Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 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 136 of 312 (228323)
08-01-2005 3:39 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by CK
07-30-2005 3:57 PM


Re: Moderator intervention required
Here is where I think you are grossly distorting the record here, Charles, and I'd like an apology frankly.
You asked:
Do you mean REAL professor or american "anyone who works in the place has a title of professor" professor*?
Can give us the name of this prof or the name of the papers he has submitted making those claims?
I then gave you the name of the professor, as you asked.
is his bio or web-page at the university.
Plant and Microbial Biology
You then went on a several post tirade cussing me out and lying about what I had claimed.
For example, you wrote:
Have you got the papers yet?
quote:
certainly did, and quite a few others have as well. There is a botany professor at NC State and quite a few other scientists who have looked at the evidence, and found evolutionism to be wanting.
Support or retract
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by CK, posted 07-30-2005 3:57 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by CK, posted 08-01-2005 4:34 AM randman has replied
 Message 141 by Wounded King, posted 08-01-2005 6:09 AM randman has not replied

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


Message 137 of 312 (228326)
08-01-2005 4:00 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by CK
07-30-2005 4:50 PM


Re: RANDMAN IS A STILL A LYING BULLSHITTER.
I'd like to clear up this post as well.
For what? The 100 was for the evidence in the post I quoted as it quite clearly states.
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?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by CK, posted 07-30-2005 4:50 PM CK has not replied

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


Message 138 of 312 (228328)
08-01-2005 4:11 AM


double-standard
OK, here is some evidence of indoctrination.
Evolutionists on these boards have made the claim that creationists reject evolution, not because of the facts, and some have claimed they do so because they want political power over people, or are insecure, stupid, whatever.
There are, to my knowledge, no peer-reviewed studies indicating that these claims have any merit, but evolutionists here make them nonetheless.
Here is the indoctrination part.
Did any evolutionist here ever demand peer-reviewed papers to back up these claims?
I think not.
But these same folks demand that a claim, that perhaps evolutionists could be indoctrinated by pro-evolution messages prior to becoming scientists could have an affect, must be backed up by peer-review studies.
They don't seem to be aware of the hypocrisy there, and the fact they don't seem to be aware of the inconsistency in thier beliefs, namely they believe something about creationists not backed up by studies but demand studies for anyone believing something about evolutionists before considering it, well, the inconsistency of evolutionists, at least here on this board, is the kind of thing one would expect of a group indoctrinated in their basic principles instead of truly educated in them.

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


Message 139 of 312 (228332)
08-01-2005 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by randman
08-01-2005 3:39 AM


firefox and a bit of code to the rescue
Randman - I think you are a complete waste of space. Admin had already ruled on this and i don't intended to waste any further bandwidth on you.
you can reply if you like but I've written a small script that renders your posts invisible - it's a waste of time, I will not even be able to see them.
Reply and scream in the wind all you like - that's all she wrote.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 01-Aug-2005 04:40 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by randman, posted 08-01-2005 3:39 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by randman, posted 08-01-2005 4:47 AM CK has not replied

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


Message 140 of 312 (228334)
08-01-2005 4:47 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by CK
08-01-2005 4:34 AM


Re: firefox and a bit of code to the rescue
Charles, the feeling is mutual. So if you would please avoid fouling up any threads I am on, by doing what you did here, I would appreciate it.
You asked for the guy's name, and I gave it to you. I did my part.
Somehow though, I doubt you will stay away. But if it helps, I am not interested in your responses either.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by CK, posted 08-01-2005 4:34 AM CK has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 141 of 312 (228345)
08-01-2005 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by randman
08-01-2005 3:39 AM


Re: Moderator intervention required
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.
Well not really. You clearly believe that he has but it would take considerably fuller details of his arguments to convince many that he has really looked into the evidence. Many people feel they have 'looked into the evidence' who have in fact just looked into the Answers in Genesis website.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by randman, posted 08-01-2005 3:39 AM randman has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 142 of 312 (228367)
08-01-2005 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by Chiroptera
07-31-2005 4:47 PM


Re: A question of plausibility
Chiroptera writes:
This is true for all the sciences. If one is going to discuss this problem, then why choose evolutionary science?...etc
One can disagree with the proposal "Hitler was right" yet still debate in favour of it. In debate, motivation is irrelevant. I won't answer any more posts regarding motivation due to time constraints.
sidelined mentioned, that would depend on the commitment that a person wishes to make to study the issues. I see nothing that prevents anyone from becoming acquiring enough knowledge to be able to critique any field.
I do see something. And it is the idea of the thread ie: first let's examine whether one can attain non-EI'd knowledge before embarking on a course of 'education'. Sidelines post was good for demonstrating how to post cooly and calmly. His points however took little account of the problem of EI though - except maybe to agree it occurs pre-college and to express faith in Science. Faith however isn't scientific.
First, if I understand this post, the question is whether these "evolution-tinted spectacles" makes it impossible to objectively evaluate data, and to see that the data contradicts the accepted theory. Either scientists are capable of objectively evaluating data or they are not. If it is not possible to determine this one way or the other, this becomes a rather sterile discussion
I hope to demonstrate (logically, not with scientific proof) that evolutionary scientists cannot be objective (ie: exclude personal ideaology) in their science. But Rome wasn't built in a day. I've got to get my theses up and standing before adding more.
iano writes:
...One logical outworking of this, should my case hold together, is that evolution has no basis in fact. It is not true
Chiroptera writes:
Actually, this is not true. Even if scientists were being indoctrinated, it is entirely possible that the dogma into which they are being indoctrinated reflects reality.
If it can be shown that scientists cannot be objective about evolution then no evolution evidence can have basis in fact. It may be right it may be wrong - but who knows. Everybody is entitled to an opinion. Opinion is not fact or truth no matter how many people have it. Facts and truth must be established as such. They must be objective to be fact/truth
First, it is to be demonstrated that this exposure is as far-reaching as is claimed. Current biological scientists are about my age, and I can attest that I was never exposed to evolutionary thinking to this degree.
You believe in evolution I presume. Are you a peer who has reviewed a published paper in any field of Evo science (not that that would provide iron-clad basis of no EI. But that'll come later) ? If not how can you prove your belief. If you can't then on what basis do you believe it. A faith-basis is the only one I can think of. Faith isn't science, it's Religion
And that is the biggest weakness of this proposition. It hard to imagine how such a consistent and successful indoctrination could occur without some centralized authority determining and maintaining the orthodoxy. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I don't have to prove whether the MI is blind or conspiratorial. That it exists it enough to support EI. I'm inclinded to think blind because conspiracy seems far less likely. But it doesn't matter which it is.
This is false. There are aspects of any theory that are broad enough that inconsistencies can be detected with relatively modest levels of education. One can smell shit in a room even when one is standing in the hall.
Maybe. But you try go refuting Evo on this site with a tack like that and see how far you get. Detecting inconsistancies is not proof of anything. Like there are inconsistancies with Evo (which caused folk to come up with Panspermia and Punctuated Equilibrium) Detecting inconsistancies doesn't mean anything is proved one way or the other.
This, too, is not true. While it is true that no one can be an expert in every single field, any scientist has to have a fairly good enough knowledge of several fields outside of her immediate area of expertise.
But a 'fairly good knowledge' is not considered sufficient for him to argue for or against anything. According to folk here you must be Expert In Your Field, have published in that field etc,etc to be qualified to comment. I'm inclined to agree. I'm sure a anesethist has a good idea of heart surgery but I'd prefer it if a cardiologist was the one cutting into me.
I have already mentioned historical examples to show that there is good reason to reject this claim; nor does psychological or sociological studies show that the sort of "indoctrination" that is being claimed is capable of producing this situation.
We know EI exists. Have the effects of it on objectivity in Science ever been tested with psychological or social studies. Or are you extrapolating here.
Re: your questions. If you want to open a thread entitled FoL by all means do so. I won't be on it though, have me hands full here
Suggestion CF; can we debate single issues at time rather than whole swatches of stuff? It'll help us both to focus and come to grounded conclusions either way.
iano

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by Chiroptera, posted 07-31-2005 4:47 PM Chiroptera has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Chiroptera, posted 08-01-2005 1:21 PM iano has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 143 of 312 (228372)
08-01-2005 8:49 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by ringo
07-31-2005 5:32 PM


Re: Critical thought vs Objectivity
Ringo writes:
I got out my calculator and, sure enough, "objective" and "critical" are two different words. But you've done nothing to explain how "you can examine critically but unobjectively at the same time".
It's not down to me Ringo. You have the problem with two different words, which mean different things, not conferring the same meaning??!!
Apple doesn't mean orange - nor should it. Critical by definition doesn't imply Objective.
End of discussion on this one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by ringo, posted 07-31-2005 5:32 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by ringo, posted 08-01-2005 11:15 AM iano has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 144 of 312 (228375)
08-01-2005 9:05 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by crashfrog
07-31-2005 7:17 PM


Re: Dis, Dat, Thesis and Doze
crashfrog writes:
Look, that's just stupid. There is no "EI" that occurs, so why would we accept that it does? Unless we're supposed to believe that teaching the model that's actually supported by all the evidence is "indoctrination"?
I have put a definition of Indoctrination up on post 1. It says nothing about truth or falsehood so why do you talk about truth or falsehood with respect to indoctrination? I just say that EI is why people WHO ARE NOT IN POSITION TO EVALUATE yet believe evolution, believe it.
I shouldn't be doing this work for you - which is why I don't run to answer your post. If you can answer this question then I'll get into debate with you.
What other mechanism can explain why someone believe evolution - if they can't prove it?. To start with go no higher in level than the average man on the street. Leave scientists out for a second.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by crashfrog, posted 07-31-2005 7:17 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by CK, posted 08-01-2005 9:10 AM iano has replied
 Message 171 by crashfrog, posted 08-01-2005 4:36 PM iano has replied

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


Message 145 of 312 (228378)
08-01-2005 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by iano
08-01-2005 9:05 AM


Re: Dis, Dat, Thesis and Doze
quote:
WHO ARE NOT IN POSITION TO EVALUATE
So who is? Be specific - qualifications,experience etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by iano, posted 08-01-2005 9:05 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by iano, posted 08-01-2005 9:34 AM CK has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 146 of 312 (228381)
08-01-2005 9:22 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Chiroptera
07-31-2005 8:00 PM


Re: A test for indoctrination
Chirptera writes:
But what is proposed in the OP is a break-down of the scientific method. At least it is the claim that the scientific method gives no confidence that a scientist will be able to objectively evaluate the data
If the SM was an absolute entity then science which followed SM would be demonstrably objective. But SM isn't absolute. It is a moveable feast. The SM today is not the same as it was before nor is it as it will be in the future. It is not absolute, so someone who follows it faithfully still can't claim objectivity with any certainty.
Neither does the existance of an SM ensure folk will follow it faithfully. Einstein cosmological constant: now you see it now you don't - purely on the basis of personal ideology (ie: he was not being objective)
To conclude. The existance of SM is not basis for claiming objectivity. It is not absolute so/and there is no way to know if it is being followed. The above shows that EI (which is accepted here to exist (see thesis) - can operate within SM. IOW: SM is subject to EI not necessarily the other way around
Can we debate SM as a defence against EI for a while CP?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Chiroptera, posted 07-31-2005 8:00 PM Chiroptera has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 147 of 312 (228385)
08-01-2005 9:34 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by CK
08-01-2005 9:10 AM


Re: Dis, Dat, Thesis and Doze
Charles Knight writes:
So who is (in position to evaluate- iano)? Be specific - qualifications,experience etc.
According to you and others, Professors & the very experienced and oft-published in the relevant field. This means that anyone below this level isn't in a position to evaluate(see theses in post 1) and thus believe by EI (ie: faith). In meeting the claims of the OP, I hope to show that no-one is qualified (due to EI/faith). I'm up to Professors level and above at the moment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by CK, posted 08-01-2005 9:10 AM CK has not replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 148 of 312 (228390)
08-01-2005 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by Modulous
07-31-2005 9:18 PM


Re: indoctrination of a nation, subjugation of damnation
Modulous writes:
However, even if you can not be sure of the truth of something does not mean that something isn't true.
Correct. But would you spend a lifetime studying Evolution if you couldn't say anything about the truthfulness of it. My claim is that it could be all false AND there's no way of knowing either way. That's the point of this debate.
Science doesn't rely on objectivity. It accepts that there is an objective reality and attempts to uncover the mysteries of that reality from a subjective point of view.
Anyone agree that science is about subjective points of view?
Modulous. You have interesting things to say but we all need to pull back towards the points of debate. This is not a scientific-evidence debate, nor one about feelings (although I understand folk can have strong feeling either way). If anything it errs towards a logical look at EI in evolution. If it can be demonstrated logically that EI is total (or vice versa) then the debate is over. I don't expect Evolution science to stop either way
Stuff needs to refer to post 1 incl theses. (Also SM is an area of interest as it is on this that some debate rests as an argument against EI)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by Modulous, posted 07-31-2005 9:18 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by Wounded King, posted 08-01-2005 10:26 AM iano has replied
 Message 152 by Modulous, posted 08-01-2005 10:29 AM iano has replied

iano
Member (Idle past 1940 days)
Posts: 6165
From: Co. Wicklow, Ireland.
Joined: 07-27-2005


Message 149 of 312 (228391)
08-01-2005 10:02 AM


By the way
Foe those who may have missed my post announcing this, I've added three theses to the post Nr.1 - which arise out of the debate so far.
These may be accepted (though I doubt it) or can be argued to help specify the direction of the debate

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the alternative is special creation, which is unthinkable" Sir Arthur Keith, Anthropologist.

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5907 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 150 of 312 (228395)
08-01-2005 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by randman
07-30-2005 3:37 PM


randman
Bull crap. Take out ToE, and nothing would be any different. Genetics is not dependant on the belief of universal common descent.
Really? Do you have a alternative view for how we should develop vaccines against antibiotic resistant bacteria? Can you explain why the use of cowpox on humans{the first vaccine ever} is effective in preventing smallpox from infecting humans? How can the pus from an infected animal,which when introduced to the human being result in defense against a human disease? Indeed, why would a disease of cows, result in a mild infection in humans?
Why is streptococcus Pneumonia resistant to penicillin?Indeed,it has developed resistance to several antibiotics.Can you explain how this is accomplished?
This message has been edited by sidelined, Mon, 2005-08-01 08:22 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by randman, posted 07-30-2005 3:37 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by iano, posted 08-01-2005 10:48 AM sidelined has replied
 Message 163 by randman, posted 08-01-2005 12:23 PM sidelined has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024