pseudobug

Well, I wondered when rantman would bring politics into the the discussion.

This is the man who gets his version of "truth" from WorldNet Daily.

But I digress...

The point is randman, it is abundently clear to me [i]what[/b] you want to substitute for evolution--a pack of lies packed by religious zealots with a political agenda.

That isn't no substitute for a.) legitimate science that b.)has corrected, on its own, the very few errors regarding evolution that have been taught.

Left up to the Christian zealots such as yourself, science would still think the mentally ill were possessed by the devil--as it says in your book of lies otherwise known as the Bible.

hezekiah jones

It was nothing but politics from post number one.

WorldNetDaily, eh? I never would have guessed.

Aethernaut

Could somebody tell me again how, exactly, does "liberal politics" controlling the National Endowment for the Arts fund research related to Evolution?

I imagine the Bavarian Illuminati, the Good Humor Man and the Knights Templar are responsible for the books being used in U.S. schools these days too.

-SK

randman

THe dishonesty and self-delusion of you guys is shocking. I was asked about why the educational system was poor in some areas, specifically why textbooks can contain so much error and outdated information.
Then, when I answer that it is the people who control the educational system's responsibility, then I am slammed for bringing up politics.
Geesh. You guys may beleive your own spin, but America isn't buying it.
By the way, here is a perfect example not related to evolution that illustrates what I am talking about. I have a popular college geology textbook with the statement, paraphrased, that "since we can never envision using any water resources other than our current fresh water supplies..." It then goes on about conservation, which in itself is fine, but note the use of propoganda techniques. First of all, we can envision anything, and secondly, we can desalinate. The whole premise is wrong. This what happens when indoctrination for political purposes is the motive in the educational system, and it is the motive, and it is wrong. It is even wrong when what is trying to be conveyed is right.
Heck, if evolution turned out to be true, evolutiionists would still be wrong as they adopted propaganda methods to indoctrinate the public.
Basically, the evolutionist community has been willing to let speculative data be passed off as fact because it benefits them.

hezekiah jones

Thanks - you just made me spit water all over my desk.

MrDarwin

This coming from the guy whose claims about Pakicetus, and more recently Nebraska Man, were exposed as somewhat less than... honest. I suppose we could blame poor randman's befuddlement about Pakicetus, the "walking whale", on Harun Yahya, whose web article about whale evolution is outright mendacious; but has randman really deluded himself into thinking that Nebraska Man was an integral part of the Scopes Monkey Trial? He claimed it's in the trial transcript, no less!

Do you really believe these things, randman, or do you just make them up as you go along?

randman

Moderator's Note: This is a cross post. I'm not going to delete it. But I urge responses to be posted in <a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000489" target="_blank">this</a> thread.

Thanx, RvFvS.


Let me give you an example of how evolution is falsely taught. I just went and opened up my 1995 Worldbook Encyclopedia and looked up "evolution."
The article is written by Jerry A. Coyne, Professor of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago. He still states "recapitulation" which I think most scientists now agree is bunk is a major evidence for evolution. He still states vestigal organs are a major evidence of evolution despite the fact that in the past this has led to outright false conclusions. The idea of vestigal organs is at best speculative, and most likely nothing but our own ignorance. He also states the fact that some crayfish have no eyes but eyestalks as evidence of evolution. I would think he is aware this is not evidence for evolution as postulated, namely common descent.
He also increduously states "creationists beleive no species evolved from one another."
This guy is a professor at one of the most prestigious universties in the world. Are we to really beleive he is unaware of the fact creationists predict rapid speciation? Remember this is from 1995, and there have been many public debates prior to this and numerous articles by IDers and creationists citing their beleifs.
I don't buy that this "professor of evolution" is being honest here, or if he is, he is not being fair and granting a fair hearing to critics of evolution who could correct some of his miconceptions, at least at the time of the article being published. Did he deliberately mistates facts in order to bolster his argument? Who knows? If it is an honest mistake, then I certainly don't think he is qualified to teach at the University of Chicago, nor write for an encyclopedia.
Btw, I just use this as a typical example. I have never met this man, but opened up the encyclopedia pretty much assurred it would contain errors, and it did. I also want it clear that I don't want to accuse this man of something if this is just an honest mistake, but I do think it is incumbent upon evolutionists to quit making such mistakes, and only present honest and measured analysis that reflects proper critical thinking, and acknowledges any weaknesses that are there fully.

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: RufusAtticus ]

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]</p>

LiveFreeOrDie

I hope you aren't including me in this group, randman, since all I've done so far is ask you some questions.

No, I asked you why children are taught lies about evolution, which is different than "error and outdated information". Are you retracting your earlier statements on other threads that schools teach lies about evolution? After all, if students were taught "accurate and up-to-date information", then they would still be taught evolution, which I don't think is what you're after.

I never slammed you randman. I just want to know what people specifically, what their motivations are, how they are able to suppress the truth, and how they benefit from the teaching of lies.

I think, randman, that the main reason no one envisions desalination as a practcal source of fresh water is because desalination is a hugely expensive and inefficient way to obtain fresh water. IIRC the only people in the world who use desalination on any significant scale are the Saudis and they: a) live in a desert, and b) have a virtually free source of energy.

Is it propaganda or is it reality?

Again, my same old questions:
Who is "the evolutionist community"?
How does teaching children lies benefit them?

I ask these questions with full and complete sincerity, so I would appreciate an answer.

LiveFreeOrDie

Please stay on the topic!

WHO lies? (just this one professor???)
WHAT is their motivation?
HOW do they benefit?
HOW do they suppress the truth?

MrDarwin

Good luck. Randman claims he read a lie, in some textbook in the 1970's, when he was in high school, that may or may not have involved Nebraska Man.