proof evolutionists are propogandizers

[randman]

Let me just give an example of what I am talking about, and maybe someone can see why people like me are outraged at mainstream evolutionists who are suppossed to educate, not brainwash. I opened my WorldBook Encyclopedia from 1994, and am reading an article written by Jerry A. Cone, Professor of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago. He is obviously well-learned and well aware his article is directed primarily at school kids.

What does he state? I can't tell you all of it, but it is an amazing reflection on the evolutionist community.

1. He states "recapitulation" which is italicized and thus highlighted as a primary evidence for evolution, though this is generally recognized as false of course.

2. He states incorrectly the direct line theory of horse evolution as primary evidence, though this is false too.

3. He uses the peppered moth example though this is false on 2 counts. The moths didn't actually hang out on the trees they supposedly adapted too, and micro-evolutionary changes are not evidence of macro-evolution. He could just as easily talked about the Indians dying of smallpox if that were the case. He also mislabelled the peppered moth section as, get this (LOL), "Direct observation of evolution."

4. He writes "The fossil record provides some of the strongest evidence for evolution" when in fact the fossil record is actually quite problematic for evolutionists, and must be explained by stating its incompleteness.

5. He states "The fossil record documents many examples of continuous evolutionary change and speciation" which is pure BS, a total fabrication. It isn't surprising. After all, he is an evolutionist professor at a well-respected university.

6. He states, "Creationists believe species remained relatively unchanged since the Creation, and no species has evolved one from another" - another false statement.

I could go on, but this is proof positive of what I am talking about. The overstatements, lies about their critics, and such are all over the place, and worse they are in an article directed at children, trying basically not to educate them, but to brainwash them.

It is sickening.

 

[Jerry Smith]

You couldn't at least find a Brittanica article to snipe at? Come on....

 

[randman]

The reason I am using WorldBook is that is what kids first use generally. I agree it is very limited, but at the same time, it is probably the first written thing a child reads on evolution besides his textbook, and I think the author knows it.

There is a deliberateness to the deception used by evolutionists. They may no longer see it, but they use arguments and terminology honed over the years which is deceptive, and just wrong. They want to make people believe. It's as if the need to have people believe in evolution has blurred the process of educating people about it.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
The reason I am using WorldBook is that is what kids first use generally. I agree it is very limited, but at the same time, it is probably the first written thing a child reads on evolution besides his textbook, and I think the author knows it.

There is a deliberateness to the deception used by evolutionists. They may no longer see it, but they use arguments and terminology honed over the years which is deceptive, and just wrong. They want to make people believe. It's as if the need to have people believe in evolution has blurred the process of educating people about it.

The hack-writers at WorldBook probably don't know or care about the "controversy"... but a lot of what you see as evolution advocates trying to "convince" is merely a reaction to the misrepresenations of the state of the science made by professional creaitionists.

 

[randman]

The writer is a professor of evolution at the University of Chicago. If he is a "hack writer", then who is genuine and qualified.

 

[Jerry Smith]

I submit that what randman presents as propagation of propaganda, the effort to convince, etc.. is actually a natural reaction to the efforts on the part of anti-evolutionists to trash good science. I further submit that what randman sees as misunderstanding of evolutionary theory that results from the postulated propaganda actually represents a lack of education in the science of evolution, coupled sometimes with exposure to mis-characterizations of the science that anti-evolutionists make.

 

[randman]

Bull, evolutionists have been using phoney arguments like recapitulation for decades. You are in denial. It's like that guy was saying, evolution started as more religion than science and has not shed its religion. His take was the real science didn't begin until the 1950s, but note the arguments and evidences like the peppered moth, a fraud since the moths don't even hang out on trees, were formed long before that, at least much of it.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
Let me just give an example of what I am talking about, and maybe someone can see why people like me are outraged at mainstream evolutionists who are suppossed to educate, not brainwash. I opened my WorldBook Encyclopedia from 1994, and am reading an article written by Jerry A. Cone, Professor of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago. He is obviously well-learned and well aware his article is directed primarily at school kids.

What does he state? I can't tell you all of it, but it is an amazing reflection on the evolutionist community.

1. He states "recapitulation" which is italicized and thus highlighted as a primary evidence for evolution, though this is generally recognized as false of course.

What does he say about recapitulation? Can you give the paragraph that includes this italicized word, please?

2. He states incorrectly the direct line theory of horse evolution as primary evidence, though this is false too.

Is the word "direct" in the article? If not, what is incorrect about the evidence of the evolution of modern horses?

3. He uses the peppered moth example though this is false on 2 counts. The moths didn't actually hang out on the trees they supposedly adapted too, and micro-evolutionary changes are not evidence of macro-evolution. He could just as easily talked about the Indians dying of smallpox if that were the case. He also mislabelled the peppered moth section as, get this (LOL), "Direct observation of evolution."

The peppered moth example does represent evolution. The fact that you do not categorize this example with "macro-evolution" is not his problem.

4. He writes "The fossil record provides some of the strongest evidence for evolution" when in fact the fossil record is actually quite problematic for evolutionists, and must be explained by stating its incompleteness.

The fossil record is no more a problem for evolution than forensic evidence is for a D.A.'s office. Sure you can ask for more - sure you can ask more than is available. That doesn't change the fact that there is plenty of evidence there.

5. He states "The fossil record documents many examples of continuous evolutionary change and speciation" which is pure BS, a total fabrication. It isn't surprising. After all, he is an evolutionist professor at a well-respected university.

Ever look at the transition between the therapids, synapsids, & early mammals? Its on the "evidence" thread.. check it out. You might be surprised.

6. He states, "Creationists believe species remained relatively unchanged since the Creation, and no species has evolved one from another" - another false statement.

So you guys started "believing" macro-evolution? Or was his statement true? A or B... no weaseling please.

I could go on, but this is proof positive of what I am talking about. The overstatements, lies about their critics, and such are all over the place, and worse they are in an article directed at children, trying basically not to educate them, but to brainwash them.

It is sickening.

Are you talking about Gish, the ICR, yourself and Randman, or a poor attempt at summarizing in a single Encyclopedia article all of the complex theory of evolution and the evidence for it?

Don't forget -- the authors of Encyclopedia articles try to give outlines of the theories in as few words as possible, and they try to reflect the thought of the scientific community, not its critics, when discussing scientific theories.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
Bull, evolutionists have been using phoney arguments like recapitulation for decades. You are in denial. It's like that guy was saying, evolution started as more religion than science and has not shed its religion. His take was the real science didn't begin until the 1950s, but note the arguments and evidences like the peppered moth, a fraud since the moths don't even hang out on trees, were formed long before that, at least much of it.

If you think that moths never light on trees, can you prove that? If you think the peppered moth's (micro-) evolution cannot be explained by natural selection (regardless of their preferred "hang-outs")... then please explain why.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by randman
Let me just give an example of the BS evolutionists use. I opened my WorldBook Ebcyclopedia from 1994, and am reading an article written by Jerry A. Cone, Professor of Ecology and Evolution at the University of Chicago. He is obviously well-learned and well aware his article is directed primarily at school kids.

That's Jerry Coyne, not Cone. Let's see what kind of "objections" you can raise.

1. He states "recapitulation" which is italicized and thus highlighted as a primary evidence for evolution, though this is generally recognized as false of course.

Inaccurate critism. Haeckel's strict recapitulation does not occur. This has been known for about a hundred years. However, the term recapitulation has stuck around in the embryolgy and developmental literature and now refers to the embryo similarities and morphology owing to deep history of the lineage. This recapitulation does occur and is evidence for evolution.

2. He states incorrectly the direct line theory of horse evolution as primary evidence, though this is false too.

Full quote please. The equid series of fossils is a great example of evolution. Would you please quote Coyne's full claim?

3. He uses the peppered moth example though this is false on 2 counts. The moths didn't actually hang out on the trees they suppossedly adapted too, and micro-evolutionary changes are not evidence of macro-evolution. He could just as easily talked about the Indians dying of smallpox if that were the case. He also mislabelled the peppered moth section as, get this (LOL), "Direct observation of evolution."

Both your criticisms are inaccurate and border on the sloppy. The moths do rest on trees. Wells has tried to claim that because they rest primarily in the branches that Ketterwell's work is flawed (or at least the textbook presentations of it). Of course this is a rather bogus and sloppy claim. (Reference)

Furthermore, peppered moths are great evidence for the process of evolution. "Microevolution" is still evolution, despite your above hand-wavings. Just read my sig if you need to refresh your memory.

4. He writes "The fossil record provides some of the strongest evidence for evolution" when in fact the fossil record is actually quite problematic for evolutionists, and must be explained by stating its incompleteness.

The fossil record is not problematic for evolution, despite your repeated attempts to assert it as such. Do you seriously expect people to buy your interpertation over Coynes?

5. He states "The fossil record documents many examples of continuous evolutionary change and speciation" which is pure BS, a total fabrication.

I challenge you to do more than just assert this.

It isn't surprising. After all, he is an evolutionist professor at a well-respected university.

Yep that's right. He's also the leads the conspiracy to teach your children that they are animals and thus the Avon should test makeup on them. Please. In your attempt to "discredit" him you have done nothing more than show how out classed you are.

6. He states, "Creationists believe species remained relatively unchanged since the Creation, and no species has evolved one from another" - another false statement.

How do you expect him to act when creationists like you complain that peppered moths and bacteria are not evidence for evolution. Not to mention that this claim was made over eight years ago when it wasn't that inaccurate. It used to be that "immutable kinds" refered to species, but that has since changed since creationists have been faced with evidence even they can't deny.

I could go on, but this is proof positive of what I am talking about. The overstatements, lies about their critics, and such are all over the place, and worse they are in an article directed at children, trying basically not to educate them, but to brainwash them.

Nice rhetoric; too bad it's based on false claims and obvious inacuracies. It's nothing more than an adult for of "I know you are but what am I." What's next? "I am rubber. You are glue. Whatever bounces of me sticks to you."

It is sickening.

You got that right.

 

[randman]

Jerry, I am surprised you defend such mistatements, but then again, maybe not.

"Ever look at the transition between the therapids, synapsids, & early mammals? Its on the "evidence" thread.. check it out. You might be surprised."

Best case scenario is still not "continuous." That is pure propoganda and its design is to leave the impression that transitional forms are continuous smooth species to species transitions when they are not.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
Jerry, I am surprised you defend such mistatements, but then again, maybe not.

I am surprised you are not willing to make the case against the "mis-statements" over what has been explained to you about them by Rufus and myself.

"Ever look at the transition between the therapids, synapsids, & early mammals? Its on the "evidence" thread.. check it out. You might be surprised."

Best case scenario is still not "continuous." That is pure propoganda and its design is to leave the impression that transitional forms are continuous smooth species to species transitions when they are not.

What was the claim on continuity from your article again? Did you quote the claim or paraphrase it? What kind of continuity is the author discussing? Is it continuity by known lineage or continutity over time?

Lets discuss...

 

[randman]

Well, as a side note Rufus, Coyne writes:

"Many species appear virtually unchanged in the fossil record for millions of years and then, relatively abruptly, are replaced by new species. Since the 1970s, a few scientists have advanced a theory called punctuated equilibrium to explain this pattern."

Was it you, or someone else, who stated PE wasn't there to explain "this pattern."

LOL. Basically, all you guys do is spin if you ask me. I am not saying you don't have any evidence. I am saying you use propoganda techniques to silence the opposition, an that alone makes me suspicious of all that evolutionists are saying.

 

[randman]

I gave a direct quote on that one didn't I?

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith


What was the claim on continuity from your article again? Did you quote the claim or paraphrase it? What kind of continuity is the author discussing? Is it continuity by known lineage or continutity over time?

Lets discuss...

Fat chance. Randman isn't going to provide the full quote. He can't.

If he does that, then the straw man he's created won't stand up.

And randman knows it - that's why he carefully tiptoes around Coyne's actual statement, and substitutes a slanted paraphrase instead.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
I gave a direct quote on that one didn't I?

Your "direct quote" was part of a sentence that did not make clear what the author meant by "continuous" (whether chronologically continuous or continuous by lineage).

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by randman
Well, as a side note Rufus, Coyne writes:

"Many species appear virtually unchanged in the fossil record for millions of years and then, relatively abruptly, are replaced by new species. Since the 1970s, a few scientists have advanced a theory called punctuated equilibrium to explain this pattern."

Was it you, or someone else, who stated PE wasn't there to explain "this pattern."

It surely wasn't me, you can go back and try to find a post were I said as much. PE does explain the such patterns in the fossil record, by using modern understanding of evolution. What you have posted doesn't support your claim that PE used the fossil record to fix broken concepts of evolution.

LOL. Basically, all you guys do is spin if you ask me. I am not saying you don't have any evidence. I am saying you use propoganda techniques to silence the opposition, an that alone makes me suspicious of all that evolutionists are saying.

It really amazes me how you can be supicious of all the things we say when you don't even bother to listen to them, as evidence by you having already forgotten what I've been saying about PE all along.

 

[randman]

"The fossil record documents many examples of continuous evolutionary change and speciation. A famous example is the evolution of mammals from reptiles."

That's his exact words. The transition is nowhere near "continuous."

He also goes on to state in the next paragraph.

"Anothe example of continuous evolution found in the fossil record is that of the horse."

It's obvious what he is doing. It's the way evolution is taught. It's indoctrination not education.

 

[chickenman]

indoctrination is a word fundamentalists don't get to use.

 

[randman]

What's unclear about "continuous evolutionary change and speciation"? He obviously claims the fossils prove species to species evolutionary change from reptiles to mammals.