|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is talkorigins.org a propoganda site? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17828 Joined: Member Rating: 2.5 |
We already know from Randman's failed examples that he did not have any sound basis for his claim that to.org was a "propaganda site", nor has he been able to find one.
So much was obvious from his second examples Message 3 when instead of finding "propaganda" on the to.org website he relied on quoting a creationist site. That was not talking about the to.org website - instead referring to messages on the talk.origins newsgroup. And did nothing to substantiate the accusations he raised even if it had been referring to the website. That he should need to use another site is bad enough, that he should fail not only to fact check it, but even to read it properly indicates a reckless disregard for the truth. And given his recent comments in the trilobite dicussion it seems that randman deploys the "propaganda site" label simply to dismiss information he does not want to know - or others to know.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
Gosh, then you would have the concept of Intelligen Design, or religion, or a mishmash of the two.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ramoss Member (Idle past 642 days) Posts: 3228 Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
imo, you are trying to cloud the simple issue here that creationist do embrace and include speciation in their models so if speciation is evidence for ToE models, it is also evidence for creationist models.
Let's suppose that you can come up with a version of creationism that does make the same predictions as evolution. Here are some questions about that version: Don't respond here. We are way off topic for this thread. Open a new thread where we can discuss your creationist ideas and whether they are superior to evolution. (You could respond here with a link to the new topic, after opening it, but please no content discussion here.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
TO defines evolution in one way that no one disagrees with.
Then, they say "evolution is observed" meaning heritable change. Then, they claim "evolution" is thus an observed fact, but refer to a different definition of "evolution", the ToE, common descent and macro-evolution. They are thus a propaganda site since they falsely switch out the one term "evolution" for another, to create a false impression and deceive people into thinking "evolution is a fact and observed" when it is neither. That was one error I showed, and I showed several others. You guys just don't want to accept factual truth, which I find to be the case with many evos.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
You made this claim previously, why not show us the direct quotes and contextualise them so we can see if you are right? Others have made the counterclaim that the two different definitions are clearly differentiated and TO makes no such equivocation between definitions.
TTFN, WK This message has been edited by Wounded King, 18-Feb-2006 11:43 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
Already did on this thread.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
randman  Suspended Member (Idle past 4929 days) Posts: 6367 Joined: |
comments from TO....a featured article defining evolution, sort of a an evo primer to start things off
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. Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks: "In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next."- Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974 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. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" which should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition it is possible to debate whether evolution is still occurring, but the definition provides no easy way of distinguishing evolution from other processes. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-definition.html So TO is stating that the following is a wrong definition of evolution.
"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."
They go as far as to refer to this definition as "inexcusable." But do they practice what they preach? They use it elsewhere in this exact same manner as shown below.
Introduction volution, the overarching concept that unifies the biological sciences, in fact embraces a plurality of theories and hypotheses. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent To their credit, this article at least intially distinquishes between micro and macro evolution. But they quickly slip into error by stating "common descent" which in context here is universal common descent is a fact.
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. 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent If you read the article, the phrase "fact of evolution" is highlighted so that if you click on it, it takes you to different article. In that article, TO asserts:
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. However, biologists readily admit that they are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution. Evolution is a Fact and a Theory Keep in mind that the fact of evolution is universal common descent so to say it is "observed today" is flat out false. It is not observed today, but once again, perhaps they are playing loose with terms in their effort to convince people because they seem to resort back to the definition of evolution as heritable change. So what they are doing is alternately using more than one definition of evolution in the same line of argument to create the appearance that universal common descent is an uncontested and observed fact, which is just flat out wrong. This message has been edited by randman, 02-18-2006 11:40 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
You got me interested in this topic but I can't follow this post. Could you clean up the quotes so I can tell who is saying what? And the spacing or paragraphing is confusing too.
And is this what you want to show: That Talkorigins gives conflicting definitions of evolution? If that doesn't quite say it, could you give a sharper statement of what you are trying to demonstrate? Thanks,Faith This message has been edited by Faith, 02-18-2006 07:50 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
nwr, so when we link from "the fact of evolution" to an article stating that evolution (defined as common descent) is a fact and not a theory, but that the theory only refers to the mechanism, you think that's correct?
The TO site is not written by lawyers, carefully filtering everything to ensure that nothing questionable appears there. It is not written by propogandists, trying to sell their position. It is written by scientists. It is honest, in the sense that it present evolution just as the scientists talk about it themselves and between themselves.That's propaganda, bait and switch. Evolution is observed, but that is just heritable changes, and then hey, evolution is common descent but is a fact, and then link to an article stating "evolution is observed." For comparison, physicists talk about gravity as fact too. They don't try to cross their "t"s and dot their "i"s in every sentence, so may use "fact" both for what is observed, and for what is part of the theory. Heck, people even say that the earth going around the sun (heliocentrism) is fact, and they don't bother to mention that it is part of a theory. This is just the way scientists talk. I doubt that you have any problem with web sites that describe heliocentrism, or sites that describe gravity. I doubt that you call them propoganda. That you consider the TO site to be propoganda has to do with the way you see evolution. It isn't due to any defect in the science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I wonder if there are contradictions that should be brought to light, quite apart from whether there is any propaganda going on. In fact that accusation may obscure the point that there could be important contradictions to think about. I think we need to assume that the evolutionists believe their stuff and aren't out to deceive anyone, at least not intentionally.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 5.3 |
I think we need to assume that the evolutionists believe their stuff and aren't out to deceive anyone, at least not intentionally.
Thanks, Faith. That was my point. I can comment on the other side. I'm not a biologist, so I see their discussions from the outside (although I do accept that evolution is correct). And, given the controversies about evolution, I happen to think that they would be better advised to use more caution about what they call a fact. Or, to put it differently, I can see why randman objects to the way that they discuss some of this. However, I think randman is wrong in depicting it as being done with the intention to deceive. There are a number of creationist web sites that are criticizing TO and evolution, so there isn't a problem of one side having a monopoly on what is said.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
robinrohan Inactive Member |
"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. There's nothing wrong with this definition. You seem to be engaging in pedantry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I THINK Randman was quoting Talkorigins at that point, rather than saying that himself, but that's the problem with his post -- sorting out who is saying what.
And I THINK he's trying to make a point about their contradicting themselves, but I have been unable to follow the post. So I hope he will show up and make it crystal clear. This message has been edited by Faith, 02-18-2006 09:41 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1474 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I happen to think that they would be better advised to use more caution about what they call a fact. Or, to put it differently, I can see why randman objects to the way that they discuss some of this. However, I think randman is wrong in depicting it as being done with the intention to deceive. Could be a very useful discussion then, if we can steer away from that accusation. I haven't had the patience to read through much of the material at Talkorigins myself, but it would be interesting to see a good analysis of their arguments.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024