All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated

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'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.

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.

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?)

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"

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

A quick Google indicates that there is no acceptable accredition for this quote so I hereby retract it. My apologies for that and any other challenged quote which I haven't defended. I would make the point that in all cases the quotes were presented in good faith and as asides and were obviously not inteneded to form part of the body of an argument. No dishonesty intended (cos that'd be a sin!)To offset the mild discomfort many may feel having to write the above, I'll finish off this post (which I was led to understand couldn't happen due supposed 300-post limit on threads - hence my delay in responding) by displaying my new-found understanding of the art of quote-mining. The following, rather humerous quote from Sir Arthur comes from the forward to his paper "Evolution and Ethics" (G. P. Putnam's Sons, New York Copyright, 1946, 1947, by Sir Arthur Keith)"Evolution is a donkey that nearly everybody drives to market now-a days. No beast in recent years has been so over driven, so overridden, and so over burdened as this poor moke; none has become a more fit subject for the Society for Prevention of Cruelty; never was a beast in such demand."He, like me, was a young man at the time. He, like me, later retracted this claim. Though I'll warrant he had to swallow somewhat harder

Best way to get into the water is to hop right in I find. Sure, your likely to get the skin flailed from your body but there's nothing like a war to result in rapid development of technology (if you'll forgive the methaphor mixing).Thanks for the kind comments (which aren't all that accurate). Thanks for the less kind comments too(which aren't that accurate either). I see genuine difficulty with separating science from indoctrination by the mechanisms posed by folk here. The sheer unwillingness of many (but by no means all) folk here to accept(irrespective of the fact it wasn't 'proven') that it could be a factor be conciously reckoned with has only reinforced that view

Hey AA, You warned me at the outset that this place was Intellectual Cocaine. You might have mentioned that it was the cracked version that was being pushed - as opposed to the milder, powdery stuff..