All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated

Only a moron could've come up with, "The ToE violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics," from an honest review of the pertinent facts. So, it's better if Creationists are dishonest, as that at least allows for the possibility that they're not all complete idiots. So, in your experience, nerds are some pretty slick operators? Hmmm... I guess you're right. I forgot that our last 10 presidents were all physicists; all elected in landslides due to their undeniably 1337 skillz at character assassination. That's a pretty common assertion made by Creationists, but I've never seen it actually occur. Please provide a link to a post in which an 'evolutionist' actually claimed such a thing.

Aah...a logic statement...but one which assumes all here understand the procedures involved with logic statements. It would be helpful (and ensure honesty on all sides) if you could put the beginning and end words of the text which you decided forms p1,p2,c1 etc. Maybe deal with the first quote you mention (above) and remember, in that case we're talking about the 110 million or so Americans who have no formal scientific training yet believe Evolution. I question your logic on the basis that p1 has an 'if' statement which doesn't appear nor is implied in the text "I cannot demonstrate...." I presume logic statements aren't supposed to put the cart before the horse...For what it's worth:"I cannot demonstrate..." is a statement which, in itself, says nothing about EI. There's no 'if' in it either.
"I believe nonetheless..."is a statement which, in itself says nothing specific about EI (they may,logically, have spent a year in a time machine and seen evolution for themselves and thereby believe). There is no 'because' there.Conclusion: There is no evidence that a time machine has ever been. There is evidence that people can be indoctrinated however (Nazism and Creationism are two examples which most here would have little trouble accepting). For want of another explanation (and science presumes an explantion is possible for observable phenomenon) EI best-fits the thesis and according to the norms of theses as I understand them (ie: unless a better fit comes along) then EI it is. The data is 110 million who believe for no objective reason.P.S.
For all those who are inclined to post two lines, at the end of which the shout: "EVIDENCE?!!!!!" 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. An undirected,blind-chance style experiment which resulted in one strand of self-replicating RNA will do fine. Or are we relying on the best-fit scenario here too?This message has been edited by iano, 03-Aug-2005 11:12 AM

Why? Science says that abiogenesis hasn't been ruled out as a possibility, developments are being made in the field all the time. Creationists and IDers make the absolute claim that it simply isn't possible, and make some vague references to statistics that prove that one way of abiogenesis happening is impossible, but fail to cover all possible scenarios.Evidence is required for absolute statements.Uh-oh, this is in danger of being 'Origins of Life' so I'll stop there But you still haven't addressed the big question. How does this differ from anything else? No one single person becomes an expert in all fields and so takes much on the faith of the authorities that are experts. I am not a historian, have I been Holocaust indoctrinated? Have I been 1812 indoctrinated? I HAVE NEVER DIRECTLY STUDIED THE EVIDENCE AND YET I BELIEVE! We also indoctrinate our kids into believing that there is poverty in Africa. How many of these kids actually calculate the GDP of these countries, estimate economic distributions of despotic regimes? Very few, thus they are being indoctrinated. You basic argument appears to be:If you believe something you are taught and you haven't studied it in depth for yourself you have been indoctrinated.Why do you seem to think this is only a problem for one subject? There are probably hundreds of millions that believe the moon is a large spherical rock flying around the earth despite having never studied it. Billions that believe that the periodic table of elements represents base atomic structures, without ever using an electron microscope.Heck, how many people are taught that electrons are little particles spinning around a nucleus in a nice little concentric circles? Inoctrination. Humour

It came from your opening proposition, which I also quoted."Scientists who believe in evolution were indoctrinated to believe in evolution before they became scientists. And because of that, it is impossible for such scientists to claim they can to be objective about evidence which they use to argue that evolution is true."Now, ignoring the literal meaning of the second sentence (it's quite funny as stated), I read it to mean, "Because of (EI), it is impossible for scientists to be objective." Thus; if (EI), (not objective). Only if you disallow any disproof other than 'nonbelief'; which your current logical structure doesn't allow. What you're using is:

____________
  |   _____    |
 a|--|     \   |
     | AND  )--|f
 b---|_____/

Wherein (b) is 'belief', and (f/a) is 'not objective/EI'. You presuppose that (f/a) is high, so as long as (b) remains high, (f/a) will too. The only way for it to possibly go low -- to allow for 'objective/not EI', is for (b) to go low, ie, nonbelief.
Now, EI fitting is no surprise -- you presuppose it, and fricken' have it shorted to the output!.It might even be worse:

____________
   |   _____    |
  a|--|     \   |
      | AND  )--|f
b--|--|_____/   |
   |            |
   |----VVV-----|

Presuppose (f) is high, therefore (a) and (b) are high, therfore (f) is high.This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 08-03-2005 07:09 AM

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

The debate as such is over - as a previous post stated. I repeat for all those who may think it's not and continue. If I do reply it's just to bits that particularily interest. The topic became too wide to handle and with a limit of 300 posts we were never going to get to any conclusion. I didn't know that at the outset. Sorry.An example of "too-wide-ranging" is your post. I have had to repeat on more than one occasion, that philsopocal and other conseqences about science and whether other science may be influenced by ?I is not the issue here. The issue under debate was the issue under debate not every consequenctial issue that may arise from itSorry...but I do have a day job

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. 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.

So, in other words, you don't believe that education exists, and that I've been indoctrinated by Cairo-ists? 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

I would believe (though I haven't read it in depth) that your logic statement is more than likely to be right, basing it, as you were on the OP. However, the OP is just an OP. It claims "All Evo Scientists are not objective due to EI". The point is that this a proposition,eg: "I propose that that is the case". "I tender that as a proposal for debate". "This is my proposal Admin and I think we should discuss it somewhere..." etc, etc.I would have imagined that it would be obvious that the area to apply the logic is not the proposal which is just a claim, but the arguments that back up the proposal. Proposal "Life came from none life" Why? "because it did" would indeed be circular reasoning. That is not, however, the way the proponants of the proposal deal with things. The evidence: experimental,physical, logical, philosophical is what gets examined - not the proposal which just stakes the claim out.So, my last post to you DS, which is part of the logical evidence for the OP. Can you argue against it logically?(P.S. for those who want an actual example of circular reasoning as opposed to DS's previous effort, you couldn't do much better than this one from the Roman Catholic church)Q: "How do you know the Bible is the inerrant word of God" "
A: "Because we say it is the inerrant word of God"
Q: "Who gives you the authority to make such a claim"
A: "The Bible says we have authority to make such a claim"They, unlike me, have no logical thesis to back the proposition up Edited for typos and to ask if anyone want to analysis the quote hereunder for it's logic (Assuming it's an accurate quote)This message has been edited by iano, 03-Aug-2005 01:22 PM

---

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

It probably wouldn't, but you get the idea.

Hi ianoWhat is your source for the qoute bu sir Arthur Keith? some creationist sites claim it is from the foreword of the centennial edition of Darwins great book, but that was 4 years after Sir Keith died. Sir Keith did write a foreword, but that was in 1928, and this foreword did not contain the quote.Quote Mine Project: "Miscellaneous"So where did Sir Keith say that?/Soren

quote:

---

Which raises the point. Evolution is a theory. That means it's tentative. Only when it can account for all the data/observations will it be fact. This may be 'standard science' or it may be a way of getting around the problem of not being able to make the data fit the theory, ie: sweeping problems under the theoretical carpet as it were.

​

Evolution would support the former view, EI the latter.

---

No not really - that's not standard science because that doesn't actually occur. You do know that TOE is both theory andfact already (like many other things)?So don't you think you need to get a better understanding of what science rather than the stawman version you current use, before you make your announcments about what supports what?As the for the quote, as far as I can determine - it doesn't exist. It's a bit sad that twice on this thread alone, you have been pulled up for using quotes that don't actually exist and others out of context.You do realise that everytime you post such rubbish it diminishes your credibility and makes it appears that you are just another brainwashed creationist? I hope this is not the case and you will consider your sources more carefully in the future.This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 03-Aug-2005 10:55 AMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 03-Aug-2005 11:06 AM

Jano - beginning with your first premise - all you have to offer are breathtaking assertions. Indoctrination is not the same as learning. The theory of evolution is taught as part and parcel of science because it is science. Yes, a fifth grader (or a 1st year undergraduate) may not have all of the tools to assess the claims of a scientific theory. But to say that this same fifth grader at age thirty and now a PhD evolutionary biologist is still operating under the same disadvantages (in terms of being able to assess scientific theories) is just nonsense. Training in science gives one the ability to judge the merits of scientific claims just as training in medicine gives one the ability to diagnose diseases. Would you say a medical doctor can't diagnose diseases because he believed what his mom and teachers incorrectly told him about diseases when he was a fifth grader? Why is acceptance of evolution so much more mind distorting than any other kind of higher learning? Or do you think all forms of higher learning are illegitimate? By the way, the repetition of fact does not make it untrue simply becaused it is repeated. What a nonsensical proposition you have put forth.

Logic does not apply if the premise(S) is/are flawed. So that is the place to start. And I think I have shown you how absurd your first premise is.edit: To give an example: If I make the claim that the moon is made of green cheese and I reason as follows:All orbiting bodies less than 4000 km in diameter are made of green cheese.The moon has a diameter of 3476 km and orbits the earth.Therefore the moon is made of green cheese.Ok the logic is flawless but the premise is false so the conclusion is hogwash as well.This message has been edited by deerbreh, 08-03-2005 11:10 AM

Wegener's theory of continental drift was dismissed as preposterous by many scientists, including geologists, for nearly 40 years after he proposed it in 1912, despite the fact that there was a lot of good evidence for it. The problem was that there was not a good mechanism. It wasn't until plate tectonic theory was developed in the 1950s that continental drift came to be accepted by scientists.