All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated

No, you have found another way of saying "evolution is JUST a theory." And by doing this you demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of scientific (as opposed to a layman's definition) theory. A theory is only as tentative as it has a set of data that allows predictions to be confirmed/falsified. The theory of evolution may have been tentative when Darwin wrote "Origin of Species". But it is no longer so because we now have an enormous set of data that allows countless predictions to be confirmed/falsified.

No, as knocking out the support doesn't disprove the claim. All it does is demonstrate that a belief that the claim is true is unwarranted, which leaves the rational person at unbelief until something else comes along which justifies either belief or disbelief.Anyway, your argument supporting the claim was circular, so as the claim was included in its own support, there was no way to avoid including it. Nope. That's simply an example of asking the wrong question, followed by a non-answer. If you're asking if I can support the claim that the circuit wouldn't work, I can't. Of course, I don't make that claim, so I don't have to support it. The circuit would work just fine. I just disagree that that circuit is an accurate model of reality. I mean, you can label (a), (b), and (f) with anything you'd like, and it would still work. Electronics is electronics -- it doesn't care how you label the inputs and outputs.Now, in order for you to see for yourself that it's not an accurate model, you're gonna have to try using the same circuit for analogous situations, and see if it works in those. You seem to be avoiding this like the plague. Are you scared of what you might find? That's not even an argument.Here:1. The Bible is right.
2. The Bible says it's right.
3. As the Bible is right, it is right when it says it's right.
4. Therefore, the Bible is right.(4) is the same as (1) -- that's circular.

Nice post, jsmall.

quote:

---

We have to remember that evolution started with very simple data that was fairly easy to interpret.

---

And much of that evidence is still good today, and still simple enough for the layperson interpret for herself -- in factmuch of the evidence used by Darwin is either not disputed even by creationists, or could be obtained by a layperson with a little bit of work.This is what I was trying to say earlier, but you said it much, much better than I.

Depends on what you mean by 'hogwash'. If you mean 'false', that's the argumentum ad logicam logical fallacy. If you mean 'worthless', you're right on; since a false premise and/or an invalid inference leave the conclusion at an indeterminate truth value. (As you use a false premise, it cannot be determined from your argument whether the moon is made of green cheese or not. We can, however, use other methods to determine whether it's true -- like observation.)This message has been edited by DominionSeraph, 08-03-2005 12:56 PM

quote:

---

One thing you see with indoctrination is that the group derides the motives of their critics. They typically will not accept that critics are genuinely in disagreement based on an honest review, from their perspective, of what they know as true.

---

Do you mean like the way creationists keep claiming that evolutionists are trying to promote a naturalistic religion? Or how creationists insist that I accept evolution "to justify living in sin"?Edited to add:Wait a minute. Aren't you the one who keeps claiming that evolutionists are deliberately committing fraud using Haeckle's drawings?This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 03-Aug-2005 05:01 PM

quote:

---

The topic became too wide to handle....

---

I thought I was maintaining a decent focus on the topic. Sorry that you feel that my responses to you were ranging "too wide" from the topic.

As far as the "naturalistic religion" comment, that's basically true, but not necessarily the motive. Evolutionism is quasi-religious, imo.On the "sin" comment, I have not heard that in scientific debates.Have you?That would probably fall under the indoctrination technique, but would have to be a prevalent message of critics of evolution to qualify.

I thought the accepting eVILuotion WAS to do with Sin but they generally expressed it as an unwillingness to submit to something more powerful in the universe (which of course meant that we could drink,smoke, go to the porno cinema etc).This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 03-Aug-2005 01:38 PMThis message has been edited by Charles Knight, 03-Aug-2005 01:39 PM

Yeah, I stated it sloppily - should have been said something like this:As the premise is false the conclusion is worthless, and in fact, hogwash, since direct observation tells us otherwise.

It's 1859 and your living in England. You follow the accepted orthodoxy of that day. You hear of this guy called Darwin. He's saying that naturally occuring variation in species, combined with survival of the fittest is how we can explain the diversity we see all around us: from bananas to baboons. He is also proposing that every creature can trace it's ancestry back to an....amoeba or summit!Your haven't read his book - because your only interested in evaluating his claim according to his premise.It's still 1859. Are you going to call Darwins premise "breathtaking assertion". If so, by what method do you think it could be shown to be otherwise (hint: up in 2005 it has been shown to be otherwise) And if not, why not?If you've got something rational to say in reponse to then go ahead.

Thank you. Now would you repeat that is big letters. "IANO'S FIRST THESIS 'EI OF THE MASSES' CANNOT BE FAULTED ON LOGICAL GROUNDS" so that some of the many who make the claim might consider their position.

"Breath taking" is pretty much an understatement for Darwin's theory.But what is your point? Darwin wrote two entire books, detailing in excruciating detail, the evidence that supported his theory.But I don't understand your point, or the analogy. Are you claiming that you have supported the thesis of your OP to the same degree as Darwin did, not to mention the findings of 150 years of continued scientific investigation?

I'm more interested in why you offer non-existant or totally distorted quotes to support your idea?Why is this?Moreover - you do understand that the evolution is a both a fact and a theory?

That you would think that of me CP. I crushed.Nah mate,like I said, the debate is over and I'm just doing some mental excerises. It was purely a response to a couple of posts by deerpreh which went on about the my premise (or OP) being in itself 'breathless assertion'. I was trying to point out that all premises are breathless assertion if taken in isolation. Of course I don't think that of ToE nor would I have thought that in 1859 of Darwin - the 'breathless assertion would have made me buy the book. Purely dealing with Premise = Breathless Assertion that all.

quote:

---

But I don't understand your point, or the analogy. Are you claiming that you have supported the thesis of your OP to the same degree as Darwin did, not to mention the findings of 150 years of continued scientific investigation?

---

That's the important thing - why do Creationists always go after Darwin like it's the end of time and nothing happened afterwards. And more importantly if Darwin was nonsense why was it acted - none of the conditions present in the "theory" presented here were in place?