Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site?

Well, you are wrong about what the Talk origins says abotu the embros.From Icon of Obfuscation

quote:

---

In the interests of forthrightness, one point must be conceded straight out: Haeckel's embryo drawings have no place in textbooks except as an example of how erroneous ideas can get tacked onto important truths and perpetuated even after being debunked (Haeckel's inaccurate drawings have actually been 'exposed' multiple times since the 1800's, the Richardson et al. (1997) article that Wells cites being only the most recent example). However, Wells as usual exaggerates the implications of this for evolution.

---

It further goes on to explain

quote:

---

Numerous other mistakes and distortions could be mentioned, here is but one. Regarding Futuyma's use of the Haeckel embryo drawings in the 3rd edition of Evolutionary Biology, Wells writes (p. 109), "But it was Futuyma who mindlessly recycled Haeckel's embryos in several editions of his textbook, until a 'creationist' criticized him for it." However, an inspection of Futuyma's 1st and 2nd editions of Evolutionary Biology reveals that no such drawings were included in these editions. In the first edition, Haeckel's biogenetic law and the problems with it are discussed on page 153 in respectable fashion (this corresponds with page 303 in the second edition) -- and in fact the primary issue surrounding Haeckel in textbooks, which has always been to debunk Haeckel's "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" oversimplification, is in fact admirably discussed in all three editions.

---

Since it deals with Haeckels embroys in depth, your critisms are unwarrented.

You know, upon seeing another of the sources you are using, I find it very ironic you are using 'True Origins' , written by Jorge Fernandez, to attack talkorigins.Amoung the things that Jorge Fernandez promots is 'Young Earth Creationism'. Some sample articles is trying to show that the earth is YOUNG, using helium, and it also trys to promote that there was , indeed, a world wide flood.

Can you point to the specific part where Richardson said it was a fraut perpetuated? That is a claim of Well's yes.. but we can deal with Wells and his book where he makes that claim later.Show the specific line that says it was a purposeful fraud in his work.Give an exact quote.

Let me rephrase then.Where does Talk origins say that Haeckel was correct? You seem to be ignoring the link I showed in talk origins that specifically said they agree that Haeckel's drawings should not be included. They also pointed out that Well's is exagerating the signifigence, and that none of the text books that used to use promote the concept that Haeckel was trying to illustrate that was incorrect.

On the other hand, Randman specificlaly said that T.O is not reliable, since it is a 'propoganda site'. Yet, other than brining up Haekel, and accepting Well's mischaracterisation of it, Randman has not been able to show that 1) Talkorigins misrepresents Haeckle or 2) is unreliable.

I think he shoudl get an argument he at least understands.

After reviewing your links. I see where you made the CLAIM that T.o. did certain things.However, you did not show exactly where it made certain claims. You are taking Jose Fernandezes word (who, IMO, lacks both biological and scientific knowledge, and also objectivity).There is a difference in claiming that a site says something, and showing that it actually says what is claimed, IN CONTEXT.So far, you have succeeded in only making accusations against T.O., and then repeat the wildly exagerated claims of Jonathan Wells , which are repeated by Jose Fernandez.. (whose claims were answered ON the T.O. web site by the way, but totally ignored by the above two people, and you).Once you point out on the T.O. website that it actually makes the claims you say it does, then we can look at it IN CONTEXT to find out of your understanding of it is correct, and if your accusations have any merit.So far, you have not done so.So, point to the web page in talk origins that purposely makes the claims you say it does. Find it in Talk origins itself, and not rely on the propoganda of two people whose motivation for attacking evolution seems purely religious.

And, that is actually correct. When discussing evolution, there is a differnece between discussing the historicla data, and the reasons WHY it happens.Just like gravity,and the theory of Gravity.Gravity happens. We can describe what it does with some mathamatical forumlasWhy does it happen. That is what the theory of gravity does. Or, do you want to bring in 'Intelligent Falling' into the discussion.Evolution has been, in fact, observed. Speciation has been, in fact, has been observed. That is both 'micro' and 'macro' evolution in action.

Actually, they specifically show that is what the theory is, and give the facts assocaited from the theory.If you wish to deny what is said, that is your religous view.As a matter of fact, I can specifically show on the web site when discussing the evidence, they call it a THEORY. From
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent It does refer to another link (in quotes) of the "fact of evolution"
which can be found. It is a link to how evolution can be both a FACT
and a Theory. This added explanation can be found at Evolution is a Fact and a TheoryA quote from it is as follows Now, can you describe, in scientific terms,what an evolutionary biologist will define the term 'evolution' as. (Specificallly bological evolution, if I am not clear enough).Can you give the precise definition?

How? How has creationism done one thing to advance any of those? What creationism principle allowed for, let say, the development of new antibodics. what specicific I.D> principles made predictions, and helped iwth the area of genetics?Make a claim, and gettins specifics are two different thing. Unless you back up generalities with specifics, you are just blowing smoke.

Gosh, then you would have the concept of Intelligen Design, or religion, or a mishmash of the two.

I thihk you are right. Randman has not been able show one thing where talkorigins have made false statements. When it shows where other people
make claims of specifics, looking at talkorigins shows those claims to be incorrect.

Hum. You have an interesting definition of 'irrefutable'.Claim by randmanRefuting by a number of different peopleClaim 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. --AdminThis message has been edited by Admin, 02-20-2006 09:18 AM