Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   All Evolutionary scientists have been Evolutionary Indoctrinated
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 76 of 312 (227866)
07-30-2005 3:57 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by randman
07-30-2005 3:53 PM


Moderator intervention required
quote:
Yawn. I said there was a botany professor that was a creationist, and you asked for his name, and here it is.
No you went further than than - you said:
quote:
i certainly did, and quite a few others have as well. There is a botany professor at NC State and quite a few other scientists who have looked at the evidence, and found evolutionism to be wanting.
Why lie - when it's plain to see for all?
I have quite reasonable asked to see the evidence, your reply is the following drivel:
quote:
Heck, you might as well have asked some Jews to join the SS back in the 30s in hopes they could make their case there.
Moderators: I would ask that Randman be asked to support or Retract his position on this matter.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 30-Jul-2005 04:00 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by randman, posted 07-30-2005 3:53 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by randman, posted 07-30-2005 4:03 PM CK has replied
 Message 136 by randman, posted 08-01-2005 3:39 AM CK has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 77 of 312 (227867)
07-30-2005 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by CK
07-30-2005 3:52 PM


Re: At least one bogus quote
Charles, someone either made a mistake or lied somewhere along the line, but the people using this quote generally are not lying since they have acted in good faith believing the quote is true.
Quotes being falsely attributed are a common thing across the board in the human experience.
The critical factor I was pointing out was that the quote reflected the scientist's sentiments in that he rejects evolution. So even if someone mixed up the quotes of another anti-evolutionist with this scientist, they still had it right that this guy does not accept evolution.
You or someone earlier on this thread acted as if there were not hundreds or thousands of scientists that reject evolution, and that is false because there are indeed.
Too bad you are so petty you won't just admit to that fact, but that seems to be par for the course.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by CK, posted 07-30-2005 3:52 PM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 83 by ringo, posted 07-30-2005 4:15 PM randman has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 78 of 312 (227868)
07-30-2005 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by randman
07-30-2005 3:53 PM


Re: Papers
Well, what you actually said was:
There is a botany professor at NC State and quite a few other scientists who have looked at the evidence, and found evolutionism to be wanting.
(Ain't computers wonderful. Everything you say is right there - unless you rewrite history. )
Added by edit: Charles beat me to the draw.
So, how about naming "quite a few others"?
This message has been edited by Ringo316, 2005-07-30 02:02 PM

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by randman, posted 07-30-2005 3:53 PM randman has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Chiroptera, posted 07-30-2005 4:03 PM ringo has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 312 (227869)
07-30-2005 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by ringo
07-30-2005 4:01 PM


Re: Papers
Quite a few Americans live in Ketchikan, Alaska. I can even name a bunch of them. But what does this have to do with the demographics of the United States?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by ringo, posted 07-30-2005 4:01 PM ringo has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 80 of 312 (227870)
07-30-2005 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by CK
07-30-2005 3:57 PM


Re: Moderator intervention required
So you are claiming the NC State botany professor has not looked at the evidence, eh?
Gimme a freaking break!
I have personally sat at a presentation of the evidence, by him, in the 80s, which was quite impressive.
No, you are just full of crap here buddy because you want to insist the guy publish papers critical of evolution in journals where you and I both know he would be severely persecuted for doing that.
If you want to find out what he has published and not published, you can do so. That's your business, not mine.
Obviously, as a long-time tenured professor, he has published, probably in his field though, and not a grant critique of evolution, but who knows? Maybe he has. I doubt a journal controlled by evolutionists would ever admit such am article, and if one did, the editor or editors responsible would likely put their careers in danger.
This message has been edited by randman, 07-30-2005 04:04 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by CK, posted 07-30-2005 3:57 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by CK, posted 07-30-2005 4:08 PM randman has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 81 of 312 (227871)
07-30-2005 4:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by iano
07-29-2005 6:29 PM


indoctrination of a nation, subjugation of damnation
Scientists who believe in evolution are people. People now and people before they were scientists. When they were just people, these folk heard about evolution
Agreed.
And what they would have heard is a single, unified and repeated message. And that message was: "Evolution is FACT!".
That life has changed throughout a long period of time, starting with invertebrates and going through fish/amphibians/reptiles/mammals is as much of a fact as we can have.
Given that science is complex, how could anyone be sure evolution was true without achieving the necessary degree of education and experience which would allow them to evaluate for themselves the complex evidence involved?
Agreed, and vice versa, can anyone be totally sure they have falsified evolution without achieving the education/experience?
How do people who become evolution-believing scientists know that a belief which arose in them when they were uninformed, isn't the main reason why they believe today? In other words, could indoctrination, prior to them becoming scientists, ensure that every piece of evidence, every hypothesis, every conclusion they make, is pre-filtered through evolution-tinted spectacles?
Possibly but not necessarily, and I'd be surprised if this was true in 100% of cases. Generally speaking we learn a little about evolution and accept it, then when further study is started, it raises some questions that need a lot more study to answer.
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. Or to put it another way, it is impossible for them to demonstrate that they aren't wearing evolution-tinted spectacles every time they weigh up evidence.
This is true for everything. No human can claim they are objective. However, when the theory was first postulated scientists wore Creation-tinted spectacles and were convinced to go the other way. This seems to me to indicate the evidence for evolution was stronger than evidence for any other idea (eg creation/teleology)
. Let me sum up by coining a phrase in saying that evolutionary-believing scientists have been subject to evolutionary indoctrination, henceforth EI, and that one logical outworking of this, should my case hold together, is that evolution has no basis in fact.
non-sequitur. If some indoctrinations have taken place it does not mean that the doctrine that is being indoctrinated is not based in fact.
There is no scientific alternative presented which says our existance is the result of another mechanism (or if there is, it's, relatively speaking, a side issue and not comparable to the mass-influence of the MI - the cogs and gears of which are listed above).
Alas - this is because there hasn't been an alternative scientific argument formulated. The problem, there is a confusion between ToE and Evolution. This indoctrination you speak of generally revolves around Evolution...that life has changed on earth over time. There is usually some reference to common descent and descent with modification.
To date, nobody has proposed an explanation for the fossil record which says anything other that 'Life on earth has changed over time' without invoking either a miracle or some untested hypothesis. So we start with the observation that life has changed over time.
To explain how life has changed over time we refer to the Theory of Evolution, starting with its first formulation by Darwin which involves descent with modification, heredity and natural selection. Nothing has come along to falsify this theory, though there are some questions which do not have full or satisfying answers.
I have been writing this response whilst at work, and haven't had time to keep an eye on how the thread has developed, if I've covered ground already discussed, accept my apologies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by iano, posted 07-29-2005 6:29 PM iano has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Chiroptera, posted 07-30-2005 4:16 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 130 by iano, posted 07-31-2005 5:36 PM Modulous has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 82 of 312 (227872)
07-30-2005 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 80 by randman
07-30-2005 4:03 PM


More RANDMAN horseshit and evasion 100 prize on offer
quote:
So you are claiming the NC State botany professor has not looked at the evidence, eh? Gimme a freaking break!
I have personally sat at a presentation of the evidence, by him, in the 80s, which was quite impressive.
No, you are just full of crap here buddy because you want to insist the guy publish papers critical of evolution in journals where you and I both know he would be severely persecuted for doing that.
If you want to find out what he has published and not published, you can do so. That's your business, not mine.
Obviously, as a long-time tenured professor, he has published, probably in his field though, and not a grant critique of evolution, but who knows? Maybe he has. I doubt a journal controlled by evolutionists would ever admit such am article, and if one did, the editor or editors responsible would likely put their careers in danger.
I will pay 100 to the charity of choice to anyone who can identity the evidence in the above post. Note: something some claims they saw 20 years is not considered "evidence" - well unless you are a creationist.
Why are you wasting our time with this pathetic display? You make yourself like an complete tool.
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 30-Jul-2005 04:09 PM
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 30-Jul-2005 04:21 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 80 by randman, posted 07-30-2005 4:03 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by randman, posted 07-30-2005 4:36 PM CK has replied

ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 83 of 312 (227874)
07-30-2005 4:15 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by randman
07-30-2005 4:00 PM


Re: At least one bogus quote
... someone either made a mistake or lied somewhere along the line, but the people using this quote generally are not lying since they have acted in good faith believing the quote is true.
Maybe this should be in a topic by itself, but:
How many lies have to be exposed before the thing being lied about is suspect? And how many lies have to be exposed before the person spreading them becomes a liar?
"Good faith" is all well and good, but science has higher standards than you do.

People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by randman, posted 07-30-2005 4:00 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by randman, posted 07-30-2005 4:51 PM ringo has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 84 of 312 (227875)
07-30-2005 4:16 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Modulous
07-30-2005 4:05 PM


Re: indoctrination of a nation, subjugation of damnation
quote:
I...haven't had time to keep an eye on how the thread has developed....
Boy, are you in for a shock!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Modulous, posted 07-30-2005 4:05 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Modulous, posted 07-30-2005 5:30 PM Chiroptera has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 85 of 312 (227889)
07-30-2005 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by CK
07-30-2005 4:08 PM


Re: More RANDMAN horseshit and evasion 100 prize on offer
You, sir, are a liar, and it's clear to all here. You demanded the name of the professor, and I gave it to you, and in fact, his e-mail address.
I'll tell you what. Why don't we deal with a far, far larger number, say $10,000?
And we can make this personal, if legal, and if not legal, and I suppose it may not be, we can do the charity thing.
Before we do this challenge, I need to know if you will accept the professor's affadavit of the particular meeting in question as conclusive evidence?
I can provide at least 2 other affadavits as well.
Interested in putting up 10K?
Of course, that money will need to be escrowed somewhere to make sure no one welches on the challenge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by CK, posted 07-30-2005 4:08 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by CK, posted 07-30-2005 4:39 PM randman has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 86 of 312 (227890)
07-30-2005 4:39 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by randman
07-30-2005 4:36 PM


RANDMAN IS A LYING BULLSHITTER.
Ah I've seen this tactic before - you are trying to push me out of the marketplace.
quote:
You demanded the name of the professor, and I gave it to you, and in fact, his e-mail address.
Well let's do this properly - we know my name is Charles Knight. What is yours?
(I think I know what is going on here - Randman WANTS to be banned to claim a moral victory).
Could you quote my lies?
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 30-Jul-2005 04:43 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by randman, posted 07-30-2005 4:36 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by randman, posted 07-30-2005 4:46 PM CK has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 87 of 312 (227895)
07-30-2005 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by CK
07-30-2005 4:39 PM


Re: RANDMAN IS A LYING BULLSHITTER.
OK Charles, are you ready to fork over some money? We can do $100 for all I care, or no money?
Just tell me how much, please?
Btw, to not take advantage of you, you might want to read the following:
The following are presentations that TASC is able to present to your church, club, or school group. Just contact us for scheduling.
1. Evidences for Creation in Contrast to Evolution - C. Gerald Van Dyke, PhD - A slide presentation of the major areas of evidences for Creation, including fossils, geology, natural laws, The Flood, and more, comparing and contrasting the scientific evidences for Creation vs. evolution: an entertaining and informative presentation.
2. Origin of Life - C. Gerald Van Dyke, PhD - The real facts about the origin of life experiments. What are the possibilities that life originated from non-life? What are the Creation implications of life forming from God speaking as the Bible says? How can DNA be formed without proteins, and how can proteins be formed without DNA? Time to bring your questions for an entertaining and informative presentation.
3. Evidences for the Worldwide Flood - C. Gerald Van Dyke, PhD
Articles Front | TASC
Clearly, the man has "looked into the evidence" and does go around teaching how evolution is wrong.
I'll be looking for your apology, and if you are a man, some money donated to the charity of my choice.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by CK, posted 07-30-2005 4:39 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by CK, posted 07-30-2005 4:50 PM randman has replied
 Message 92 by ringo, posted 07-30-2005 4:55 PM randman has replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 88 of 312 (227899)
07-30-2005 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by randman
07-30-2005 4:46 PM


RANDMAN IS A STILL A LYING BULLSHITTER.
For what? The 100 was for the evidence in the post I quoted as it quite clearly states.
Now you present a link for an INVITATION for him to come and present evidence.
It appears you are a bit slow in the head:
I want to see THE evidence. Do you have a copy of his slides? His presentation notes?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by randman, posted 07-30-2005 4:46 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Chiroptera, posted 07-30-2005 4:52 PM CK has not replied
 Message 91 by randman, posted 07-30-2005 4:54 PM CK has replied
 Message 137 by randman, posted 08-01-2005 4:00 AM CK has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 89 of 312 (227901)
07-30-2005 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 83 by ringo
07-30-2005 4:15 PM


Re: At least one bogus quote
The main point I see here is not that the quote is wrong, nor the resume, although that needs to be corrected, but that the scientist genuinely feels evolution is wrong, and does so publicly.
That is what is germane to the discussion here, and something for some odd reason you guys are not willing to concede on.
It's strange, but indicative of ideological indoctrination, because no one is arguing most scientists are suspect of evolution, and even admit the opposite, but evolutionists seem loathe to admit to basic facts and truth, one of those being there are working and respected scientists that don't accept evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by ringo, posted 07-30-2005 4:15 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by ringo, posted 07-30-2005 5:01 PM randman has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 312 (227902)
07-30-2005 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by CK
07-30-2005 4:50 PM


Not meaning any offense, guys, but do you need to be going on about this in two threads?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by CK, posted 07-30-2005 4:50 PM CK has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024