Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


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 241 of 301 (296856)
03-20-2006 4:50 PM
Reply to: Message 240 by Modulous
03-20-2006 4:04 PM


Re: here ya go, guys
The page you are referring to is different that the page where this was originally under discussion.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 240 by Modulous, posted 03-20-2006 4:04 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 248 by Modulous, posted 03-20-2006 5:07 PM randman has replied

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


Message 242 of 301 (296857)
03-20-2006 4:52 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by PaulK
03-20-2006 3:36 PM


Re: here ya go again
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by PaulK, posted 03-20-2006 3:36 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by PaulK, posted 03-20-2006 5:03 PM randman has replied

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


Message 243 of 301 (296860)
03-20-2006 4:56 PM


here it is again....
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.
Wrong, as I have repeatedly showed. Read this:
Common descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of life). 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. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.
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.

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


Message 244 of 301 (296861)
03-20-2006 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 234 by randman
03-20-2006 3:11 PM


moving forward
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. 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.
I think now we have established you made an error in Message 222. So let's move on. In 29+ Evidences they state that universal common descent is considered a fact.
So what now? Let's look back in time to where all this came from. In Message 218. First off you say that
randman writes:
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".
OK, we agree that this is indeed a true statement.
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 think we can agree now, that this article doesn't explicitly state this at all.
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.
Considering both articles we can accept this as true. In simple terms they are classifying macroevolution as a fact (something which has a lot of supporting evidence), and the mechanisms (such as random mutations) as being the theoretical explanation as to how macroevolution occurs. Seems straightforward.
This is where it goes wrong for you though:
So on the one hand, TO defines evolution as just heritable change. Then, they define it as the theory of universal common descent.
Actually they say explicitly there are different usages of the word evolution.
They say this is observed and is a fact, and the only theory part is the mechanism.
They never, not once, not even a tiny bit, describe macroevolution as observed. They only describe microevolution as being described. They explicitly state that macroevolution is not observed. They say that it is a fact, but not that it has been observed. I trust that after all the quotes I have pulled out you are now accepting of this fact. If you are still not convinced, then by all means show me where they actually say macroevolution is observed. I'll Ctrl-F every reference they have to observing for you (search string: observ)

T.O writes:
On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur?
Doesn't help you.
But in science, "theory" means "a statement of what are held to be the general laws, principles, or causes of something known or observed." as the Oxford English Dictionary defines it. The theory of evolution is a body of interconnected statements about natural selection and the other processes that are thought to cause evolution
Nope, the theory is about facts or observed phenomenon.
And that's it, every reference of observ, do you still claim they are stating that common ancestry is observed?

In a nutshell your dichotomy is this:
randman writes:
Are you denying that by stating that, they explicitly are asserting universal common descent is an observed fact?
If it isn't the theory, it has been observed? What on earth is that about? If it isn't the theory then it is a fact. A fact hasn't necessarily been observed, instead a fact is defined as
Gould (quoted at TO) writes:
In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Facts are not necessarily observed. Thus there is no equivocation. That's my case, care to challenge it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by randman, posted 03-20-2006 3:11 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by randman, posted 03-20-2006 5:02 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 247 by randman, posted 03-20-2006 5:05 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 245 of 301 (296864)
03-20-2006 5:02 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Modulous
03-20-2006 4:56 PM


Re: moving forward
You gonna come clean or not, modulous. This is my post very early on the thread.
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.
....
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.
Heritable change, yep. I think it's clear here that they are bashing the use of "evolution" to refer to ToE, as expressed:
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
Which they claim is inexcusable. They nonetheless do refer to ToE and use "evolution" in the broader sense elsewhere on their site. It appears they want to be able to claim "evolution is observed", and yet "evolution" in the broader sense is not observed. It's a propaganda technigue, using semantics and sophistry to try to strengthen the claim that just because heritable changes occur, that means evolution in the broader sense is somehow observed, or to leave the impression it is logical to think so. It's wrong, but typical.
Evos need to stick with one definition and one definition only.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Modulous, posted 03-20-2006 4:56 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by Modulous, posted 03-20-2006 5:09 PM randman has not replied

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


Message 246 of 301 (296865)
03-20-2006 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 242 by randman
03-20-2006 4:52 PM


Re: here ya go again
It seems that you can't even be bothered to check your own messages.
In Message 222 you state:
quote:
PaulK, I am going to make it real easy for you. Let's look at just one article, and that should suffice.
The article in question was:
quote:
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
The material you quote is NOT from that essay. The material that I quoted is. Thus I am correct and the article does NOT equate evolution with universal common descent. You are wrong to claim otherwise, you are wrong to claim that your quote is even relevant and you are wrong to question my integrity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 242 by randman, posted 03-20-2006 4:52 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 250 by randman, posted 03-20-2006 5:14 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 247 of 301 (296866)
03-20-2006 5:05 PM
Reply to: Message 244 by Modulous
03-20-2006 4:56 PM


Re: moving forward
I think now we have established you made an error in Message 222. So let's move on. In 29+ Evidences they state that universal common descent is considered a fact.
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 244 by Modulous, posted 03-20-2006 4:56 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by AdminJar, posted 03-20-2006 5:32 PM randman has not replied
 Message 256 by Modulous, posted 03-20-2006 5:32 PM randman has replied

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


Message 248 of 301 (296867)
03-20-2006 5:07 PM
Reply to: Message 241 by randman
03-20-2006 4:50 PM


you can question my integrity, but don't call me a liar.
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
A direct question, what page were you referring to in Message 222?
Now a refutation. You replied to my post Message 240 and you area saying that I should be honest and openly state that randman has showed where TO states universal common descent is a fact. If you read my Message 240 you will see:
I have showed you this before. It's obvious
Yes, on this page it is clearly worded.
I did indeed openly state it. I did it twice actually, in my final paragraph I said you had referenced the wrong page and you should have referenced the one that actually supported your position:
quote:
You should have used the 29+ evidences article to put forward your argument, an easy mistake to make.
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.
Questioning my integrity is fine, calling me a liar is not. I have not lied, and your character assasination as a result of an innocent mistake on your part reflects badly on you. You said in Message 222 that the 'evolution is fact and theory' article states that universal common descent is a fact. It doesn't, it says the opposite. It was an easy mistake to make, and I think it would be decent of you to simply admit the error so we can move on from this point.
I can only surmise a lack of integrity on your part.
I can only surmise that your embarassment about making a rather easy and forgivable mistake has clouded your judgement. I don't care that you made the mistake. Indeed, you don't ever have to discuss the error, recant it or anything. I'll happily drop it with no further comment - its not really the topic here anyway.
You have my word that if you wish to stop discussing the gaffe I will either never mention the goof again or publically apologize for my memory lapse for doing so. My integrity is my life randman, without it I would be nothing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 241 by randman, posted 03-20-2006 4:50 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by randman, posted 03-20-2006 5:17 PM Modulous has replied
 Message 252 by randman, posted 03-20-2006 5:20 PM Modulous has replied

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


Message 249 of 301 (296870)
03-20-2006 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 245 by randman
03-20-2006 5:02 PM


Re: moving forward
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.
Where in my Message 244 did I state you haven't substantiated your points? Is this on topic?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 245 by randman, posted 03-20-2006 5:02 PM randman has not replied

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


Message 250 of 301 (296871)
03-20-2006 5:14 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by PaulK
03-20-2006 5:03 PM


Re: here ya go again
PaulK, did I or did I not cite this specific definition and quote of common descent?
The article I linked to make it real easy clearly states only the mechanism is theoritical, and so that has to mean that the idea of universal common descent is a fact.
Why can you not grasp these things?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by PaulK, posted 03-20-2006 5:03 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by PaulK, posted 03-20-2006 5:21 PM randman has replied

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


Message 251 of 301 (296872)
03-20-2006 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Modulous
03-20-2006 5:07 PM


Re: you can question my integrity, but don't call me a liar.
did indeed openly state it. I did it twice actually, in my final paragraph I said you had referenced the wrong page and you should have referenced the one that actually supported your position:
I have referenced the same pages numerous times on this thread. You have denied completely that I have quoted anything that backs up my claims. I consider that both a lie and a deliberate smear on your part.
Sure, in an attempt to get you guys to focus on at least something factual, I drew your attention to the article where they explicitly state "evolution is a fact" and that the only theoritical aspect of the mechanism. Undeniably then, the idea we all descended from a common ancestor and are all genetically related is a major proposal of evolutionary theory. Since that is part of the "fact" area, not the mechanism, they are then asserting universal common descent is a fact.
Why can you not admit this?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Modulous, posted 03-20-2006 5:07 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by Modulous, posted 03-20-2006 5:50 PM randman has not replied

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


Message 252 of 301 (296874)
03-20-2006 5:20 PM
Reply to: Message 248 by Modulous
03-20-2006 5:07 PM


Re: you can question my integrity, but don't call me a liar.
You said in Message 222 that the 'evolution is fact and theory' article states that universal common descent is a fact. It doesn't, it says the opposite.
It does because it divides evolutionary theory into 2 parts, one dealing with the mechanism, which they say is theory, and another dealing with the events, which they say is fact. Since evolutionary theory includes universal common descent, as they explicitly state in the article linked together with this one, they are clearly stating that universal common descent is a fact.
It's not even debatable.
I question your integrity because you claimed on another thread that my points had been refuted and that I had not offerred anything to show what I was saying was true. Imo, that was a lie.
You also questioned my characterization of what the TO site has stated, claiming they do not claim universal common descent is a fact, when they obviously do, as I have repeatedly shown.
Why not read through my statements on this thread, and come clean?
This message has been edited by randman, 03-20-2006 05:22 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 248 by Modulous, posted 03-20-2006 5:07 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 264 by Modulous, posted 03-20-2006 6:03 PM randman has not replied

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


Message 253 of 301 (296875)
03-20-2006 5:21 PM
Reply to: Message 250 by randman
03-20-2006 5:14 PM


Re: here ya go again
THe question is not whether you cited the quote. The question is whether it appears in the specific article we are discussing (as per your Message 222. Here's the link again.
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
Here's the quote (copied from Message 243)
ommon descent is a general descriptive theory that concerns the genetic origins of living organisms (though not the ultimate origin of
life). 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. For these reasons, proponents of special creation are especially hostile to the macroevolutionary foundation of the biological sciences.
Go and look. All you have to do is search for "biota".
Does the quote appear in the article or not ?
It's an easy question. Anyone can check it for themselves. Can you manage to answer it correctly ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 250 by randman, posted 03-20-2006 5:14 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by randman, posted 03-20-2006 5:25 PM PaulK has replied

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


Message 254 of 301 (296876)
03-20-2006 5:25 PM
Reply to: Message 253 by PaulK
03-20-2006 5:21 PM


Re: here ya go again
It appears in the chain of argument on this thread. I showed clearly where the site defines "common descent" not as the mechanism, as some suggested, but as "universal common descent" and that universal common descent is defined as part of evolutionary theory, and is listed as a fact.
That's the background.
To make it "real easy" for you, I linked again to only one article that divided "evolution" into fact and theory, with the mechanism being the only theoritical part.
Since universal common descent is not the mechanism, but the event of evolution, they are clearly and unequivocally stating "common descent" meaning genetical relatedness to all biota, as they state elsewhere, (universal common descent) is a fact.
The bottom line is you guys just don't want to admit to what the TO is claiming. I have showed clearly where they do exactly what I claimed, and that they claim the story of evolution is a fact, and the only theoritical part is the mechanism. I have showed where they contradict themselves and use different definitions of evolution, and that they link articles together, thus joining them as one argument, that use such different definitions.
I think it's clear why you guys refuse to admit these things.
This message has been edited by randman, 03-20-2006 05:26 PM
This message has been edited by randman, 03-20-2006 05:28 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 253 by PaulK, posted 03-20-2006 5:21 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 259 by PaulK, posted 03-20-2006 5:37 PM randman has not replied

AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 255 of 301 (296878)
03-20-2006 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by randman
03-20-2006 5:05 PM


Last Warning randman
look, we give you amazing leaaway here at EvC and allow you to get away with more than all but a few other posters, yet you seem to go beyond even those loose limits.
Stop attacking the other posters. Do not call someone here a liar.
This is not subject to debate.

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures
  • Thread Reopen Requests
  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
    New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum
  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
    See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting


  • This message is a reply to:
     Message 247 by randman, posted 03-20-2006 5:05 PM randman has not replied

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.2
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024