Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site?

quote:

---

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

---

Your assertiosn are completely unsupported. And the reason you offer not support is because your assertions are false.I went through the article - which is more than you seme to have done. There are no statements equating evolution with universal common descent. There are not statements proclaiming universal common descent to be a fact. There is one explicit statement about universal common descent. And that states that it is NOT appropriate to call it a fact.Those are the facts. And those facts contradict your assertion..iThis message has been edited by PaulK, 02-20-2006 06:11 PM

Randman is wrong to conflate observed facts and facts as defined by the article, but he is right in saying that the article talks about common descent as being a fact by their definition of fact. He's wrong about it being universal common ancestry. In the interests of moving the debate forward: the reason why randman is wrong is also in the article: So basically we either have a word 'fact' and we say that there is no such thing as a fact, and thus the word fact has no real practical meaning OR we accept that we can never know something 100% but we can be so very sure of something that we can basically call it a fact.Common descent is a fact, the mechanisms that brought this diversity about from common ancestors is the theory. T.O is consistent with this definition and is not trying to 'bait and switch'.Another reason why randman is wrong, and the source of your disagreement is his conflation of common ancestry and UNIVERSAL common descent from a SINGLE common ancestor. I think, in the interests of moving the debate forward it might be an idea to try and explain that to him. Then you can debate if the conflation is valid. My position is that it is blatantly not a valid conflation and is the kind of equivocation that randman is criticising T.O for doing. Common ancestors is plural - clearly showing that this isn't universal common descent being discussed. Randman, if you are reading this go to the article and search for 'common ancestor'. You will see two types of common ancestry discussed. One of them they consider a fact, the other is UNIVERSAL common ancestry which it says should not be considered a fact.

---

I self-debated as to where and who to post this reply to, I figured it was you Paul, because I think you have shown a better history of attempting to move debates forward. Randman has done this, but I feel he is less likely to. Don't let the side down

I fully agree that the article talks of common descnet as a fact. And that it does not mean universal common descent when it does so. However that does not help Randman in the slightest, since it does not even claim that the examples of common descent that it gives are observed.Indeed, I believe that Randman has recognised the distinction since rather than choosing to use one of the references to common descent to support his assertion he chose to argue on the basis of a false "fact or theory" dichotomy.To be honest I see no hope for valid debate on the topic at this stage. We have had a large number of posts without Randman producing even one valid example that would justify his original assertion. I suppose if Randman were to admit that he had barely scanned the site and that he was unable to truly justify his accusation it would represent progress. However despite the fact that that is clearly what has happened I doubt that Randman would do so. He may not even be capable of admitting it.n

Randman has recently been discussing T.Os propaganda in the thread that started this one off. Humans walked with dinosaurs, and insists that he showed the illogic and distortion of evos.This is the acid test. If randman is right, this should be a doddle.The word 'evolution' has different meanings. Two meanings in particular: 1) Microevolution, evolution of populations of organsism which can be observed to happen over time
2) Macroevolution, grander scale of evolution which generally involves the creation of new taxa (eg common ancestry of chimps and humans).Randman is accusing T.O of equivocation, of saying that the first definition of evolution is observed and using that as a logical spring board to demonstrate the second definition. We know that T.O defines the two different evolutionary types, and we know that they take great pains to keep the definitions seperate. Example: That to me seems to be the opposite to what randman has been claiming in this thread.So, all we need is for randman to show us a section where this equivocation actually happens. Somewhere where the argument is put forward in some way that resembles 'evolution is observed, therefore we evolved from a common ancestor with chimpanzees'.It should be fairly easy, but randman has not done it so far. I'm writing this to recapitulate and bump. Also, if randman would like to defend his argument he may do so here. I know that the last few posts of randmans might be quite embarassing - confusing common ancestry with universal common descent, so in the interests of keeping things sporting, we'll just ignore that goof for now.Here is an example of how easy this should be. from here. That is equivocating evolutionary theory (the explanatory framework within which biological population change is explained) with general relativity/cosmology and the abiotic generation of life. That is less logical and more propaganda-ish than Talk Origin. Talk Origin openly accepts there are two definitions of the word evolution in context of biology, seeks to explicitly define the two, and takes pains to describe which definition they mean in context when they do use it.I'd like to see you post something good rand, some solid argument. Heck you don't even need to use the 'evolution word game' to help you, you can choose a whole other area of propaganda.I hate propaganda, I will tear into it even if it is agreeing with my own position...in my opinion propaganda makes my position look weaker, is deceptive and weasly and despicable. If T.O uses propaganda techniques, or even simple equivocation, I want to know, and I will promptly be emailing them to register my offense at the page that engages in said equivocation.Take care, rand

---

Eternity is in love with the productions of time.
The busy bee has no time for sorrow.
The hours of folly are measur'd by the clock; but of wisdom, no clock can measure.

quote:

---

...I am not going to waste time repeating myself on all of the same points....

---

And he then wastes his time repeating himself in (as of this moment) six additional posts.

---

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

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

This is the SPECIFIC essay under discussion in the subthread.Evolution is a Fact and a TheoryYour quote is NOT there.This, on the other hand, is

quote:

---

In other cases the available evidence is less strong. For example, the relationships of some of the major phyla are still being worked out. Also, 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.

---

So, haing decided to restrict the discussion to a single essay in Message 222 you are npow attempting to refute comments on that essay by quoting a different piece altogether - while ignoring the explicit statements in the essay being discussed.It is not my integrity that should be called into question.y

We are referring to this page right?In the post you are replying to, I urged you to do a search on the page. In my browser I can press Ctrl-F to search a page. This is what happens when I search the page for the word common: Note: ancestors is pluralized. It clearly isn't talking about a single common ancestor. Once again, plural, not singular. Clearly not talking about universal common ancestry, its talking about the common ancestor of closely related species and uses human/chimp as an example of this. Here the article is specifically talking about universal common descent. It explicitly states that the idea that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor (viz. universal common descent), cannot be appropriately referred to as a fact. This is it, the only mention of universal common descent on the entire page, is to explictly state that it cannot be called a fact.Your position is that they are calling universal common descent a fact is falsified by this simple sentence which states the contrary.Given that a clear reading of the page indicates with painstaking obviousness that they are not talking about universal common descent at all unless it is to state that it cannot be referred to as a fact, I am left bewildered how you can say What part of the page says this? I quoted for you every part of the page that contains the word 'common', and it doesn't say what you say it says, so perhaps you have 'read between the lines' a little to come to your conclusion.Since it is abundantly clear, you should have no problems actually quoting for everyone reading the section in this page which leads you to believe that common ancestors of closely related species means universal common descent from a single common ancestor.

Was that really worth posting? I spent time in actually quoting for you the sections of the page, and used argumentation to refute your position. Do you consider this to be advancing the debate?

Hi rand,The page you are referring to is different that the page where this was originally under discussion. The page originally under discussion was evolution as fact or theory. See your Message 222 for clarification. The page in question clearly states the opposite from what you were initially claiming. I was happy to drop it, but you wanted to bring it up again.With this page, you are closer to the truth. The two pages are in disagreement over their opinions. On the one page, they do not think it is appropriate, on the 29+ Evidences the author thinks it is OK. It's a difference of opinion. This isn't propanda by the way, since they are clear in their definition of fact: 'very well supported'. One author believes that universal common ancestry is well supported, another does not think that it is well supported enough (though does state that it is well supported).Disagreement on such issues is not propaganda.The propaganda claim is the accusation that T.O is equivocating between observed evolution and common ancestry above the species level(universal or otherwise). Yes, on this page it is clearly worded. However, you made your claims with regards to a different page entirely...here is where this subthread started: I take it now that you realize that the page you originally referred to doesn't support your claim? By all means question my integrity. I've been quite clear in this section of the thread in which page I was talking about - viz the page you originally referred us to. It was a simple mistake on your part, and I was quite happy to drop it; See my Message 229 where I said:

quote:

---

so in the interests of keeping things sporting, we'll just ignore that goof for now.

---

I have been nothing but honest throughout, I can assure you. I am fabricating nothing, anyone can go check your original claim in Message 222 and see how it doesn't pan out. You should have used the 29+ evidences article to put forward your argument, an easy mistake to make. Shall we get over it now?Now...about the equivocation - can you show me it?