Why TOE is not accepted

Similar social and political statements have been shown straight from the horse's mouth concerning evolution.So is evolution an inherently social, political or maybe even quasi-religious motivational ideology too?

Wiki is wrong. He was not an evolutionist. He was a vocal critic of Darwin until his dying day. The claim he was an evolutionist is just one more aspect of evolutionist myth-making, but fortunately many evolutionists are recognizing was wrong.Take the following from a partisan, evolutionist web-site. Wells and Haeckel's EmbryosHe is listed on the PBS site as a critic of Darwin below.http://www.reviewevolution.com/...ersGuide/Evolution_A01.php

Yaro, quit being a jerk.You are the one refusing to deal with the evidence, and falsely claiming that only evolutionists exposed Haeckel's fraud.When are you going to back up your claims?your little disinformation demand question has no relevance since I clearly stated that parts of recapitulation and the use of Haeckel's drawings have now finally been abandoned.That doesn't change the fact evolutionists for over 100 years made false claims concerning the data, claims they never substantiated as they claimed they had.

Then please retract your claim. Mods, why is this guy not banned, like Faith?He has no peer-review study to back him up!!!!Btw, that is not a fair test because imo, ToE is indeed riddled with same politicalized ideology that you claim IDers are.take the Discovery Institute. You don't have to make a statement of faith to be a fellow there, to my knowledge.You guys claim it is politically motivated, but that's really BS. Evolutionists use politics to silence their critics and insist on pseudo-science in clinging to an outdated mode of what constitutes physical existence, and that the concept of a Designer be excluded a priori so of course, any scientific challenge along the lines of ID must by definition enter into the political arena.But that's because evolution is political, not ID.

But if I say evolutionism strikes me as brainwashing, then I am asked on threat of banning to document that.Seems like a double-standard.Btw, I don't think I have used brainwashing, but have used terms like indoctrination, which I have offered evidence for.

Yaro, the faked drawings were used in most textbooks until 1998, according to one textbook author who corrected the problem after Richardson's studies.Imo, the fact you guys have such a hard time recognizing the simple truth here, that the use of these drawings showed that evolutionists in presenting "facts" were presenting something that was not a fact, and did so for over 100 years is amazing.Also, it does not matter if you call someone not a "creationist." I may not be a creationist under someone's definition, but clearly you have failed to prove evolutionists corrected Haeckel's errors.When are you going to back up your claim?Also, what an evolutionary biologist does in his work is not all that germane to my claims since my claim really deals with how evolution is taught and believed. A particular area of study, such as evolution of some species or whatever, is not what I was referring to. That may be real science, but the general arguments and the way evolution is presented and believed is the area I consider reflective of ideological indoctrination.Why were Haeckel's drawings in textbooks despite creationists denouncing them?Clearly because evolutionists failed to closely examine if what they claimed was factual was indeed factual.The drawings worked, very well, if the goal was to get people to believe.They failed miserably if the goal was education.That's something I frankly am surprised you guys don't get.

I disagree. I see the Wedge document as a backlash of the pre-existing social/quasi-religious/political nature of evolution.The concept of a Designer, imo, is excluded a priori by evolutionists.

This is the kind of post that should be censured. You can argue Faith's evidence is wrong but pretending there is 0 evidence is essentially lying. She is presenting evidence as creationists do, and you are wrong to pretend otherwise.

OK, but that's not exclusive evidence of evolution. The Bible, for example states first the plants were created, then sea animals, and then land animals and man fairly late in the process. There are a few discrepancies such as evolutionists' views of whale evolution, but pretty much this old book, as some say, got the pattern right in what appears first in the fossil record.Why do you think that is?Maybe that's evidence there is more to the Bible than what skeptics claim?Why for example did the Bible get it right on the Big Bang and dark matter and energy?How did they know about that?How about the Bible speaking of birds created from the sea prior to man, but later in the same era as man and created from the ground? How did the writers of the Bible know about dinosaur era birds?My point is that the data does not exclusively support ToE. The fact that there were single-cell organisms in one level, and then with the Cambrian explosion, a huge complexity, is not supportive necessarily of ToE.For example, has life gotten correspondingly more complex since the dinasaurs until today as it did from microbes to the dinosaurs?I'd argue it hasn't. So in fact, life has not gotten more complex for about 200 million years or some such, and to me, that's very strong evidence against materialistic evolutionary theories.

Bull Ned. I did answer, and you are dissembling.I never even said anything was wrong with using actual photographs.As far as a major underpinning, historically embryology has been used that way, and it is still used as a major piece of evidence for evolution, and I did substantiate that.That thread, btw, was closed. The new thread started off in different directions from these areas which is why I didn't post on it until the other day.To me, you are not making honest claims here.

I have indeed brought up Haeckel's drawings as a factual matter to illustrate my point. There is no debate that the drawings were faked, nor that they were used for over 100 years. There is debate about the significance of this, but you cannot demand I show evidence for my views, and then honestly demand I not mention the evidence any more?Or at least you cannot do so and be reasonably objective and honest.What if I said, hey Ned, we are going to discuss if evolution is real science, but you cannot bring up the fossil record, genetics, embryology, etc,....because there are already threads on that.Would that be fair?How can you demand I back up my points here, and then tell me I cannot use those points?There's a reason I bring up Haeckel's drawings. They are evidence of why I believe evolution employs the methods of indoctrination in presenting the concept to students. That's a lie Ned. The Richardson study and the quotes from textbook authors showed very clearly that the drawings still in use were fakes, and I quoted them.Why are making that claim?It seems to me you are just using your position as mod to falsely malign me and are deliberately, at this stage, misrepresenting what I have written.

I'm not feeling very patient with you lying about me.Take the following. When have I ever subsribed to YEC. I generally think of myself as probably an OEC or an IDer, and am not even oppossed to theistic evolution, but in reality I am not sure that I believe the science can back up any one model yet very authoritatively.I do think the YECers have some good arguments, and I think there is some merit to Flood geology, at least from what I've read. However, I don't think "day" in Genesis must mean a 24 hour period, but am not all that concerned if it does. The pattern, imo, is what is critical. The details are left out by God for a reason, imo.Then again, if you had been reading my posts, as you claimed, you would know that I am not a YECer.Why are you falsely suggesting that?Are you ignorant of my position, or misrepresenting me for some other reason?This message has been edited by randman, 08-02-2005 12:32 AM

Do not answer the points in this thread! It is too far off topic and/or mixing too many topics. These may be taken by any interested parties to the appriate threads.Ned, more deception from you. Why?You guys are making a claim, and I am asking you to back it up. Where are the peer-reviewed studies showing the only reason people reject evolution is because they have a lust for political power?You are just, in hypocritical fashion, being unreasonable and demanding of me and other creationist/IDers/Skeptics demands that you yourself don't live by, and don't demand of evolutionists. Been listing them for weeks now, can you not read, or are you going to dismiss any evidence you don't want to me to mention such as the false use of depictions?1. Stasis in the fossil record.
2. Lack of greater complexity since the Cambrian explosion.
3. Lack of gradual transitions seen to document evolution in the fossil record.
4. No phylotypic stage; no human gill slits (as evolutionists claim).
5. Faked drawings such as Haeckel's and excessively ape-like depictions of Neanderthals, thus showing evolution presented not with truthful and factual information.
6. Apparent design.
7. No observation of plausible explanation for how the first life form came about via abiogenesis. If, for example, there was a non-natural causal agent involved in that, then why exclude this possibility with evolution.
8. Irreducible complexity.
9. The underlying principles of physical existence exhibiting design and potential mechanism for ID.
10. Similar traits arising not through common ancestry thus illustrating, even within evolutionist dogma, how assumptions of common ancestry are just assumptions.Those are some off the top of my head. No, but I am going to keep bringing it up, especially as you guys keep defending it. The fact evolutionists kept using these faked drawings when, as a college student, I learned they were fake, and yet the Phds involved in evolution teaching kept them in the textbooks is indicative of how evolutionism is not purely science.Regardless of how many excused you guys make, there is no excuse for it.Anyone that looked into the data for themselves, just compared photos that were easily available, could see these were gross distortions.Critics of evolution were loud and vocal that they were distortions, but evolutionists perpetuated the fraud.Why?Simply dismissing it as a mistake does not cut it.Clearly, evolutionists had either not looked into the evidence they were using to see if it was indeed factual, and not even a cursory critical self-examination, or they deliberately perpetuated a fraud. I guess it breaks down on an individual basis, but what I cannot accept is that somehow a college student like myself could look into this objectively, as an evolutionist, and easily see it was faked, and that all these Phds looked into it for over 100 years and just made a mistake.No, they just never bothered to see if what they taught and believed was true, or at least I hope that's the case, and not they deliberately lied to the public all this time.This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 08-02-2005 01:00 AM

I forgot one thing that was very persuasive when first shown to me during a presentation by a botanist, polystrate trees.It strains the imagination to hear evolutionist explanations for this. I don't know if YECers are right, but they do seem to have some well-substantiated ideas on Flood geology and rapid sedimentation, and thought I should throw that out here as another piece of evidence against ToE scenarios.Polystrate Trees
Mount St. Helens: Evidence in Support of Biblical Catastrophism
Human Artifactsin the Fossil Record

Frankly, I find this increbily naive and reflective of indoctrinated thinking and not education.On this forum, Faith and I are 2 people that have rejected evolution, and obviously care a great deal about the evidence, and spent a good bit of time learning the evidence.For myself, I believed in evolution until about age 20-21. I was challenged that the evidence did not really support evolution as I was taught, and that I should take the time to look into the evidence for myself and then draw my own conclusions.I did exactly that, and after doing so, felt most of what I had been taught was a lie, either totally fabricated and factually wrong, or overstated, and that's how I initially rejected ToE and still do so today.I brought up Haeckel's drawings and got a lot of heat for it, but it illustrates the difference, imo, between me and most people that accept evolution. When I began to try to see what the data is for myself, I heard claims that Haeckel's drawings were wrong and that other depictions were falsely used and other false concepts used, I checked them those claims and found that the indeed the claims of misrepresentation were true. I had believed in ToE because of false claims, faked data, overstatements, etc,...But when I tried to tell people that dogmatically accepted evolution, unless they were Christians or something, they laughed at the concept that faked data was being used. My Dad, a surgeon, recounted all the evidence he was taught in the 50s, and he thought it unbeleivable when I told him that data was incorrect.Everyone I knew that accepted evolution had never bothered to look into the evidence for themselves but accepted it uncritically, and I knew a lot of very educated people.Then, in the late 90s, evolutionists acted surprised at the Richardson study to discover that Haeckel's drawings were faked, just as they were surprised that the fossil record did not really back gradualism and needed something like Punctuated Equilibrium to try to resolve the problems.That astonished me because here I was able to find out these problems existed as a 21 year old, but the evolutionist community were surprised.That tells me they aren't really checking if the basic claims used to back evolution are correct. Perhaps they are spending so much time trying to shoot down any criticism, they aren't listening and making factual claims?