These same errors persist in education, which in the evolution arena, is controlled as a monopoly by evolutionists. As such, every time there is a mention of human "gill slits" or depictions of Neanderthals as subhuman, or any of the areas I have brought up, still for example showing Pakicetus with webbed feet, the evolutionist community is responsible for it.This is especially true since the remedy for it would be take criticism seriously and include criticisms in the curriculum. You can bet such misinformation would be removed rather quickly then, but what you would have is more doubt about the validity of evolution.And here is the kicker: what's wrong with that? Creating doubt as to whether ToE is true among students would be a good thing because science is not about faith and believing things, but about exploring the testing things and about understanding. If students question ToE to the point of looking more into the matter, they will gain more understanding, and that's the point.But evolutionism is more a process of indoctrination where there is a fear people won't accept it among evolutionists. That fear is inherently wrong and unscientific. If students are taught what critics say about evolution, they can only benefit.

Great! Please choose a name, Admin-whatever-etc. I won't be online again tonight, but I'll set things up tomorrow.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

because connect the dots IS childish. but most of here can do it. randy, how much research have you done into paleontology? because i've done ALOT. enough to know that've only scratched the surface. to the people who've actually done the research, this is not a problem. in fact, i can't think of any "missing link" missing enough to call a "gap." what you originally objected to was something that wasn't missing anything big at all. you objected to the spaces in between, and the thousands of examples that you GUESSED were missing.in this example, the line spans a definite length. i would say that a majority of line is missing, wouldn't you? but ok, i've made it a little harder for you. i've taken out 2/3rds of the dots. surely now 99% is missing.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-16-2005 08:20 PM

---

אָרַח

Didn't see this before I editted my last post and said AdminRand is fine.Let's go though with AdminRandman so that any newcomers will know it's the same person as randman.I am sort of wondering though.....if this is completely serious?But I'll do my best. Probably I will concentrate on maintaining a civil tone in the discussion, which I admit I've been weak at.

buzzsaw didn't understand the analogy. This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-16-2005 08:25 PM

---

אָרַח

no, randman, no. you keep making these "arguments." they're not even arguments anymore. they're catchphrases. randman says "haeckel's drawings!" because clearly peer review, and running stuff by the smartass creationist in high school biology are the same thing.criticism is fine, but the problem is that YOU don't seem to be able to tell what is valid criticism and what isn't. this stuff about ica-stones and head-binding "giants" and the like isn't criticism. it's junk. pop-culture pseudoscience. please learn to tell the difference. oh, no. i agree. and when it looks more and more like the critics are the same nuts who chase ufos, detect ghosts with geiger counters, and look for secret messages in their breakfast cereal, don't whine to me. i think students should be taught the "criticisms" and what makes a valid argument, and what is just sheer anadulterated bs.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-16-2005 08:34 PM

---

אָרַח

Oh! So your saying there aren't any gaps? Great. Glad you understand This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-16-2005 08:41 PM

So it's OK with you if evolutionists teach as facts things that are false. Remember we are not just talking interpretations of data here, but actual false data such as Haeckel's drawings, exagerrations of embryonic similarities, false claims of human gill slits, etc,...?just want to be clear...you think such misrepresentations are OK?

ok, since you're just gonan repeat the same arguments over and over, i have a new game i'm gonna play. sure. i think they're great. i think students should be exposed to all opinions -- not just the ones that are accepted scientifically. i think that it's important to teach the controversy so students can make up their own mind about haeckel and lamark vs darwin.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-16-2005 08:54 PM

---

אָרַח

Im gonna write this in big type to make sure you don't miss it.

​

Randman, do you realize that evolution teaches nothing you have stated? (Yes/No)

​

Randman, do you realize your objections are over 150 years old, and no modern scientists belives them? (Yes/No)

​

Respond randman, if you don't you are just going to confirm all our missgivings

If evolutionists didn't still teach this stuff, I wouldn't be making stink out of it, but unfortunately, they are.

Proof please. And you missed one question.

This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-16-2005 09:01 PM

here's a claim you made earlier, and my response.

quote:

---

The simple fact is Neanderthals are still depicted as excessively ape-like. I just logged onto my daughter's educational site for her public school, and we watched the claims of what she called monkey-man. The sketch of the Neanderthal skull was grossly erroneous, and the impression she had was that Neanderthal was very much subhuman and ape-like.

​

oh, good, a site. why not link to it?

---

you've failed to respond to this bit. if it's on the web, just link to it. nothing fancy. just show us. bare link it if you want, i don't care.try to back up your points at least a little?

---

אָרַח

Because the link involves my daughter's class and their password to access the web-based supplemental teaching. I am not going to provide you with that password. it is in the state of Florida and public education.This is the link, but you are limited without passwords.SchoolNotes 2.0

*sigh*.ok. go back to the page, and screenshot it. post the image to imageshack.us or some other free hosting place, and post it here.This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 11-16-2005 09:16 PM

---

אָרַח