Randman's challenge answered

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by randman
People are taught to beleive in evolution from a very early age so that by the time they become "scientists", it has already been ingrained into them.

Then how do you explain how the scientists of Darwin's time, accepted natural selection as a correct explaination. Surely they were not brought up to believe something that didn't exist yet.

Beyond that, explain how so many people who are brought up today thinking evolution is bunk and contradicts God's word, actually accept the science when they have it explained to them and realize that creationists don't have a monolopy on explaining God's creation.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Rufus:

Great links! Great summary!

 

[randman]

Explain how people like me are brought up to believe in evolution, and wind up rejecting it only after more study.

Also, one reason people began to accept evolution is that evolutionists have tended historically to overstate their case and create hoaxes, and such to convince the public and rarely publicize their errors once tey have sold them to the public.

Neanderthal and Haeckel's drawings come to mind as good examples of this. The popular perception of neanderthal is a hunched over pre-human, and you will still hear people call him a missing link or some such. This is the image promoted by evolutionists despite it ebing totally false. Why? Because it was another way to convince the public.

Recapitulation and Haeckel's drawings are another method used by evolutionists to popularize the public, long after it was shown these drawings were faked. Basically, evolutionists still cling to some vestiges of this propoganda by speaking of conserved stages of development and some such. Bottom line is they know this was prime "evidence" that "works" and are loathe to give it up entirely, or admit that it was used to convince generations of otherwise well-educated people.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
Explain how people like me are brought up to believe in evolution, and wind up rejecting it only after more study.

Also, one reason people began to accept evolution is that evolutionists have tended historically to overstate their case and create hoaxes, and such to convince the public and rarely publicize their errors once tey have sold them to the public.

Neanderthal and Haeckel's drawings come to mind as good examples of this. The popular perception of neanderthal is a hunched over pre-human, and you will still hear people call him a missing link or some such. This is the image promoted by evolutionists despite it ebing totally false. Why? Because it was another way to convince the public.

Recapitulation and Haeckel's drawings are another method used by evolutionists to popularize the public, long after it was shown these drawings were faked. Basically, evolutionists still cling to some vestiges of this propoganda by speaking of conserved stages of development and some such. Bottom line is they know this was prime "evidence" that "works" and are loathe to give it up entirely, or admit that it was used to convince generations of otherwise well-educated people.

I think maybe you have given too much credence to the conspiracy theory of science (and perhaps culture at large). I hope you will take a new look or two around. I hope first and foremost that you will take another good, long look at the evidence.

I hope also, that you will see who it was that exposed Haeckel's fudging, what Neanderthals really were (& what has been learned from them recently). You might find out that you have been needlessly cynical.

Millikan fudged his data when he calculated the charge of e-. His data was fudged, but his final result was very close to the one that was later accepted because of good data & still stands today. As lambasted as he is and was for his dishonest methods, we cannot overturn the charge of e- just because the person who calculated it first cheated.

Much the same with embryonic development. The hypothesis of "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" is out the window, yet part of its basic premise is still relevant, and born out by the current research in embryology.

 

[LouisBooth]

"conspiracy theory of science "

Hmm..I think a pyradyme (sp) shift is about what he said. Regardless of its rightness scientists have been known to hold onto popular theories even though more and more things spring up that disagree with it. I personally think such is the case with evolution.

 

[chickenman]

"Explain how people like me are brought up to believe in evolution, and wind up rejecting it only after more study."
-do people like you study it at university level?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Louis Booth, don't even go there, science has handled radical change far better than the church at every step of the way. The creationists are living proof of that in the fack that they are still living and not burned at the stake.

 

[LouisBooth]

"do people like you study it at university level?"

Yup

"Louis Booth, don't even go there, science has handled radical change far better than the church at every step of the way. "

*chuckles* I thought we were talking about just science here? Why is it that when it is criticied people immediatly act in a defensive manner?

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"do people like you study it at university level?"

Yup

"Louis Booth, don't even go there, science has handled radical change far better than the church at every step of the way. "

*chuckles* I thought we were talking about just science here? Why is it that when it is criticied people immediatly act in a defensive manner?

Because I have seen you pull this same stunt in other threads.

Because you have implied the I am not truely saved in the past.

Because you attack and then whine about being rebutted whether you were right or wrong in the matter.

I admit that I might be wrong about special creation and the flood being mostly a morality tale. Will I be sent to hell for having that view? You and others seem to have implied that I will.

 

[LouisBooth]

"Because I have seen you pull this same stunt in other threads.
"

Hmm...okay, so two wrongs make a right? Got ya

"Because you attack and then whine about being rebutted whether you were right or wrong in the matter. "

whatever you say. I'm not going to discuss things with people just out to flame me. Thanks bye

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by randman
Explain how people like me are brought up to believe in evolution, and wind up rejecting it only after more study.

For one, your rejection is based on religion and not science. Furthermore, the "evolution" you believed in is not the same evolution that science studies. That much is evident from your posts. Would you please answer my questions or are you trying to shift the argument away from your frivilous claims that evolution requires indoctrination?

Also, one reason people began to accept evolution is that evolutionists have tended historically to overstate their case and create hoaxes, and such to convince the public and rarely publicize their errors once tey have sold them to the public.

What "rarely publicized errors" would you be talking about?

Neanderthal and Haeckel's drawings come to mind as good examples of this. The popular perception of neanderthal is a hunched over pre-human, and you will still hear people call him a missing link or some such. This is the image promoted by evolutionists despite it ebing totally false. Why? Because it was another way to convince the public.

Recapitulation and Haeckel's drawings are another method used by evolutionists to popularize the public, long after it was shown these drawings were faked. Basically, evolutionists still cling to some vestiges of this propoganda by speaking of conserved stages of development and some such. Bottom line is they know this was prime "evidence" that "works" and are loathe to give it up entirely, or admit that it was used to convince generations of otherwise well-educated people.

My evolutionary biology textbook (Futuyma's third edition) mentions Haeckel only to show that he was wrong about strict recapitulation. Haeckel did not simply state that embryos share common features, but that the stages of embryo progression reflect ancestral forms and that evolution can only append changes onto the ends of development. This has been known to be wrong for over a century, as Futuyma states. However, although strict recapulation does not occur, you state your case too strongly. Embryology does provide evidence for the history of evolution and the relationships between taxa.

Furthermore, what do artist reditions matter for whether we are related to neanderthals and their place in hominin evolution.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
"conspiracy theory of science "

Hmm..I think a pyradyme (sp) shift is about what he said. Regardless of its rightness scientists have been known to hold onto popular theories even though more and more things spring up that disagree with it. I personally think such is the case with evolution.

Are you saying that evolution is wrong or that popular concepts of it are?

 

[LouisBooth]

"Are you saying that evolution is wrong or that popular concepts of it are?"

I personally would say both. I believe some parts of evolution, which include micro and some other things dealing with it. Its the jump to macro that I don't beleive...

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by LouisBooth
Its the jump to macro that I don't beleive...

Okay, that's why we're discussing that mosquito paper over PMs.

 

[LouisBooth]

Yup