All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated

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

Your objection is understandable and I wouldn't agree with Modulous's position as it stands. I would agree that for any individual that is how science must be conducted but the process of science itself is one which relies on the comparisons of various differing subjective points of view to try and reach the true objective reality.Your position as I understand it is that every has their view molded from such an early age that it effectively resticts the range of subjective opinions brought to bear on the question of evolution in such a way as to make its rejection impossible. The problem with this seems to be to be the large number of dissenters who do not believe in evolution. The fact that the level of dissent decreases sharply with the level of education and scientific qualification hardly argues for the early and highly pervasive indoctrination you claim exists.At best it might argue that universities and colleges act as a selective filtering which eliminates dissenting views, but you seem to be arguing for a much more pervasive and early 'indoctrination'.TTFN,WK

Well why not present some evidence then? As the one making these claims the burden of responsibility rests with you to back them up. If you feel that evidence has already been presented perhaps you could do a small summation of it so we all know where we stand.TTFN,WK

Neither of these infer anything, they imply them.TTFN,WK

I appreciate you were only following on from iano's misusage of the term, I just wanted to try and stop the confusion propagating any further.TTFN,WK

Not for me it isn't, for me that is nothing more than logic chopping and mental masturbation.In the absence of any evidence, and what you presented wasn't evidence, then you are just blowing smoke. You can make up any sort of ludicrous yet valid logical proposition if you don't require your initial premises to themselves be true. It is the truth of your premises which requires some evidence to back them up.Lets look at your very initial premise... This is plainly rubbish, as any number of people have pointed out to you, therefore your argument is rubbish Q.E.D..I'm quite happy to accept that your logic is fine, but your premises are deeply flawed.TTFN,WK

This exactly the same sort of tired tripe you just tried to pretend was some form of evidence.It's easy, look I'll do one.A 13 year old is asked: "did man come from apes?" and replies "No he didn't, God made him, I heard it in Sunday school".Or how about...A 13 year old is asked: "did man come from apes?" and replies "No, my older brother Tom told me we were all made of stars, Of course he was high at the time".Look into bayesian analysis, it is similar to the sort of evaluations we all make all the time when we give something a certain amount of credibility based upon how well it agrees with everything else we know and how much we trust the source of the information.I sincerely doubt that you could find one 13 year old in the USA or the UK who has never been exposed, through any medium, to a non-evolutionary explanation of the origin of man. This all goes into the mix when new ideas are evaluated or old ones re-evaluated, it is a largely unconscious calculus of confidence.TTFN,WK

Can I have some of whatever you are smoking?TTFN,WK

No, but since I prefer arguing based upon actual evidence rather than made up anecdotal evidence I fear that we aren't headed for a productive debate.Why should PY wait before asking his own son a question? Will his son be in a particularly indoctrinated state when he is being dropped off at school?TTFN,WK

On exactly the same basis that they evaluate every other proposition whose scientific accuracy they have not yet verified for themselves. Even the most informed evolutionary biologist is not familiar with all the relevant scientific literature, and the same is true for every field of science. Every evaluation of the truth of a proposition must be performed with less than perfect knowledge of the pertinent facts. There must always be some underlying assumptions behind these decisions, what science tries to do is minimise the number and level of subjectivity behind these assumptions.They can make evaluations, their evaluations are simply not as informed as those of people who have more information, of whatever sort. You simply seem to be deciding that if that weighing of information comes down on the side of evolution, no matter how much or how little was known about the topic, then indoctrination must be the answer.TTFN,WK

How would using an electron microscope help them understand the periodic table?TTFN,WK

Quotes aren't neccessarily bad just because they come from a creationist website. The problem is the very inexact nature of so many of these quotes which make it very difficult to verify them or see hem in context. If the quote is properly referenced it shouldn't make any difference where it comes from.TTFN,WK

There is not an actual hard limit to the number of posts in a thread, but somewhere in the 300s the thread may become unstable and posts may be lost. That is what happened previously anyway, I don't know if subsequent changes to the site have altered this, the admins are still closing down threads after the 300 mark in any case. If you feel there is still something productive to be discussed we can always just open an extension of this thread.TTFN,WK