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.

It would take a little time to show the many levels of disinformation they employ, but here is one. Evolution is a Fact and a TheoryThey 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.

quote:

---

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.

---

I don't see any disinformation there. Modulous has, on a number of occasions, tried to point out the distinction between evolution, and natural history. Apparently you still don't get it.Evolution has been observed, and is regularly observed. You as much as admit it yourself in the above paragraph. What has not been observed are the full events of natural history. Just as with any other history, natural history is dependent on a lot of circumstantial evidence, and periodically needs revising as better evidence becomes available.

You may not have noticed the title of the page that you linked to.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

from Your linkAnd you wonder why no one takes any of your posts seriously.You might get some respect if perhaps one time some assertion you made was supported by one of your very own references.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Jar, it is beginning to seem that randman is getting to you a bit. He is a laughable joke. There is nothing to get bothered about. We remember that he is a member of a small, cult-like so-called Christian group not a representative of the whole.

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.

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.

Yes, but I haven't read through the whole thread and since you did go to that trouble I would like to be able to read the post, but it's too garbled to read clearly. All you need do is edit the quotes so it's possible to tell who is saying what, and put some spaces between paragraphs and lines. That would help a lot.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-18-2006 11:24 PM

This is such standard NosyNed stuff I hardly take it seriously any more, but it does run the neighborhood down as it is a violation of the Forum Guidelines, so it might be worth a look.

Ok, I cleaned it up a bit.

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

Let us be clear.1) You are talking about two different articles, written by differnet people, who do not necessarily agree on everything2) Read in context there are only minor differences in the definitions of "evolution" used.3) 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.These points have already mbeen made and Randman is not refuting htem. Randman is ismply repeating his propaganda in an attempt to smear talkorigins.org.

Randman has nailed it.Talk origins uses evolution to mean two different things. They are guilty of this. They are likewise guilty of putting their definitions into context. So far no actual usage of equivocation has been uncovered. I await patiently. The page that randman keeps referencing clearly states that biologists talk of two types of evolution. The evolution that is observed (which they describe) and common ancestry (which is inferred from the evidence). This is obvious propaganda since they only go to extreme pains to try and define their terms when they use it. They are subtly trying to imply that chimpanzee-human divergence is observed, despite their explicitly stating the opposite, it's so obvious now. Likewise, the phylotypic stage stuff is a dead cert. Its not important that the phylotypic stage as they describe it is observed, which even Richardson agrees with (randman insists that the phylotypic stage as described is not observed seemingly going against the rest of the world). After all Richardson's ideas about a phylotypic 'period' are misguided and T.O are trying to conflate the two which is evidence they are clinging to the biogenetic law and Haeckel's fraud which is still being clinged to after 125 years despite the valiant heroes of creationism discreditting it.After all, the creationists didn't attempt to discredit every aspect of evolution, inventing things, mining quotes, fraud, overstatements, hokey mathematics, dirty tricks, etc. Oh no, they honestly critisized only a small element of evolution which has since been discredited. Yes sir.Talking about how there are two definitions of a word, and trying to make clear what is meant when each definition is being used is evil propaganda.However, offering $250,000 to anyone who can prove evolution, or mining quotes (or just making them up), falsifying evidence, equivocating over the words evolution, information, random, complexity, order and thermodynamics, appealing to the public through rhetoric, oratory, presentations, leaflets, 'wedging' into schools, courts and engaging in scientific debate in areas where no other scientific debate takes place is NOT propaganda. That's a perfectly rational reaction to a world of athiests that are deliberately trying to supress creation science.Sorry, but all I can see randman doing here is trying to smear T.O by equivocating propaganda with informality. Yes, they are not precise at all times. Yes, I'm sure if you look hard enough you can find small hiccups. However, non-formal language use is not the same as propaganda by MASSIVE shot. I do believe randman genuinely thinks T.O is propaganda, and the examples he has given is evidence of it.It's a shame, but I don't think anything will sway him from this course, even explicitly spelling it out.Randman, the two examples you have given in 14 pages have been unconvincing. Are these the only two examples you have? Perhaps there are better ones?For propaganda comparison try:
HovindEvil AmericaI'm certain that T.O isn't to those standards.

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. 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. 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.

quote:

---

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.

---

This is obviously false. Here is what the second article says: The article clearly states that "microevolution" has been observed - and that is all.As the linked article on macroevolution makes clear, macroevolution refers to the same sorts of changes but only when it results in a new species (or a new grouping at a higher taxonomic level).The following material is not in itself part of the definition, inteadit deals with related issues. Naturally speciation is nevessary for macroevolution, and thus macroevolution also requires a degree of common descent. These are implications of the definition.The article then goes on to discuss the so-called "fact of evolution" - based on Gould's usage. Again there is no attempt at equivocation: 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. Instead the supporting evidence IS presented in the main body of the article.

quote:

---

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.

---

And this just illustrates your approach. There is a huge article about the evidence for common descent. It is one of the articles that you linked to in this thread. Yet you do not even acknowledge its existence - instead preferring to accuse talkorigins.org of simply dealing in slogans.As for your assertion that they claim that universal common descent is observed I will have to ask you to support that or withdraw it. I can see no such claim - nor have you produced a real example. And I mean a place where they actually say it. That is what an example means - just in case you still have difficulty with the concept.