proof evolutionists are propogandizers

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
"Continuous evolutionary change" even without the word speciation is quite clear.

And correct. No, no, no, he doesn't mean the precise relationships in the lineage are known. Over geological time, evolutionary change is continuous in the fossil record. And he is correct.

The guy, like nearly all evolutionists I have met, is simply deliberately overstating his case in order to convince people to believe in evolution.

He is deliberately stating the facts of evolution. It would be very difficult to overstate the case for evolution.

The fact you guus defend such practices is not at all surprising, and goes a long ways to making it clear that evolutionism is as much indoctrination as anything else.

Yeah, whatever randman. Trot out this same old tired lie... I think we are tired of hearing.

As far as creationists, well, when their articles appear in Encyclopedias and in textbooks, I will hold them to the same standards.

But not when their words appear on supposedly educational web-sites, come from the pulpits, are repeated in political lobbies, appear in popular works and are spouted in this forum - all for the purpose of trashing good science? WHY NOT? Why don't you hold them to the same standards?

 

[randman]

"It would be very difficult to overstate the case for evolution."

Whatever, just about anything goes, eh? Just make up stuff, and it is probably right. Hmm,..an evolutionist mind at work.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
"It would be very difficult to overstate the case for evolution."

Whatever, just about anything goes, eh? Just make up stuff, and it is probably right. Hmm,..an evolutionist mind at work.

Baloney... Now back up your accusations. Show, from the scientific literature, or even from TalkOrigins, or Rufus', LFOD's, or my own posts where we have used this approach. Where anyone on the evolutionists side has used it. Give the examples and be ready for them to be ripped to shreds. Or save yourself the time and retract your accusation now.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by randman
"Continuous evolutionary change" even without the word speciation is quite clear. The guy, like nearly all evolutionists I have met, is simply deliberately overstating his case in order to convince people to believe in evolution.

It is quite clear, but it is not an overstatement. Please randman, go did into the paleontological literature and show using actual fossils how Dr. Coyne is overstating his case. You have asserted it as such, but since you are not a paleontologist or even a scientist, you are going to do more than assert it as your opinion.

Now if he had said "contigious evolutionary change," that might imply he has some long term fine-grained species-to-species transitions in mind. In this context, "continuous" does not imply "without gaps." Instead it refers to the fact that the change (body size increase, loss of toes) continues across many speciations.

 

[randman]

This thread is a good example.

Look, I am heading to ther beach shortly. Coyne explains there are gaps in the overall fossil record, and then goes on to state that the geologic pattern aspect of the fossil record, and then in the following paragraph, goes on to explain basically that there are examples where gaps don't exist, where continuous evolutionary change from reptiles to mammals is documented by the fossil record. "Continuous" here has nothing to do with rate as you incorrectly infer. It has to do with the fossil record which is the topic at that point in the article.

Hey, what does it matter Jerry? It is clear that no matter what I post, you and the other evolutionists will just deny and evade, or whatever you call it. If I prove it to you, you will state it is inconsequential anyway.

Just admit to yourself what you are doing. Be honest.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
goes on to explain basically that there are examples where gaps don't exist

I will put my money where my mouth is. If you tell me that his article states that there are examples of a fossil sequence without any gaps, I will concede that this fellow is overstating his case. If not, you are just engaged in more hand-waving.

Come on, how many false claims have you been called out on? Why, has it not occurred to you by now that your opinion rests on false information, poor logic, and a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory? When will it occur to you that, maybe - just maybe, some of us accept the ideas we accept for good reasons.

And maybe, just maybe, we spend a lot of time revealing the falsehoods of creationists who are out to trash good science for good reasons.

I think if you held your breath, counted to ten - thought about what was discussed in this thread and how we both came out, you might go and review some other threads. I think if you kept your calm while reviewing them, you might decide to take a rest from trying to tear down other people's work and go find out why their work continues to stand...

 

[Jerry Smith]

By the way: have fun at the beach.

 

[randman]

"Come on, how many false claims have you been called out on? Why, has it not occurred to you by now that your opinion rests on false information, poor logic, and a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory? When will it occur to you that, maybe - just maybe, some of us accept the ideas we accept for good reasons."

Jerry, I really don't care that much whether you have good reasons to accept the ideas or not. My primary point is that the way evolution is taught and passed on is wrong, that it is indoctrination, and propoganda.

Could it still be right? Who really cares? I don't care that much. It isn't going to affect my faith in God at all. I am interested, yes, and take an interest that way, but what I don't understand is the mindless reversion to propoganda that so dominates the evolutionist camp. It supposed to be about science and education, but it reminds me more of political posturing, and hey, that's what it is really, an ideological "religion."

If it happens to be true, it still doesn't make the way evolutionists deceive to be right.

And guess what Jerry, I haven't been making false claims. Any real mistakes I have made I admitted to, which by the way you have admitted to more mistakes.

This thread though is classic. The correct evolutionist response from you would have been to admit that it is wrong to leave the impression that continuous change and speciation from reptiles to mammals is documented in the fossil record. By the way, this is not an isolated case of this. ERvolutionists typically make this claim from my experience until you challenge them on it.

And more obvious, you should have just stated, yes, evolutionists do for the most part believe spontaneous generation can and did occur in one instance, and that we are actively conducting research to demonstrate the viability of that theory. Just own up to it. Just admit the truth.

The fact you and others would not admit to it has told me a lot, and yea, I am a little angry now because I don't want to waste my time with a bunch of spin artists. Make your case the best you can, but just admit to what you believe.

I have fully admitted to what I believe, and what I do know, and don't know. It isn't that hard to do, is it?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
"Come on, how many false claims have you been called out on? Why, has it not occurred to you by now that your opinion rests on false information, poor logic, and a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory? When will it occur to you that, maybe - just maybe, some of us accept the ideas we accept for good reasons."

Jerry, I really don't care that much whether you have good reasons to accept the ideas or not. My primary point is that the way evolution is taught and passed on is wrong, that it is indoctrination, and propoganda.

You are passing off your inaccurate pereceptions as fact.
I am calling you out. Prove that evolution is taught as indoctrination and propaganda.

My position is that evolution is taught very little in the first place, and only hits the high points: such as the fact that evolution took place (as is scientifically demonstrated), and that the evidence for it is everywhere including the fossil record.

Could it still be right?

Ummm... yes.. you could find that out for yourself if you took the time.

Who really cares?

Obviously not you. You aren't interested in finding out enough about what is right even enough to know whether a teaching of it is accurate before you start claiming that it is propaganda.

I don't care that much. It isn't going to affect my faith in God at all.

"I don't care that much" - fine... keep your speculations to yourself.
"It isn't going to affect my faith in God at all." - Good. I can appreciate that.

I am interested, yes, and take an interest that way, but what I don't understand is the mindless reversion to propoganda that so dominates the evolutionist camp. It supposed to be about science and education, but it reminds me more of political posturing,

You have yet to demonstrate this. You sniped at a World Book article and missed. I have some Biology textbooks here, would you like to borrow them? Until you can demonstarte that there is a mindless reversion to propaganda, you are blowing hot air. You are making accusations based on your own poor perceptions.

And yes, there is some political posturing? Why? Because the evolution-deniers have taken this into the political arena - and virtually every other arena as well.

and hey, that's what it is really, an ideological "religion."

Back this claim up or admit that you are wrong.

If it happens to be true, it still doesn't make the way evolutionists deceive to be right.

You haven't even given the examples of systematic evolutionist deception yet. The only systematic deception found is among the creationists.. Why aren't you hand-waving at them?

And guess what Jerry, I haven't been making false claims.

'and hey, that's what it is really, an ideological "religion."'

That's a claim. It is false.

Any real mistakes I have made I admitted to, which by the way you have admitted to more mistakes.

By the randman standard then, which of us is more honest?

This thread though is classic. The correct evolutionist response from you would have been to admit that it is wrong to leave the impression that continuous change and speciation from reptiles to mammals is documented in the fossil record.

Admitting that this impression is wrong, or that it is wrong to leave it would be lying if I did it. I know better!

By the way, this is not an isolated case of this. ERvolutionists typically make this claim from my experience until you challenge them on it.

Because it is a TRUE CLAIM.

And more obvious, you should have just stated, yes, evolutionists do for the most part believe spontaneous generation can and did occur in one instance, and that we are actively conducting research to demonstrate the viability of that theory. Just own up to it. Just admit the truth.

I think that I did == and I think I then showed that it is wrong to attempt to convince people that on this basis scientists "believe" in an already falsified hypothesis.

The fact you and others would not admit to it has told me a lot, and yea, I am a little angry now because I don't want to waste my time with a bunch of spin artists. Make your case the best you can, but just admit to what you believe.

I have admitted what I believe. I believe that the best promise for finding out about the origin of life on earth is in the research being done on abiogenesis, and I have stated as much... No, I am not going to let this separate belief get bundled together with my well-reasoned acceptance of standard scientific theories in evolution that are demonstrated to be correct beyond reasonable doubt, so that you and Nick can get your jollies conflating evolution with abiogenesis and refuting by implication.

I have fully admitted to what I believe, and what I do know, and don't know. It isn't that hard to do, is it?

Who said it was?

 

[randman]

"and that the evidence for it is everywhere including the fossil record."

Hey, everything is evidence because we have a theory so elastic that we can adjust it to just about anything. Never mind all the traits that species have that don't have any selective advantage, never mind that the fossil record pretty much agrees with special creation, never mind that evolutionists continue to misrepresent and overstate their case, we are right because we say so, eh?

Neanderthal is a missing link one generation, then heck a cousin, then heck, who knows, but we were always right, always are right, cuz we are evolutionists.

Sorry Jerry, but I have shown you the propoganda techniques used, or some of them. I am not too surprised you defend them. Evolution is practiced as a religion more than science. It's a matter of faith with you guys.

 

[randman]

Since this is being linked to the ZZL, I would suggest any visitors review the other topics on this board where the issues are being discussed. Nick, I can't speak for him, but I generally have quit wasting time with Rufus and some others, and I wouldn't want anyone to get the idea that whatever points are raised that they are not properly dealt with elsewhere.

 

[RufusAtticus]

"I generally have quit wasting time with Rufus..."

Translation: I can't respond to Rufus's points so I'll ignore them and hope they go away.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
"and that the evidence for it is everywhere including the fossil record."

Hey, everything is evidence because we have a theory so elastic that we can adjust it to just about anything.

Hey just because it can handle anything you have managed to find doesn't mean that it could handle anything. And of course that doesn't have anything to do with the evidence specifically for evolution.

Never mind all the traits that species have that don't have any selective advantage,

Name one please. We can return this to a substantive thread if you will back up this assertion.

never mind that the fossil record pretty much agrees with special creation,

PRETTY MUCH AGREES? Sure if special creation means a creator that creates, allows to go extinct, creates, allows to go extinct - and ALWAYS cribs off his most recent creations when formulating a design for the next...

And then lets all of the divergence that happen while people are around to watch come about by pure & simple reproduction...

never mind that evolutionists continue to misrepresent and overstate their case, we are right because we say so, eh?

Never mind that this is a lie that you have continually repeated, but never supported.

Neanderthal is a missing link one generation, then heck a cousin, then heck, who knows, but we were always right, always are right, cuz we are evolutionists.

So, you think Neanderthal was claimed to be a definite ancestor at some point? You could back that up too. I'm sure there was a time when it was thought to be, but the prevalence of the evidence changed that view... You don't like the self-correction of science then go into politics. You then get to speculate, hand-wave, rant, make unsupported accusations all you like and it is part of the game.

Sorry Jerry, but I have shown you the propoganda techniques used, or some of them.

You've shown me that you don't like encyclopedias. So what?

I am not too surprised you defend them. Evolution is practiced as a religion more than science. It's a matter of faith with you guys.

Dang it randman, I'm going to have to create a thread for you. List the doctrines of evolution. List the incidences where scientists (or the lay public) were penalized for not believing those doctrines. Put your money where your mouth is... You'll need a lot of money to cover that much mouth.

 

[jon1101]

proof evolutionists are propogandizers

Let's pretend you've won the ongoing debate and it stands that evolutionists spread propaganda. What's your point?

-jon

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by randman
Since this is being linked to the ZZL, I would suggest any visitors review the other topics on this board where the issues are being discussed. Nick, I can't speak for him, but I generally have quit wasting time with Rufus and some others, and I wouldn't want anyone to get the idea that whatever points are raised that they are not properly dealt with elsewhere.

What's ZZL?

I've quit wasting time with Rufus also. Let him interpret that however he likes, but after the "creationist perfection" fiasco, it's clear that he's not interested in honest discussion.

IMO any discussion with Jerry is also a huge waste of time. His sole interest seems to be starting "gang bang" threads to discredit people who disagree with him.

 

[RufusAtticus]

I've quit wasting time with Rufus also. Let him interpret that however he likes, but after the "creationist perfection" fiasco, it's clear that he's not interested in honest discussion.

What fiasco? You didn't believe me when I said that some creationists make an arguments from prefection. I provided you references to such arguments. Yet you insinuate that I'm not interested in honest discussion. Nice work, Nick. How come I think your concept of "honesty" differs from the rest of us?

Of course, it doesn't suprise me that instead of admiting that you were mistaken, you would rather attack my integrety.

 

[SLP]

Originally posted by 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.

Well, I'm a little late to this conversation, but I wonder - what would you accept as 'continuous', and why do you think that the fossil record should show this?

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by RufusAtticus

You didn't believe me when I said that some creationists make an arguments from prefection. I provided you references to such arguments.

Yeah, that reference to Cicero was really compelling.

 

[RufusAtticus]

Originally posted by npetreley
Yeah, that reference to Cicero was really compelling.

And the creationist website that used it wasn't the only I pointed to. Have you forgotten Paley?

 

[Lanakila]

The topic of this thread is self defeating. The media just jumps on the evolutionary bandwagon everytime a new discovery is found. They seem to ignore the later refutations of many of these discoveries. The same things happens with science textbooks by the way. I don't think its wholesale propaganda as much as excitement over new discoveries (they really want evolution to be true).