Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Malaclypse the Younger · 03-22-2002, 02:07 PM

randman

Quote:

Misrepresntation, hmmm...It's kind of like all those people who insisted the Bill and Monica thing was a myth until the dress was found.

So you do understand "misrepresentation".

Quote:

They can say they honestly did not know better, that they really thought Bill was innocent, but I guess you could also argue over the definition of what is is.

Precisely. People were wrong about Bill and Monica. That's not misrepresentation. Buy a dictionary.

Quote:

Look into for yourself. One of the links suggested here pointed out many scientists considered the evidence of arthritis so obvious as to raise the question of intentional misrepresentation, though it has been claimed this was done for creationist purposes, but beyond the initial error, why are such errors continually perpetuated in the teaching of evolution.

Which link? It costs you little to simply repost the link, so we're not given the continued impression that you're a lying weasel.

What is the error? Where is the evidence that it's being "continually perpetrated".

You've already shown us ample evidence that you are either a liar or really too stupid to understand the difference between fact and nonfact. Your assertions carry no weight at all.

Quote:

At some point, I think misrepresentation is an apt phrase.

The point is when someone knows the truth (or has no excuse not to know the truth) and lies about it. Much like many of your own statements.

Quote:

By the way, I did point out how the guy from the University of Chicago who wrote the 1995 Wolrdbook section on "evolution" makes statements that appear to be misrepresentations such as claiming creationists beleive that no species can evolve from another.

Many creationists do appear to believe that no species (kind) can evolve from another. This statement is true; and thus it is not a misrepresentation.

Quote:

He also claims the motivation for critics of evolution is due to religious prejudices. I think misrepresentation as an apt word for that.

Again, this is true, therefore it's not a misrepresentation.

Quote:

In fact, there is quite a bit of misrepresentations that many in the evolutionist camp make to convince others that their critics are wrong.

Only indoctrinated dishonest cult weasels.

Malaclypse the Younger · 03-22-2002, 02:24 PM

randman

Quote:

Well, I was raised to beleive in evolution, and my parents did not make a lot of comments on the Bible, but they certainly did not beleive it was all the word of God.

Good for them. They must be terribly disappointed in you now.

Quote:

I think most Americans are indeed raised to beleive evolution is true...

They are because it is.

Quote:

...although that may be changing somewhat as the overstatements and myth-making of evolutionists have been more publicized in the past 20 years.

You have proven not a single "myth" of evolution. Only errors, which are expected.

Quote:

What utterly convinced me to reject evolution when I was asked to look into myself with an open mind. I considered the evidence I was taught that suppossedly affirmed evolution, and what I found is that the fossil record, for instance, did not show species gradually changing into new species and such.

It is unclear whether you have enough of a mind to be open. To date, you have not shown us any reason to believe you have actually examined any evidence, what criteria you examined the evidence against, or even understand scientific evidentiary arguments at all.

And we have enough evidence of your dishonesty to suspect that you are simply lying; that you really rejected evidence because of your religious beliefs, and your "open minded examination" is a pure fabrication.

Quote:

Maybe I got the wrong impression, but it seemed to me evolution was suppossedly so well-founded that there were thousands of clear cases of gradual evolutionary, and incremental changes documenting these diagrams we were all shown of the evolutionary tree...

There are thousands of clear cases of gradual evolutionary and incremental changes. You have been shown dozens of them on this very board.

Quote:

... and as I learned that was a false impression...

It is unclear if you have learned anything; it seems only that you have simply swallowed a lump of ego-gratifying cult indoctrination.

Quote:

I talked to other people that also beleived evolution was true, many of whom were very well-educated to see what their impression of what they were tuaght concerning evolution...

I have difficulty believing anyone even moderately scientifically well-educated would waste their time conversing with you. In fact again, I suspect you are either lying or confusing theology with education.

Quote:

...and what I came away with is that it seemed the scientific community may be more aware of the actual data to some extent, but they perpetuate false impressions to convince the public that evolution has more data behind it than it does.

If this were actually true, you would have actual evidence. But you do not. You offer your own opinion and assertions; and your honesty and intelligence have been constantly impeached.

Quote:

Even an MD, an orthopeadic surgeon, shared many of the same false impressions that I had based on what we were told in school.

It should be noted that orthopedic surgery does not require any education in evolutionary biology. Do you get your opinions on quantum mechanics from your plumber?

Quote:

The more I looked into it, the more it appeared the whole thing was a house of cards designed as a propaganda campaign.

A cult-indoctrinated idiot finds evolution implausible! Shut down the universities! Fire all the scientists!

Of course you find evolution implausible. It denies your ego-boosting cult mythology. We're supposed to be impressed by that?

Quote:

Now, as I have learned more, I can see a little more of why evolutionists beleive they are right...

Because the evidence leads us inexorably to that conclusion.

Quote:

...not that I agree...

We get that.

Quote:

...but at the same time, the hallmarks of propaganda are still there.

You have not shown a single hallmark of propaganda. You merely assert it's true. Of course we already know that you will label as propaganda any opinion that disagrees with your egocentric cult indoctrinated delusions. Again, quelle suprise.

Quote:

There is still the reluctance to fully disavow passing off things that they know are more speculative in nature as fact.

That's because they are proven to be fact.

Quote:

There is still the false characterization of what their critics say, such as claiming creationists don't beleive any speciation occurs...

As noted, many creationists do believe that speciation does not occur. You do not speak for all creationists.

Quote:

...and there is still the hostility within a large portion of the evolutionist camp that is evidence of people who have come to to their conclusions based on indoctrination rather than objective analysis.

We are hostile because you are trying to force your morally corrupt dishonest cult indoctrination in our schools.

And you wouldn't know an objective analysis if it bit you on the ass. You've never performed on on this board.

hezekiah jones · 03-22-2002, 03:18 PM

This thread is a riot.

Despite the fact that randman has consistently and comically failed to provide any non-refutable examples of evolutionary "propaganda," or examples that have not been unequivocally shown to be obsolete, that is, superceded and corrected by more current evidence and understanding, he at least has learned to correctly spell the word "propaganda."

I would like to submit to the panel this evidence of randman's personal stepwise accumulation of information. Hey, it ain't much, but credit must be given where credit is due.

Pomp · 03-22-2002, 03:41 PM

You know, I just now read the article linked to in the OP which randman presented as AIG's best argument. I hadn't read it previously simply because I don't have the background to argue scientific matters intelligently. Having now read it, one question occirs to me:

Am I the only one who finds it encouraging that AIG's "best argument" is an anecdotal piece based upon the inability of students in an apologetics class to disprove the work of professional scientists?

hezekiah jones · 03-22-2002, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Pompous Bastard:
Am I the only one who finds it encouraging that AIG's "best argument" is an anecdotal piece based upon the inability of students in an apologetics class to disprove the work of professional scientists?

Yes, it's pretty comical. Some of the students (the best researchers, no less) are unable to find any information in "several" university libraries, which, if they're anything like the one I go to, subscribe to virtually every scientific journal published since the 19th century, complete with searchable databases.

Yet Lubenow can whip a paper out of his drawer bearing the holy grail that eluded the students' two-week missions. Either Lubenow is feeding them entirely bogus information, or else his students don't even know how to use a city directory.

And this is apparently the same Lubenow who, it has been pointed out <a href="http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/aprilfool.html" target="_blank">by notto</a> a couple times now, actually believed a scientist named "Todkopf" (that's "Deadhead" in German) had unearthed evidence of a Neanderthal-era fife and drum marching band that some pranksters had concocted as an April Fools joke.

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiahjones ]

randman · 03-22-2002, 04:10 PM

Uh, please note that when some of you label me a liar or some such, I don't bother reading the rest of your post. Hope you enjoy playing with yourself.

Pompous, I called it the best argument if the underlying data implied in the article is true.
I kind of hoped that someone here would post an up-to-date chart like the class makes, but seeing as how that has not been done, I have to conclude the AIG article is probably right, that such thorough analysis is not taught and known too much.

I am also not surprised you didn't read it before posting on this thread. I don'think many of you do bother to read, nor understand what critics of evolution are saying. It is much easier to just spin such as slamming me, which was done last time, for pointing out that the old idea of Neanderthal was based on a single man's bones who sufferred from arthritis.
never mind that I was simply stating fact.

Heck, I saw one guy here lambast a creationist for referring to the British Museum, and implied the creationist thought there was only one museum in Britian

I almost never hear a clear retraction from an evolutionist when one is shown to be wrong.
In fact,they almost always find a way to defend their errors instead of repent of them.

hezekiah jones · 03-22-2002, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
I called it the best argument if the underlying data implied in the article is true.

What do you mean, if the underlying data is [sic] true? Are you not, unlike Lubenow's incompetent mini-researchers, capable of verifying it yourself?

Unless of course you mean this data, which underlies the text of Lubenow's little opera bouffe:

Quote:

If this information has been a blessing to you, please consider a <a href="http://www.answersingenesis.org/donate/" target="_blank">donation</a> to help us continue this faith-building service to you and your family!

P.S. Lubenow believed that Neanderthals played bagpipes with their noses.

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiahjones ]

MrDarwin · 03-22-2002, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
Uh, please note that when some of you label me a liar or some such, I don't bother reading the rest of your post.

Yes, we have indeed all noticed this. We have noticed how conveniently it gets randman out of the sticky situation of having to explain how it is he's not making things up, when he has just been demonstrated to be mendacious.

Still wondering about those "land-based" whales and why we can't find Nebraska Man in the Scopes trial transcript...

Dr Rick · 03-22-2002, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
Uh, please note that when some of you label me a liar or some such, I don't bother reading the rest of your post. Hope you enjoy playing with yourself.

From his failure to respond in any substantative manner, it appears that randman doesn't bother to read any of the posts; however, most of us are posting for the interest of others including the many lurkers and not because we're the least bit concerned what randman thinks.

randman · 03-22-2002, 09:10 PM

The impact of the Scopes Monkey trial was the media campaign associated with it, and that was fairly obvious. The evolutionist actually lost the trial itself, though later overturned on a technicality on appeal.

Your comments trying to pretend otherwise are simply wrong.

The Nebraska man hoax was a part of the media campaign, as you well know. The whole thing had little to do with the case itself, but was a pretext to launch a major campiagn for evolution because it was a means of promoting athiesm, and at the time, atheism was associated with a left-wing agenda, and the left felt it was important politically to get behind evolutionary theory for political purposes.

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]

03-22-2002, 09:10 PM	#120
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	The impact of the Scopes Monkey trial was the media campaign associated with it, and that was fairly obvious. The evolutionist actually lost the trial itself, though later overturned on a technicality on appeal. Your comments trying to pretend otherwise are simply wrong. The Nebraska man hoax was a part of the media campaign, as you well know. The whole thing had little to do with the case itself, but was a pretext to launch a major campiagn for evolution because it was a means of promoting athiesm, and at the time, atheism was associated with a left-wing agenda, and the left felt it was important politically to get behind evolutionary theory for political purposes. [ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-22-2002, 03:18 PM	#113
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	This thread is a riot. Despite the fact that randman has consistently and comically failed to provide any non-refutable examples of evolutionary "propaganda," or examples that have not been unequivocally shown to be obsolete, that is, superceded and corrected by more current evidence and understanding, he at least has learned to correctly spell the word "propaganda." I would like to submit to the panel this evidence of randman's personal stepwise accumulation of information. Hey, it ain't much, but credit must be given where credit is due.

03-22-2002, 03:41 PM	#114
Pomp Veteran Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Indianapolis area Posts: 3,468	You know, I just now read the article linked to in the OP which randman presented as AIG's best argument. I hadn't read it previously simply because I don't have the background to argue scientific matters intelligently. Having now read it, one question occirs to me: Am I the only one who finds it encouraging that AIG's "best argument" is an anecdotal piece based upon the inability of students in an apologetics class to disprove the work of professional scientists?

03-22-2002, 04:10 PM	#116
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Uh, please note that when some of you label me a liar or some such, I don't bother reading the rest of your post. Hope you enjoy playing with yourself. Pompous, I called it the best argument if the underlying data implied in the article is true. I kind of hoped that someone here would post an up-to-date chart like the class makes, but seeing as how that has not been done, I have to conclude the AIG article is probably right, that such thorough analysis is not taught and known too much. I am also not surprised you didn't read it before posting on this thread. I don'think many of you do bother to read, nor understand what critics of evolution are saying. It is much easier to just spin such as slamming me, which was done last time, for pointing out that the old idea of Neanderthal was based on a single man's bones who sufferred from arthritis. never mind that I was simply stating fact. Heck, I saw one guy here lambast a creationist for referring to the British Museum, and implied the creationist thought there was only one museum in Britian I almost never hear a clear retraction from an evolutionist when one is shown to be wrong. In fact,they almost always find a way to defend their errors instead of repent of them.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.