Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site?
nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 91 of 301 (285126)
02-09-2006 7:41 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Percy
02-08-2006 10:05 AM


Re: consider these articles
quote:
I'm not sure that quoting Gould himself can support the contention that he's using the scientific definition of fact. That seems kind of circular. I think you need an outside reference.
Fair enough.
quote:
The evidence of evolution, facts if you like, is what we dig from the ground, find in the wild and observe in our laboratories. Everything else is interpretation.
Don't you think that our perceptions or measurements of what we dig up or find in the wild still cannot be considered 100% perfect knowledge?
Measurements and observations cannot be perfect, can they?
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-09-2006 07:41 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Percy, posted 02-08-2006 10:05 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Percy, posted 02-09-2006 8:08 AM nator has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 92 of 301 (285130)
02-09-2006 8:08 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by nator
02-09-2006 7:41 AM


Re: consider these articles
schrafinator writes:
Don't you think that our perceptions or measurements of what we dig up or find in the wild still cannot be considered 100% perfect knowledge?
Measurements and observations cannot be perfect, can they?
Correct, even our facts are tentative, but just as with the "fact of evolution" issue, I don't usually push for this point of view, either. In most contexts it's a distraction from the main issue. There certainly *is* a hierarchy of certainty, generally speaking, in that the more directly obtained our knowledge the greater our assurance of its correctness, and I think everyone intuitively understands this, so the names we use to refer to things like facts, observations, results, conclusions, etc., are usually not so important.
But as long as we're on the topic, I consider the "fact of evolution" issue a big distraction. To creationists it sounds like evolutionists are saying that because it's a fact it can't be disputed, and I often see evolutionists characterizing it in just this way. To me the creationist complaint is justified. Randman has in this case for once, at least in my opinion, properly identified a legitimate issue. That evolution has occurred is not a fact in the way that most people understand the word - it is only a conclusion arrived at after examining the evidence.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by nator, posted 02-09-2006 7:41 AM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by nator, posted 02-09-2006 8:26 AM Percy has not replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 93 of 301 (285136)
02-09-2006 8:26 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Percy
02-09-2006 8:08 AM


Re: consider these articles
We agree.
The problem is, though, that Creationists like randman hold the ToE to an entirely different standard than, say, the Germ Theory of Disease or the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System.
They never for a moment spend any time seriously doubting those theories, even though the ToE is just as well-supported, if not better.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Percy, posted 02-09-2006 8:08 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by randman, posted 02-10-2006 12:50 AM nator has not replied

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


Message 94 of 301 (285386)
02-10-2006 12:50 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by nator
02-09-2006 8:26 AM


Re: consider these articles
They never for a moment spend any time seriously doubting those theories, even though the ToE is just as well-supported, if not better.
Nom the real problem is you evos are too insecure to admit to yourself that perfectly reasonable and intelligent and rational people do indeed look at the data and evidence and disagree with you. It threatens your belief system. So you make up false motives like those above in order to make yourself feel more secure in your belief system.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by nator, posted 02-09-2006 8:26 AM nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Percy, posted 02-10-2006 8:58 AM randman has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 95 of 301 (285448)
02-10-2006 8:58 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by randman
02-10-2006 12:50 AM


Re: consider these articles
randman writes:
Nom the real problem is you evos are too insecure to admit to yourself that perfectly reasonable and intelligent and rational people do indeed look at the data and evidence and disagree with you. It threatens your belief system. So you make up false motives like those above in order to make yourself feel more secure in your belief system.
What has this to do with the topic? I think you need to leave aside your emotional reactions and focus on addressing the topic. You say that evolutionists are making up false motives, but this is just part of your initial premise that TalkOrigins is a propaganda site. Please help move the discussion forward by moving beyond your initial premise and replying to the substance of recent posts.
The last few posts between me and Schraf concerned tentativity and sprang from your objection to claims that evolution is a fact. Why don't you follow up on that, or something else on-topic.
--Percy
This message has been edited by Percy, 02-10-2006 10:01 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by randman, posted 02-10-2006 12:50 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by randman, posted 02-10-2006 11:01 AM Percy has not replied

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


Message 96 of 301 (285478)
02-10-2006 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Percy
02-10-2006 8:58 AM


Re: consider these articles
What has this to do with the topic?
I was responding to this.
The problem is, though, that Creationists like randman hold the ToE to an entirely different standard than, say, the Germ Theory of Disease or the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System.
They never for a moment spend any time seriously doubting those theories, even though the ToE is just as well-supported, if not better.
Of course, shraf's comments are both false and off-topic, but since they were put out there and a very typical evo response (the ole the problem is those darn creationists are just unreasonable, ignorant, etc, etc,...), I decided to comment on what is probably actually really going on with such comments.
say that evolutionists are making up false motives,
Uh, no, she does create assign false motives.
Creationists like randman hold the ToE to an entirely different standard than, say, the Germ Theory of Disease or the Theory of a Heliocentric Solar System.
They never for a moment spend any time seriously doubting those theories
That's a lie, straight from the horses' mouth. I have never advocated the Thoery of a Heliocentric Solar System and don't even know what she is referring to as far as the Germ Theory of Disease, but she throws out such lies, smears, etc,..in a manner very typical of evos, imo, and I don't see anyone saying she is off-topic.
In terms of evolution being a theory and not a fact, I think it's covered. I may revisit some practices in the logic and statements in TO later, but I think defending myself against false charges when it's clear no mods are going to demand Shraf change her ways here is necessary to clear the air and let anyone reading what the score is here.
This message has been edited by randman, 02-10-2006 11:07 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Percy, posted 02-10-2006 8:58 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Wounded King, posted 02-10-2006 11:14 AM randman has replied
 Message 100 by crashfrog, posted 02-10-2006 12:44 PM randman has not replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 97 of 301 (285484)
02-10-2006 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by randman
02-10-2006 11:01 AM


Re: consider these articles
I have never advocated the Thoery of a Heliocentric Solar System and don't even know what she is referring to as far as the Germ Theory of Disease
You don't believe that the Sun is the central point around which the planets of the Solar system orbit? So Shraf is misrepesenting you by claiming that you don't believe the earth is the centre of the solar system, would she be misrepresenting you if she said you don't believe that the world is flat?
She wasn't making invidious comparisons between evolution and crazy theories of flat earths, turtles or illness being causes by invisble pixies. She was suggesting that there are many scientific theories which are quite happily accepted by the same people who are highly skeptical of evolution, yet which have no greater supporting evidence.
You might contend with her as to the level of evidentiary support for the models she chose, but your actual objection can only be thought of as completely misinterpeting what was being said.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by randman, posted 02-10-2006 11:01 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by randman, posted 02-10-2006 11:28 AM Wounded King has not replied

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


Message 98 of 301 (285498)
02-10-2006 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Wounded King
02-10-2006 11:14 AM


Re: consider these articles
OK, I misread her. I thought she was referring to geocentrism, the idea that the earth is the center of the universe.
So I was wrong on that, and I see she refers to the Germ Theory meanign I assume that germs cause disease. So her point is I accept these things, why not evolution?
She still makes a fundamental error in assuming the reason I do not accept evolution has to do with not accepting facts or scientific analysis when in reality, it is the facts and scientific analysis that make me question ToE. Moreover, I repeatedly refer to those facts all the time here, and substantiate them, and imo, no evo has ever been able to refute those things. The one possible exception, I readily admit, is the area of genetics which I do not understand as much.
But looking at the fossil record, the overstated claims of evos, etc,...with an open mind, I had to conclude evolutionists are wrong, and not properly dealing with the data.
So she is still very much assigning false motives to me and others. If the evidence for the sun being the center of the solar system was as scant as ToE, and if the advocates of that theory had a long history of passing off overstatements and sometimes outright fraudulent evidentiary claims, I would doubt that too.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Wounded King, posted 02-10-2006 11:14 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Percy, posted 02-10-2006 12:36 PM randman has replied
 Message 124 by Kapyong, posted 02-11-2006 6:05 PM randman has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 99 of 301 (285543)
02-10-2006 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by randman
02-10-2006 11:28 AM


Re: consider these articles
randman writes:
So she is still very much assigning false motives to me and others. If the evidence for the sun being the center of the solar system was as scant as ToE, and if the advocates of that theory had a long history of passing off overstatements and sometimes outright fraudulent evidentiary claims, I would doubt that too.
I think you're still missing the point. If you go to a flat-earth site or a "we never went to the moon" site you'll see that there's no shortage of ingenius objections. Anyone who wants to reject geocentrism or the Apollo moon shots can find plenty of ammunition to satisfy themselves. But that's all they're able to do, satisfy themselves. Unable to muster any evidence for geocentrism or against heliocentrism they are limited to convincing only those who, for who knows what reasons, are already inclined this way.
Schraf is in essence saying that creationists are doing the same thing. Already strongly inclined to reject evolution because of the challenge it represents for Christian faith, creationists have no end of arguments they can muster against it. Their problem is that, just like the flat-earthers and the we-never-went-to-the-mooners, they're unable to muster any true evidence for creationism, nor any true evidence against evolution, and so they're unable to convince anyone except the already so-inclined. Of course, the U.S. has a very large evangelical community, so the population of the so-inclined is very large, which is why creationism isn't as marginalized as geocentrism and moon-shot sceptics. But the lack of true evidence-based arguments is fatal from a scientific perspective, and so they're reduced to doing things like claiming it's all just propaganda.
--Percy
This message has been edited by Percy, 02-10-2006 12:36 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by randman, posted 02-10-2006 11:28 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by randman, posted 02-10-2006 12:46 PM Percy has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 100 of 301 (285551)
02-10-2006 12:44 PM
Reply to: Message 96 by randman
02-10-2006 11:01 AM


Re: consider these articles
don't even know what she is referring to as far as the Germ Theory of Disease
Exactly what it says. The idea that some diseases are caused by germs, invisible factors that inhabit our air, water, and sometimes food.
It's just a theory, you know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by randman, posted 02-10-2006 11:01 AM randman has not replied

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


Message 101 of 301 (285553)
02-10-2006 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Percy
02-10-2006 12:36 PM


Re: consider these articles
One problem with your analysis is that evos after many years sometimes do finally relent and admit their critics were correct concerning the facts.
Take the Biogenetic Law. It took well over 50 years after it was abundantly clear it was total hogwash for evos to come clean on this, but they finally did. It took much longer to admit, even partially, to Haeckel's forgeries, but after 130 years, they started coming around.
On the fossil record, there is a recently published paper which agrees with what I have been saying all along (I started a new thread on it), but the paper says that evolution can occur rapidly, not gradually, instead of positing ID, but the basic fact that it's not there are missing gaps, but that the gaps really did not occur or some thought along those lines is affirmed. It has taken decades to get evos to begin to change and face the facts of the fossil record, but it seems to be gradually evolving in that direction.
So I would say we have the exact opposite situation. The evo community is predisposed generally to ignore the facts that could undermine their beliefs, and even promote questionable facts, proven to be false later. The paper's authors even mention the indoctrination level within the evo community just as I have.
So we have a solid mountain of evidence of gross negligence in either ignoring the facts, or promoting fallacies, in the history of Darwinism. Evo critics have been correct when evos were wrong.
Now, it may be that the alternative theories have not been advanced sufficiently yet, and if you want to claim that, then fine, but it's clear that in the evo debate, the predisposition to ignore the facts has been very strong on the evo side in promoting their beleifs.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Percy, posted 02-10-2006 12:36 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by nator, posted 02-10-2006 1:01 PM randman has replied
 Message 104 by Percy, posted 02-10-2006 1:43 PM randman has replied

nator
Member (Idle past 2169 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 102 of 301 (285562)
02-10-2006 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by randman
02-10-2006 12:46 PM


Re: consider these articles
So, if Evolution is all wrong, and it's all lies or falsehoods that the scientific community conspires to promote to an unwitting public, why is Crashfrog's wife and thousands of other Evolutionary scientists able to make successful predictions based upon Evolutionary theory?
Why does it work?
quote:
So we have a solid mountain of evidence of gross negligence in either ignoring the facts, or promoting fallacies, in the history of Darwinism.
So Crashfrog's wife is a complete moron as a scientist or she is a liar and a cheat who has conspired with thousands of other scientists to knowingly promote falsehoods.
That's your claim, correct?
This message has been edited by schrafinator, 02-10-2006 01:04 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by randman, posted 02-10-2006 12:46 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by randman, posted 02-10-2006 1:35 PM nator has replied

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


Message 103 of 301 (285589)
02-10-2006 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 102 by nator
02-10-2006 1:01 PM


Re: consider these articles
It doesn't "work" shraf. It doesn't adequately explain the evidence. In terms of evolution in the broader sense, it works and works just as well from a Creationist or ID perspective, and all that is that heritable changes occur.
But ToE itself doesn't work.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 102 by nator, posted 02-10-2006 1:01 PM nator has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by nator, posted 02-10-2006 1:52 PM randman has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22391
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 104 of 301 (285595)
02-10-2006 1:43 PM
Reply to: Message 101 by randman
02-10-2006 12:46 PM


Re: consider these articles
Yes, Randman, I know that there is plenty of ammunition for those opposed to evolution to convince themselves they are right. That was the whole point of my post. I understand that it feels to you like your points are valid, and I know you really believe that the only honest evolutionist is one who has been hounded by a creationist, but at the end of the day the community that is making scientific contributions is the evolutionists, not the creationists. Creationism cannot point to any scientific advances.
Even your perception that it is creationists who have been right and evolutionists wrong is an illusion. Science proceeds by a process of becoming more right (or less wrong, if you prefer) over time. Creationists criticize all aspects of evolution, so naturally they take credit for finding anything found wrong or in need of refinement. But when you place your bets on every number on the roulette wheel, you can't praise your luck when one of your numbers comes up. The fact of the matter is that with such a strategy you are guaranteed to be right every once in a while, but you're also guaranteed to be wrong all the rest of the time, and such is the case with creationism.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by randman, posted 02-10-2006 12:46 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by randman, posted 02-10-2006 1:49 PM Percy has replied

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


Message 105 of 301 (285601)
02-10-2006 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Percy
02-10-2006 1:43 PM


Re: consider these articles
percy, creationist scientists make advances just as evos. Imo, evos have set science back by perpetuating myths such as the Biogenetic Law and false characterizations of the fossil record.
The simple fact is that most scientists don't work on evolution/creationism per se, but on other issues. So in reality, evolutionism has not made advances either, imo. The fact both evolutionists and creationists/IDers have made advances in various fields does not change the fact that evolutionism is not an advance and so does not advance science.
It's another deceptive claim to pretend ToE advances biology and other sciences. All ToE does is set a framework, a wrong imo, for viewing the data, but the same advances can be made from a creationist or ID perspective.
This message has been edited by randman, 02-10-2006 01:50 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Percy, posted 02-10-2006 1:43 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by nator, posted 02-10-2006 1:59 PM randman has not replied
 Message 108 by Percy, posted 02-10-2006 2:18 PM randman has replied
 Message 114 by Omnivorous, posted 02-10-2006 3:08 PM randman has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024