Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 91 of 312 (227904)
07-30-2005 4:54 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by CK
07-30-2005 4:50 PM


Re: RANDMAN IS A STILL A LYING BULLSHITTER.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by CK, posted 07-30-2005 4:50 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by CK, posted 07-30-2005 4:56 PM randman has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 92 of 312 (227905)
07-30-2005 4:55 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by randman
07-30-2005 4:46 PM


Re: RANDMAN IS A LYING BULLSHITTER.
That website, Articles Front | TASC, is just the usual creationist junk. They bow down to ICR, AIG, etc.
This is a science forum.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by randman, posted 07-30-2005 4:46 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by randman, posted 07-30-2005 5:01 PM ringo has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 93 of 312 (227906)
07-30-2005 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by randman
07-30-2005 4:54 PM


RANDMAN wouldn't know evidence if it bit him on the ass
quote:
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.
Because it's NOT evidence - it's a testimony that you've seen a man say something. IT IS NOT EVIDENCE OF ANYTHING.
Why is this so difficult for you to grasp?
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 30-Jul-2005 04:57 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by randman, posted 07-30-2005 4:54 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by randman, posted 07-30-2005 5:02 PM CK has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 94 of 312 (227908)
07-30-2005 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by ringo
07-30-2005 4:55 PM


Re: RANDMAN IS A LYING BULLSHITTER.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by ringo, posted 07-30-2005 4:55 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by ringo, posted 07-30-2005 5:09 PM randman has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 95 of 312 (227909)
07-30-2005 5:01 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by randman
07-30-2005 4:51 PM


Re: At least one bogus quote
randman writes:
... the scientist genuinely feels evolution is wrong, and does so publicly.... That is what is germane to the discussion here
What is germane to the discussion here is evidence that all scientists are indoctrinated and unable to think critically about evolution.
What is really telling is that you can't stop yourself from presenting crank websites and fake credentials as evidence.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by randman, posted 07-30-2005 4:51 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by randman, posted 07-30-2005 5:03 PM ringo has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 96 of 312 (227910)
07-30-2005 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by CK
07-30-2005 4:56 PM


Re: RANDMAN wouldn't know evidence if it bit him on the ass
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by CK, posted 07-30-2005 4:56 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by CK, posted 07-30-2005 5:06 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 97 of 312 (227911)
07-30-2005 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by ringo
07-30-2005 5:01 PM


Re: At least one bogus quote
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by ringo, posted 07-30-2005 5:01 PM ringo has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 98 of 312 (227912)
07-30-2005 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by randman
07-30-2005 5:02 PM


My mental illness
quote:
but now just consider you are probably mentally disturbed or something.
It's a nice attempt to anger me but frankly it's water off a duck's back. I was here when Willowtree was and frankly you are quite 3rd rate when it goes to this sort of thing - his material was far better - accusing me of loving satan and being possessed by powerful demons, that sort of thing.
The beauty of this sort of debate is that it's all up there to see - As Gil Grissom says "follow the evidence".
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 30-Jul-2005 05:08 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by randman, posted 07-30-2005 5:02 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by randman, posted 07-30-2005 5:08 PM CK has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 99 of 312 (227913)
07-30-2005 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by CK
07-30-2005 5:06 PM


Re: My mental illness
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by CK, posted 07-30-2005 5:06 PM CK has not replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 100 of 312 (227916)
07-30-2005 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 94 by randman
07-30-2005 5:01 PM


randman writes:
... it doesn't matter if the web-site is correct or not....
Yes it does. It goes to your credibility. Zero.
Anyone here can easily tell Charles is wrong
Care to take a vote?
I don't know why evolutionists are so up in arms if they have to admit another scientist rejects evolution.
You really don't get it, do you?
This forum is like a Sunday School picnic compared to peer review. If you think you get nit-picked here, try publishing a paper.
But every published paper goes through that peer review. And you think you can blow all that away with some half-baked idea about "indoctrination"?

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by randman, posted 07-30-2005 5:01 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by randman, posted 07-30-2005 5:16 PM ringo has replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 101 of 312 (227920)
07-30-2005 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by randman
07-30-2005 3:10 PM


Re: He admits this is a conspiracy theory!
from i's OP
quote:
The mechanism by which EI works is lifelong and repeated exposure to statements which say or imply that Evolution is true.
This is not how I came to even be EXPOSED to any truth or implication of evolution. My brother and I (one year apart) were voracious readers of popular science in the 70s. One day my brother, on his own, decided to become a physicist. Out of sibling rivalry AT WORST I thought about his carrer decision being made before most people even figured out they had hormones and certainly before MOST freshman find out they have not declared a major and decided that that was a misguided thought as he was destined to study dead things like bark and how water flowed through pipes. Our grandfather was a naturalist and was constantly introducing us to information about kinds of plants and animals. He was the "expert" on nature in the western frontier of New York. I thought that wanted to be involved in something in the future that involved life (and the kids' question of WHY???? (what is the meaning of life) AND I KNEW THAT BOTH OF US KIDS were getting information passed to us from Western NY that we were not receiving from anywhere in NJ where we lived nor from any influence from our Father who worked in NYC so soon after Greg decided I decided too to become a biologist. I only chose to become an evolutionist on entrance to College at the same time that Zimmer decided to STUDY ENGLISH at Yale. THE ONLY STATEMENT THAT I WAS REPEATEDLY EXPOSED TO WAS "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" but the EFFECT of such repeition caused me a priori or such to reverse the predication and THINK phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny but that was in the general context of truth in natural history. Just because I had thought that and I was able to see behavior in herps that my granddad did not have on this "repetative" pedagogic did not mean that this thread opens with the correct environment of the debate.
quote:
that only other experts in the field can truly comprehend every critical piece of minutae when deciding whether to accept or reject a particular morsel presented, as Science.
As I got to Cornell I decided to become an EVOLUTIONIST. I did not know if this meant majoring in Genetics and Development, Ecology, Evolution and Systematics, Neurobiology and Behavior, or the Philosophy of Biology so instead in my Sophomore Year (83-84) I wrote a College Scholar Application on studying "downward causation" which I had thought was the best way to try understand all translation in space and form-making. I will try to go into this phase in response to the hang man bat later but what could have been found is that the evolutionnists DO NOT CONSIDER EVERY BIT OF MINUATAE when addressing biology relevant to evolution. One biologists told me he cared NOT for the theory but just wanted to look at birds. An adept mathmatician told me he would not do any modeling that was too philosophical. And Will Provine was hung up on free will not free energy. Besides that the Brits were saying they could ALREADY SEE what it was that evolution IS doing to do (going to do etc). Repeated exposure to THIS *might* result in following the wrong pide piper but it was not what I reposed in. I was merely interested in sorting out the data on the distribution of herps I collected in Central Jersey as a teen ager AND figure out THAT might be used to assist in the idea I was gestating over over extracting energy from organic shapes so as to help solve the domestic energy issues in the US possibly (if millions of years were true). Biology is still in a mess relative to physics and that had not cleared up by then as witness the different vision of the minutae that Croizat documented from the 50s-70s that WERE NOT EVEN BEING REPRESENTED AT COLLEGE in the 80s as the posture of creationism hardened. Learning about the changes in gene frequencies only splits Mayr's version of Gould structure but it does not mean that EVOLUTION IS TRUE. What is at issue is indeterminate and never resolveable variation. That is not however able to cognize mechanisms that might operate translation and space and form-making differently so it can not respond to what I was exposed to repeatedly any way - "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" any way.
Just because I can rerepresent this does not mean that I have once and for all capped the discussion because unless the issue of transitional forms IS resolved then it is all fact veses group selection. That is HOW it was that I came to find Gladyshev's thermostatics attractive. Creationists WERE correct to REASON from thermodynamics to a TRANSITIONAL ENERGY CONVERSION but evos hedging conservatism against chromosomal integity to serve and admin sopenea on creos BY IGNORINIG EVOLUTIONARY DOCUMENTATION (as re-revelaed was being ignored in ENGLISH prosecuted writely against AMNH AND THE BRITISH MUSEUM versions IN NEW ZEALAND lberally sacraficed to IT based perspectives the analytic demonstrability of its first watermark. The kicker is of most likely that there is NO transitional form (or bone articulation in between) but the transit from the free energy of the transit to cross level effect TO the equilibrium affected therethrough. But instead, evos most technically in the sense intended by the original poster (as best I can guess) was on NONEQUILBRIUM CONIDTIONING which is NOT what the paper trail can even sign off on.
All I know is that I HAVE NOT BEEN INDOCTRINATED but evolution in the popular sense of any willy nilly change is only a fact for those on the defense who feel that have something to loose. The full sythesis of this analysis remains for those able to use what I have provided on-line.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by randman, posted 07-30-2005 3:10 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by randman, posted 07-30-2005 5:24 PM Brad McFall has replied
 Message 127 by iano, posted 07-31-2005 4:29 PM Brad McFall has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 102 of 312 (227921)
07-30-2005 5:16 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by ringo
07-30-2005 5:09 PM


be honest
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by ringo, posted 07-30-2005 5:09 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by ringo, posted 07-30-2005 5:26 PM randman has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 103 of 312 (227924)
07-30-2005 5:24 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by Brad McFall
07-30-2005 5:16 PM


Re: He admits this is a conspiracy theory!
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Brad McFall, posted 07-30-2005 5:16 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by Brad McFall, posted 07-30-2005 5:32 PM randman has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 104 of 312 (227925)
07-30-2005 5:26 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by randman
07-30-2005 5:16 PM


Re: be honest
randman writes:
you incorrectly assumed I provided the quote you bashed when I did not
I never said anything about you providing the quote. I pointed out that you defended a lie. You said the lie didn't matter. I said it did.
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?
I have said that virtually no scientist who has examined the evidence has abandoned evolution. You have produced no evidence to the contrary.
You produced an example of a scientist who rejects evolution, but no evidence that he rejects it because of the evidence. If he rejected evolution before examining the evidence, my statement stands.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by randman, posted 07-30-2005 5:16 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by randman, posted 07-30-2005 5:34 PM ringo has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 105 of 312 (227926)
07-30-2005 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Chiroptera
07-30-2005 4:16 PM


Re: indoctrination of a nation, subjugation of damnation
Jeez! Tell me about it!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Chiroptera, posted 07-30-2005 4:16 PM Chiroptera has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024