|
Author
|
Topic: Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site?
|
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: That's how science works
You read the links on this page? How about ID links? Here is some stuff for you. Center for Science and Culture | Discovery Institute http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v19/i3/index.asp I know there has been stuff posted here on scientists working on baraminology. Google creationist organizations and read what they are doing for yourself.
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: Interesting Stuff
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.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 180 by Percy, posted 02-18-2006 8:56 AM | | randman has not replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
Message 185 of 301 (288190)
02-18-2006 6:34 PM
|
|
|
you guys are denying reality
TO defines evolution in one way that no one disagrees with. Then, they say "evolution is observed" meaning heritable change. Then, they claim "evolution" is thus an observed fact, but refer to a different definition of "evolution", the ToE, common descent and macro-evolution. They are thus a propaganda site since they falsely switch out the one term "evolution" for another, to create a false impression and deceive people into thinking "evolution is a fact and observed" when it is neither. That was one error I showed, and I showed several others. You guys just don't want to accept factual truth, which I find to be the case with many evos.
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: you guys are denying reality
Already did on this thread.
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 188 of 301 (288200)
02-18-2006 6:52 PM
|
|
|
here is some of what I posted
comments from TO....a featured article defining evolution, sort of a an evo primer to start things off
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. Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks: "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next." - Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974 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. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition it is possible to debate whether evolution is still occurring, but the definition provides no easy way of distinguishing evolution from other processes. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html So TO is stating that the following is a wrong definition of evolution.
"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."
They go as far as to refer to this definition as "inexcusable." But do they practice what they preach? They use it elsewhere in this exact same manner as shown below.
Introduction
volution, 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 To their credit, this article at least intially distinquishes between micro and macro evolution. But they quickly slip into error by stating "common descent" which in context here is universal common descent is a fact.
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. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent If you read the article, the phrase "fact of evolution" is highlighted so that if you click on it, it takes you to different article. In that article, TO asserts:
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. Evolution is a Fact and a Theory Keep in mind that the fact of evolution is universal common descent so to say it is "observed today" is flat out false. It is not observed today, but once again, perhaps they are playing loose with terms in their effort to convince people because they seem to resort back to the definition of evolution as heritable change. So what they are doing is alternately using more than one definition of evolution in the same line of argument to create the appearance that universal common descent is an uncontested and observed fact, which is just flat out wrong. This message has been edited by randman, 02-18-2006 11:40 PM
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 196 of 301 (288255)
02-18-2006 10:29 PM
|
Reply to: Message 189 by Faith
02-18-2006 7:44 PM
|
|
Re: Could you make the post easier to follow please?
Faith, I was just showing that I had already been a great deal of time quoting TO to illustrate their logical fallacy. Sorry it is confusing. Basically, TO features an article defining "evolution" as any heritable change, and bashes people and dictionaries that define evolution as the grander theory which is usually what is meant under discussion. They make the point that evolution, defined as heritable change is observed. On another article, they refer to evolution in the exact manner they bash and say that it includes common descent and other stuff. They also discuss evolution as "the fact of evolution" and link to a 3rd article that use the same mantra as the first in saying "evolution is observed." The problem is by that time, they are using a different definition of evolution than heritable change, and refer to common descent, macroevolution, etc,...and they are then asserting common descent, the whole shebang are "a fact" and point out that it is "observed." It's propaganda, and pretty much the kind of thing TO does.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 189 by Faith, posted 02-18-2006 7:44 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 203 by Faith, posted 02-18-2006 11:23 PM | | randman has replied | | | Message 207 by PaulK, posted 02-19-2006 5:31 AM | | randman has replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 197 of 301 (288257)
02-18-2006 10:38 PM
|
Reply to: Message 189 by Faith
02-18-2006 7:44 PM
|
|
elaborating
It would take a little time to show the many levels of disinformation they employ, but here is one.
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. Evolution is a Fact and a Theory They use 2 different technigues to obfuscate the issue here. First, they erroneously claim "it can be demonstrated today." They elsewhere define evolution as just heritable change, and of course, that can be demonstrated, but universal common descent cannot be demonstrated today. So I look at their statement as deliberate misrepresentation. Next, they further cloud the issue by claiming falsely that evolution is a fact, and that the only theoritical part about it is the mechanism. This severely flawed in several ways. Evolution is not a fact. Of course, they could turn and say "microevolution is a fact", but since they define evolution in different ways, and here as universal common descent, they are just employing propaganda technigues. The next big error is to claim that somehow universal common descent is more factual than the mechanisms for evolution. The truth is natural selection is admitted to by everyone. What is not admitted to is that universal common descent is true. Moreover, they are misrepresenting the evo argument which for the most part consists of insisting that because there natural selection is true, the mechanisms are factual, that universal common descent is true. It's hard to detail all of the confusion they put forth because they tangle so many errors together, which is another propaganda technigue.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 189 by Faith, posted 02-18-2006 7:44 PM | | Faith has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 198 by nwr, posted 02-18-2006 10:51 PM | | randman has not replied | | | Message 199 by jar, posted 02-18-2006 10:53 PM | | randman has replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
Re: here is some of what I posted
robinrohan, I don't think there is anything wrong with that definition either. TO is the one slamming that definition. Glad to see you agree with me here. Just for others, I don't mean propaganda in the sense of purposeful deceit. I think the delusion is believed by those advancing it but it's still propoganda and not based on sound thinking. Sometimes, people can repeat a deception, and perhaps know somewhere it is not right, but they believe it willfully, and pass it on.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 193 by robinrohan, posted 02-18-2006 9:02 PM | | robinrohan has not replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 202 of 301 (288266)
02-18-2006 11:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 199 by jar
02-18-2006 10:53 PM
|
|
Re: Your posts show you really are incapable of reading
But evolution is not a fact, and the part they claim is theory is no less or more factual and observed than the part they claim is a fact. They claim the mechanism is theory, but the event is fact. But isn't natural selection actually a fact, and isn't the idea of universal common descent the theory? They've got it all twisted up. Oh, this is jar....sorry I posted.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 199 by jar, posted 02-18-2006 10:53 PM | | jar has not replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 205 of 301 (288271)
02-18-2006 11:40 PM
|
Reply to: Message 203 by Faith
02-18-2006 11:23 PM
|
|
Re: Could you make the post easier to follow please?
Ok, I cleaned it up a bit.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 203 by Faith, posted 02-18-2006 11:23 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 206 of 301 (288273)
02-18-2006 11:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 204 by Faith
02-18-2006 11:27 PM
|
|
Re: Request Admin Attention please
ned and jar have no business being moderators....and really stink up the board....people get upset with my comments but the general negative atmosphere was created by ned, jar, crash, shraf and some others long before I arrived. This message has been edited by randman, 02-18-2006 11:42 PM
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 204 by Faith, posted 02-18-2006 11:27 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 209 of 301 (288352)
02-19-2006 1:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 207 by PaulK
02-19-2006 5:31 AM
|
|
Re: Could you make the post easier to follow please?
Let us be clear.
1) You are talking about two different articles, written by differnet people, who do not necessarily agree on everything Uh, let us be clear. We are talking of one site that promotes these articles in one package, and at least 2 of them are directly electronically linked together.
Read in context there are only minor differences in the definitions of "evolution" used.
I am sorry, but read in context, there are massive and huge differences in the definitions of "evolution" used. One definition is any heritable change, period, and another is universal common descent.
Randman would have you believe that the second article uses the first article's definition to claim that evolution is observed, and then expands the definition to claim that universal common descent is observed. This imprssion is completely false. The second article - and it is a very long article by web standards - is all about the evidence for common descent. The site weaves a more complicated level of propaganda than that. For example, they not only claim the little form "evolution is observed" and a fact, but they also claim universal common descent is a fact and is "observed today" so what they have going is to repeatedly repeat a slogan that evolution is a fact and observed when it is not.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 207 by PaulK, posted 02-19-2006 5:31 AM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 210 by PaulK, posted 02-19-2006 2:09 PM | | randman has replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 211 of 301 (288507)
02-20-2006 1:10 AM
|
Reply to: Message 210 by PaulK
02-19-2006 2:09 PM
|
|
Re: Could you make the post easier to follow please?
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.
This is not referring not to the word "evolution", but the phrase "fact of evolution". The meaning is clearly stated. There is no attempt to claim that universal common descent has been observed. Wrong. They define "the fact of evolution" as universal common descent as I showed in the specific linked quotes. So by saying the fact of evolution is observed, they are stating universal common descent is observed, or as I suggest they are switching meanings in the same article and between articles. You guys don't want to see it, I suspect, for partisan reasons, but it's clearly there.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 210 by PaulK, posted 02-19-2006 2:09 PM | | PaulK has replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 214 of 301 (288643)
02-20-2006 11:27 AM
|
Reply to: Message 212 by PaulK
02-20-2006 3:03 AM
|
|
Re: Could you make the post easier to follow please?
They define "fact of evolution" as I showed in the specific quote I linked to as universal common descent. if you don't want to admit it, that's your business. It doesn't change reality one iota.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 212 by PaulK, posted 02-20-2006 3:03 AM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 215 by PaulK, posted 02-20-2006 11:37 AM | | randman has replied |
|
randman
Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: 05-26-2005
|
|
|
Message 216 of 301 (288717)
02-20-2006 2:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 215 by PaulK
02-20-2006 11:37 AM
|
|
Re: Could you make the post easier to follow please?
They define "the fact of evolution" as universal common descent, and then say "it is observed" and hence do say the fact of evolution (universal common descent is observed). You choose to ignore that? Fine, but it's there for all to see.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 215 by PaulK, posted 02-20-2006 11:37 AM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 217 by PaulK, posted 02-20-2006 2:36 PM | | randman has replied |
|
™ Version 4.2