The bottom line is, how well you were indoctrinated.

[consol]

How good a creationists you are depends on how well you were indoctrinated,
to believe in creationism requires total abandonment of logic, deduction and thought.

If you think that's not true, please tell me what those three words have to do with creationism.

Because,
creationism is built on words, and the words should not be changed, nothing added, nothing removed,
therefore logic, deduction and thought are not required, just a belief that those words are true.

Or have I got it wrong again?

 

[AV1611VET]

...to believe in creationism requires total abandonment of logic, deduction and thought.

1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6, 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 20

What? I don't know how to count? Or is it you don't know what I'm doing? (Or do you?) Perhaps it's so automatic (indoctrinal?) when you see someone counting, you just assume they're counting Base Ten, until the pattern is established. Until you guys wake up and realize God doesn't necessarily count Base Ten (and didn't during the Creation Week), you're going to abandon logic, deduction and thought.

Incidentally, what's the next number in sequence?

• 8, 5, 4, 9, 1

Or have I got it wrong again?

You've got it wrong again.

 

[consol]

1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6, 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 20

What? I don't know how to count? Or is it you don't know what I'm doing? (Or do you?) Perhaps it's so automatic (indoctrinal?) when you see someone counting, you just assume they're counting Base Ten, until the pattern is established. Until you guys wake up and realize God doesn't necessarily count Base Ten (and didn't during the Creation Week), you're going to abandon logic, deduction and thought.

Incidentally, what's the next number in sequence?

• 8, 5, 4, 9, 1

You've got it wrong again.

When I wrote that I was talking about religion,
I left a big clue at the beginning when I wrote 'to believe in creationism requires'
which is something you don't want to discuss, and I completely understand why,
you are a creationist, which says it all, it's one of the first things you are taught,
change to suit, alter to suit, make it fit, make it fit, deny, deny, deny.

AV, if you say God is on your side, that would make God a fool.

 

[Ben johnson]

Regarding "indoctrination" --- assuming that the Stanley/Urey Biogenesis Experiment was not fraudulent (it was), start with the idea of "organic soup, with minute amounts of amino acids". Please detail the process by which only left-handed molecules arrange themselves into self-replicating life.

Which came first --- amino acids, or poly-peptides? DNA or cellular walls? How does statistical probability allow for any chance development (let alone a second SIMULTANEOUS evolving of Mitochondrea)?

A side note --- on a bacterial flagellum, how can each part (stator, rotor, drive shaft, bearings, electrostatic sequencer) arise individually (meaning, how can any one part be enviromentally beneficial apart from a moving flagellum)?

This "line of reasoning" that I just posted, is what you call "indoctrination". I look forward to hearing your scientific explanations.

...and there wasn't a trace of hostility or sarcasm in that; please respond with science.

 

[LittleNipper]

How good a creationists you are depends on how well you were indoctrinated,
to believe in creationism requires total abandonment of logic, deduction and thought.

If you think that's not true, please tell me what those three words have to do with creationism.

Because,
creationism is built on words, and the words should not be changed, nothing added, nothing removed,
therefore logic, deduction and thought are not required, just a belief that those words are true.

Or have I got it wrong again?

Creationists cannot be indoctrinated in the true sense of the word, because they are self taught. Evolutionists are indoctrinated through nearly every reinforcing secular aspect of their education, social promotion, and training...

 

[RichardT]

Regarding "indoctrination" --- assuming that the Stanley/Urey Biogenesis Experiment was not fraudulent (it was), start with the idea of "organic soup, with minute amounts of amino acids". Please detail the process by which only left-handed molecules arrange themselves into self-replicating life.

Which came first --- amino acids, or poly-peptides? DNA or cellular walls? How does statistical probability allow for any chance development (let alone a second SIMULTANEOUS evolving of Mitochondrea)?

A side note --- on a bacterial flagellum, how can each part (stator, rotor, drive shaft, bearings, electrostatic sequencer) arise individually (meaning, how can any one part be enviromentally beneficial apart from a moving flagellum)?

This "line of reasoning" that I just posted, is what you call "indoctrination". I look forward to hearing your scientific explanations.

...and there wasn't a trace of hostility or sarcasm in that; please respond with science.

My new favorite CvE mod.

 

[FishFace]

Regarding "indoctrination" --- assuming that the Stanley/Urey Biogenesis Experiment was not fraudulent (it was)

Gosh! Fraudulent is a pretty strong term!

start with the idea of "organic soup, with minute amounts of amino acids". Please detail the process by which only left-handed molecules arrange themselves into self-replicating life.

By chance, the first replicating molecule which requires amino acids (since it would likely not be AA-based, but RNA based) requires left-handed amino acids. Only left-handed amino acids are used, so only left-handed amino acids are synthesised (there would be no selection pressure to synthesise right-handed ones) a positive feedback develops - you have plenty of left handed AAs, so you use them, so you need them, so you synthesise more. Repeat.

Which came first --- amino acids, or poly-peptides?

Well, a polypeptide is a polymer of amino acids, so I'm pretty sure amino acids came first. Did you know they can form spontaneously in outer space?

DNA or cellular walls?

A cell wall is a very complex structure. Do you mean a cell membrane? A primitive cell membrane forms if you drop oil into water. Fatty acids probably existed before life, so cell membranes probably existed then too.

How does statistical probability allow for any chance development

The probably of getting an outcome is the probability of getting it once multiplied by the number of tests. Evolution has many many many tests, because it has so long.

A side note --- on a bacterial flagellum, how can each part (stator, rotor, drive shaft, bearings, electrostatic sequencer) arise individually (meaning, how can any one part be enviromentally beneficial apart from a moving flagellum)?

Do you know what a Type III secretory system is?

It's what you get when you remove several bits from a flagellum.

This "line of reasoning" that I just posted, is what you call "indoctrination". I look forward to hearing your scientific explanations.

...and there wasn't a trace of hostility or sarcasm in that; please respond with science.

OK!

There wasn't a trace of hostility there, either - please respond with science! I can give you links to some peer review, I think, if you like.

 

[sbvera13]

Google is your friend. You must not be trying very hard.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_flagella

Endogenous/autogenous/direct filiation models

Contrasting with the symbiotic models, these models argue that cilia developed from pre-existing components of the eukaryotic cytoskeleton (which has tubulin, dynein, and nexin—also used for other functions) as an extension of the mitotic spindle apparatus. The connection can still be seen, first in the various early-branching single-celled eukaryotes that have a microtubule basal body, where microtubules on one end form a spindle-like cone around the nucleus, while microtubules on the other end point away from the cell and form the cilium. A further connection is that the centriole, involved in the formation of the mitotic spindle in many (but not all) eukaryotes, is homologous to the cilium, and in many cases is the basal body from which the cilium grows.
An apparent intermediate stage between spindle and cilium would be a non-swimming appendage made of microtubules with a selectable function like increasing surface area, helping the protozoan to remain suspended in water, increasing the chances of bumping into bacteria to eat, or serving as a stalk attaching the cell to a solid substrate.
Regarding the origin of the individual protein components, an interesting paper on the evolution of dyneins[1][2] shows that the more complex protein family of ciliary dynein has an apparent ancestor in a simpler cytoplasmic dynein (which itself has evolved from the AAA protein family that occurs widely in all archea, bacteria and eukaryotes). Long-standing suspicions that tubulin was homologous to FtsZ (based on very weak sequence similarity and some behavioral similarities) were confirmed in 1998 by the independent resolution of the 3-dimensional structures of the two proteins.

 

[TheOutsider]

Was Jeffery Bada's follow-up experiment also "fraudulent"? And seriously, you are still using the old flagellum PRATT?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RQQ7ubVIqo4

 

[TheManeki]

Creationists cannot be indoctrinated in the true sense of the word, because they are self taught. Evolutionists are indoctrinated through nearly every reinforcing secular aspect of their education, social promotion, and training...

From what I've observed, creationists tend to base their interpretation of the Bible on what they were told by an authority figure. That certainly paves the way for indoctrination, especially when the authority figure teaches that when reality disagrees with the interpretation, reality is at fault.

On the other hand, scientists (including evolutionists) are taught how to use tools such as the scientific method. Learning how to use these tools is no more indoctrination than learning how to operate a car.

Perhaps creationists (and more Christians in general) should to get better at studying the history of the Bible and Christianity, get a good Hebrew/Greek concordance, etc. This would give them some tools so they wouldn't blindly accept everything at face value.

 

[gamespotter10]

Regarding "indoctrination" --- assuming that the Stanley/Urey Biogenesis Experiment was not fraudulent (it was), start with the idea of "organic soup, with minute amounts of amino acids". Please detail the process by which only left-handed molecules arrange themselves into self-replicating life.

some bacteria have been discovered which use left-handed amino acids

Which came first --- amino acids, or poly-peptides? DNA or cellular walls? How does statistical probability allow for any chance development (let alone a second SIMULTANEOUS evolving of Mitochondrea)?

montmorilinite clay is a catalyst for both amino acids and nucleotides and poly peptides. learn more about the origin of life in this fantastic video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4

by the way, not all living cells need cell walls. amoeba dont have cell walls

A side note --- on a bacterial flagellum, how can each part (stator, rotor, drive shaft, bearings, electrostatic sequencer) arise individually (meaning, how can any one part be enviromentally beneficial apart from a moving flagellum)?

by using a simple concept of evolution. "the machine which was ancestral to the modern machine need not have the same function as the modern machine" of the 42 proteins which make up the bacterial flagellum, 40 of them are homologous to other systems

This "line of reasoning" that I just posted, is what you call "indoctrination". I look forward to hearing your scientific explanations.

I've already offered scientific explanations

...and there wasn't a trace of hostility or sarcasm in that; please respond with science.

 

[LittleNipper]

From what I've observed, creationists tend to base their interpretation of the Bible on what they were told by an authority figure. That certainly paves the way for indoctrination, especially when the authority figure teaches that when reality disagrees with the interpretation, reality is at fault.

On the other hand, scientists (including evolutionists) are taught how to use tools such as the scientific method. Learning how to use these tools is no more indoctrination than learning how to operate a car.

Perhaps creationists (and more Christians in general) should to get better at studying the history of the Bible and Christianity, get a good Hebrew/Greek concordance, etc. This would give them some tools so they wouldn't blindly accept everything at face value.

I disagree. True, believers have been informed that they can trust the Bible. But I know of no church where the Genesis creation has been hashed and rehased on a steady basis. It simply does not happen. indoctrination can only happen in an educational setting where everyone is in agreement with specifics. Christians have far too much of a personal consideration to contend regarding their walk with GOD.

 

[AV1611VET]

But I know of no church where the Genesis creation has been hashed and rehased on a steady basis.

Then you don't know the First Church of the Holy Clipboard; where white coats are the standard garb, communion is taken by vials, and the Periodic Table of the Elements resides in the most holy place - the laboratory. Ever-changing scripture is studied daily and nature worship is highly stressed.

 

[Contracelsus]

Then you don't know the First Church of the Holy Clipboard; where white coats are the standard garb, communion is taken by vials, and the Periodic Table of the Elements resides in the most holy place - the laboratory. Ever-changing scripture is studied daily and nature worship is highly stressed.

Hahaha! You're funny!

Maybe if you had ever been in a science lab, or taken more than the junior high physical science class then it would be more insigtful. Or you would make a point.

No, you live in a world where your understanding of science is about as deep as this:

Try learning some science like a big boy and then come back and make critiques of it.

Until then you're scientific insights are as valid as a Jerry Lewis movie.

 

[AV1611VET]

Try learning some science like a big boy and then come back and make critiques of it.

You don't need me to critique it --- it'll eventually be pwned by its own congregation --- under the name, "peer review."

 

[FishFace]

You don't need me to critique it --- it'll eventually be pwned by its own congregation --- under the name, "peer review."

So our understanding of the world will be even better! Isn't that great!

 

[Contracelsus]

You don't need me to critique it --- it'll eventually be pwned by its own congregation --- under the name, "peer review."

Unlike you, I suspect, I've actually been through peer review.

I value it as one of its strengths. SOmething you would never understand. You can't understand it when someone points out clearly how you are mistaken.

You run away from those instances on this forum. Or you petulantly tell the other person that you are right and they are wrong, end of story.

Come back when YOU'VE had a publication pass through peer review. Then maybe we'll have something to talk about little one.

 

[Contracelsus]

So our understanding of the world will be even better! Isn't that great!

I think it would be funny if people like AV1611VET would have to stand up to peer review of his work as many of us have had to. I wonder how he'd fare. Could he stand up to that kind of stress? I've had some hurtful things said about my work in peer review.

But that's why people with the REAL guts become scientists. It isn't for wimps and wusses who can only preach to the choir.

 

[Molal]

I disagree. True, believers have been informed that they can trust the Bible. But I know of no church where the Genesis creation has been hashed and rehased on a steady basis. It simply does not happen. indoctrination can only happen in an educational setting where everyone is in agreement with specifics. Christians have far too much of a personal consideration to contend regarding their walk with GOD.

Given the number of christian denominations and the different genesis interpretations, I would suggest that the creation account has been re-hashed multiple times.

Clearly, you are wrong.

And, if your example of indoctrination is correct (which I believe is not - if it is provide some evidence), then you clearly state that biblical indoctrination within a religious sect happens. Thus, you are, by your definition, indoctrinated.

 

[AV1611VET]

But that's why people with the REAL guts become scientists. It isn't for wimps and wusses who can only preach to the choir.

Have you ever stood on this side of the Cross, Contracelsus? You don't know what it's like to want to spend a nice evening with your wife at a planetarium (yes, a planetarium); there to see the Horsehead Nebula, or Orion's Belt, or whatever; only to have the moment ruined by going through a 45 minute lecture on how it formed millions of years ago, etc.

Or to sit in front of the TV to see the wonders of God's creatures on Animal Planet, only to hear, "This trait evolved over centuries of..." etc.

It just takes away the awe of the moment.