Freethought & Rationalism Archive

pseudobug · 03-22-2002, 10:40 AM

This is so typical of your garbage randman:

Quote:

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.

It is unbelievable that you have the unmitigated gall to make such a statement when everything related to YEC is an has been shown to be just esactly what you claim. {b]Every piece[/b] of the so-called "evidence" form the non-existant creationist "models" has been shown to fit the above description.

Moreover, Creationists are stepped in dishonesty as they claim there "movement" is about science--well, the courts have sniffed it out for exactly what it is-- religion and politics cloaked in the guise of science.

Personally, I prefer to think of creation "science" to be the end result of a bowel movement.

Quote:

Why would anyone take current evolutionist claims seriously when there is such a relectuance to acknowledge using sensationalized tactics to persuade people?

Sorry, rantman, you should substitute creationist for evolutionist above--that is solely what you and the rest of your ilk are about.

You rant about non-existant controversies that were resolved in science by scientists decades ago.

Dark Jedi · 03-22-2002, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by rbochnermd:


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.

Damn, you just ended Randman's participation. nothing ends his conversations in a particular thread like calling him on a lie. Thus his habit of wandering off and causing the situation you point out.

randman · 03-22-2002, 11:47 AM

irreducibly complex kneee joint

<a href="http://www.trueorigin.org/knee.asp" target="_blank">http://www.trueorigin.org/knee.asp</a>

"Following on from the transport analogy of Steven Vogel, the theory of evolution is analogous to proposing that one can take the engineering drawings of a simple pivot joint used in a motorbike steering wheel and evolve them into the drawings of the steering system of a four-wheeled vehicle. The information on the drawings is equivalent to the genetic code, and random photocopying errors in the information are analogous to mutations. The evolutionist believes that the random photocopying errors will sometimes produce a slightly better system, and that via selection, eventually the steering system of the motorbike will turn into a four-bar hinge and form the steering system of a four-wheeled vehicle!"

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

randman · 03-22-2002, 11:55 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!"

Wrong, that comes directly off a web-site that you guys directed me to.

LiveFreeOrDie · 03-22-2002, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
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.

Goddamn it man will you answer the friggin' question!

Who controls the teaching of propaganda to our children?
What is their motivation for doing so?
How do they benefit from doing do?
How do they suppress the truth?

Don't you realize that if you can't provide reasonable answers to these questions you look like just another wacko conspiracy nut? Do you understand at all why this would makes people think you are dishonest and evasive?

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

randman · 03-22-2002, 12:47 PM

LiveFreeOrDie, take a hike. I am through with your BS. I answered you. The fact that textbooks and media popularize errors and propaganda is a known phenomenon. It isn't even limited to science, though you would expect science to be different than other subjects that understandably are more speculative in nature.
If you want to do a study on how it occurs, I suggest you do so.
Your last comment was idiocy.
Let me ask you something. Can you explain who mailed the anthrax out this past fall?
Maybe you actually can, but the rest of us recognize that there is a difference between observing something taking place, and fathoming the totality of how it happened.
I gave you some good places to start. Why not consider the people writing the textbooks for instance? Duh!
Why not examine who runs PBS, National Geographic, and university departments?
I think that is a good start to trying to understand the phenomenon.

Jack the Bodiless · 03-22-2002, 12:48 PM

From your "Knee-joint" link, Randman:

Quote:

According to the theory of evolution, natural mechanisms such as limb joints have evolved one characteristic at a time by random and rare genetic mistakes, called mutations. Evolutionists admit that mutations generally give rise to disability and suffering, because organisms are so delicately balanced that random changes tend to cause all kinds of malfunctions. For example, mutations are known to be responsible for serious genetic disorders such as hemophilia and cystic fibrosis. However, despite the damaging nature of mutations, evolutionists believe that sometimes there are mutations that produce an improvement in the functioning of an organism.

Lie #1: SOME mutations are beneficial. This is not a "belief": this is known fact.

Quote:

Evolutionists believe that these ‘favourable mistakes’ are inherited by offspring and accumulate so that a new species evolves. Evolution is believed despite a complete absence of indisputable evidence for the existence of any information-adding mutations

Lie #2: There are many known examples of information-adding mutations.

Quote:

Evolution is based on a key assumption that natural mechanisms within organisms can evolve incrementally so that all intermediate mechanisms have some useful function that gives a survival advantage.

Lie #3: There is no requirement that all retained mutations are beneficial. The retention of neutral mutations is known as "genetic drift".

Quote:

One of the most vocal evolutionists of our day, Richard Dawkins, is also adamant that evolution can only work if it is incremental

Not actually a "lie", perhaps, but this is not a minority view. ALL "evolutionists" believe this.

Quote:

It is important to note the confession that biologists do not make enough noise about the constraints of evolution because there is an obvious contradiction between the enormous restrictions of evolution and the obvious superiority of design in the natural world!

Lie #4: There is absolutely no contradiction here. The fact that all species comply with this restriction is powerful evidence FOR evolution.

Quote:

Since only intelligent design can produce an irreducible mechanism, the existence of irreducible mechanisms in nature demonstrates the existence of an intelligent Designer.

Lie #5: Naturalistic Darwinian evoution can produce an apparently "irreducible" mechanism. But no genuinely "unevolvable" mechanisms exist in nature.

Quote:

The identification of a set of critical characteristics provides overwhelming evidence that a natural mechanism could not have evolved.

Lie #6: A set of critical characteristics indicates that a structure has been optimized for maximum efficiency by evolution, not that it "could not have evolved".

Quote:

There are at least 16 critical characteristics in the knee joint as shown in Table 1. These are geometrical characteristics that are absolutely essential to the joint.

Lie #7: Knee joints can be MUCH simpler than this. Amphibian knee joints, for instance.

Quote:

If any one of the critical characteristics shown in Table 1 is missing, then the knee cannot function at all.

Lie #8: This statement applies to HUMAN knee joints. Nobody is suggesting that humans once lurched around on dysfunctional knees.

Quote:

The knee joint presents a major challenge to the evolutionist because it is unique, and because there are no intermediate forms of joint between a condylar joint and the other two limb joints found in animals and humans - the ball and socket joint and the pivot joint.

Lie #9: Any pivot joint with cartilage acting to protect the joint (a proto-kneecap) would be transitional. Further transitions would involve stiffening of existing skin with cartilage, followed by migration of the attachment points to optimize function.

Quote:

It would seem impossible for evolutionism to explain how an evolutionary process could cause two ligaments to suddenly become crossed at the centre of a pivot joint, precisely at the same time that a space is formed to accommodate them, and precisely at the same time that a complex and compatible rolling motion is formed! The popular evolutionist Dawkins claims that he is not aware of any type of complex organ that could not have evolved by ‘numerous successive slight modifications’.[13] However, the knee joint appears to be one clear example of a mechanism within the human body that could not possibly have evolved by numerous successive slight modifications.

Lie #10: For a creature much lighter than a human, there is no reason why these features could not evolve independently in a looser joint structure, then become optimized with increasing body weight.

Quote:

However, even though the colour of a moth may be important to its survival, the characteristic of colour is nevertheless a trivial one in terms of how it affects the functioning of organs and parts within the moth. Therefore, the example of the evolution of colour by mutation is not an example of evolution at all because no matter how many non-critical characteristics are evolved, they can never change one kind of functioning system into another kind of functioning system.

Lie #11: This IS an example of evolution.

Quote:

To demonstrate the theory of evolution, the evolutionist would have to show how a critical characteristic like the attachment position of the cruciate ligaments could evolve. However, this has never been done and can never be done because such a critical characteristic could not evolve in isolation.

Lie #12: This CAN be done. This HAS been done. Many times.

Quote:

Such reasoning is absurd for several reasons. Firstly, if a random change were made to the information on a drawing of a motorbike steering system, then this would at best cause no change in the basic functions and at worst have catastrophic consequences.

Lie #13: It might be an improvement. By this argument, no beneficial change can EVER be made to any motorcycle steering system since the first motorbike was built.

Quote:

Secondly, there are no intermediate mechanisms between a motorbike steering system and a car steering system, whereas evolution would require hundreds of fully functioning intermediate forms. In a similar way, it is impossible for the knee joint to have evolved from a simple pivot joint such as the elbow joint.

Lie #14: Utterly false analogy. There are thousands of possible intermediates between a bendy fish fin and a mammalian knee joint.

Quote:

That there are thousands of different types of animals on the earth that move with a horizontal stature provides great evidence that humans have been deliberately designed to be unique.

Lie #15: Locking of the legs is a minor refinement. Orang-utans can walk upright.

Because of these fifteen lies, the conclusion is utterly erroneous.

Let this be a lesson to you, Randman: creationism, in all its forms, IS nothing more than a pack of lies.

RufusAtticus · 03-22-2002, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
The fact that textbooks and media popularize errors and propaganda is a known phenomenon.

Would you care to provide documentation for this? And how does this reflect badly on or disprove the actual science conducted and published in actual scientific journals?

In all of your naysaying, would you happen to have a positive case for Biblical Creationism?

-RvFvS

Coragyps · 03-22-2002, 01:59 PM

Randman asked:

Quote:

Why not examine who runs PBS, National Geographic, and university departments?
I think that is a good start to trying to understand the phenomenon.

Randman:

There are more than a couple of university biology, anthropology, botany, zoology,.... departments out there. I really don't think that they are all in some foul cabal that meets at every new moon to discuss how to mislead America's youth.
There are some crappy textbooks on the market. Get elected to your local school board and push for better ones in your town.
Please quit regurgiquoting so much YEC tripe. I've seen lots of it already.

LiveFreeOrDie · 03-22-2002, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
LiveFreeOrDie, take a hike. I am through with your BS. I answered you. The fact that textbooks and media popularize errors and propaganda is a known phenomenon. It isn't even limited to science, though you would expect science to be different than other subjects that understandably are more speculative in nature.

My BS??!!! How can asking you questions be considered BS?

Quote:

If you want to do a study on how it occurs, I suggest you do so.

The point is, I don't believe it occurs.

Quote:

Your last comment was idiocy.

Takes one to know one I guess.

Quote:

Let me ask you something. Can you explain who mailed the anthrax out this past fall?
Maybe you actually can, but the rest of us recognize that there is a difference between observing something taking place, and fathoming the totality of how it happened.

WTF?

Quote:

I gave you some good places to start. Why not consider the people writing the textbooks for instance? Duh!

Here's what I have so far:
- liberal politics
- the NEA
- the "evolutionist community"
- textbook writers

So far no answers to the motivation or methods questions.

Quote:

Why not examine who runs PBS, National Geographic, and university departments?

I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. I give up randman, who does run PBS, NG, and university departments?

03-22-2002, 11:47 AM	#53
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	irreducibly complex kneee joint <a href="http://www.trueorigin.org/knee.asp" target="_blank">http://www.trueorigin.org/knee.asp</a> "Following on from the transport analogy of Steven Vogel, the theory of evolution is analogous to proposing that one can take the engineering drawings of a simple pivot joint used in a motorbike steering wheel and evolve them into the drawings of the steering system of a four-wheeled vehicle. The information on the drawings is equivalent to the genetic code, and random photocopying errors in the information are analogous to mutations. The evolutionist believes that the random photocopying errors will sometimes produce a slightly better system, and that via selection, eventually the steering system of the motorbike will turn into a four-bar hinge and form the steering system of a four-wheeled vehicle!" [ March 22, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]</p>

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

03-22-2002, 11:55 AM	#54
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	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!" Wrong, that comes directly off a web-site that you guys directed me to.

03-22-2002, 12:47 PM	#56
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	LiveFreeOrDie, take a hike. I am through with your BS. I answered you. The fact that textbooks and media popularize errors and propaganda is a known phenomenon. It isn't even limited to science, though you would expect science to be different than other subjects that understandably are more speculative in nature. If you want to do a study on how it occurs, I suggest you do so. Your last comment was idiocy. Let me ask you something. Can you explain who mailed the anthrax out this past fall? Maybe you actually can, but the rest of us recognize that there is a difference between observing something taking place, and fathoming the totality of how it happened. I gave you some good places to start. Why not consider the people writing the textbooks for instance? Duh! Why not examine who runs PBS, National Geographic, and university departments? I think that is a good start to trying to understand the phenomenon.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.