Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Originally posted by npetreley
That's what makes this thread rather pointless, IMO.
It's not entirely pointless. At least randman has given it a shot, which is more than can be said for your own dismal sarcasm and desperate failed attempts at humor.
Unfortunately randman picked some ancillary abiogenesis issues to attack, rather than those articles directly related to biological evolution, which is what talkorigins is all about.
Nobody is going to argue with randman that scientists have yet to create life in vitro or otherwise. talkorigins doesn't claim that anyway, obviously, so in that sense, randman's objections are relatively pointless and directed solely against his own misunderstanding and wishful thinking.
The point of this thread is for randman to put his money where his mouth is, and properly demonstrate that talkorigins is laden with "propaganda," as he puts it, instead of simply asserting it over and over and over.
So far he hasn't even scratched the surface, let given any support to his assertions.
[snip petreley's startling news flash re: AiG articles written by quacks]
You evolutionists can't admit that about TO articles because most of the time you don't give a rip about truth, although I don't think you realize that.
You can always start another thread in which you back up your own baseless assertions. But I'm sure you'll come up with some pathetic excuse not to.
You simply feel compelled to defend everything that agrees with your evolutionist and materialist viewpoint, not matter how outrageous. Almost everything you believe is based purely on speculation and imagination which you used to produce unverifiable hypotheses, yet you just can't admit it. Why? Because your intellect and your education are your god, whom you serve.
It would help if you put up some evidence of any of this. In the meantime, who cares?
Originally posted by randman
If you guys cannot agree that evolution has not been observed, meaning macro-evolution, then there isn't much use moving on to bigger stuff.
I can agree that macroevolution has not been directly observed: at least as far as I know. I couldn't agree with your statement because it is not accurate.
If you think stating there are "thousands of transitional fossils," that they are "rare", and that there are "several superb examples" as all being congruent, then what else is there to say.
I guess "why"? would be something else to say. That is, "why would this author include a statement that there are thousands of transitional fossils, then provide a quote wherein a well-respected paleontologist refers to them as 'rare' and another who says that there are 'several'?"
Some more questions one might consider before deciding what to say:
a) Are there different specific definitions of "transitional fossils" being used? The answer would appear to at least be "yes" in the first case, as it refers to more and less "temporally restrictive" definitions (which I take to mean transitionals that are dated more closely to the time of the divergence of the groups they are transitional between).
b) Are there different categories of "transitional fossils"? Of course there are. The full context of Gould's quote (as noted in many places across the archives) reminds us that he is talking about species-level transitionals. Why can they not be rare, while genus level transitionals are less rare, family level transitionals still less rare and on up all the way to the level of order? Is it not possible that all told, the number of transitionals can be in the thousands while the number at the species level is very low? What criterion is the second quoted author using to decide that there are (only?) "several superb" transitional fossils?
If you can't at least consider the possibility that the problem you perceive with those quotes comes about innocently, then why should we accept your bald assertion that this is a representation of propaganda?
I have shown where an entire FAQ is laden with propaganda. Any obejective observer would admit that the way it presents material is purposefully deceptive as well as not factual.
It is hard to consider TO is making "innocent" mistakes when you read what they have to say. They are an attack site, a propaganda organ. If you want to read them, fine. I generally just ignore any post with TO links in it. Don't even bother to read the junk. It's propaganda. If I wanted to observe spin machines, I'd watch Crossfire.
Originally posted by randman I have shown where an entire FAQ is laden with propaganda. Any obejective observer would admit that the way it presents material is purposefully deceptive as well as not factual.
So you can speak for all objective observers? You are objective enough not only to draw an objective conclusion, but to speak for other objective observers.. good.
Originally posted by randman It is hard to consider TO is making "innocent" mistakes when you read what they have to say. They are an attack site, a propaganda organ. If you want to read them, fine. I generally just ignore any post with TO links in it. Don't even bother to read the junk. It's propaganda. If I wanted to observe spin machines, I'd watch Crossfire.
Reiteration doesn't help. Get the argumenation done first. Spend the most time on it. Then, when you have made a strong case, do a quick conclusion.
The fact is that TO is exactly the opposite of what you say. It is not an "attack" site, it is a "defense" site. Who would bother to post an archive like TO if there weren't rabid creationists out vocally smearing evolution?
Originally posted by randman
If you want to read them, fine. I generally just ignore any post with TO links in it. Don't even bother to read the junk. It's propaganda.
Dear lurkers, don't read the talkorigins FAQs.
Take randman's word for it, they're all propaganda. Because he hasn't read them, that's how he knows. He doesn't read them, and he advises you not to read them either.
So don't bother. randman has saved you (and himself) a lot of time by not reading the talkorigins FAQs. Therefore they are propaganda and junk.
I thought it was "Thor's" hammer. What's this about Zeus?
I should stop posting while watching Stargate SG-1.
randman:
If you think stating there are "thousands of transitional fossils," that they are "rare", and that there are "several superb examples" as all being congruent, then what else is there to say.
If I have a hundred thousand apples, 100 of which are green and the rest red, which of the following statements are true?
1. I have a hundred green apples.
2. Out of the apples I have, green apples are rare.
3. I have several superb examples of green apples.
By your own admission, they cannot all three be correct. So which is wrong?
Show me were a peer-reviewed article states there are thousands of transitional fossils, and even that phrase is propaganda. Obviously, he wants the reader to think there are thousands of species t hat a re transitional, or leave that impression, but he could go back and argue that there are thousands of pieces of fossils in say one or two species. The whole thing is designed to create a false impression as is the way evolution is taught in general.
Linear Mode
