|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Well, you are wrong about what the Talk origins says abotu the embros.
From Icon of Obfuscation
quote: It further goes on to explain
quote: Since it deals with Haeckels embroys in depth, your critisms are unwarrented.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
You know, upon seeing another of the sources you are using, I find it very ironic you are using 'True Origins' , written by Jorge Fernandez, to attack talkorigins.
Amoung the things that Jorge Fernandez promots is 'Young Earth Creationism'. Some sample articles is trying to show that the earth is YOUNG, using helium, and it also trys to promote that there was , indeed, a world wide flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Can you point to the specific part where Richardson said it was a fraut perpetuated? That is a claim of Well's yes.. but we can deal with Wells and his book where he makes that claim later.
Show the specific line that says it was a purposeful fraud in his work. Give an exact quote.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Let me rephrase then.
Where does Talk origins say that Haeckel was correct? You seem to be ignoring the link I showed in talk origins that specifically said they agree that Haeckel's drawings should not be included. They also pointed out that Well's is exagerating the signifigence, and that none of the text books that used to use promote the concept that Haeckel was trying to illustrate that was incorrect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
On the other hand, Randman specificlaly said that T.O is not reliable, since it is a 'propoganda site'. Yet, other than brining up Haekel, and accepting Well's mischaracterisation of it, Randman has not been able to show that 1) Talkorigins misrepresents Haeckle or 2) is unreliable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I think he shoudl get an argument he at least understands.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
After reviewing your links. I see where you made the CLAIM that T.o. did certain things.
However, you did not show exactly where it made certain claims. You are taking Jose Fernandezes word (who, IMO, lacks both biological and scientific knowledge, and also objectivity). There is a difference in claiming that a site says something, and showing that it actually says what is claimed, IN CONTEXT. So far, you have succeeded in only making accusations against T.O., and then repeat the wildly exagerated claims of Jonathan Wells , which are repeated by Jose Fernandez.. (whose claims were answered ON the T.O. web site by the way, but totally ignored by the above two people, and you). Once you point out on the T.O. website that it actually makes the claims you say it does, then we can look at it IN CONTEXT to find out of your understanding of it is correct, and if your accusations have any merit. So far, you have not done so. So, point to the web page in talk origins that purposely makes the claims you say it does. Find it in Talk origins itself, and not rely on the propoganda of two people whose motivation for attacking evolution seems purely religious.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
And, that is actually correct. When discussing evolution, there is a differnece between discussing the historicla data, and the reasons WHY it happens.
Just like gravity,and the theory of Gravity. Gravity happens. We can describe what it does with some mathamatical forumlas Why does it happen. That is what the theory of gravity does. Or, do you want to bring in 'Intelligent Falling' into the discussion. Evolution has been, in fact, observed. Speciation has been, in fact, has been observed. That is both 'micro' and 'macro' evolution in action.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Actually, they specifically show that is what the theory is, and give the facts assocaited from the theory.
If you wish to deny what is said, that is your religous view. As a matter of fact, I can specifically show on the web site when discussing the evidence, they call it a THEORY. From29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). The theory specifically postulates that all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related, much in the same way that siblings or cousins are related to one another. Thus, macroevolutionary history and processes necessarily entail the transformation of one species into another and, consequently, the origin of higher taxa. Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.
It does refer to another link (in quotes) of the "fact of evolution"which can be found. It is a link to how evolution can be both a FACT and a Theory. This added explanation can be found at Evolution is a Fact and a Theory A quote from it is as follows
W hen non-biologists talk about biological evolution they often confuse two different aspects of the definition. On the one hand there is the question of whether or not modern organisms have evolved from older ancestral organisms or whether modern species are continuing to change over time. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Stephen J. Gould has put this as well as anyone else:
Now, can you describe, in scientific terms,what an evolutionary biologist will define the term 'evolution' as. (Specificallly bological evolution, if I am not clear enough). Can you give the precise definition?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Biology itself. The idea of classifying species based on similarities. Genetics, and all of science are examples creationism can claim equal credit to evolutionism.
How? How has creationism done one thing to advance any of those? What creationism principle allowed for, let say, the development of new antibodics. what specicific I.D> principles made predictions, and helped iwth the area of genetics? Make a claim, and gettins specifics are two different thing. Unless you back up generalities with specifics, you are just blowing smoke.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Gosh, then you would have the concept of Intelligen Design, or religion, or a mishmash of the two.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I thihk you are right. Randman has not been able show one thing where talkorigins have made false statements. When it shows where other people
make claims of specifics, looking at talkorigins shows those claims to be incorrect.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
I have shown it. It is irrefutable so I am not going to waste time repeating myself on all of the same points, except for the following.
Hum. You have an interesting definition of 'irrefutable'. Claim by randman Refuting by a number of different people Claim by randman that origina claim was irrefutable. What is wrong with this picture. Could it be that your definition ofirrefutable is "There is no evidence that I will look at that will make me change my mind, because I won't bother to look at the evidence or claims counter to my opinion"?? It appears to be that only the people who are dead wrong use the wordthat something is 'irrefutable' here.. and they use it on a regular basis. Fix typo. --Admin This message has been edited by Admin, 02-20-2006 09:18 AM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024