All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated

So you are claiming the NC State botany professor has not looked at the evidence, eh?Gimme a freaking break!I have personally sat at a presentation of the evidence, by him, in the 80s, which was quite impressive.No, you are just full of crap here buddy because you want to insist the guy publish papers critical of evolution in journals where you and I both know he would be severely persecuted for doing that.If you want to find out what he has published and not published, you can do so. That's your business, not mine.Obviously, as a long-time tenured professor, he has published, probably in his field though, and not a grant critique of evolution, but who knows? Maybe he has. I doubt a journal controlled by evolutionists would ever admit such am article, and if one did, the editor or editors responsible would likely put their careers in danger.This message has been edited by randman, 07-30-2005 04:04 PM

You, sir, are a liar, and it's clear to all here. You demanded the name of the professor, and I gave it to you, and in fact, his e-mail address.I'll tell you what. Why don't we deal with a far, far larger number, say $10,000?And we can make this personal, if legal, and if not legal, and I suppose it may not be, we can do the charity thing.Before we do this challenge, I need to know if you will accept the professor's affadavit of the particular meeting in question as conclusive evidence?I can provide at least 2 other affadavits as well.Interested in putting up 10K?Of course, that money will need to be escrowed somewhere to make sure no one welches on the challenge.

OK Charles, are you ready to fork over some money? We can do $100 for all I care, or no money?Just tell me how much, please?Btw, to not take advantage of you, you might want to read the following: Articles Front | TASCClearly, the man has "looked into the evidence" and does go around teaching how evolution is wrong.I'll be looking for your apology, and if you are a man, some money donated to the charity of my choice.

The main point I see here is not that the quote is wrong, nor the resume, although that needs to be corrected, but that the scientist genuinely feels evolution is wrong, and does so publicly.That is what is germane to the discussion here, and something for some odd reason you guys are not willing to concede on.It's strange, but indicative of ideological indoctrination, because no one is arguing most scientists are suspect of evolution, and even admit the opposite, but evolutionists seem loathe to admit to basic facts and truth, one of those being there are working and respected scientists that don't accept evolution.

LOL. So now you are backtracking. I suspect Charles that if there was a video of the meeting, you would somehow find a way to deny it.You questioned whether I was telling the truth that I attended a meeting in the 80s where this man taught against evolution.I show you that he is in the habit of doing such presentations in the Triangle area, which is the same area I witnessed his presentation, and you won't admit that is evidence.Sad on your part. Pathetic really.

Ringo, it doesn't matter if the web-site is correct or not, as far as their creation/evolution argument since it is offerred to rebut Charles' false claims of calling me a liar for saying I heard this man speak in the 80s.The presentation, btw, is better than the web-site, and back then there was no web-site.Anyone here can easily tell Charles is wrong, and is just offended at being made to look dumb or silly. Obviously, I am not lying and have no reason to lie. It was foolish for Charles to stake so much of his reputation and character on a foolish accusation since the fact that university professors believe or reject evolution is not that germane to the discussion.Frankly, I don't know why evolutionists are so up in arms if they have to admit another scientist rejects evolution. I think it's because evolutionism is a form of ideological indoctrination and so they cannot stand "heresy" so to speak.But regardless, it should be clear to all that as I stated today and in time's past, that I was not lying about hearing this creationist speak. It actually occurred in Chapel Hill, NC.Why someone like Charles would insist that was a lie and go on such a weird rant, I cannot say. Maybe he's off his meds today?

Charles, you claimed I was lying about seeing this creationist speak. I said I attended the meeting, and you quoted me claiming that was a lie and total horse#@%&.I would have expected an apology, but now just consider you are probably mentally disturbed or something.

Ringo, uh, that was not a quote I presented.You do realize that, don't you?This message has been edited by randman, 07-30-2005 05:07 PM

What they see Charles is that you are a liar, who is too much of a wuss to honor your word on the 100 pounds you promised to put up if I offerred any evidence of actually seeing a botany professor debunk evolution.

Ringo,First, you incorrectly assumed I provided the quote you bashed when I did not. All I did was agree that the quote was wrong, but point out the truth, which is that the guy quoted does indeed reject evolution.What's your beef with that?Next, you got your panties in a wad over my claims that some scientists do indeed reject evolution.Do you not agree and recognize that is the case?Why deny an obvious fact?Is denial of basic facts such as when a Phd publicly states he thinks evolution is wrong?Is denial of fact a basic part in the way evolutionists are trained?Sure seems that way to me.

Maybe you are the exception that proves the rule.Also, interestingly the slogan "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" you were so exposed to, which didn't work but was an indoctrination technique, was wrong all along and exposed back in the 1880s as wrong.Nevertheless, it persisted.Imo, the persistence of that phrase, I call it a slogan, and the false principle behind it, is strong evidence that evolution was not first and foremost science, but ideological indoctrination perfectly willing to use and accept false "data" as a means to promote itself.

Well, you can always just claim that you believe he rejects it for some other reason, but most scientists that reject evolution state they are rejecting based on the evidence.Basically, your argument is not falsifiable because it consists of impugning the motives of people that you don't know and yet you will insist they are lying if they say they reject evolution based on the evidence.Btw, you do realize that some men like Behe don't reject evolution based on the Bible, and he does not appear to be a YEC or a creationist.

Brad, I am sorry, but I am not following your writing. You've got to break it down, main point and supporting points maybe or something.I agree that much of evolutionism has adopted some real science in the past 40 years, specifically in genetics study, but the style and manner in which evolution is taught has remained embedded with pseudo-science and is reflective of ideological indoctrination.

Here is where I think you are grossly distorting the record here, Charles, and I'd like an apology frankly.You asked: I then gave you the name of the professor, as you asked. You then went on a several post tirade cussing me out and lying about what I had claimed.For example, you wrote: Here you imply that I claimed this man had published creationist papers in evolutionist journals on this subject.Were you deliberately misrepresenting what I wrote?I'd like an answer.Moreover, I'd like to know why you would challenge the idea that I had heard a botany professor from NC State do a presentation debunking evolution.Are you under the impression that no creationist scientists exist?For my part, after you went on the childish display asking for evidence, I assumed evidence that I had actually seen a professor speak who was a creationist, I linked to a web-site showing that this guy offers to do this presentation regularly.Clearly, I fully substantiated that he has looked into the evidence and disagrees with it, and even does presentations disagreeing with it, based on the evidence. I fully substantiated he is a long-term university professor at NC State.I would like you to retract your false claims that I did not back up my claims because I have fully done so. The demand for "papers" is nonsensical since there is no need to show he has published papers critical of ToE as a whole to show he disagrees with evolution.He has published in his field, and is indeed a long-time university professor. He was there in the 80s and is still there now.This message has been edited by randman, 08-01-2005 03:43 AM

I'd like to clear up this post as well. The post you quoted dealt with a claim to have seen this man do a presentation debunking evolution. So I thought you were asking for evidence of that, but if you are asking for evidence of what he said, that's interesting because I probably can provide some of my notes, if I dig them up out of my papers, which I generally keep in boxes, if I still have them, or you could e-mail him and ask him of a summary of his presentation.These are some of his points.One of his earliest comments was to ask when someone debated the ToE, which theory are they talking about, and he discussed some different theories including the Hopeful Monster theory and Punctuated Equilibrium.He showed quoted from Gould and others, and interviews, how the fossil record exhibited stasis and did not really show a slow, gradual change as evolutionists posited.He showed where evolutionists resorted to the use of faked drawings, such as Haeckel's distorted drawings of embryos, excessively ape-like depictions of Neanderthals, and debunked the classic depictions of ape to human transition.He claimed there were dating methods that disagreed with a very old earth, one of which being the rate of erosion and how that if the earth was millions of years old, the mountains would have eroded.There's more, but you get the picture.One young man challenged him on the hopeful monster theory idea, which he characterized as a chicken laying an egg and coming out a frog or some such, and the young man insisted on him answering if it was possible or not.Most of the students left the presentation with feelings they had been lied to by mainstream science and evolutionists. The part about the fossil record and Haeckel's drawings, imo, particularly drove that home.He did not make one claim I have come to doubt which is that all the bones showing ape-to-human transition or something like that, could fit on one table.I think that was a mistatement, but the presentation, imo, was very factual and the first time most of the people there had ever heard a scientist present evidence critical of evolution.Imo, it would be helpful if such presentations were presented to everyone in school. If evolution is true, then I don't see why evolutionists would oppose such presentations, but they do, and that's another reason, imo, to be suspicious of evolutionism.Now you present a link for an INVITATION for him to come and present evidence.It appears you are a bit slow in the head:I want to see THE evidence. Do you have a copy of his slides? His presentation notes?