Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site?

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.

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.

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.

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

percy, just look at the list of scientists that are creationist or IDers, and then look at their papers, work, etc,...Behe for example, or the professor at NC State, or any number of scientists that are not evos.It's sad that you guys still perpetuate the myth that no creationist scientists are doing valid scientific work.In terms of ToE, once again you like TO are equating evolution in the broad sense with ToE. Under that definition, creationism and ID are evolution. But ToE has not and does not advance science at all. None of what you mentioned is dependant on ToE models, but on the idea of evolution in general, which even creationists accept.So it's sophistry and deception on you guy's part,...again.This message has been edited by randman, 02-10-2006 02:22 PM

Now, we are getting somewhere. My point is that the areas of evolutionary theory that have contributed to other scientific fields are also elements of creationism. Creationism and ID both accept the general concept of evolution, if you define it as heritable change, but reject the Theory of Evolution, and ToE contributes nothing really, and has often done a great deal of harm, false claims of vestigal organs in medicine being one of the examples of harm. Creationism actually contributed there by cautioning against assuming organs were vestigal and could be removed.What you and the other evos are doing is trying to equate evolution as heritable change as an exclusively ToE concept, and that is wrong.It is also a concept within creationism and Intelligent Design, and it is the broad concept of how genes and traits are passed on, and how environmental factors can affect species that is beneficial, and none of that is exclusive to ToE. Speciation is not dependant on acceptance of universal common descent, nor are the other items you refer to. That's just plain wrong on your part.This message has been edited by randman, 02-10-2006 02:59 PM

Biology itself. The idea of classifying species based on similarities. Genetics, and all of science are examples creationism can claim equal credit to evolutionism.This message has been edited by randman, 02-10-2006 03:16 PM

Behe is an IDer. If you guys want to start admitting ID has merit, that's fine by me.

Do you deny Behe is an IDer Nosy?a simple yes or no will doAnd Behe is not the hero of the movement, but just another person with an open enough mind to see that ID is a better framework than ToE. ID was around before and will be after Behe.

Percy, it shows a certain lack of education to be surprised when discussing matters that someone would mention something that does not wholly agree with them, but this is quite common among many evos I have found. For example, if you use a fact that an evo admits, they often say you are quote-mining since the evo obviously disagrees with you. It shows that among some they have an inability towards independent thought, and thus are surprised when someone else shows enough independent thought that they can easily use and refer to someone and their claims and incorporate that area of thinking into their argument without agreeing with them wholly.Perhaps that explains your surprise? Uh, I have no idea why you think anyone has ever challenged heritable change, or why you think it is relevant in the slightest. Of course, sexual and asexual reproduction is a fact of biology. I don't have to show that heritable change did not cause all of life stemming from a first life form. You have to show that, and you cannot. You claim to be able to show it is possible, but that imo is not even shown, and certainly, imo, there is plenty of evidence in the fossil record indicating the nice story evos imagined did not really occur as they claim. Well now, I don't really have to do that on this thread, do I? Nor do I need to show this at all in order to discuss and refute evo misuse of data and logic.But on point of order, I have started threads to discuss my views at length. You have not been very active on all of them. So before you claim I have not done something, making false witness, perhaps you should first read what I have stated. Otherwise, you will be back in the position of falsely claiming I am a YECer, which would be fine if I was, but just don't happen to be.Also, was it you I had to tell that Behe believed in elements of evolution? You act here like you are telling me something when I brought that fact up on this board on a thread amidst evos that insisted otherwise. That's just because with all the hours you have spent on this debate, you are still so terribly ignorant of creationist positions that you cannot understand their even most basic claims.Why is that percy?It's easy to verify that creationists believe in speciation and micro-evolution, or evolution within a kind. In fact, some beleive in a much faster form of evolution to explain the diversity of life and argue evo models of evolution don't work because they are based or were based on assumptions of excessively slow rates of evolution whereas their models of rapid evolution do work and are consistent with the facts. That's BS. Just the example of positing rapid speciation above shows that, but more to the point, I am not sure what many evos pass off as science, such as fabricated claims, twisted logic and overstatements, should be considered "proposing science." Once again, you show an incredible level of ignorance here. For example, YECers are quite explicit in how they think history proceeded, and so explicit you guys often claim you can factually refute them, and yet you have the gall to say they don't give specifics?? Is character assissination just par for the course here; the standard stock answer to give to make your position sound good? Shouldn't you at least show some level of intellectual honesty and admit that creationists do provide models, and that you are thus grossly misrepresenting them?This message has been edited by randman, 02-17-2006 12:19 PM

Creationist theory, or some models, predict the fossil record should exhibit stasis and sudden appearance.Prediction fulfilled.Prediction that fossilized species would occur in groupings with wide areas of differences between the different groupings.Prediction fulfilled.

It's amazing crash that you and some other evos can spend hours and hours debating this stuff and never bother to learn your critics' position. Sorry bud, but ignorance doesn't work as a rational argument.Creationism predicts evolution but only within a kind, and so universal, unending stasis is not predicted by creationism although a general stasis within a range is predicted as a general pattern and that is exactly what we see.

Well, you ought to talk with YECers directly, but YECism posits rapid evolution but within a kind. So, for example, they would say probably that all bears evolved from a single original bear pair. I think they posit 2 different cat kinds of which all current and extinct cats evolved from. The mechanisms of evolution within a kind are the same in some respects as with evos except they probably don't exclude God affecting the process, and would argue the natural processes are also guided by God to a certain extent (He controls everything but that gets into theology).

Crash, regardless of whether you think you used to be a creationist. Creationist do not argue species stasis, at least not creationist scientists. They argue that species can change, but kinds have a limited range, and they have a science to try to determine what the original kinds were, baraminism or some such.In terms of groups of creatures, whether species or otherwise, we do tend to see them change within a range, just as I stated. For example, with people, at one time we were larger (Cro-Magnon), and then smaller, and now getting larger again.

Can you substantiate that? If evolution is defined as heritable change, then I think you are wholly wrong on that point. Now, perhaps some argued against speciation, and I do know some held to progressive creationism, but you need to substantiate your claims, prefarably with original sources from the creationists back during that time.Also, if creationism has changed as you claim. So has Darwinism/ToE. We are discussing the current theories, and since the 80s, all the creationists I have ever read accept microevolution, and to my knowledge, microevolution has not been an issue with creationists for a very long time, if ever.