Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site?
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 271 of 301 (300035)
04-01-2006 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 270 by PaulK
04-01-2006 5:17 AM


Re: reasons for acerbic tone
So basically you got angry because your attempts to smear t.o failed.
In my opinion, this violates rule 10. Please avoid future violations.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by PaulK, posted 04-01-2006 5:17 AM PaulK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 272 by randman, posted 04-01-2006 4:03 PM AdminNWR has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 272 of 301 (300113)
04-01-2006 4:03 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by AdminNWR
04-01-2006 10:12 AM


Re: reasons for acerbic tone
oops...thought something was directed towards me...sorry
This message has been edited by randman, 04-01-2006 04:03 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by AdminNWR, posted 04-01-2006 10:12 AM AdminNWR has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 273 of 301 (300117)
04-01-2006 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 270 by PaulK
04-01-2006 5:17 AM


Re: reasons for acerbic tone
First, you and others simply stating I never made a case without ever engaging any of my points means nothing. You have to actually engage the points raised in the debate.
Secondly, I never totally limited the conversation to one article. hen faced with repeated instances of your ignoring the points raised without any mods intervening I might add, I focussed your attention on one article, which does contrary to what you and modulous claim, make the same point because it says the only theoritical aspect of evolutionary theory is the mechanism. Since genetic relatedness and universal common descent are parts of evolutionary theory, and not the mechanism part they raised, then they are clearly, as they say elsewhere and as I posted statements proving, part of what they call the "fact" part.
The thread has been frustrating because there has been a refusal to acknowledge much less answer substantive points, on you and some other's part.
This message has been edited by randman, 04-01-2006 04:10 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 270 by PaulK, posted 04-01-2006 5:17 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by Admin, posted 04-01-2006 4:35 PM randman has replied
 Message 275 by PaulK, posted 04-01-2006 4:36 PM randman has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 274 of 301 (300123)
04-01-2006 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by randman
04-01-2006 4:09 PM


Re: reasons for acerbic tone
Hi Randman,
You're already on record as believing that those on the other side of the debate are guilty of evasion and dissembling. If you insist on pursuing a course which includes assertions of malfeasance by the other side then I will return you to suspended status immediately. If, on the other hand, you decide to pursue a course that includes respect for your opponents and efforts to seek mutual understandings then your participation here will be allowed to continue.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by randman, posted 04-01-2006 4:09 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by randman, posted 04-01-2006 5:03 PM Admin has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 275 of 301 (300124)
04-01-2006 4:36 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by randman
04-01-2006 4:09 PM


Re: reasons for acerbic tone
1) Your points were rebutted. Thus showing that you had no case. At the least you should acknowledge that the rebuttals exist.
2) Secondly you DID limit a subtrhead of the discussion to a single article. You DID incorrectly declare a post in that subthread to be wrong without taking that fact into account and you did not acknowledge the error even after it was pointed out.
These are the facts that can clearly be seen.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by randman, posted 04-01-2006 4:09 PM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 276 of 301 (300134)
04-01-2006 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 274 by Admin
04-01-2006 4:35 PM


key part of post as follows....
make the same point because it says the only theoritical aspect of evolutionary theory is the mechanism. Since genetic relatedness and universal common descent are parts of evolutionary theory, and not the mechanism part they raised, then they are clearly, as they say elsewhere and as I posted statements proving, part of what they call the "fact" part.
I have raised this issue several times. It is a substantive point, and not merely charging malfeasance. It is well-defined, pointed, and I don't see why expecting an actual response other than "you are wrong" and then stating that elsewhere, is correct. Shouldn't others have to actually state why they think this is wrong? you know, substantiate their points according to the rules?
Maybe you can illuminate me here. How is this not a substantive point? The article in question specifically states that the only theoritical part of evolutionary theory is the mechanism; and thus the event aspects of evolutionary theory are what they call "the fact" part. Is that not calling universal common descent a fact, just as they do elsewhere? Isn't universal common descent part of the event aspect, not the mechanism in this context, of evolutionary claims in this discussion?
Where is this point wrong?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 274 by Admin, posted 04-01-2006 4:35 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 277 by Admin, posted 04-01-2006 5:32 PM randman has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12995
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 277 of 301 (300145)
04-01-2006 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 276 by randman
04-01-2006 5:03 PM


Re: key part of post as follows....
I'm not debating as Admin, but if you'd like my general opinion from a "judging the debate" standpoint, I thought your post was very weak. The quoted portion was very difficult to understand. It was incomplete (picks up in mid-sentence), gramatically complex, referred to things said elsewhere, and there was no link to the webpage it mentions.
In reply to your question, "How is this not a substantive point?" I would answer, "I can't even find your point." I know what you're trying to say, I provided a succinct summary in Message 267, but in my view you've been unable to provide any reasonable support or arguments for your premise.
I know this is incomprehensible to you and that you believe that only purposeful lying and evasion could cause people to fail to see your point, but unless you begin to consider the possibility that there's room for honest disagreement then your return here will be a short one.
Please take any moderation concerns to the appropriate thread and let the remainder of this thread be devoted to the topic. And I do mean the *topic*, not the meta topic about how incredible it is that no one will concede your point.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by randman, posted 04-01-2006 5:03 PM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 278 of 301 (300146)
04-01-2006 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 268 by jar
03-21-2006 11:02 AM


Re: While it will not support randman's claims
jar, you need to reread the quotes. Sure, they say it is a hypothesis and yet they also call it a fact. That's the whole point. They contradict themselves. The only consistent aspect of their claims in this area is to try to create an impression that evolution is undeniably true. It's propaganda.
They also claim it is grossly incorrect to claim evolution is defined as including common descent, and then elsewhere define "evolution" as including common descent. Once again, on logic and facts, they are inconsistent, but in terms of repeating slogans/soundbite type things, creating false impressions, and denigrating their critics, they are consistent. That's the whole point.
So contrary to your links disproving my claims, they actually verify 100% of what I am talking about. For example:
Introduction
Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses.
Here evolution is defined broadly, but elsewhere on the site, we see:
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.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
They denigrate defining evolution broadly, and quite clearly want to define evolution as just "heritable change." Imo, this represents deception on their part as no one argues that heritable change is real. The truth is, as they admit elsewhere, that the term "evolution" under debate is indeed "Evolution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses".
Everyone knows that's what is under debate, but the site wants to have it both ways. On the one hand, they want to define evolution as heritable change and as an observed fact, and on another then want to extent the concept of evolution to embrace universal common descent. Basically, they are attempting through propaganda and deceptive use of terminoloty and logic to make the claim that the larger concept of evolution is a fact because the smaller concept of evolution is observed.
This is a typical evo argument, and it's wrong. The term "evolution" is defined differently so arguing one is observed does not mean the other is observed or is factual.
This message has been edited by randman, 04-01-2006 06:12 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 268 by jar, posted 03-21-2006 11:02 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by jar, posted 04-01-2006 7:32 PM randman has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 279 of 301 (300148)
04-01-2006 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 278 by randman
04-01-2006 5:54 PM


Re: While it will not support randman's claims
randman, in my post Message 268, I included the portions from the links you provided so that the readers can see things in context. I also made sure to include the links to the complete articles. The record is there for all to read and they will decide who has supported their position, and who has not.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 278 by randman, posted 04-01-2006 5:54 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by randman, posted 04-01-2006 8:16 PM jar has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 280 of 301 (300156)
04-01-2006 8:16 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by jar
04-01-2006 7:32 PM


let's look at what they say....
You guys claim TalkOrigins does not assert that common descent or genetic relatedness of all species is a fact. Let's look at what TO has published to see if they claim that or not. These comments are from the article you guys claim denies universal common descent is a fact.
In contrast, the statement that organisms have descended with modifications from common ancestors--the historical reality of evolution--is not a theory. It is a fact, ...
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
Note the phrase "it is a fact." Let me repeat that; "it is fact." Is that not clear enough? Let's look at more statements from the same article, which you guys claim denies that they are claiming the microbe to man evolutionary story is a fact.
It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different. Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans. No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.
The controversies about evolution lie in the realm of the relative importance of various forces in molding evolution.
- R. C. Lewontin "Evolution/Creation Debate: A Time for Truth" Bioscience 31, 559 (1981) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, op cit.
This concept is also explained in introductory biology books that are used in colleges and universities (and in some of the better high schools). For example, in some of the best such textbooks we find:
Today, nearly all biologists acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The term theory is no longer appropriate except when referring to the various models that attempt to explain how life evolves... it is important to understand that the current questions about how life evolves in no way implies any disagreement over the fact of evolution.
- Neil A. Campbell, Biology 2nd ed., 1990, Benjamin/Cummings, p. 434
Also:
Since Darwin's time, massive additional evidence has accumulated supporting the fact of evolution--that all living organisms present on earth today have arisen from earlier forms in the course of earth's long history. Indeed, all of modern biology is an affirmation of this relatedness of the many species of living things and of their gradual divergence from one another over the course of time.
Obviously, they are claiming macroevolution is a fact, right? That the species of living things are actually all related (universal common descent)?
Is there really any vagueness here to their claims?
In any meaningful sense evolution is a fact, but there are various theories concerning the mechanism of evolution.
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by jar, posted 04-01-2006 7:32 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 281 by jar, posted 04-01-2006 8:24 PM randman has not replied
 Message 283 by PaulK, posted 04-02-2006 7:58 AM randman has not replied
 Message 285 by Modulous, posted 04-02-2006 10:25 AM randman has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 281 of 301 (300158)
04-01-2006 8:24 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by randman
04-01-2006 8:16 PM


Re: let's look at what they say....
Those who are interested can go and read the full article. I believe they will notice that it contains quotations from many sources as well as statements from TO itself.
Those who do so will decide whether or not you have supported your position.
I have done so and IMHO you have failed completely to support your assertions.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by randman, posted 04-01-2006 8:16 PM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 282 of 301 (300159)
04-01-2006 8:30 PM


let's look at more articles from TO....
Here is a classic case of what I am talking about.
What is Evolution?
Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time. A gene is a hereditary unit that can be passed on unaltered for many generations. The gene pool is the set of all genes in a species or population.
The English moth, Biston betularia, is a frequently cited example of observed evolution. [evolution: a change in the gene pool] In this moth there are two color morphs, light and dark. H. B. D. Kettlewell found that dark moths constituted less than 2% of the population prior to 1848. The frequency of the dark morph increased in the years following. ...
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
Leaving aside the fact that, imo, there is credible evidence that sooty tree trunks did not cause the change in populations from lighter to darker colored moths since those changes also occurred in areas of the world without sooty tree trunks, the simple fact is that TO here is arguing that "evolution" is true because change is real.
Is that a reasonable argument?
I don't think it is because if we are talking about evolution in the sense of mere change, no one, not Young Earth Creationists, nor IDers, nor anyone in this debate at all, denies changes occur. The issue does the fact populations of species can change mean that the microbe to man story that evos tell is true.
So when TO tries to argue "evolution is true", it's really a bogus argument because they are not sticking with one definition of evolution in making that argument. Even by using the term as heritable change and then saying we have examples of evolution being true, that it is observed, etc,....is a fallacious argument because they are leaving the impression that the broader concept of evolution is true, that the theory of evolution is true, just because one can define "evolution" as meaning any heritable change.
Proving one term with the same name "evolution" does not prove or verify the other term "evolution" meaning the theory of evolution.
To their credit, the article does at least mention the difference between macro and micro-evolution, but still contains the following:
Debates continue about how various aspects of evolution work. For example, all the details of patterns of relationships are not fully worked out. However, evolution and common descent are considered fact by the scientific community.

Replies to this message:
 Message 284 by PaulK, posted 04-02-2006 8:09 AM randman has not replied
 Message 286 by Modulous, posted 04-02-2006 10:38 AM randman has replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 283 of 301 (300222)
04-02-2006 7:58 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by randman
04-01-2006 8:16 PM


Re: let's look at what they say....
Your post is full of misrepresentations.
First it is NOT true that we claim that nowhere the t.o website claims universal common descent to be a fact.
Secondlly your "examples" are misrepresentatiosn because they fail to deal with the distinction made in the essay between comon descent (which might involve several independant lineages) and universal common descent which relates everything into one single lineage.
There is an explicit and unambiguous statement on universal common descent in the essay. And it is this:
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.
This statement has been brought to your attention a number of times in this thread. I leave to the readers the question of why you should repeatedly ignore it and instead attempt to infer a contrary view from other statements.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by randman, posted 04-01-2006 8:16 PM randman has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 284 of 301 (300223)
04-02-2006 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 282 by randman
04-01-2006 8:30 PM


Re: let's look at more articles from TO....
The essay defines what it means by evolution and points to an actual observed example. An observation of something happening is certainly a reasonable argument that it does happen.
On the other hand I do no tthink that this is a reasonable argument:
quote:
I don't think it is because if we are talking about evolution in the sense of mere change, no one, not Young Earth Creationists, nor IDers, nor anyone in this debate at all, denies changes occur. The issue does the fact populations of species can change mean that the microbe to man story that evos tell is true.
The argument here is that the essay cannot mean what it says, because what it says is unobjectionable to anti-evolution groups.
However since the article is not arguing against the positions of anti-evolution groups - it's purpose is to provide an introduction to the science of evolution - it is hard to see how such a consideration could be taken as overriding the actual text of the essay.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 282 by randman, posted 04-01-2006 8:30 PM randman has not replied

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


Message 285 of 301 (300234)
04-02-2006 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by randman
04-01-2006 8:16 PM


Re: let's look at what they say....
You guys claim TalkOrigins does not assert that common descent or genetic relatedness of all species is a fact.
Might I suggest you read Message 244 where I said:
quote:
In 29+ Evidences they state that universal common descent is considered a fact.
I've referenced it before, but it seems you have missed it. PaulK has said the same thing.
Evolution is a Fact and a Theory
Note the phrase "it is a fact." Let me repeat that; "it is fact." Is that not clear enough?
Yes, it says that. Very clear. What you are missing is that we were talking about universal common descent, and what that you said this article says about it. The article is very clear about it, it says that universal common descent shouldn't be considered a fact. Is that clear enough for you?
Obviously, they are claiming macroevolution is a fact, right? That the species of living things are actually all related (universal common descent)?
It is obvious they are stating macroevolution is a fact, but you cannot engage in this kind of equivocation. Macroevolution is not the same as universal common descent. Universal common descent is the idea that all current life came from a single common ancestor.
Is there really any vagueness here to their claims?
No. It considers macroevolution as a fact and universal common descent as very strongly supported by the evidence, with no contrary evidence, but not a fact because other reasonable scenarios exist:
quote:
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, can we finally agree? I think you major problem here is their declaration of macroevolution as a fact. Your issue isn't with universal common descent at all. As such, we can (at last) put this confusion behind us.
Is your major issue with the article declaring macroevolution as a fact? If so, explain to me the propaganda that is being employed, bearing in mind how the article defines a fact.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by randman, posted 04-01-2006 8:16 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