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
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 30 of 312 (227745)
07-30-2005 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by iano
07-30-2005 11:00 AM


Re: Scientific Method
It's for certain that, between evolutionists and creationists, one side has the accurate model and one side is indoctrinated with lies.
The fact that it's evolutionists who get scientific and practical results with their theory and creationists who get nothing, absolutely nothing at all, is proof that you've got it completely backwards in regards to who is indoctrinated and who is not.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by iano, posted 07-30-2005 11:00 AM iano has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 120 of 312 (228130)
07-31-2005 3:08 PM
Reply to: Message 119 by iano
07-31-2005 3:02 PM


Re: Dis, Dat, Thesis and Doze
The real issue I think is less to do with some kid watching dinosaur programmes and more to do with what happens in the scientific world - but I've had problems getting people to accept that EI occurs so must establish that before I can move on to what happens laters.
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"?
What's your experience in the sciences, again?
It's ridiculous to assert that scientists are brainwashed and indoctrinated when the entire scientific process is one of mutual competition and attempts to undermine theory. The idea that you could get all scientists everywhere to agree to some kind of conspiracy is ludicrous. Maybe you've heard of this thing they give out, called the Nobel Prize? Do you know who gets that? The people that overturn accepted theories; the people that smash through orthodoxy; the people that uncover scientific instruction as indoctrination. In other words you're asking me to believe that somebody, somehow, convinced hundreds of thousands of people to turn their back on a million dollar prize and the acclaim of the world, all in order to stick it to a religion that, in point of fact, about 30% of these people actually belong to themselves. Do you understand why I might find that a little hard to believe?
You never replied to my post 30, either, so I'll pose the question again - why is it, if evolution is indoctrinated lies and creationism is the little-known truth, that evolution produces results and new technologies and creationism has never produced anything at all except evolution?
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 07-31-2005 03:10 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by iano, posted 07-31-2005 3:02 PM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 133 by crashfrog, posted 07-31-2005 7:17 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 133 of 312 (228213)
07-31-2005 7:17 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by crashfrog
07-31-2005 3:08 PM


Re: Dis, Dat, Thesis and Doze
Twice now I've posted to you and it's been the last post on a page so I'm going to repost so you don't miss it.
The real issue I think is less to do with some kid watching dinosaur programmes and more to do with what happens in the scientific world - but I've had problems getting people to accept that EI occurs so must establish that before I can move on to what happens laters.
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"?
What's your experience in the sciences, again?
It's ridiculous to assert that scientists are brainwashed and indoctrinated when the entire scientific process is one of mutual competition and attempts to undermine theory. The idea that you could get all scientists everywhere to agree to some kind of conspiracy is ludicrous. Maybe you've heard of this thing they give out, called the Nobel Prize? Do you know who gets that? The people that overturn accepted theories; the people that smash through orthodoxy; the people that uncover scientific instruction as indoctrination. In other words you're asking me to believe that somebody, somehow, convinced hundreds of thousands of people to turn their back on a million dollar prize and the acclaim of the world, all in order to stick it to a religion that, in point of fact, about 30% of these people actually belong to themselves. Do you understand why I might find that a little hard to believe?
You never replied to my post 30, either, so I'll pose the question again - why is it, if evolution is indoctrinated lies and creationism is the little-known truth, that evolution produces results and new technologies and creationism has never produced anything at all except evolution?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by crashfrog, posted 07-31-2005 3:08 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 144 by iano, posted 08-01-2005 9:05 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 171 of 312 (228542)
08-01-2005 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 144 by iano
08-01-2005 9:05 AM


Re: Dis, Dat, Thesis and Doze
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?
Because it's ludicrous to assert that you can "indoctrinate" someone in the truth. When it's true, it's called "education."
Leave scientists out for a second.
Why would we do that when its only the opinion of the experts that matters?
As it turns out, the man on the (American) street generally doesn't believe evolution. That's the problem. Persons who do believe in evolution but aren't in a position to examine the evidence - which isn't all that many people, really, since the evidence of evolution is publically avaliable - believe in it because the conclusion of almost every expert is that evolution is accurate.
But their situation is irrelevant because it is scientists, not laypersons, who investigate such things as evolution. The fact that a scientist was once a layperson is irrelevant, since education often overturns ignorant belief. It's what Christianists lament all the time, of course - that college students turn from their superstitious faith in the light of education.

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 197 by iano, posted 08-02-2005 7:37 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 172 of 312 (228543)
08-01-2005 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 169 by iano
08-01-2005 4:23 PM


Re: When is a horse not a horse
If someone was to lay out 10 fossil skeletons beside each other, of animals purporting to belong to the horse chain or development plus the skeletons of 10 similar but 'unlinked'animals and said nothing about them, the un-EI'd observer would see skeletons of 20 random species of animals. They'd have no reason to think there'd be a link.
That's idiotic. Of course they'd see a link; the gradual change of form is more than obvious. How do you think we came up with evolution in the first place? From these obvious sequences of transitional fossils.
Of course, there are just some people - like you, apparently - who absolutely refuse to get 4 when faced with 1 + 1 + 1 + 1.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 169 by iano, posted 08-01-2005 4:23 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by iano, posted 08-02-2005 7:58 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 200 of 312 (228716)
08-02-2005 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 197 by iano
08-02-2005 7:37 AM


Re: Dis, Dat, Thesis and Doze
If a 12 year old believes in Evolution then they have been indoctinated into doing so. The truth or falsehood of the indoctrination affects the fact it is indoctrination not one whit
Nonsense. When you tell someone a truth that they're not able to verify themselves, the word for that is "education."
I've never been to Egypt, but I am told that the capital is Cairo. Does that mean that I've been indoctrinated by Cairo-ists, or that I've been educated by geographers?
"Indoctrination" as a word is meaningless the way you're employing it. It's ridiculous to assert that educating someone in a truth is "indoctrination."
The title is All Evolution believing kids, teenagers, students, Ph.D-er, Scientists, Peer reviewist etc etc.
Scientists in relevant fields believe it because of the evidence. Everybody else believes it because they've been educated. What's the problem here? Are you just against education in general?
If you want to debate what's being debated then by all means do so.
We're getting to the very core of your argument, here. You believe that all education is indoctrination; you believe that all the scientists who believe in evolution are mistaken when they say that they were convinced by the evidence. (Never mind that most biologists must, according to logic, be persons who as laypeople rejected evolution, at least in America.)
Well, scientists as a whole are people who regularly abandon the beliefs of their childhood, or that they held as laypeople, in favor of new positions derived from the evidence.
Why would evolution be different?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by iano, posted 08-02-2005 7:37 AM iano has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 202 of 312 (228719)
08-02-2005 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 199 by iano
08-02-2005 7:58 AM


Re: When is a horse not a horse
I haven't though spent this amount of time trying to build a (to be shown) shoddy case to take your insult howevers. Neither do I deserve them.
You'll have to show me where you've been insulted; it certainly wasn't in any of my posts. Unless you can't tell the difference between criticism leveled at your position and invective leveled at yourself?
If you can't approach this debate with the detachment neccessary, and if you can't handle frank criticism directed at your views, then I suggest you move along, because you're not going to like it here. I'm not about to desist chasing down your ludicrous misstatements simply because your feelings might get hurt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by iano, posted 08-02-2005 7:58 AM iano has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 206 of 312 (228731)
08-02-2005 8:20 AM
Reply to: Message 204 by iano
08-02-2005 8:11 AM


Re: Time out
Logic WK, logic.
If you're trying to make statements about the real world, you need evidence, not logic. Deduction is not a process that can lead to truths about the world because the axiomatic conditions of the universe are not avaliable to us.
That's why scientists stick with evidence, not logic. We left the Aristotlian view behind centuries ago. Try to keep up, ok?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 204 by iano, posted 08-02-2005 8:11 AM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 209 by iano, posted 08-02-2005 8:29 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 246 of 312 (228919)
08-02-2005 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by iano
08-02-2005 8:29 AM


Re: Time out
I'm afraid that's the end of discussion between you and me on this one CF...
I'm sorry, but you're at a science website. Why do you think you get to talk about scientific concepts free of the evidentiary restrictions all the rest of us must labor under?
I'm sorry but the rules here apply to you, too. It's pretty clear that you're unable to support your assertions in the light of my pointed questioning, and furthermore that you're unable to distinguish between criticism of your position and criticism of yourself. So, indeed, the debate is over for you. It's over because you've lost.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by iano, posted 08-02-2005 8:29 AM iano has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 247 of 312 (228921)
08-02-2005 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by iano
08-02-2005 10:34 AM


Re: Time out
On what basis does someone who can't evaluate evolution to be true for themselves state that they believe it?
It's called "education." Or is it your view that education doesn't exist? That all education is indoctrination?
Have I been indoctrinated by Cairo-ists? You were never able to answer the question before, instead you retreated behind false accusations that I had insulted you.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by iano, posted 08-02-2005 10:34 AM iano has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by robinrohan, posted 08-02-2005 5:11 PM crashfrog has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 262 of 312 (229084)
08-03-2005 7:48 AM
Reply to: Message 255 by randman
08-03-2005 1:38 AM


Re: indoctrination has characteristics
I don't have time, but maybe someone famaliar with psychological assessments of cults and such could ID these characteristics and see if a similar pattern emerges with evolutionism.
Maybe somebody familiar with the psychological assessment of serial killers and psychopaths could ID these characteristics in randman and see if a similar pattern emerges.
You know, if we're going to go around casting spurious and insulting implications.
Evolutionists then claim because "evolution" equals A, B must be true as well.
But, we don't. Every time you bring up this claim we show you how it isn't true. Which would make you a liar to assert it again, in this thread, and in violation of the forum guidelines.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 255 by randman, posted 08-03-2005 1:38 AM randman has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 263 of 312 (229085)
08-03-2005 7:51 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by iano
08-03-2005 6:07 AM


Re: Dis, Dat, Thesis and Doze
So, in other words, you don't believe that education exists, and that I've been indoctrinated by Cairo-ists?
I would request that in doing so, they include with their request, a link to a respected published paper showing the experiment which provides evidence for the hypothesis that life arose out of non-life.
That claim is not relevant to evolution, which is the biological theory of the origin of species. The chemical origin of life is a problem of chemistry, not biology. You've got the wrong field, sorry.
This message has been edited by crashfrog, 08-03-2005 07:52 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by iano, posted 08-03-2005 6:07 AM iano has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 302 of 312 (229595)
08-04-2005 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by Omnivorous
08-03-2005 9:33 PM


Re: Breathtaking assertions is all you offer
Great post. I'd nominate it for POTM, and will, but there's no August POTM thread yet.
Ahem.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by Omnivorous, posted 08-03-2005 9:33 PM Omnivorous has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 309 by AdminAsgara, posted 08-04-2005 10:04 AM crashfrog 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