Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jack the Bodiless · 03-22-2002, 12:20 AM

Randman:

You still haven't explained why you appear to support the "creation science" movement, the largest conspiracy of lies and misinformation in the Western world.

How did your dissatisfaction with the teaching of evolution lead to support for a belief system that consists entirely of hoaxes and unsupported assertions presented as fact?

I am genuinely curious about this.

Oolon Colluphid · 03-22-2002, 12:51 AM

I can't place them at the moment, but I'm sure both 1 and 4 are very old pictures -- in the region of fifty years at least. And, Mr Randman, in what 'kind' would you put it, even if no4 were spot on?

Edited to add: And have you ever heard of congenital hypertrichosis? I wonder why that sort of thing might be possible... or the numerous examples of babies born with tails...?

Oolon

[ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]

MrDarwin · 03-22-2002, 05:31 AM

Umm.... has anybody noticed that despite the pictures being numbered, this collection of "Neandertal reconstructions" has an ambiguous title and completely lacks a legend or explananation? I assume that it is simply showing the history of reconstructions, but sure, it's bad science. I would suggest sending an email to whomever put together this website to let them know just how confusing or misleading it is. My question is, who are these people and why are they presenting this information in the first place?

But once again, I am amazed that randman gets so worked up over something that is a popularization rather than the primary science literature, and then claims it reflects badly on science. What it reflects badly on is the popularizations, and it's one reason why scientists don't rely on things like National Geographic for their primary sources of scientific information.

Of course, I have yet to hear randman admit that Harun Yahya's demonstrated lies about Pakicetus reflect badly on creationism, or on randman's arguments when he cited them.

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

LiveFreeOrDie · 03-22-2002, 05:58 AM

The great Oracle of Rand wrote:

Quote:

As far as your questions, there are a variety of reasons, and personally, I don't claim to understand all of them.

If you don't understand the reasons behind the conclusion, then why do you go around spouting the conclusion as if it were true?

Quote:

However, I do think certain misconceptions are passed down as fact despite being speculation within the estblished scientific community. Mayeb this is because sensationalized stuff grabs more headlines, and maybe more dollars.

"Misconceptions" are not "lies". "Maybe" is a pretty unconvincing argument.

Quote:

Nonetheless, I don't think the kind of reservation that should be shown as far as science is what typifies evolutionists presentation in the public arena. Maybe you can tell me why.

You have to understand, rand, that to the scientific community evolution and common descent are considered just as well established as Newton's laws or Einstein's relativity. Do you think those subjects should be treated with more "reservation" and "speculation"?

Quote:

As far as public ed, I think you can make a good case for certain ideological persuasions dominating the education field.

Even if you could (which I doubt), that's a long way from explaining the motivations and methods used to promolugate the teaching of lies to our children.

Quote:

But I think the willingness ot allow data that is false or speculative to be passed off as fact is a serious problem for the evolutionist camp, and I haven't seen a willingness to admit to the problem and fix it.

Creationists are the only ones who seem to think there is a problem, and they haven't been able to make their case persuasively enough to convince anyone else. How can "evolutionists" admit to and fix a problem that nobody but creationists thinks exists?

Quote:

Hey, different groups have historical problems. Hoaxes, speculations, and sensationalism have been historical problems for evolutionists.

"Hoaxes, speculations, and sensationalism" are as old as civilization itself. In fact, I would argue that the scientific method was developed in large part to counteract exactly this sort of thing.

Quote:

Evolutionists as a whole have not owned up to it as they ought.

The problem, randman, is that no one but creationists believes there is any "it" to own up to.

Kosh · 03-22-2002, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:

OK, I don't know he lied, but he is misinformed, and should not be making false statements about creationists, and also passing off speculation as evidence.

Hmm.... I think we just got to the root of the
problem here. Any psychologists on the board?
It would seem, based on all his rantings, that
Randman is lashing out about the teachings he
received from a particular teacher in high school.

Now we see that the teacher said something about creationists as well.

It looks to me like this is Randmans
psychosis over the emotional scars left from some
teacher (science teacher?) who insulted Randmans
creationism views, and probably laughed at
Randman in class when Randman said stupid things.

Randman... get over it. Get over High School, most
people move on from the childishness of High
School. It's time for you do that as well.

MrDarwin · 03-22-2002, 06:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
Hey, different groups have historical problems. Hoaxes, speculations, and sensationalism have been historical problems for evolutionists.

Hmmm, I wonder if "hoaxes, speculations, and sensationalism" have been "historical problems" for creationists? Might want to check out this discussion:
<a href="http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=000497" target="_blank">An invitation to Randman</a>

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

randman · 03-22-2002, 10:09 AM

In typical fashion, there is no real apology, nor sense of dishonesty, in the way evolutionists hgave historically used hoaxes, overstatements, and propaganda techniques via imagery to make their case.
Why am I not surprised?
Why would anyone take current evolutionist claims seriously when there is such a relectuance to acknowledge using sensationalized tactics to persuade people?
By the way, evolution is taught long before high school. I did not have a bad experience at all with my biology teacher. I am just sensitive to propoganda techniques, and don't like to see them employed under the guise of education.

randman · 03-22-2002, 10:25 AM

". Truth be told, every fossil is a transitional between one thing and another. You and I are transitionals, or rather will be when compared to our ancestors and descendents."

The old everything is transitional argument.
LOL, my point exactly. Since all evidence must, of course, fit into evolutionary theory, hey it's falsifiable. It has to be true. Everything is transitional, everything is transitional, but if anyone is stating the obvious fallacy of this circular reasoning must be taking quotes out of context and lying, eh?
If you don't think you are advocating circular reasoning, then you simply suffer from a very poor education.

McDarwin, popularizer media and frequently error-ridden textbooks such a National Geographic are the chief means evolutionists educate the public and convince them to keep funding their research.
The link I linked to was simply one that was used here to debunk (lol) the AIG articles, but it actually confirms both AIG's point and mine.
I suggest the evolutionists here do a better job of making it clear to their colleagues that this type of technique is not the way to go.
I suggest they fully address overstatements in the media when they happen, and thus earn back some of the respect of the 40% plus of the American public that no longer trusts them, and their conclusions.
As far as creationism, I acknowedged the error one person pointed out about exagerrating the lack of bones in the whale-like fossil that was done in AIG, but I still see contradictory evidence between National Geographic and Nature's depiction of the walking whale, and I think some internet sites like TalkOrigins are more on the level of National Geographic, or actually lower. I originally came to this site looking for good evolutionist links. What I have been given is of a poor level of scholarship, such as the one still maintaining outdated pictures of Neanderthal.

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

hezekiah jones · 03-22-2002, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
What I have been given is of a poor level of scholarship, such as the one still maintaining outdated pictures of Neanderthal.

You gave us that link!

Dr Rick · 03-22-2002, 10:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
In typical fashion, there is no real apology, nor sense of dishonesty...I am just sensitive to propoganda techniques.

Randman dishonestly employs propaganda by claiming that his threads are being closed when they have simply been moved to more appropriate forums; he has not apoligized for this or any of his other outright lies.

03-22-2002, 12:51 AM	#42
Oolon Colluphid Contributor Join Date: Sep 2000 Location: Alibi: ego ipse hinc extermino Posts: 12,591	I can't place them at the moment, but I'm sure both 1 and 4 are very old pictures -- in the region of fifty years at least. And, Mr Randman, in what 'kind' would you put it, even if no4 were spot on? Edited to add: And have you ever heard of congenital hypertrichosis? I wonder why that sort of thing might be possible... or the numerous examples of babies born with tails...? Oolon [ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>

03-22-2002, 05:31 AM	#43
MrDarwin Veteran Member Join Date: May 2001 Location: Washington, DC Posts: 4,140	Umm.... has anybody noticed that despite the pictures being numbered, this collection of "Neandertal reconstructions" has an ambiguous title and completely lacks a legend or explananation? I assume that it is simply showing the history of reconstructions, but sure, it's bad science. I would suggest sending an email to whomever put together this website to let them know just how confusing or misleading it is. My question is, who are these people and why are they presenting this information in the first place? But once again, I am amazed that randman gets so worked up over something that is a popularization rather than the primary science literature, and then claims it reflects badly on science. What it reflects badly on is the popularizations, and it's one reason why scientists don't rely on things like National Geographic for their primary sources of scientific information. Of course, I have yet to hear randman admit that Harun Yahya's demonstrated lies about Pakicetus reflect badly on creationism, or on randman's arguments when he cited them. [ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: MrDarwin ]</p>

03-22-2002, 10:25 AM	#48
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	". Truth be told, every fossil is a transitional between one thing and another. You and I are transitionals, or rather will be when compared to our ancestors and descendents." The old everything is transitional argument. LOL, my point exactly. Since all evidence must, of course, fit into evolutionary theory, hey it's falsifiable. It has to be true. Everything is transitional, everything is transitional, but if anyone is stating the obvious fallacy of this circular reasoning must be taking quotes out of context and lying, eh? If you don't think you are advocating circular reasoning, then you simply suffer from a very poor education. McDarwin, popularizer media and frequently error-ridden textbooks such a National Geographic are the chief means evolutionists educate the public and convince them to keep funding their research. The link I linked to was simply one that was used here to debunk (lol) the AIG articles, but it actually confirms both AIG's point and mine. I suggest the evolutionists here do a better job of making it clear to their colleagues that this type of technique is not the way to go. I suggest they fully address overstatements in the media when they happen, and thus earn back some of the respect of the 40% plus of the American public that no longer trusts them, and their conclusions. As far as creationism, I acknowedged the error one person pointed out about exagerrating the lack of bones in the whale-like fossil that was done in AIG, but I still see contradictory evidence between National Geographic and Nature's depiction of the walking whale, and I think some internet sites like TalkOrigins are more on the level of National Geographic, or actually lower. I originally came to this site looking for good evolutionist links. What I have been given is of a poor level of scholarship, such as the one still maintaining outdated pictures of Neanderthal. [ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]</p>

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

03-22-2002, 12:20 AM	#41
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	Randman: You still haven't explained why you appear to support the "creation science" movement, the largest conspiracy of lies and misinformation in the Western world. How did your dissatisfaction with the teaching of evolution lead to support for a belief system that consists entirely of hoaxes and unsupported assertions presented as fact? I am genuinely curious about this.

03-22-2002, 10:09 AM	#47
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	In typical fashion, there is no real apology, nor sense of dishonesty, in the way evolutionists hgave historically used hoaxes, overstatements, and propaganda techniques via imagery to make their case. Why am I not surprised? Why would anyone take current evolutionist claims seriously when there is such a relectuance to acknowledge using sensationalized tactics to persuade people? By the way, evolution is taught long before high school. I did not have a bad experience at all with my biology teacher. I am just sensitive to propoganda techniques, and don't like to see them employed under the guise of education.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.