT bring it up here again.

I have indeed brought up Haeckel's drawings as a factual matter to illustrate my point. There is no debate that the drawings were faked, nor that they were used for over 100 years. There is debate about the significance of this, but you cannot demand I show evidence for my views, and then honestly demand I not mention the evidence any more?Or at least you cannot do so and be reasonably objective and honest.What if I said, hey Ned, we are going to discuss if evolution is real science, but you cannot bring up the fossil record, genetics, embryology, etc,....because there are already threads on that.Would that be fair?How can you demand I back up my points here, and then tell me I cannot use those points?There's a reason I bring up Haeckel's drawings. They are evidence of why I believe evolution employs the methods of indoctrination in presenting the concept to students. That's a lie Ned. The Richardson study and the quotes from textbook authors showed very clearly that the drawings still in use were fakes, and I quoted them.Why are making that claim?It seems to me you are just using your position as mod to falsely malign me and are deliberately, at this stage, misrepresenting what I have written.

Not here, there. I'll be back in 45 mins. No more nonsense now.

I'm not feeling very patient with you lying about me.Take the following. When have I ever subsribed to YEC. I generally think of myself as probably an OEC or an IDer, and am not even oppossed to theistic evolution, but in reality I am not sure that I believe the science can back up any one model yet very authoritatively.I do think the YECers have some good arguments, and I think there is some merit to Flood geology, at least from what I've read. However, I don't think "day" in Genesis must mean a 24 hour period, but am not all that concerned if it does. The pattern, imo, is what is critical. The details are left out by God for a reason, imo.Then again, if you had been reading my posts, as you claimed, you would know that I am not a YECer.Why are you falsely suggesting that?Are you ignorant of my position, or misrepresenting me for some other reason?This message has been edited by randman, 08-02-2005 12:32 AM