Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site?

I assume as evidence of this you are referring to what you posted in Message 3? And your refutation of talk origins comes from Richardson. Here is how T.O defines the phylotypic stage: And here is what Richardson says, in his 1997 paper: Richardson seems to think that this should be called the Phylotypic period Source

Which it is. Its not a false argument, it is a definition. It does not claim that the last x billion years of evolution have been observed. If you can find where they say "Evolution has been observed, therefore natural history is accurate", then you'd have a point. You might want to look for that argument being put forward in the 29+ Evidences for macroevolution.

Not necessarily. They defined it in the article you put forward as your evidence. They go on to explicitly state that it is not highly conserved as Haeckel proposed. Doing that is propaganda? Its funny, Darwin used the worrd as the title of the chapter he used to sum up his arguments. Oh wait, recapitulation means 'to repeat or sum up'. The word has lots of different potential uses, why is using it propaganda? It hasn't been refuted, it is being disputed. The basic formulation has been refuted, but there have been papers that I have shown you that demonstrate a highly conserved stage in new ways. Richardson uses a term for a period because this period exists. Are you suggesting that Richardson is not a reliable source for embryological claims? The entire scientific community does not have to bow down to Richardsons nomenclature and isn't likely to. After all, scientific nomenclature has a habit of getting out of date but staying in use. Your claim has been refuted. They state there are two definitions of evolution. Evolution that has been observed and evolution which hasn't but which has lots of evidence.You're going to have to deal with all the posts that explicitly state why you are mistaken on this if the debate is going to move forward.

From your link: I think they are being quite clear as to what they are referring to when they are discussing evolution. To be honest, I think the article needs a little more work, it is a 13 year old bb post. It isn't an argument, its a definition. An argument can be found in the other article you listed: Wherein they clearly set forth the issue in debate before tackling it. You will need to point to where the argument is set forward that 'Evolution is observed as per our definition
You dispute that dinosaurs and birds are related
That would be evolution.
Evolution has been observed, therefore dispute is over' All the mechanisms they describe have been observed. Evolution itself has been observed, not ALL evolution has been observed. At no point does T.O attempt to make this argument...if it does, point it out. Then show us where they put forward this argument. All we have at the moment is one definition. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.htmlI think the definition you linked to clearly shows that there is a difference between the observed evolution and the evolution under debate. On the one hand: and on the other hand: The theory hasn't been observed any more than any other theory. A theory is an explanatory framework. The mechanisms proposed in the theory have been observed. They make it quite clear that common ancestry between taxa has not been observed.This message has been edited by Modulous, Tue, 07-February-2006 10:13 PM

Actually that article mentions two different kinds of evolution. Evolution that biologists say has been observed and the kind of evolution where Chimps share a common ancestor. They contrast the two on two occasions, in that very article. I've posted it once before, but since you haven't acknowledged this basic fact, I'll do it again. I think its quite clear that they seperate observed evolution from the level of evolution under debate. Where's the problem?

I don't think this is particularly subtle, or confusing. From the definition article: It seems pretty explicit and clear. I don't go away from that paragraph thinking 'so Chimp/Human divergence and evolution has been observed! How silly of me to think that we hadn't observed an event millions of years before we are claimed to have existed. The scientists are telling us they have observed it, so we must have'.No, I go away understanding what it means when someone says 'evolution has been observed' and what it means to talk about common ancestors. Its actually amusing that in one they claim that some evolution has been observed in contrast with common ancestry with is theorized to have occurred through the same processes that we have observed. And in the other article they say that there are two types of evolution -micro and macro. Its very confusing. I agree, everyone here agrees, the definition article agrees, and the 29+ evidences agrees. We all agree. Hurray. I'm not sure what T.O is wrong on here. Actually I've picked a few errors up in TO in my time, it is just a bulletin board where certain of the posts get made into html. It's written by lots of different people. There is the theory of evolution (How did evolution happen) and the phenomena of evolution (changing populations). I certainly hope you haeve better examples of propaganda on TO than this, since it is SO subtle, it seems nobody can see it behind all the explicit words which say the opposite.How about we try something else?

In Message 21, randman wrote: This thread is intended as a place where randman and other critics of talkorigins.org can provide details of the flaws and propagandistic tendencies of the to site, and where others can answer these critiques.

Randman has nailed it.Talk origins uses evolution to mean two different things. They are guilty of this. They are likewise guilty of putting their definitions into context. So far no actual usage of equivocation has been uncovered. I await patiently. The page that randman keeps referencing clearly states that biologists talk of two types of evolution. The evolution that is observed (which they describe) and common ancestry (which is inferred from the evidence). This is obvious propaganda since they only go to extreme pains to try and define their terms when they use it. They are subtly trying to imply that chimpanzee-human divergence is observed, despite their explicitly stating the opposite, it's so obvious now. Likewise, the phylotypic stage stuff is a dead cert. Its not important that the phylotypic stage as they describe it is observed, which even Richardson agrees with (randman insists that the phylotypic stage as described is not observed seemingly going against the rest of the world). After all Richardson's ideas about a phylotypic 'period' are misguided and T.O are trying to conflate the two which is evidence they are clinging to the biogenetic law and Haeckel's fraud which is still being clinged to after 125 years despite the valiant heroes of creationism discreditting it.After all, the creationists didn't attempt to discredit every aspect of evolution, inventing things, mining quotes, fraud, overstatements, hokey mathematics, dirty tricks, etc. Oh no, they honestly critisized only a small element of evolution which has since been discredited. Yes sir.Talking about how there are two definitions of a word, and trying to make clear what is meant when each definition is being used is evil propaganda.However, offering $250,000 to anyone who can prove evolution, or mining quotes (or just making them up), falsifying evidence, equivocating over the words evolution, information, random, complexity, order and thermodynamics, appealing to the public through rhetoric, oratory, presentations, leaflets, 'wedging' into schools, courts and engaging in scientific debate in areas where no other scientific debate takes place is NOT propaganda. That's a perfectly rational reaction to a world of athiests that are deliberately trying to supress creation science.Sorry, but all I can see randman doing here is trying to smear T.O by equivocating propaganda with informality. Yes, they are not precise at all times. Yes, I'm sure if you look hard enough you can find small hiccups. However, non-formal language use is not the same as propaganda by MASSIVE shot. I do believe randman genuinely thinks T.O is propaganda, and the examples he has given is evidence of it.It's a shame, but I don't think anything will sway him from this course, even explicitly spelling it out.Randman, the two examples you have given in 14 pages have been unconvincing. Are these the only two examples you have? Perhaps there are better ones?For propaganda comparison try:
HovindEvil AmericaI'm certain that T.O isn't to those standards.

On one page TO says

quote:

---

Because it is so well supported scientifically, common descent is often called the "fact of evolution" by biologists.

---

and on another they say

quote:

---

Biologists consider the existence of biological evolution to be a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming.

---

So, on one hand they say that evolution is well supported and is often called the fact of evolution, and on the other hand they say that biologists consider evolution to be a fact with overwhelming evidence.It seems to me to be saying almost exactly the same thing vis: the evidence is overwhelming (it is well suppoprted) so it is considered to be a fact (or is often called a fact).They define fact as something that has an enormous amount of supporting evidence. They then go on to say:

quote:

---

However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution

---

That the Theory of Evolution (the mechanism of evolution) is not a fact.

---

It seems pretty clear to me that they differentiate between observed mechanisms and events which have so much evidence they are considered facts. I think this is something which has been said over and over again. The theory of evolution is an explanatory framework, effectively the mechanism behind the event that is evolution. Much like any other theory really. They never say it is an observed fact. They say it has so much evidence that it is considered fact. Likewise, Henry VIII ruling Britain is not an observed fact, but there is overwhelming evidence for it.There is a difference between an observed fact and something that is considered a fact due to the overwhelming evidence

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

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.

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?

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 OK, we agree that this is indeed a true statement. I think we can agree now, that this article doesn't explicitly state this at all. 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: Actually they say explicitly there are different usages of the word evolution. 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)

---

Doesn't help you. 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: 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 Facts are not necessarily observed. Thus there is no equivocation. That's my case, care to challenge it?