Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Jayhawker Soule · 03-21-2002, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:
I don't buy that this "professor of evolution" is being honest. I think he deliberately mistates facts in order to bolster his argument.

You're attacking this man as a deliberate liar. I would respectfully ask that you substantiate that claim or retract it.

nogods4me · 03-21-2002, 06:42 PM

AFAIK
In the US at least, most schoolbooks are not selected by the teachers. Books are reviewed by committees appointed by local school boards, or in some instances by the school boards themselves. School boards are notoriously conservative bodies, as it is easy to mobilize the sheeple to elect "right thinking" members. Perhaps the fact that most/all science books fail to mention "creation science" is some larger conspiracy by the JPA (Jewish Publisher's Association (tm)). Or could it be the fact that "creation science" is not science at all.

In addition in many large school sysytems there are serious shortages of monies for new texts. Thanks in many instances to the right's crusade to return monies to the taxpayers and stop the government from wasting it on such foolish pursuits as education, health care, and public safety. Leaving students looking at science and history texts woefully out of date. But at least Binx and Bunny an afford that extra cashmere sweater.

You want a conspiracy fella? Creationists meet, rally, organize and raise funds full tilt 24/7/365 to attempt to remove sound, solid, supported science from the schools and replace it with some bizzarro feel-good fairy tale. There is your "conspiracy". Creationists have had 2000 years to present their case, and guess what, it has been found lacking. Luckily creationists are so painfully dim that there plan has little chance of long term success, though currently, due to the IQ level of our current US administration, they seem to be experiencing a brief upswing. If they spent 1/2 the time and money they spend on promoting that fairy tale, and spent it on conquering hunger or homelessness, folks might have a better opinion of the religious right, at least in the US. But no, the continue to prosyletize: to promote hate, fear, and bigotry. Followers of the "Prince of Peace" what a load of crap. If peace ever broke out you and your ilk would wither away and die. They feed on, thrive on, fear and ignorance, hate and discord.
Phooey on you and your ilk (okay so I like using the word ilk) make me nauseous and leave a bad taste in my mouth, go away, crawl back under your 6000 year old rock, away from the 6000 year old in situ starlight that brightens the night sky. If you wish to wallow in ignorance, do it on your own, and leave the rest of us out of your delusional little world.

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: nogods4me ]

randman · 03-21-2002, 06:50 PM

"You're attacking this man as a deliberate liar. I would respectfully ask that you substantiate that claim or retract it."

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.
I hope everyone here accepts the retraction that I apologize for suggesting that I think he deliberately mistates facts. Please forgive that atatement.
However, that doesn't change the fact that the article contains serious mistatements, and that this type of mistatement is what I generally see evolutionists doing.
Is it deliberate?
Or, just ignorant?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

randman · 03-21-2002, 07:00 PM

LIvefreeordie, you have to consider that I am responding not merely to you, but others here.
As far as your questions, there are a variety of reasons, and personally, I don't claim to understand all of them.
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.
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.
As far as public ed, I think you can make a good case for certain ideological persuasions dominating the education field.
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.
Hey, different groups have historical problems. Hoaxes, speculations, and sensationalism have been historical problems for evolutionists.
I would argue that molestation is a serious problem for the priesthood in Catholocism, but at least they are finally owning up to it, and trying to fix it.
Evolutionists as a whole have not owned up to it as they ought.

Daggah · 03-21-2002, 07:06 PM

Quote:

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

Which is, of course, the explanation for the fact that none of your "evolution lies" are held as facts in the biological communities. Yes, it all makes perfect sense. Evolutionists have discarded their mistakes because they haven't owned up to them!

notto · 03-21-2002, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:

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

The theory of evolution changes in the light of new evidence, and these changes are openly debated and publicized (just like changes in any science). How can you say that "evolutionists" haven't owned up to their past.

Remind us again who exposed and publicized all of the hoaxes that have happened?

Remind us again which side of the argument still continues to use these hoaxes to try to discredit the other side (as if they have any impact on fact or truth)?

Science corrects itself. It is inherent. Now, lets look again at the tenents of AIG.
----------
By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
----------
AIG, your creationist source, states directly that they will not allow or consider any evidence that is contradictory to their understanding of the bible. How can an organization with this type of assertation be considerd scientific if they have already come to their conclusions about truth and fact?

Do you think that AIG will ever admit, change, or "fix" this assertation based on evidence?

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

randman · 03-21-2002, 07:37 PM

THey haven't changed the practice of passing off speculative ideas as facts. This is how they haven't owned up to it.

By the way, look at the pictures here of a link suggested by an evolutionist on this board and tell me this is not a deliberate attempt to revive the ape-man image of Neanderthal, at least in terms of the imagery.
<a href="http://www.bigchalk.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/WOPortal.woa/941/wa/HWCDA/file?tg=SCIENC&fileid=235107&flt=CAB" target="_blank">http://www.bigchalk.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/WOPortal.woa/941/wa/HWCDA/file?tg=SCIENC&fileid=235107&flt=CAB</a>

Aethernaut · 03-21-2002, 07:47 PM

Looks terribly hominid-like. Doesn't look like an "ape-man" to me. I can see the primate resemblance, but then, I can see the primate features in homo sapiens sapiens too.

Speaking of, having grown up and attended public school (K-12) in the 1970s and 80s I can't recall any reference in any text books or by any of my teachers refering to any of the various stages of hominids as "ape-men".

-SK

[ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Schroedinger's Kitten ]

theyeti · 03-21-2002, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by randman:

By the way, look at the pictures here of a link suggested by an evolutionist on this board and tell me this is not a deliberate attempt to revive the ape-man image of Neanderthal, at least in terms of the imagery.
<a href="http://www.bigchalk.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/WOPortal.woa/941/wa/HWCDA/file?tg=SCIENC&fileid=235107&flt=CAB" target="_blank">link</a>

The only one that looks "ape like" is number 4. The rest look more or less like other modern reconstructions I've seen done by forensic artists based on the skulls. Nowhere does the author state that these are all supposed to be accurate reconstructions; rather, they are quite obviously intended to show the history of various reconstructions done over the decades. Below is actual information about them including their inclination to use stone tools among other things. And then there's this picture:

Does that look ape-like to you? No reasonable person could possibly call this "a deliberate attempt to revive the ape-man image of Neanderthal" unless he had failed to scroll down and read the page.

theyeti

randman · 03-21-2002, 08:08 PM

Please post number 4 then so everyone can see it. I don't know how to copy and paste the pictures or my computer can't do it.
I think everyone ought to take a good look at number 4, and maybe the whole array.
It is quite informative as to the idea being conveyed.

03-21-2002, 06:42 PM	#22
nogods4me Contributor Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Baltimore, MD USA Posts: 17,432	AFAIK In the US at least, most schoolbooks are not selected by the teachers. Books are reviewed by committees appointed by local school boards, or in some instances by the school boards themselves. School boards are notoriously conservative bodies, as it is easy to mobilize the sheeple to elect "right thinking" members. Perhaps the fact that most/all science books fail to mention "creation science" is some larger conspiracy by the JPA (Jewish Publisher's Association (tm)). Or could it be the fact that "creation science" is not science at all. In addition in many large school sysytems there are serious shortages of monies for new texts. Thanks in many instances to the right's crusade to return monies to the taxpayers and stop the government from wasting it on such foolish pursuits as education, health care, and public safety. Leaving students looking at science and history texts woefully out of date. But at least Binx and Bunny an afford that extra cashmere sweater. You want a conspiracy fella? Creationists meet, rally, organize and raise funds full tilt 24/7/365 to attempt to remove sound, solid, supported science from the schools and replace it with some bizzarro feel-good fairy tale. There is your "conspiracy". Creationists have had 2000 years to present their case, and guess what, it has been found lacking. Luckily creationists are so painfully dim that there plan has little chance of long term success, though currently, due to the IQ level of our current US administration, they seem to be experiencing a brief upswing. If they spent 1/2 the time and money they spend on promoting that fairy tale, and spent it on conquering hunger or homelessness, folks might have a better opinion of the religious right, at least in the US. But no, the continue to prosyletize: to promote hate, fear, and bigotry. Followers of the "Prince of Peace" what a load of crap. If peace ever broke out you and your ilk would wither away and die. They feed on, thrive on, fear and ignorance, hate and discord. Phooey on you and your ilk (okay so I like using the word ilk) make me nauseous and leave a bad taste in my mouth, go away, crawl back under your 6000 year old rock, away from the 6000 year old in situ starlight that brightens the night sky. If you wish to wallow in ignorance, do it on your own, and leave the rest of us out of your delusional little world. [ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: nogods4me ]</p>

03-21-2002, 06:50 PM	#23
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	"You're attacking this man as a deliberate liar. I would respectfully ask that you substantiate that claim or retract it." 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. I hope everyone here accepts the retraction that I apologize for suggesting that I think he deliberately mistates facts. Please forgive that atatement. However, that doesn't change the fact that the article contains serious mistatements, and that this type of mistatement is what I generally see evolutionists doing. Is it deliberate? Or, just ignorant? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: randman ]</p>

03-21-2002, 07:47 PM	#28
Aethernaut Regular Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 422	Looks terribly hominid-like. Doesn't look like an "ape-man" to me. I can see the primate resemblance, but then, I can see the primate features in homo sapiens sapiens too. Speaking of, having grown up and attended public school (K-12) in the 1970s and 80s I can't recall any reference in any text books or by any of my teachers refering to any of the various stages of hominids as "ape-men". -SK [ March 21, 2002: Message edited by: Schroedinger's Kitten ]</p>

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

03-21-2002, 07:00 PM	#24
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	LIvefreeordie, you have to consider that I am responding not merely to you, but others here. As far as your questions, there are a variety of reasons, and personally, I don't claim to understand all of them. 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. 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. As far as public ed, I think you can make a good case for certain ideological persuasions dominating the education field. 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. Hey, different groups have historical problems. Hoaxes, speculations, and sensationalism have been historical problems for evolutionists. I would argue that molestation is a serious problem for the priesthood in Catholocism, but at least they are finally owning up to it, and trying to fix it. Evolutionists as a whole have not owned up to it as they ought.

03-21-2002, 07:37 PM	#27
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	THey haven't changed the practice of passing off speculative ideas as facts. This is how they haven't owned up to it. By the way, look at the pictures here of a link suggested by an evolutionist on this board and tell me this is not a deliberate attempt to revive the ape-man image of Neanderthal, at least in terms of the imagery. <a href="http://www.bigchalk.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/WOPortal.woa/941/wa/HWCDA/file?tg=SCIENC&fileid=235107&flt=CAB" target="_blank">http://www.bigchalk.com/cgi-bin/WebObjects/WOPortal.woa/941/wa/HWCDA/file?tg=SCIENC&fileid=235107&flt=CAB</a>

03-21-2002, 08:08 PM	#30
randman Regular Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Posts: 333	Please post number 4 then so everyone can see it. I don't know how to copy and paste the pictures or my computer can't do it. I think everyone ought to take a good look at number 4, and maybe the whole array. It is quite informative as to the idea being conveyed.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.