Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site?

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common DescentIf 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: Evolution is a Fact and a TheoryThe 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 TheoryThe 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. 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

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.

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 TheoryI 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

Sorry, but you are wrong. By evolution here, they are referring to universal common descent.

Wrong. It clearly denotes universal common descent, as I showed, when they refer to "common descent" because they state all species have a common ancestor, are related. It's abundantly clear.

Showed italready a half a dozen times. You just refuse to read it.This message has been edited by randman, 03-20-2006 03:08 PM

Yes, there is, as I already quoted. They explicitly state all species and creatures are genetically related and thus have a common ancestor. So their definition of common descent right there is universal common descent.You are wrong. Read it again.

Wrong. They clearly and unequivocally state that common descent shows that all species are genetically related. I think they use the family anaology. You just refuse to admit it.

This quote just just show your utter stubborness to accept basic facts about what TO has stated. How can any educated person not see that the definition of "common descent" which they call a "fact" includes and embraces that "all of the earth's known biota are genealogically related", which is universal common descent.I have showed you this before. It's obvious. At this point, I have to question your integrity Modulous and PaulK since you refuse to accept this is what TO states, event though I quoted it, and even go as far as to deny I have ever posted this.I'd like to see a mod step in and censure you guys for fabrication here, dissembling and maybe buzz is around, but I don't have too much faith in the board's evo-mods to do the right thing, and point out that what I am saying, as far as TO's claims on common descent, are true.This message has been edited by randman, 03-20-2006 03:15 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 03-20-2006 03:18 PMThis message has been edited by randman, 03-20-2006 03:22 PM

Wrong, as I have repeatedly showed. Read this: It's unequivocal that "common descent" here refers to universal common descent because it is defined as embracing the concept that all biota are genetically related; all in the same family, hence all universal common descent.You owe me an apology, but I don't expect one from considering your belief system.This message has been edited by randman, 03-20-2006 03:22 PM

Wrong. That is the exact same quote I showed earlier. The site is what is under discussion, and this exact page and quote is what I quoted. If you are discussing something other than what I wrote, then you should be honest and openly state that randman had indeed showed where TO states common descent, meaning universal common descent, is a fact.You and PaulK did not do that, but have repeatedly chose to dissemble and deny what I have written, posting all sorts of lies and garbage, claiming that TO has nowhere ever stated this.I can only surmise a lack of integrity on your part.

No, paulk, the specific section under discussion is what I have posted already on this thread since you guys were responding to my allegations, and I clearly posted that link before, and you denied that I did, and so are wrong.Own up to your mistake, or show a lack of integrity. it's up to you.

Wrong, as I have repeatedly showed. Read this: It's unequivocal that "common descent" here refers to universal common descent because it is defined as embracing the concept that all biota are genetically related; all in the same family, hence all universal common descent.You owe me an apology, but I don't expect one from considering your belief system.Own up to your mistakes guys, or show you have no integrity. I clearly and have repeatedly showed where TO said that common descent was a fact, and that the term "common descent" meant universal common descent. You pathetically claim that the article I quoted was not the one under discussion.Really?So you are claiming I am wrong, lying, whatever, and then use an article I am not quoting to make your point? What the heck is up with that?I backed up my claims, and you and modulous just repeatedly ignored and denied I backed up my claims, and have the gall to say, well, your evidence was not under discussion.....???Try just being honest....respond to the actual evidence I posted and admit to the basic facts.

You gonna come clean or not, modulous. This is my post very early on the thread. It's pretty darn clear at all stages that I have amply substantiated my points. Either come clean, or admit you have no integrity in this debate.

Another baldfaced lie on your part, modulous. The fact is in Message 222 I provide a link which states that "evolution is a fact" and in the context of the articles linking to that article, "evolution" is a broadbased theory embracing universal common descent, and they insist the theory part only relates to the mechanism. This is gross propaganda because in fact the inverse is true. Some proposed mechanisms of evolution are factual, such as heritable change and genetic drift. The theoritical part is the universal common descent.But once again, you refuse to engage my points, the substance of the debate, and imo, are spouting baldfaced lies here.You claim the article in using the term "evolution" only refers to heritable change, but it is linked with the article that defines common descent as universal common descent. The article is thus exact evidence of the deception used by TO. They use the word "evolution" here to repeat the mantra that "evolution is a fact" and anyone with a brain knows full well that "evolution" in the context of this debate means universal common descent. But they try to weasel this article by also just arguing heritable change. That's baldfaced deception and propaganda on their part.We all know what they are doing. Anyone can see it. They are trying, on the basis of microevolution, to state that macroevolution is a fact, even though it is not observed, and they are moreover stating that only the mechanisms are theoritical, when in reality, the primary evidence they are using is the mechanism. In typical twisted manner, totally indicative of propaganda, they twist and use words with different definitions to create an impression of truthfulness all the while being untruthful.This message has been edited by randman, 03-20-2006 05:12 PM