Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site?

You guys made that claim, but it still isn't true. The fact is the fossil evidence disagreeing with the prior evo models is indeed a large part of what drove the need for new PE models. You are clouding the issue. I gave you a specific example where creationists predicted mechanisms for rapid variation/evolution, and the creationists were correct. You are just wrong here.imo, you are trying to cloud the simple issue here that creationist do embrace and include speciation in their models so if speciation is evidence for ToE models, it is also evidence for creationist models.Moreover, the fact that under normal isolated circumstances, the predicted rates for the finches speciating is 1200 years does not negate the YEC of even more rapid speciation under less than normal circumstances. On the other hand, it does really take the wind out of the sails for using the finches as examples of ToE, particularly since we should see far more species than we do see, assuming an old earth.Now, like evos, I also believe in an old earth, though I see it and time as much more complicated than the simplistic notions many evos use, but nevertheless, the lack of even more variation among the finches undercuts the old earth scenario, but on the other hand, if evolution is limited to kinds, then assuming an old earth, this is particularly strong evidence against ToE. This suggests that even with massive amounts of time, the variation is greatly limited.

Funny how you guys have "considerable doubt" over any fact troubling you, but many evos had little doubt over "facts" such as the phylotypic stage without any substantiation for.This message has been edited by randman, 02-17-2006 06:35 PM

..and, we see that any time that Randman is confronted by an argument he can't address, it's right back to the Haekel's drawings nonsense.

Come on Rand, you know that's the WHOLE FREAKING POINT OF SCIENCE!!!!!As new evidence arises theories are revised, rethought and sometimes even replaced.Now, if scientists REFUSED to change their theories in light of new evidence you would have a case......

Crash, I haven't been here nearly as long as you and some others and I ALREADY cringe when I hear that name!Can we all just agree that if a researcher in a field commits fraud that entire field is invalidated!!

Uh, can you yell at the evos then on the thread that are brining up some mistaken creationist ideas from well over 100 years ago?And then refusing to acknowledge the accurate predictions of modern creationism?

It's help if all of the evos here would just admit the fraud was committed, relied on, etc,....you'd be surprised how hard it is to get some evos to admit to even the most basic facts when they don't want to.

Find I admit fraud was committed. There you go!Now you never have to bring it up again.

Hey Rand, sorry for the yelling! (Interesting enough I read a study, maybe it was linked here, that is takes much longer for people to read things written in all caps)....Here's the problem. There is no creation science. If you could point me to experiments, peer reviewed research, falsifiable theoretical models, i mean anything from creationist sources I would be happy to read them. I like to think I am open minded enough to consider the material objectively....The problem is creation science has no theoretical framework that I am aware of so it's not science; it's philosophy.

You read the links on this page?How about ID links? Here is some stuff for you.Center for Science and Culture | Discovery Institutehttp://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v19/i3/index.aspI know there has been stuff posted here on scientists working on baraminology. Google creationist organizations and read what they are doing for yourself.

I read over some of the links and they certainly have some elaborately constructed articles.The problem is, every single argument revolves around poking holes in evolution! There are A LOT of references to information theory... but no specifics. Do they ever actually propose anything other than "this is very improbable, etc. etc"? Serious question, I'm not going to read every single article, but if you have any specific ones you would like to point out I'll take a look at them.Actually, that's a good idea for a new thread rand. Pick out the scientific paper you feel is most persuasive and we will discuss it.Like I said I try to keep an open mind. while I don't believe in ID or creationism at all.... I do waver from atheism into deism on occasion and the origin of like does interest me.

Well, I think in one respect you may be missing something. Take the article already linked to dealing with rapid evolution and Darwin's finches. That is positive evidence put forward for creationism.WK has linked to papers dealing with QM explanations for adaptive mutations. There is the ID paper that caused such an uproar.When I have time, I can link to such papers, and they do not just attack evolution, but keep in mind that evolution proceeded in much the same way, criticizing biblical models.The simple truth is most papers deal, not in one verifying or denying one grand theory or another, but in factual material than can then be viewed from one perspective or the other.

It is a fact that Eldredge and Gould based PE on applying Mayr's theory of allopatric speciation through geographical isolation to the fossil record. They say as much in the paper where they proposed the idea. They then produced evidence from the fossil record to support their view. Since Mayr's views were ALREADY accepted by evolutionary scientists, before Eldredge and Gould published any claim that PE was introduced bexause the fossil record contradicted evolutionary theory has to deal with that fact before it can be accepted.As for your specific example, what is it ? An insect becoming reproductively isolated in about 100 years ? A theoretical cange of small-scale morphological change - within a genues - within 1200 years ? Neither verifies the creationist claims. We have no examples of major morphological changes in large vertebrates in a few hundred years - or less - which is what these creationists predicted. The fact that these views were not based on creationism itself further defeats your claim. They were not based on creationism as such and they have not been confirmed.

quote:

---

mo, you are trying to cloud the simple issue here that creationist do embrace and include speciation in their models so if speciation is evidence for ToE models, it is also evidence for creationist models.

---

On the contrary I am making the issue clearer. What you object to is the fact that a clearer understanding of the issue undercuts your claims.The important issue is that speciation is evolution - and if it did not occur evolution would be refuted. It is not creation, nor is it even necessary for creation. Thus if it did not occur creationism would not be refuted (indeed it would be strengthened indirectly since evolution would no longer be a live option).Thus speciation is definitely evidence for evolution and not evidence for creation. It may be evidence for some creation models over others - just as evidence for an old earth is evidence for OEC models over YEC models without offering any supprt for creation as such. And in so far as creation does not require speciation that it occurs at all is (weak) evidence for evolution over creation - even those models that include a degree of evolutinary change.

quote:

---

Moreover, the fact that under normal isolated circumstances, the predicted rates for the finches speciating is 1200 years does not negate the YEC of even more rapid speciation under less than normal circumstances.

---

Remember you were claiming that this evidence SUPPORTED the creationist ideas - not that it "did not negate them". And it is not the observation itself that refutes the creationist claims - it is the fact that this is the best they have to offer in support of it.

quote:

---

On the other hand, it does really take the wind out of the sails for using the finches as examples of ToE, particularly since we should see far more species than we do see, assuming an old earth.

---

This on the other hand is completely false. The number of species is not controlled by the maximum speed of evolution. Any estimate would have to be based on the average rate at which new species appeared and also take extinction into account. Arguments against the maximum rate simply do not address the issue.Stasis has been part of evolutionary theory even in Darwin's day. Natural selection as a stabilising force was proposed even before Darwin. If you wish to claim that evolution predicts that the finches should be more diverse then you need to produce an actual argument to that effect. Simple assertion is inadequate.s

quote:

---

Funny how you guys have "considerable doubt" over any fact troubling you, but many evos had little doubt over "facts" such as the phylotypic stage without any substantiation for

---

I was reporting a fact. If you wish to dismiss facts that undercut your argument because they are "convenient" to your opponents then we do not have a basis for a constructive discussion.

I think it's time for another topic check. The topics being discussed in this thread appear to me to be just general evolution topics, not anything different or unwarranted that TO is doing. If TO is a propaganda site, doesn't it have to be doing something different than merely explaining the same theory of evolution accepted by mainstream science? Even those who believe TO is misrepresenting evolution can see that it is misrepresenting it in the exact same way as all other sites, books, papers, lectures, etc., that are about evolution. If TO is a propaganda site, then there are few sites on the Internet that are not propaganda sites, in which case the term "propaganda" loses its meaning since it would apply practically everywhere. And when a definition applies practically everywhere you can be pretty sure it makes sense to check if the word is being misapplied.I'm beginning to believe this thread is just a place where creationists can complain about anything TO says that they care to bring up, in which case I think the thread should be closed and a new thread more specifically focused opened. Or this thread could be renamed and more narrowly focused. Just my opinion.--Percy