Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site?

On the first point the statement does not contradict Richardson's statement.For instance to continue one of your quotations But this agrees with the statement quoted from t.o. The other criticism is a quote from a creationist but does not include any clear citicism of the t.o website. Indeed the article states that it is a reply to comments posted in the talk.origins newsgroup. The newsgroup is part of Usenet, open to all and thus cannot be directly equated with the website. So there is no actual criticism and the material being commented on may not even be on the t.o website.

So far as I can see the whole point of Randman's second objection is to have a go at the Haeckel topic. The quoted comment is a response to a post on the talk.origins newsgroup and does not even criticise that.The only point of quoting it seems to be to raise the whole generalised Haeckel argument again because it is quite obviously completely irrelevant to the supposed topic.Readers might like to consider why Randman would do such a thing if he really did have a good case against the t.o website.

I think that this post makes it clear that Randman has no case.From http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html This is in the first paragraph and sets the context for the definitions offered. The definition offered is a definition of the actual process.The second quote is not even contradictory since it is dealing with the theory - or HOW evolution happens. And this indeed involves many theories and hypotheses (the Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution to anem one example). Randman doesn't even attempt to show that there is any real conflict between the definitions.So Randman has made three attempts to support his case. All are complete failures.

quote:

---

percy, any objective and reasonable person can see what I posted is true. To use the word "evolution" to mean 2 different things in the same context is wrong. First, they say "evolution is observed" and is a fact, but the definition of "evolution" is not the grander concept they use later. It's a subtle form of lying, pure propaganda.

---

Any objective and reasonable person can see that you aren't taking any care to get your facts correct.Firstly I'm not Percy.Secondly my post pointed out that you had failed to make a case that the definitions were significantly different. Any objective and reasonable person can see that you did not address my points on this issue.Thirdly as other posts pointed out you failed to show that the argument you denounce as dishonest is actually used on the talkorigins site. It certainly isn't used in either of the essays you cited.

I think you are giving Randman too much credit. Read in context the second "definition" (which is not a definition at all) appears to be referring to essentially the same thing - as I pointed out in my earlier post.I also note that in all three examples Randman's "analysis" has been superficial to the point of absurdity, relying on taking isolated quotes out of context (at best).

To keep this simple and objective.You say:

quote:

---

They claim evolution is observed when in fact evolution is not observed, but by using 2 different meanings, they pass off one claim, evolution is observed since change is observed, to equate with evolution (ToE which encompasses a broader range of meaning) is observed as well, when it is not.

---

Where does t.o do this ?And if you cannot find an actual example will you show the honesty and integrity to admit that you cannot support your accusation ?a

You haven't even shown that the two article are using significantly different definitions. And you have not even offered a single place where the equivocation you refer to is actually used - not even a single place where you claim that it was actually used.n

OK, I'll take this slowly.It is not enough to assert that the two articles are using different definitions.It is not enough even to show that they are using different definitions (somethign you hve yet to do).Rationally speaking there is nothing automatically improper with using different definitions in different articles. That does not imply equivocation as you falsely assert.What you have to show is what you claimed. You have to show that they use one definition of evolution to show that evolution is observed, and then use that argument to claim that "evolution" - meaning some other definition - is observed.Why is it so difficult for you to understand that we are asking for an actual example ?t

quote:

---

the site devotes a whole article to defining evolution and doing so in such a way as to show it is observed. The site then refers to "evolution" elsewhere in articles clearly referring to much more than heritable changes.

---

Firstly this is just assertion, not an example.Secondly. as I have already pointed out different definitions in different articles are not necessarily equivocation. You need to show a link. If the articles using other definitions do not claim that evolution has been observed, or do so on other grounds then they do not support your claim.Thirdly you have not even bothered to show an example of an article using a signifcantly different definition.

quote:

---

Moreover, it does so in a further deceptive manner claiming, more or less, evolution (common descent) is a fact, and that just the proposed methods are theory

---

What is so deceptive about calling a fact a fact ?

quote:

---

If you cannot see that as propaganda, well....there's probably not much to discuss with you on it

---

Well lets recap this subthread.You accused the t.o website of using equivocation to claim that evolution had been observed - while referring to a definition for which that was not the case (Message 39and I asked for an example (Message 44).So the only thing to discuss is actual examples. If there is nothing more to discuss then you are implicitly admitting that you don't have any and can't find any.You falsely claimed that there was an example in an earlier post.When it was opinted out that that was untrue you repeated an earlier post blaming others for failing to grasp your point. Even though all it contained was unsupported assertions and a fallacious inference
(Message 50).And even now you are still refusing to produce an example, relying instead on unsupported assertions that they must be guilty.I'll just repewat the question I asked back in Message 44"And if you cannot find an actual example will you show the honesty and integrity to admit that you cannot support your accusation ?"Since your post indicates that you would rather refuse to discuss the matter than actually produce a real example the answer would appear to be "no". You can prove otherwise by either producing a genuine example or admittign that your claim was untrue. The ball is in your court.
r

The fundamental problem is that the quotes you use to "prove" your case contradict your claim. THe quote does not claim that past evolution is established by direct observation. It explcityl states that that point is establsihed by "overwhelming" "historical evidence".Thus the article does not claim that universal common descent has been established as a fact by direct observation.As for the first article the subject IS the evidence for common descent. . Thus to say that it is relying on a false claim that universal common descent was directly observed is absurd. The case is laid out in the main body of the (long) article - not the introductory paragraphs.

quote:

---

It says it (defined as common descent in the article linking to this one) is observed today, but common descent, the idea we all descended from a common ancestor, is not observed.

---

In other words you are admitting that your assertion, that the text did claim that universal common descent was observed is false. So there goes your argument.This message has been edited by PaulK, 02-08-2006 08:54 AM

Yes, just look at Behe's publications. How many of his scientific papers are even touted as supporting ID ? If you want to claim that Behe's belief in ID has advanced science you are going to have to get more specific than suggesting that we look at his publication record.

Randman, you are simply wrong here.Firstly there is nothing in creationism itself that requires any degree of evolution. Many current creationists accept some degree of evolution, but that was certainly not the case back in Darwin's day.The concept of "evolution within a kind" is not scientifically testable since there is no scientific way to determine the boundaries of a "kind", nor any direct evidence of a barrier which would prevent evolution beyond those boundaries - whatever they are. Thus it cannot be said that we observe that evolution is limited to "within kinds".r

You've never heard of the concept of "fixity of species" ? It was a common view in Darwin's day.Even Agassiz, one of the last creationists who could be called scientific beleived in it; http://academic.emporia.edu/.../histgeol/agassiz/agassiz.htmAnd you miss my point when you say that creationism has changed. My point is not that creationists cannot accept any degree of evolution, only that creatinism can accept varying degrees of evolution - up to, perhaps, the creation of phyla and subsequent evolution of all lower taxonomic levels or down to the creation of individual species. Creationism as such makes no prediction on that front.

You mean another falsified prediction.Evolutionists do not beleive that speciation events take millions of ears. Punctuated equilibria talks of times around 1,000 years. The 1200 year estimate is in line with that.The rapid speciation predicted to follow the flood is far more radical, predicting whole families evolving in a few hundred years at most.e