All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated

And I'm wondering why your Avatars change so frequently. If you spent less time on those you might be able to post more than two line posts. Only kidding m8 - the games already over...(by the way CP, sorry I didn't get as much time as I would have liked to get into the heart of things, bad manners given I know how long it takes to try and formulate. Just let myself get sidetracked all over the place.)By the way, is it okay to limit responses to those who you feel you'd like to debate with. I saw admin pull folk up because x number of posts hadn't been responded to. How do you limit a debate to one or two opponants?)

I was just trying to understand your point, that's all; it wasn't all that clear from the post. (In fact, I still don't think I quite get it, but it's part of a conversation between you and deerbreh that I'm not really a part of.)

But I'd be interested in your view all the same (it's not an ambush by the way - the game is over)If I said "the moon was made of cheese" (premise, OP)and pointed to the evidence I brought with me to back it up. Would you say straight out "your premise is breathless assertion" or would look at the evidence, evaluate it to be rubbish and then say "breatless assertion"

Darwin had data that supported his claims. You don't. That is the difference between an assertion and a viable hypothesis/theory.On edit: What made it breathtaking was that you would suggest that all of those scientists who have studied the data are accepting evolution because of what they learned in grade school and high school.One more point: Speaking from personal experience, it is creationists, not evolutionists, who have been indoctrinated. I believed in YEC right up to my sophomore year in college. And even then, I didn't reject it right away. It was a painful letting go mostly because of the overwhelming realization that the earth just could not be 6000 years old and that the flood story could not be reconciled with the geological data. So a literal Genesis went by the wayside. An understanding and acceptance of evolution came later.This message has been edited by deerbreh, 08-03-2005 03:53 PMThis message has been edited by deerbreh, 08-03-2005 04:23 PM

Ah, so you are learning about message board participation.It does, indeed, take a lot more time and effort than you think to write a good response to a post. I've been suckered a couple of times by taking part in three or four threads, only to suddenly have each one of them take off into long, detailed conversations.The relative number of evolutionists compared to creationists are a problem as well, but that seems to be the same in most of the message boards in which I have taken part. (Theology Web is one of the few that I know of that has a higher number of creationists and that also has a better than average level of conversation.) There is the problem that the appearance of a creationist sets off a feeding frenzy. Usually, though, the admins are aware of this and don't expect a single poster to be able to respond all of the people jumping on him. Just single out the ones to whom you wish to respond -- if your responses show that you are putting time into them, then I think that you will be seen to be arguing in good faith. Don't think it's rude, though, if someone to whom you cannot respond periodically reminds you of her response -- she is just trying to see if you can make time.Be aware when people are going to bring you off-topic. I understand how easy it is to go off-topic -- I try to stay aware, and if I recognize that a message is going to throw things off then I will post one response and then say that it is not entirely on topic, and then I will not respond further. It is acceptable to not even give that one response -- just state that you feel it is too far off-topic or that you are responding to too many points as it is.You do not have to respond to every single post. Sometimes you will notice that the same points are made by different people, or that the same person will repeat the same point in several different posts. You can try to give a single response in a single post.Notice that often people will respond to each point in a post individually. Sometimes this makes the best type of response, at least if the points are very different from one another. But sometimes you can save some writing (and make a better post) if you notice the points are very closely related to one another, and a single paragraph can be written that concisely deals with all of it.Anyway, you learn as you go.

Edited by Iano... not a nice post to end off withCiao and thanks...IanThis message has been edited by iano, 03-Aug-2005 10:11 PM

And I wouldn't even describe myself as a creationist (edit: I believe that God created but not necessarily that evolution wasn't part of how he did it). You mean it can get worst than this...sheesh. Thanks for the tips in etiquette. That will make things a lot easier (for me )See you around. Now let me see...a new thread title???."Athiesm is illogical"....nah too easy"Science students on EvC - proof of EI" nah...self evident"The thinking scientists guide to Evolution" nah.. that presumes thinking scientists...I'll just get "Evidence!!!????" tossed back at me...I know!! "How to agree with everyone and make friends" nah...no chance....This message has been edited by iano, 03-Aug-2005 10:21 PM

When it is a scientific hypothesis based on observation and a literature review. Where it is located is irrelevant as to whether the statement is true. And no one except creationists (and not all of them) questions the scientific validity of the TOE. So to call that statement "breathtaking" is just a wee bit of an overstatement, no? A matter of opinion - I am sure there is a fifth grader somewhere who does - but ok I should have said "most do not". Ok now you are just being argumentative. There is no requirement to show evidence for the efficacy of scientific training. By definition training in science gives one the ability to practice science just as training in medicine gives one the ability to practice medicine for the most part - yes there are exceptions but that is where peer review comes in. How is this relevant? Nice dodge of a key point when you clearly have no response. If you had one you would have given it. Well, it may be irrelevant to the thread title, but it is a legitimate question in the context of trying to understand why you single out the study of evolution as "indoctrination" of all of the fields of higher education. Yes and so what? I never claimed that. But you did make the claim that repetition was akin to indoctrination.

I don't understand how that answers my question about using quotes that do not actually exist? in fact, you avoided answering either of my questions.My post doesn't not need to be longer than that because it's a very straightforward question.My question is very very simple: WHY have you quotes that do not actually exist? I'm starting to think you are not quite as unfamilar with this board as you claim....This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 03-Aug-2005 05:48 PM

It is possible to make a mistake on picking up quotes. However, when it happens more than once and the mistake isn't acknowledged or shown to be not a mistake there is a real problem.It is a form of dishonesty to deliberately make up quotes. Since you don't want to leave the impression that this is the case I suggest that you clear up the confusion regarding this.If you feel that this isn't important than I'd have to say that you aren't all that welcome. An honest attempt to debate in good faith is required here.

quote:

---

Charles said:When you turned up I thought from the op that at last we had another creationist who might give us something worth debating.. Sadly it seems you are just like the rest, constantly evading the issue and unable to support what is said.

​

To make things even worse you (with the post I am addressing) then perform the classic creationist trick of both arguing the scientist not the science AND quoting-mining.

​

I was so hopeful....
EvC Forum: All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated
  —charles said

---

quote:

---

Sch said:I don't have the time to research each of these quotes, but I'll offer a rebuttal to the first one.

​

Professor Louis Bounoure, President of the Biologial Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum before becoming Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific research said (rather witheringly):

​

"Evolutionism is a fairy-tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless"
(Cited in The Advocate, 8th March 1984. P.17)
E.T. Babinski actually contacted French authorities. They revealed that Louis Bounoure never served as Director or even a member of the CNRS. He was a professor of biology at the University of Strasbourg. Bounoure was a Christian but did not affirm that Genesis was to be taken to the letter.

​

The beginning of the quotation, "Evolution is a fairy tale for adults" is not from Bounoure but adapted from Jean Rostand, a member of the Academy of Sciences of the French Academy.

​

Sidan hittades inte – Mwillett Debate Unlimited – Fretagande, politik och samhlle

​

Page Not Found - HolySmoke!

​

By the way, I doubt anyone making this claim actually read anything by Bounoure in "The Advocate". People are getting this from Hovind.

---

quote:

---

Kongstad saidHi iano

​

What 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?--

​

http://EvC Forum: All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated -->EvC Forum: All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated

---

quote:

---

Charles saidAs 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.

​

http://EvC Forum: All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated -->EvC Forum: All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated

---

just so there is no confusion about what we are talking about - Iano never replied to any of those enquires by any of those poster. There is also a darwin quote taken out of context and ar least one other

Hi, Iano. See why I insisted you start your own topic? This is a tough crowd. There is justifiable pride at the rigor of peer-reviewed science, compared to which this thread was a cake-walk.If you want a more focused debate, consider The Great Debate, listed just above this 'Is It Science?' forum in the Science Forums list. You can contact a moderator or admin to explore the possibility of a moderated debate with one interlocutor.My impression (truly no offense intended) is that you are an exceptionally intelligent person too often satisfied with cleverness: how often we use our gifts to make life easy rather than extending ourselves to the limit!'Tis easy to get used to being a big fish in a small pond, and get taken aback by the big fish in the big pond...But both intelligence and cleverness are valuable traits, and it would be a shame for EvC to lose what you have to offer.Just don't challenge me--I'm a newbie, too, not yet ready for prime time.

It is not a tough crowd if one follows some basic rules.Don't make unsupported assertions.
Don't make up quotes or take quotes from creationist websites.
Take the time to find out how science works and know the meaning of "scientific theory."
Don't act surprised and hurt when someone disagrees with you and states it openly. It is a debate forum after all. if you want your ego stroked, this is the wrong place for you to be.

Exactly.

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