Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site?
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 46 of 301 (284606)
02-07-2006 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by PaulK
02-07-2006 2:56 AM


Re: talkorigins vs. bible.ca
Read my earlier posts and links. I showed where they do exactly that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by PaulK, posted 02-07-2006 2:56 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by Percy, posted 02-07-2006 2:14 PM randman has not replied
 Message 48 by PaulK, posted 02-07-2006 2:39 PM randman has not replied
 Message 49 by ramoss, posted 02-07-2006 2:44 PM randman has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 47 of 301 (284607)
02-07-2006 2:14 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by randman
02-07-2006 2:09 PM


Re: talkorigins vs. bible.ca
randman writes:
Read my earlier posts and links. I showed where they do exactly that.
Please read the replies to your earlier posts and links. They show where you are mistaken.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by randman, posted 02-07-2006 2:09 PM randman has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 48 of 301 (284616)
02-07-2006 2:39 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by randman
02-07-2006 2:09 PM


Re: talkorigins vs. bible.ca
You haven't even shown that the two article are using significantly different definitions. And you have not even offered a single place where the equivocation you refer to is actually used - not even a single place where you claim that it was actually used.
n

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by randman, posted 02-07-2006 2:09 PM randman has not replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 611 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 49 of 301 (284621)
02-07-2006 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by randman
02-07-2006 2:09 PM


Re: talkorigins vs. bible.ca
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by randman, posted 02-07-2006 2:09 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by randman, posted 02-07-2006 4:45 PM ramoss has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 50 of 301 (284664)
02-07-2006 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by ramoss
02-07-2006 2:44 PM


repeat
What is so hard for you guys to grasp here. I will repost, but I clearly showed 2 places where TalkOrigins does exactly what I claim they do.
What don't you understand about the following?
One of the favorite propaganda technigues of evos is used at Talkorigins. Evos define "evolution" as basically any change or any heritable change, as shown in the article below.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
So they can safely argue that "evolution" is observed based on this definition of evolution. The reason this is a false argument is that the definition of "evolution" under debate is not the idea that change occurs. Creationism is thus equally as much "evolution" under the observed evolution definition as the Theory of Evolution, and evos know this.
Let's see if they really are consistent and state "evolution" is mere change over time.
Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
So here we see TalkOrigins state evolution is actually the grander concept they call "the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses."
Hmmm....what should we make of this?
Clearly, they deliberately use propaganda stating "evolution" is observed to argue for an entirely different definition of "evolution" the grand concept embracing a plurality of hypothesis and theories. In other words, they talk out of both sides of their mouth. They say evolution is observed, and then use the same word to describe the Theory of Evolution, which is not observed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by ramoss, posted 02-07-2006 2:44 PM ramoss has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by cavediver, posted 02-07-2006 5:03 PM randman has replied
 Message 52 by Modulous, posted 02-07-2006 5:06 PM randman has not replied
 Message 54 by JonF, posted 02-07-2006 5:08 PM randman has replied
 Message 55 by PaulK, posted 02-07-2006 5:09 PM randman has replied
 Message 57 by NosyNed, posted 02-07-2006 5:14 PM randman has not replied
 Message 58 by nwr, posted 02-07-2006 5:19 PM randman has replied
 Message 294 by DominionSeraph, posted 04-04-2006 1:37 AM randman has not replied

cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 51 of 301 (284675)
02-07-2006 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by randman
02-07-2006 4:45 PM


Re: repeat
Randman, with your hand on your heart, can you honestly tell me that
Evos define "evolution" as basically any change or any heritable change, as shown in the article below.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
accurately reflects the view presented in that article? I've just read that article and I am astounded that you have made that claim...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by randman, posted 02-07-2006 4:45 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by randman, posted 02-07-2006 5:07 PM cavediver has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 52 of 301 (284677)
02-07-2006 5:06 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by randman
02-07-2006 4:45 PM


Re: repeat
From your link:
What exactly do biologists mean when they say that they have observed evolution or that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor?
I think they are being quite clear as to what they are referring to when they are discussing evolution. To be honest, I think the article needs a little more work, it is a 13 year old bb post.
So they can safely argue that "evolution" is observed based on this definition of evolution. The reason this is a false argument is that the definition of "evolution" under debate is not the idea that change occurs.
It isn't an argument, its a definition. An argument can be found in the other article you listed:
TO writes:
In evolutionary debates one is apt to hear evolution roughly parceled between the terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution". Microevolution, or change beneath the species level, may be thought of as relatively small scale change in the functional and genetic constituencies of populations of organisms. That this occurs and has been observed is generally undisputed by critics of evolution. What is vigorously challenged, however, is macroevolution. Macroevolution is evolution on the "grand scale" resulting in the origin of higher taxa. In evolutionary theory it thus entails common ancestry, descent with modification, speciation, the genealogical relatedness of all life, transformation of species, and large scale functional and structural changes of populations through time, all at or above the species level (Freeman and Herron 2004; Futuyma 1998; Ridley 1993).
Wherein they clearly set forth the issue in debate before tackling it. You will need to point to where the argument is set forward that 'Evolution is observed as per our definition
You dispute that dinosaurs and birds are related
That would be evolution.
Evolution has been observed, therefore dispute is over'
Let's see if they really are consistent and state "evolution" is mere change over time.
Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
All the mechanisms they describe have been observed. Evolution itself has been observed, not ALL evolution has been observed. At no point does T.O attempt to make this argument...if it does, point it out.
Clearly, they deliberately use propaganda stating "evolution" is observed to argue for an entirely different definition of "evolution" the grand concept embracing a plurality of hypothesis and theories
Then show us where they put forward this argument. All we have at the moment is one definition.
One can quibble about the accuracy of such a definition (and we have often quibbled on these newsgroups) but it also conveys the essence of what evolution really is. When biologists say that they have observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in the frequency of genes in a population. (Often the genetic change is inferred from phenotypic changes that are heritable.) When biologists say that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor they mean that there have been successive heritable changes in the two separated populations since they became isolated.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
I think the definition you linked to clearly shows that there is a difference between the observed evolution and the evolution under debate. On the one hand:
when biologists say that they have observed evolution, they mean
and on the other hand:
When biologists say that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor they mean
They say evolution is observed, and then use the same word to describe the Theory of Evolution, which is not observed.
The theory hasn't been observed any more than any other theory. A theory is an explanatory framework. The mechanisms proposed in the theory have been observed. They make it quite clear that common ancestry between taxa has not been observed.
This message has been edited by Modulous, Tue, 07-February-2006 10:13 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by randman, posted 02-07-2006 4:45 PM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 53 of 301 (284678)
02-07-2006 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by cavediver
02-07-2006 5:03 PM


Re: repeat
Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.
This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution.
....
One can quibble about the accuracy of such a definition (and we have often quibbled on these newsgroups) but it also conveys the essence of what evolution really is. When biologists say that they have observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in the frequency of genes in a population. (Often the genetic change is inferred from phenotypic changes that are heritable.) When biologists say that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor they mean that there have been successive heritable changes in the two separated populations since they became isolated.
Unfortunately the common definitions of evolution outside of the scientific community are different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:
"evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years."
This is inexcusable for a dictionary of science.
Heritable change, yep. I think it's clear here that they are bashing the use of "evolution" to refer to ToE, as expressed:
evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years
Which they claim is inexcusable. They nonetheless do refer to ToE and use "evolution" in the broader sense elsewhere on their site. It appears they want to be able to claim "evolution is observed", and yet "evolution" in the broader sense is not observed. It's a propaganda technigue, using semantics and sophistry to try to strengthen the claim that just because heritable changes occur, that means evolution in the broader sense is somehow observed, or to leave the impression it is logical to think so. It's wrong, but typical.
Evos need to stick with one definition and one definition only.
This message has been edited by randman, 02-07-2006 05:12 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by cavediver, posted 02-07-2006 5:03 PM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by Percy, posted 02-07-2006 5:30 PM randman has replied

JonF
Member (Idle past 167 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 54 of 301 (284679)
02-07-2006 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by randman
02-07-2006 4:45 PM


Re: repeat
Evos define "evolution" as basically any change or any heritable change, as shown in the article below. ... Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. ... Hmmm....what should we make of this?
That there is a fact that evolution happens and there is a theory of evolution that attempts to explain how it happens. No propaganda, no evil people trying to fool you. You've just misunderstood an honest effort to explain.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by randman, posted 02-07-2006 4:45 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by randman, posted 02-07-2006 5:14 PM JonF has not replied
 Message 64 by randman, posted 02-07-2006 5:43 PM JonF has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 55 of 301 (284680)
02-07-2006 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by randman
02-07-2006 4:45 PM


Re: repeat
OK, I'll take this slowly.
It is not enough to assert that the two articles are using different definitions.
It is not enough even to show that they are using different definitions (somethign you hve yet to do).
Rationally speaking there is nothing automatically improper with using different definitions in different articles. That does not imply equivocation as you falsely assert.
What you have to show is what you claimed. You have to show that they use one definition of evolution to show that evolution is observed, and then use that argument to claim that "evolution" - meaning some other definition - is observed.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that we are asking for an actual example ?t

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by randman, posted 02-07-2006 4:45 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by randman, posted 02-07-2006 5:28 PM PaulK has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 56 of 301 (284682)
02-07-2006 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by JonF
02-07-2006 5:08 PM


Re: repeat
It's not an honest effort. It's deliberately using semantics to obscure the real issue.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by JonF, posted 02-07-2006 5:08 PM JonF has not replied

NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 57 of 301 (284683)
02-07-2006 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by randman
02-07-2006 4:45 PM


Some careful reading required.
Reading just what you post says one thing about what TO says.
However when reading the links you gave the truth is something else entirely.
You appear to exhibit (over and over again) some very significant problems with reading comprehension. I recommend seeing someone for an assessment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by randman, posted 02-07-2006 4:45 PM randman has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 58 of 301 (284684)
02-07-2006 5:19 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by randman
02-07-2006 4:45 PM


Re: repeat
Evos define "evolution" as basically any change or any heritable change, as shown in the article below.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html
That definition does emphasize that it is change in populations, not individuals. What is the problem with the definition?
Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent
The first is commenting on "evolution" the term, while the second is commenting on evolution, the theory. The context makes it quite clear which is which.
This isn't propaganda. This is natural language, where words have varying meanings depending on context.
Maybe you were confused. But it wasn't intended to be confusing. In my experience, biologists are quite clear in distinguishing between "the fact of evolution" (change that has been observed) and "the theory of evolution" which has a role much like other scientific theories.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by randman, posted 02-07-2006 4:45 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by randman, posted 02-07-2006 5:39 PM nwr has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 59 of 301 (284686)
02-07-2006 5:28 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by PaulK
02-07-2006 5:09 PM


Re: repeat
PaulK, the site devotes a whole article to defining evolution and doing so in such a way as to show it is observed. The site then refers to "evolution" elsewhere in articles clearly referring to much more than heritable changes. Moreover, it does so in a further deceptive manner claiming, more or less, evolution (common descent) is a fact, and that just the proposed methods are theory.
If you cannot see that as propaganda, well....there's probably not much to discuss with you on it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by PaulK, posted 02-07-2006 5:09 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 61 by Percy, posted 02-07-2006 5:32 PM randman has replied
 Message 73 by PaulK, posted 02-07-2006 6:12 PM randman has not replied
 Message 87 by Modulous, posted 02-08-2006 8:48 AM randman has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 60 of 301 (284687)
02-07-2006 5:30 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by randman
02-07-2006 5:07 PM


Re: repeat
Hi Randman,
I think everyone is looking for an example of this "bait and switch" you keep talking about. Your post that I'm replying to doesn't have it. It contains a definition of evolution the process or theory, but it never touches on evolution the observed natural phenomena.
I'm guessing that Cavediver objected to your definition from your Message 50 because it said, in part, "Evos define evolution as basically any change..." Evolution is not defined as "any change". You go on to include "heritable change", but that doesn't define evolution, either. Heritable change is part of the overall process of evolution, but it also includes natural selection and descent with modification. And evolution in modern terms is usually defined in terms of changes in the allele frequencies of populations over time, which the excerpt you included *does* mention.
I think to make your point you need to provide an excerpt from a page at TalkOrigins that makes the misleading statements that you keep claiming it does. So far nothing quoted you've provided has accomplished this.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by randman, posted 02-07-2006 5:07 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by randman, posted 02-07-2006 5:49 PM Percy has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024