If I give you an answer that says you are indoctrinated, I am not trying to demean you. I am also not trying to avoid a debate question. I am not saying you are dumb in any way. I only say this when the facts of your answers show indoctrination. I was indoctrinated with this beguiling science as well, so I know the mental games you must play on yourself to believe the fantasy of evolution. And I am a very intelligent person. Just fact, not bragging. I fell for this science in a paleontology class in college. Evolution made so much sense to me, far more than the “Adam and Eve” story that I had given up years before, but never replaced. I just didn’t know how things came about, but I was and still am incredibly fascinated with the subject. When I went to my first class, there was the bearded PHD instructor that my very religious father had warned me about, showing how evolution was the source of everything in nature. The first day he asked “Please raise your hand if you do not believe in Darwinian evolution.” I raised mine, along with about half of the other students. At the end of the first week, he asked for a raising of hands again. There was nary a one. He had us all. We were all convinced, and the indoctrination began. In fact it was already successful.
About twenty years ago, when I was still a firm believer in evolution, I began thinking and having doubts about the notion that an entity with absolutely zero intelligence could put together all of the incredible bio-systems of nature. I picked up one of my texts on the subject, and turned to a page that showed how early primates and man have the same lower first molar configuration with five cusps. Apes have four. Supposedly this showed that man is evolutionarily related those five cusped early primates. That ONE FACT satisfied me…….temporarily. It convinced me that evolution was the way EVERYTHING happened. That littlest of crumbs convinced me that natural selection et al formed all of nature. Astounding. How could I possibly been so fooled? Why was I so gullible. I was! And I freely admit it. I was indoctrinated. And that one example meant the indoctrination was working well.
These are the indicators to me that you are indoctrinated:
(1) When the answers you give have nothing to do with the questions I ask and you have no idea. Here is a perfect example:
Re: the evolution of vision: (This is an actual YouTube answer): (eyes)”couldn’t assemble itself”…moron…do you know how snowflakes form? what’s your try to explain snowflakes? “fairies did it”? ”
This guy has no idea that there is no purpose or biological function to the design of snowflakes, and uses them as his answer anyway.
(2) When your answers are memorized dogma. Stuff that someone who taught you in school who doesn’t know, or a book you read written by a person who has no idea how nature came to be but nonetheless has fooled you into thinking they do. One great example is that I ask the question about how bio-systems, such as a hepatic system, which had to evolve in a single species, migrated from the original species to all of the other species that then and now have livers. I usually get this answer:
“Traits” change and those changes are caused by mutations, and are passed from generation to generation. Additional changes occur, and eventually, through tiny steps over millions of years……..”
The writers obviously have no idea about the difference between “traits” which are items such as eye color, height, weight, hair color, and “biological systems”, which includes items such as hepatic systems, vision, auditory systems, musculo-skeletel,….. The evo-responders are on auto pilot. They just spout the answer, because that is what they were taught. There is no thought as to whether the question is answered or not. Push the button, out comes the dogma displaying indoctrination. And this is common beyond my wildest expectations. Intelligent people who must know the difference between “traits” and “biological systems” write as if they don’t.
(3) I pose a question, and instead of answering you choose to demean my education, which is extensive, my knowledge about evolution, which is also extensive, (remember, I was an evolutionaut, and an enthusiastic one at that) my IQ, my upbringing….you say ANYTHING but answer the question posed.
(4) You play the religion card. Again, I am not religious. You bring up “the magic man in the sky”, “sky fairies”, “bronze age books and goat-herders”, anything to distract from the question you are showing you can’t answer.
(5) You call me inane names. I have already been called everything you can think of and more. IDiot, fuckwit, moron, retard, Creotard. Again, by doing this you are avoiding answering a question you can’t deal with. So this is the way you choose to distract from that question. It simply shows indoctrination.
(6) You refer me to another site, book, or video, made by someone who you worship and who you think knows all of the answers. They don’t. And if you believe they are somehow super-intelligent and know all, far more than you do, you are indoctrinated. You have fallen, just like I did. If you think their stuff is so great, learn it and discuss the information with me yourself. I have read “mountains” of pro-evolution peer reviewed papers (see page 5 on this blog), pro-evolution books. I have viewed many pro-evolution shows on Discovery, PBS, and the Science Channel. I have viewed many of the “big” pro-evolution YouTube vids (CDK007, potholer54, on and on). Many of these items are reviewed, posted and playable, and reprinted on this blog. So please, don’t rely on the thinking of others. Don’t refer me to a Google “look up”, or a YouTube video, or a book or paper that requires no effort on your part. If you do you have caved in to your indoctrination.
(7) When an astounding but sound fact is posed to you that may not quite fit into evolution’s origin of species and nature, your response is to demean the fact and above all defend evolution instead of discussing the fact with interest, and a desire to really dig down and understand our beginnings.
(8) You think you are 100% right about this subject that no person who ever lived has the answers for. There are no 100%’s in the subject of the origin of nature and us.
(9) You are willing to accept that immense numbers of the most preposterous events imaginable occurred without the slightest bit of skepticism or wonder, simply because someone told you they did.
(10) You can’t entertain even the slightest notion that you may have been fooled into accepting dogma that your teachers and books have taught you.
The following is a vid I made on the first ten reasons:
(11) When you refer to your field of interest, or to your own thoughts and feelings regarding evolution, using plural pronouns like “WE” and “US”. “WE” think….” “How can WE trust stevebee….””WE have evidence……” You have placed yourself into a group. A black hole of thought. You are not an individual and you do not think like one. No science discussion I have ever been in, be, it astronomy, biology, genetics, has the person I was discussing with used the term “WE” to tell me what a group of scientists has, thinks, or feels, with the exception of evolution. An exception is if they are actually part of a small team of scientists working on a project. Then “we” have found a new planet circling………” is not groupthink and is appropriate communication. If you talk in “we” instead of “they”, or “the scientists”, you are identifying yourself inadvertently as a member of a groupthink process.
By the way, for evolutionauts that want to rag on my “we’s”: I do use “we” in describing mankind. For example: “How lucky “we” are to live in time that “we” know what black holes are.” Those “we’s” are describing mankind, not a group that all thinks and acts exactly alike.
(12) When you give me lists that I am supposed to believe, and probably look up, to answer a rational question. “Oh, Birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs. Proof is Ornithodira, Dinosaurs, Saurischian dinosaurs, Therapods, Tetanurae, Coelesaurs, Manirapterans.”
A guy named Calilasseia on www.rationalskepticism.org gave me this answer to my very basic easy to understand question on my population paradox page and at their site regarding time for doubling averages:
“So, already, the authors inform us that they have analysed no less than seven different population dynamic models, namely:
[1] The Ricker model;
[2] The Hassell model;
[3] The tent map model;
[4] The Beverton-Holt model;
[5] The Skellam model;
[6] The quadratic model;
[7] The theta-Ricker model.”
Full article > http://evoillusion.org/why-i-say-you-are-indoctrinated/
