All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.