Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site?
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 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

Replies to this message:
 Message 212 by PaulK, posted 02-20-2006 3:03 AM randman has replied
 Message 213 by ramoss, posted 02-20-2006 7:39 AM randman has not replied
 Message 230 by Chiroptera, posted 03-20-2006 9:51 AM randman has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 212 of 301 (288537)
02-20-2006 3:03 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by randman
02-20-2006 1:10 AM


Re: Could you make the post easier to follow please?
quote:
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
You did not show it. You were refuted.
quote:
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 def ine "the fact of evolution" as universal common descent as I showed in the specific linked quotes.
You can't prove me wrong by agreeing with me. You see you agree that the meaning of the "fact of evolution" is clearly stated (and yes, the quotes are in the original).
quote:
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.
If they said that. But where do they say it ?
They don't say it in 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent That only says that microevolution is observed. It doesn't say so in the article that explains "the fact of evolution" Evolution is a Fact and a Theory which states that past evolution is supported by historical evidence, not direct observation. The article on the def inition of evolution http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html does not claim it either. It only claims that the process of evolution can be observed in the modern day - it does not even state that the common ancestry of humans and chimps which it refers to as an example is directly observed.
quote:
You guys don't want to see it, I suspect, for partisan reasons, but it's clearly there.
It's clearly absent. That's why you won't produce a real example. If you had actually quoted them as saying that the "fact of evolution" had been observed you would have had an argument here. But they don't say that - which is why you don't produce a quote.
Does it make sense to anyone - even you - to argue that an article that clearly states what it means to say that evolution is observed is trying to fool people into thinking that it means something else ?
Because that's what you've been arguing. Come on, be honest - you're the partisan here. That's why you labelled talkorigins.org a propaganda site without knowing the contents and why you can't admit that you were wrong when you can't back up your claims
.
This message has been edited by PaulK, 02-20-2006 03:10 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 1:10 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 11:27 AM PaulK has replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 213 of 301 (288557)
02-20-2006 7:39 AM
Reply to: Message 211 by randman
02-20-2006 1:10 AM


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.
Hum. You have an interesting definition of 'irrefutable'.
Claim by randman
Refuting by a number of different people
Claim by randman that origina claim was irrefutable.
What is wrong with this picture. Could it be that your definition of
irrefutable is "There is no evidence that I will look at that will make me change my mind, because I won't bother to look at the evidence or claims counter to my opinion"??
It appears to be that only the people who are dead wrong use the word
that something is 'irrefutable' here.. and they use it on a regular basis.
Fix typo. --Admin
This message has been edited by Admin, 02-20-2006 09:18 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 1:10 AM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 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

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 215 of 301 (288651)
02-20-2006 11:37 AM
Reply to: Message 214 by randman
02-20-2006 11:27 AM


Re: Could you make the post easier to follow please?
quote:
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.
I suggest that you deal with the points I did raise, rather than attempting to put words into my mouth. I have not argued about what the phrase "fact of evolution" refers to. Instead I have shown that it does not support your claims.
You can grossly misrepresent what I say all I like, but it doesn't change reality one iota. All it does is further undermine your assertion that what you "see" in the text (but never show) is there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 11:27 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 2:26 PM PaulK has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 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

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 217 of 301 (288720)
02-20-2006 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 216 by randman
02-20-2006 2:26 PM


Re: Could you make the post easier to follow please?
quote:
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).
No, they do NOT claim that universal common descwnt is observed.
quote:
You choose to ignore that? Fine, but it's there for all to see.
I don't "choose to ignore that". I reject it because it is not true.
If it were true then you could actually quote the place where they say it You don't because it isn't there..

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 2:26 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 2:47 PM PaulK has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 218 of 301 (288725)
02-20-2006 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 217 by PaulK
02-20-2006 2:36 PM


here ya go again
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
The 2 articles are linked together by the hyperlink (is that correct term?). They sau the fact of evolution is universal common descent, and then you can click on that to an article dealing with "the fact of evolution".
In fact this is the title of the article.
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
The article explicitly states that universal common descent (evolution) is a fact, and that the only debate or theoritical aspect is the mechanisms theorized for evolution.
However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution.
At this point, I don't know how much clearer we can get. They are saying "evolution" which entails universal common descent is a fact, and the only theory part of it deals with the mechanism of evolution.
Why can you not admit this?
Of course, they downplay the fact here they include in this article by the term "evolution" universal common descent, but that is explicitly what they are saying. They are saying it is a fact that everything "is related", read everything evolved from one common ancestor because that's the same thing they mean when they say everything "is related" via evolution.
So on the one hand, TO defines evolution as just heritable change. Then, they define it as the theory of universal common descent. They say this is observed and is a fact, and the only theory part is the mechanism.
Are you denying that they explicitly state the only theoritical part of evolution concerns the mechanisms involved?
Are you denying that by stating that, they explicitly are asserting universal common descent is an observed fact?
This message has been edited by randman, 02-20-2006 02:51 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 217 by PaulK, posted 02-20-2006 2:36 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by PaulK, posted 02-20-2006 3:07 PM randman has replied
 Message 223 by Modulous, posted 02-20-2006 3:56 PM randman has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 219 of 301 (288737)
02-20-2006 3:07 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by randman
02-20-2006 2:47 PM


Re: here ya go again
That post didn't support your assertion that they cliamed that universal common descent was observed the first time and it doesn't now.
quote:
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
The article explicitly states that universal common descent (evolution) is a fact, and that the only debate or theoritical aspect is the mechanisms theorized for evolution.
I guess that you didn't read it:
...the statement that all organisms
have descended from a single common ancestor is strongly supported by the available evidence, and there is no opposing evidence. However, it is not yet appropriate to call this a "fact" since there are reasonable alternatives.
That article explictly states that (in the opinion of the author) universal common descent should not be considered a fact.
quote:
At this point, I don't know how much clearer we can get. They are saying "evolution" which entails universal common descent is a fact, and the only theory part of it deals with the mechanism of evolution.
Why can you not admit this?
I havent been ASKED to admit it, because it is irrelevant. It is clearly stated that it is macroevolution that entails common descent - and the article does NOT claim that macroevolution is observed - although it DOES say that microevolution has been observed.
quote:
They explicitly state that the fact of evolution is the theory of universal common descent.
They explictly state that the phrase "fact of evolution" is used to refer to common descent. They do not claim that universal common descent has been observed. Why can't you admit that ?e

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 2:47 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 3:15 PM PaulK has replied
 Message 227 by Modulous, posted 02-20-2006 6:58 PM PaulK has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 220 of 301 (288740)
02-20-2006 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by PaulK
02-20-2006 3:07 PM


Re: here ya go again
That article explictly states that (in the opinion of the author) universal common descent should not be considered a fact.
And also asserts it is a fact, and links to a whole article whose entire premise is to say that the event of universal common descent is a fact and that only the mechanism is the theory.
The fact they contradict themselves is all the more evidence of the indoctrination and propaganda they engage in. Imo, it's really similar to brainwashing. Twist things around a lot, but keep asserting similar slogans and thoughts like "evolution is a fact", and thus create a strong impression in the reader but a weak actual understanding of the underlying logic, and hide logical fallacies at the same time. I think the most likely reason the authors engage in such practices is they were taught evolution in this manner, and so are indoctrinated themselves.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by PaulK, posted 02-20-2006 3:07 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by PaulK, posted 02-20-2006 3:26 PM randman has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 221 of 301 (288745)
02-20-2006 3:26 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by randman
02-20-2006 3:15 PM


Re: here ya go again
quote:
And also asserts it is a fact, and links to a whole article whose entire premise is to say that the event of universal common descent is a fact and that only the mechanism is the theory.
The article itself does not state that universal common descent is a fact. And if one of the two articles linked to makes that claim (and you don't even say which one) that does not change what the talkorigins article does state.
quote:
The fact they contradict themselves is all the more evidence of the indoctrination and propaganda they engage in.
But they don't contradict themselves.
The real fact is that you don't read the articles properly. You frequently misrepresent them. This is what proves that you have no basis for your claim talkorigins.org is a propaganda site - instead you are a propagandist trying to discredit scientific information by smearing the source.
c

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 3:15 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 3:41 PM PaulK has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 222 of 301 (288749)
02-20-2006 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 221 by PaulK
02-20-2006 3:26 PM


Re: here ya go again
PaulK, I am going to make it real easy for you. Let's look at just one article, and that should suffice.
In the article titled "Evolution is a Fact and a Theory," what part of the Theory of Evolution do they say is a "fact" and what part do they say is a "theory"?
And what part, the fact part of theory part, does universal common descent or expressed differently "all of life is related", fall into? Does it fall into the fact part they describe or the theory part they describe?
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
I think they clearly say that the proposed mechanisms for evolution are the only theoritical aspects of evolutionary theory, correct?
That leaves the event of universal common descent as the factual part, according to them, right?
This message has been edited by randman, 02-20-2006 03:44 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 221 by PaulK, posted 02-20-2006 3:26 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by PaulK, posted 02-20-2006 4:01 PM randman has replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 223 of 301 (288757)
02-20-2006 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by randman
02-20-2006 2:47 PM


let me get this straight
On one page TO says
quote:
Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists.
and on another they say
quote:
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.
So, on one hand they say that evolution is well supported and is often called the fact of evolution, and on the other hand they say that biologists consider evolution to be a fact with overwhelming evidence.
It seems to me to be saying almost exactly the same thing vis: the evidence is overwhelming (it is well suppoprted) so it is considered to be a fact (or is often called a fact).
They define fact as something that has an enormous amount of supporting evidence. They then go on to say:
quote:
However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution
That the Theory of Evolution (the mechanism of evolution) is not a fact.

It seems pretty clear to me that they differentiate between observed mechanisms and events which have so much evidence they are considered facts.
Are you denying that they explicitly state the only theoritical part of evolution concerns the mechanisms involved?
I think this is something which has been said over and over again. The theory of evolution is an explanatory framework, effectively the mechanism behind the event that is evolution. Much like any other theory really.
Are you denying that by stating that, they explicitly are asserting universal common descent is an observed fact?
They never say it is an observed fact. They say it has so much evidence that it is considered fact. Likewise, Henry VIII ruling Britain is not an observed fact, but there is overwhelming evidence for it.
There is a difference between an observed fact and something that is considered a fact due to the overwhelming evidence

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 2:47 PM randman has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 224 of 301 (288758)
02-20-2006 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by randman
02-20-2006 3:41 PM


Re: here ya go again
quote:
PaulK, I am going to make it real easy for you. Let's look at just one article, and that should suffice
You've been making it easy all along by making some VERY bad mistakes.
quote:
In the article titled "Evolution is a Fact and a Theory," what part of the Theory of Evolution do they say is a "fact" and what part do they say is a "theory"?
What it says is a fact:
"the existence of biological evolution"
Dobzhansky is quoted as saying the evolution as a process
"has always gone on in the history of the Earth"
Lewontin states in his list of facts that "ll living forms come from previous living forms"
Curtis and Baines agree with Lewontin "all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms"
Futuyma makes a similar statement: "organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors"
So the only explicit statement on universal common ancestry in the entire article is the one that denies that it should be considered a fact. There are other statements about common ancestry but none makes the leap to universal common ancestry.
Theory is used to refer to the mechanisms by which evolution is believed to occur.
Thus in this article universal common descent is not described as either fact or theory. It could reasonably be described as a hypothesis (albeit one with a considerable degree of supporting evidence).
Your argument therefore rests on a false dichotomy.s

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 3:41 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by randman, posted 02-20-2006 5:48 PM PaulK has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4899 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 225 of 301 (288817)
02-20-2006 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 224 by PaulK
02-20-2006 4:01 PM


Re: here ya go again
Thus in this article universal common descent is not described as either fact or theory.
Sorry, but you are wrong. By evolution here, they are referring to universal common descent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by PaulK, posted 02-20-2006 4:01 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by PaulK, posted 02-20-2006 6:11 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