randman dissects talkorigins.org FAQ

[D. Scarlatti]

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?

 

[Jerry Smith]

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?

 

[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.

 

[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.

 

[Jerry Smith]

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.

 

[Jerry Smith]

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?

 

[D. Scarlatti]

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.

 

[Morat]

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?

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Morat

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?

Oh, very elegant.

 

[randman]

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.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
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.

I haven't received a reply to my request for clarification on the "thousands" of transitional fossils statement. I doubt seriously that there are thousands of transitionals species, but I know unequivocally that the fossils (whether in the end there are thousands are only hundreds) represent more than just "one or two" species. Just look at the horse series and you will turn up a dozen transitional species. There are several dinosaur bird transitions, and quite a few reptile-mammal transitional species. At least a few fish-amphibian species are known. All in all the number of transitional species that I am personally aware of amount to more than fifty. Considering that I am not an expert, there is good reason to believe that fifty is a low estimate. If each of the ones I am aware of have only 10 fossil representatives, then the number of transitional fossils is already at 500.

Maybe the author should have lengthened his FAQ considerably, and instead of merely pointing out that there are "thousands" of transitional fossils, have given a detailed explanation. The point remains that the creationist claims that there are "no transitional fossils" is very clearly wrong. This is the correct impression that Isaac seeks to leave. Any other impression you come away with will only be justified insofar as it comes from the words of the author - not what you naively read into them.

 

[randman]

Everything in the FAQ is deceptive. It is spin city. Take soem time to actualy read it, and think about the number of overstatements and false impr essions it creates. Remember that this is an introductory FAQ. Think of the average person researching evolution via the Net, and they come to this site and are encouraged to read this site.

The FAQ creates straw men of the worst kind, lies about basic facts, and misleads and misdirects in about every single sentence. It is false in tone and content.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Everything randman says is deceptive. It is spin city. Take soem time to actualy read it, and think about the number of overstatements and false impr essions it creates. Remember that this is a discussion on a public forum that people unfamiliar with the subject will be reading. Think of the average person researching evolution via the Net, and they come to this forum and are encouraged to read randman's posts.

Randman creates straw men of the worst kind, lies about basic facts, and misleads and misdirects in about every single sentence. He is false in tone and content.

Even if I repeat it a gazillion times, it doesn't become more true. Please, stick to making your arguments, and when you get through and have a solid case, you can summarize "as I have demonstrated by a thorough deconstruction of several of the FAQ's at the Talk Origins site, the archive is continually misleading, misrepresenting and lying about basic facts."

If you have really demonstrated your case by that time, then your concluding statements will be credible.

 

[randman]

As I said, Jerry, if you think to state "evolution has not been observed" is making a false statement, why go on to the rest?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
As I said, Jerry, if you think to state "evolution has not been observed" is making a false statement, why go on to the rest?

Well, if you are going to state that TO is full of propaganada, I think that would be reason enough to go on and demonstrate the fact, whether or not I think it is responsible to claim that evolution hasn't been observed.

After all, I am not the objective judge and arbiter, as you pointed out earlier. You have credibility to defend before more than just me.

I think the reasons Isaac gave are sufficient to warrant the complaint that "evolution has not been observed" is a false statement. It is certainly not true on any fundamental level.

 

[Morat]

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.

You must have forgotten to answer the question. Here is is again:

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?

Once you answer the question, we can discuss the analogy as it relates to the fossil record. But first, you must explain how two of the three statements above are wrong.

To the Lurkers: I just read a nice article in US News and World Reports (it was published a month ago. You know what waiting for a haircut is like) where they were basically discussing cladistics, and how a new tree of life is emerging.

Pattern systematics is rather cool. "We are all fish" indeed.

 

[randman]

I suggest you reread the TO article and this thread and answer the issues raised before posting "out of context" analogies and expecting an answer.

 

[Morat]

It's a simple question, Randman. Why are you afraid to answer it?

 

[Jerry Smith]

randman, I take it that since you haven't convinced me yet on any but the most nitpicking points that you are going to make no more effort to support your stance that T.O. is a "propaganda site" (other than perhaps more re-iteration)?

If this is the case, I assume that the readers can safely browse the T.O. Archives, since your contentions are so poorly supported, and at most judge for themselves which has more merit between the FAQ's and your seemingly paranoid assessment of them?