randman dissects talkorigins.org FAQ

[randman]

Jerry, Talkorigins can hardly string together 3-4 sentences, or paragraphs in some places, without making such errors. It is a more serious error than you might think.

Indoctrination techniques, when you study them, reveal similar patterns. For instance, the extrapolation to the physical properties that create complex molecules as inevitably leading to a phenonomenon of spontaneous generation is similar to stating micro-evolution is the same as macto-evolution and thus macro-evolution has been observed. Macro-evolution has not been observed. It is a theory that micro-changes can add up to macro-evolution just as it is a theory that the physical properties of carbon can spontaneously develop into life.

But the problem is neither has been observed. It appeals to the imagination to take a mechanism that is known to produce one thing, complex molecules for instance, and just imagine it could produce something else, such as RNA and DNA, but speculation is not evidence, and if something has never even claimed to have been observed, it is OK to say it is improbable.

There are far more claims of observation, some very credible, of people seeing angels and all kinds of stuff than there is for abiogenesis. Yet, Talkorigins dismisses these observations as unscientific, and their much less "observed" speculations as well-nigh scientific fact.

 

[Jerry Smith]

You haven't gotten very far supporting your primary assertion & you sound more like you are slightly paranoid than like you have a lot of insight and knowledge into the psychology of cults...

If you want to keep trying to support your position, please do.. but until you do, why don't you leave out the part where you summarize about how T.O. is using indoctrination techniques. After all, most everything they put on there is either a mere refutation of someone else's mistake or it is a statement of fact gleaned from the research literature. Very little else.

 

[randman]

Stating macro-evolution has been observed is a blatantly false claim.

Stating that the properties of carbon contain a mechanism to produce life-forms is also blatantly deceptive.

I wouldn't mind picking more false and misleading claims apart, but why? You will not believe because you choose to ignore the way they misrepresent.

 

[Morat]

Stating macro-evolution has been observed is a blatantly false claim.

Talk.Origins defines macroevolution on their site, do they not?

Could you please locate their definition and post it here?

I suspect your definition and their definition are somewhat at odds, hmm?

 

[randman]

This is a false claim.

"Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less restrictive definitions."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Moreover, it is self-contradictory as evidenced by the following quote. Please keep in mind that I don't agree with Gould's second statement, and that he contradicts himself as well.

"Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium was proposed (by Eldredge and Gould) to explain gaps in the fossil record. Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases, gradually in others, and not at all during some periods for some species. In no way does it deny that transitional sequences exist. In fact, both Gould and Eldredge are outspoken opponents of Creationism.


"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994"

Here, in the same article under the same sub-heading, Talkorigins claims first that there are "thousands of transitional fossils", then that they are "relatively rare" although PE advocates used the term "extremely rare" by the way, and then lastly that there are "several" superb examples.

Also, the careful reader will not the word-smithing of "sequences" which can mean just about anything from 10,000 years apart to 200,000 millions with a thousand different species between them.

Fact is too that Talkorigins misrepresents creationists views as well. Creationists insist that there are only transitional forms in theory since the actual transitions are not documented, just extinct species, but that is another subject.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
Stating macro-evolution has been observed is a blatantly false claim.

For the purposes of argument I will grant you that this is a blatantly false claim. (I do in fact disagree, unless you qualify, using the term "directly").

Assuming it is a false claim, please find in that statement in the T.O. archive, so you can support your claim that it is a propaganda site.

Stating that the properties of carbon contain a mechanism to produce life-forms is also blatantly deceptive.

Ok, so find that statement in the T.O. archive.

(by the way - how many creationist books, websites, letters-to-editor, etc say "we don't know for sure whether life can originate from non-living matter by abiogenesis"? My experience is they make the "propagandist" claim that life CANNOT originate from non-living matter by any natural process)

I wouldn't mind picking more false and misleading claims apart, but why? You will not believe because you choose to ignore the way they misrepresent.

No, I recognized and acknowledged that the word "will" may have been poorly chosen and should probably be replaced with "might". So far all of the other misrepresentations seem to exist only in your reading of the FAQ's, not in the FAQ's themselves.

A couple of comments:

Someone who read the 3 paragraph aside about Abio in the misconceptions FAQ and concluded from them that scientists believe that there are no problems with the hypotheses, and doesn't even bother to click on the abiogenesis FAQ to find more out about it probably DESERVES to be deluded.

Someone who read the 3 paragraph aside about Abio in the misconceptions FAQ and realized that creationist claims that it can't happen are without merit is drawing the proper conclusion. This is the kind of person who is likely to actually click on the article and learn more about it.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
This is a false claim.

"Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less restrictive definitions."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Moreover, it is self-contradictory as evidenced by the following quote. Please keep in mind that I don't agree with Gould's second statement, and that he contradicts himself as well.

"Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium was proposed (by Eldredge and Gould) to explain gaps in the fossil record. Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases, gradually in others, and not at all during some periods for some species. In no way does it deny that transitional sequences exist. In fact, both Gould and Eldredge are outspoken opponents of Creationism.


"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy." - Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994"

Here, in the same article under the same sub-heading, Talkorigins claims first that there are "thousands of transitional fossils", then that they are "relatively rare" although PE advocates used the term "extremely rare" by the way, and then lastly that there are "several" superb examples.

Also, the careful reader will not the word-smithing of "sequences" which can mean just about anything from 10,000 years apart to 200,000 millions with a thousand different species between them.

Fact is too that Talkorigins misrepresents creationists views as well. Creationists insist that there are only transitional forms in theory since the actual transitions are not documented, just extinct species, but that is another subject.

Ok, randman. I'm not sure about the "thousands" versus relatively rare. My first question is "relatively to what"? and my second question is "what kind & by what definition".

Here is what I have done (I wish you had done this yourself years ago).

I have posted this to the TO Feedback and e-mailed it to Mark Isaac, who composed the article:

To the editors of FAQ and to Mark Isaac:

Concerning the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ by Mark Isaac,

A creationist with whom I am debating claims that your FAQ is flawed because it includes the "false" claim that there are thousands of transitional fossils. He also claim your FAQ contradicts itself by stating in reference to Gould that transitionals are "relatively rare", and later stating that there are "several" superb examples.

I am hoping that you will respond by either clarifying why these statements do not contradict one another or by conceding that they do and updating the FAQ. Especially, I would hope that you will either support the claim of "thousands" of transitional fossils or change the language to reflect the facts that can be explicitly supported.

Thank you in advance for your help with this matter.

Jerry Smith

cc: Mark Isaac by e-mail

 

[Jerry Smith]

By the way, I will let you know what I find out.

 

[randman]

How about this Jerry?

"Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. .... The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Note that now observations which support evolution count as observing macro-evolution itself. Jerry, you need to focus not just on semantics here, but the impression TO is trying to create. Take the following.

" 'Evolution has never been observed.
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
There are no transitional fossils.
The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.'

Explanations of why these statements are wrong are given below. ...

"Evolution has never been observed."

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact."

It is clear then that "evolution" for the Creationists here is macro-evolution, and thus to state Creationists are wrong to say "evolution has not been observed" is a deliberately false statement since the word "evolution" in that suppossed false statement is actually "macro-evolution" as the context makes clear. What TO should say is that despite "evolution" not being observed on a macro-level, micro-evolution has been observed and we feel it is evidence. But the whole tenor of TO is confused, wrought with intellectual dishonesty and wrangling such as counting "evidence" as "observation."

 

[randman]

Jerry here TO claims the chemical properties of carbon are sufficient to create life forms. Read it. I am telling the truth here.

"Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, .."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Isaak clearly states here that abiogenesis occurs "according to their (molecules) chemical properties." He goes on as to how these properties create self-replicating forms which combine with "natural selection" to create life forms, "especially" with "carbons."

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
How about this Jerry?

"Even without these direct observations, it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been observed. Evidence isn't limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. .... The number of observations supporting evolution is overwhelming."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

So far so good. They definitively lay out on the line at the get-go that not all of the observations that support evolution (in general) are direct ones, and that the total observations, both direct observations of evolution and observations of indirect evidence which supports evolution adds up to an overwhelming amount. Very good.

Note that now observations which support evolution count as observing macro-evolution itself.

Where does it even imply this?? The fact is that direct observations of evolution ARE supportive of macro-evolution, but I don't think that it is anywhere implied that macro-evolution is observed when the observations mentioned are of micro-evolution.

Besides that, the definition as TO gives it, of macroevolution, includes speciation that has been observed directly.

Jerry, you need to focus not just on semantics here, but the impression TO is trying to create. Take the following.

They are actually trying to clear up FALSE impressions (wonder where those false impressions came from..) If you are finding a false impression created at T.O. you have yet to demonstrate it.

" 'Evolution has never been observed.
Evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
There are no transitional fossils.
The theory of evolution says that life originated, and evolution proceeds, by random chance.
Evolution is only a theory; it hasn't been proved.'

Explanations of why these statements are wrong are given below. ...

"Evolution has never been observed."

Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact."

It is clear then that "evolution" for the Creationists here is macro-evolution, and thus to state Creationists are wrong to say "evolution has not been observed" is a deliberately false statement since the word "evolution" in that suppossed false statement is actually "macro-evolution" as the context makes clear. What TO should say is that despite "evolution" not being observed on a macro-level, micro-evolution has been observed and we feel it is evidence. But the whole tenor of TO is confused, wrought with intellectual dishonesty and wrangling such as counting "evidence" as "observation."

The fact is that evolution HAS been directly observed on the micro- level, speciation HAS been directly observed, and macro-evolution has been indirectly observed. Now what part of the "evolution has never been observed" false claim from creationists do you think still holds water?

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
Jerry here TO claims the chemical properties of carbon are sufficient to create life forms. Read it. I am telling the truth here.

"Nor is abiogenesis (the origin of the first life) due purely to chance. Atoms and molecules arrange themselves not purely randomly, but according to their chemical properties. In the case of carbon atoms especially, this means complex molecules are sure to form spontaneously, .."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html

Isaak clearly states here that abiogenesis occurs "according to their (molecules) chemical properties." He goes on as to how these properties create self-replicating forms which combine with "natural selection" to create life forms, "especially" with "carbons."

Why are you putting words in his mouth??
He does not say that abiogenesis occurs according... he says that atoms and molecules arrange themselves according...

What kind of bait & switch are you trying to pull?

 

[randman]

"Isaak oversimplifies the whole notion of evolutionary change by telling us that, “Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don’t appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.”

Evolution or Variation?
Isaak here conveniently fails to mention whether by “change in a gene pool over time” he means exactly that (i.e., genetic variation, which is often called “micro-evolution”), or whether he means “macro-evolution”—which is something entirely different. The postulation of “macro-evolution” (i.e., the emergence of entirely new and more “advanced” features through innumerable, completely new genetically-defined traits) is not to be confused with genetic variation (i.e., “micro-evolution”), which is the appearance and/or disappearance of existing and/or potential genetic traits through recombination of existing genetic code. Proponents of evolutionism often fail to note the important difference between these two, simply calling them both “evolution,” and thereby deliberately blurring the distinction between them. "

http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
"Isaak oversimplifies the whole notion of evolutionary change by telling us that, “Biologists define evolution as a change in the gene pool of a population over time. One example is insects developing a resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What they don’t appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor.”

Evolution or Variation?
Isaak here conveniently fails to mention whether by “change in a gene pool over time” he means exactly that (i.e., genetic variation, which is often called “micro-evolution”), or whether he means “macro-evolution”—which is something entirely different. The postulation of “macro-evolution” (i.e., the emergence of entirely new and more “advanced” features through innumerable, completely new genetically-defined traits) is not to be confused with genetic variation (i.e., “micro-evolution”), which is the appearance and/or disappearance of existing and/or potential genetic traits through recombination of existing genetic code. Proponents of evolutionism often fail to note the important difference between these two, simply calling them both “evolution,” and thereby deliberately blurring the distinction between them. "

http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp

Even most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact.

Speaks for itself, don't it?

 

[randman]

Jerry, think.

"Even without these direct observations" is false right there because macro-evolution has not been observed as you admitted to.

But he goes on to say without direct observation, "it would be wrong to state evolution has not been observed."
Geesh, Jerry, are you just plain blind? He states that indirect evidences according to evolutonists mind you count as observing evolution. Think about it. EVEN WITHOUT DIRECT OBSERVATION, IT IS WRONG TO SAY EVOLUTION HS NOT BEEN OBSERVED.

If you can't see how that is propaganda, good-bye. There ain't much hope for you. The statements "evolution has not been observed" which Isaak admits means "macro-evolution has not been observed" is actually very true, and "evidences" which are not actual observation of it happening cannot make that statement false.

You are brainwashed, my friend.

 

[randman]

"Besides that, the definition as TO gives it, of macroevolution, includes speciation that has been observed directly."

But he talking about Creationists statements being false not his. He thus must show that the way they mean it is false, not build up an alternative definition, which is clearly contrary to what creationists mean, and then state the Creationists are making a false statement. This is a straw man argument of the worst kind because he is lying basically and knows it. He knows what critics of evolution mean when they say it has not been observed, and yet he uses misinformation and his own prejudicial definitions to attack critics of evolution, not on what they are actually stating in their criticisms, but in the word-games played by a propagandist.

 

[randman]

"The fact is, evolution has NOT been observed, and its chief proponents don’t deny this."

http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp

 

[Jerry Smith]

Originally posted by randman
Jerry, think.

"Even without these direct observations" is false right there because macro-evolution has not been observed as you admitted to.

I didn't admit that. I actually just substituted the word "speciation" and said that it has been observed to occur. According to the TO definition (a perfectly scientific and valid one) macro evolution is evolution across the "species" boundary.

But he goes on to say without direct observation, "it would be wrong to state evolution has not been observed."

Which is correct, given that we have lots of INDIRECT observations, which are STILL OBSERVATIONS (though not direct) and STILL OF EVOLUTION.

Geesh, Jerry, are you just plain blind? He states that indirect evidences according to evolutonists mind you count as observing evolution. Think about it. EVEN WITHOUT DIRECT OBSERVATION, IT IS WRONG TO SAY EVOLUTION HS NOT BEEN OBSERVED.

That's right, even though we also have direct observations of it.

If you can't see how that is propaganda, good-bye. There ain't much hope for you. The statements "evolution has not been observed" which Isaak admits means "macro-evolution has not been observed" is actually very true, and "evidences" which are not actual observation of it happening cannot make that statement false.

No, the statement isn't true. Evolution at the micro- and macro- level has been observed, both indirectly and directly. It cannot be correct, therefore, to claim that evolution has not been observed at all. Talk about propaganda!

You are brainwashed, my friend.

 

[randman]

"Now what part of the "evolution has never been observed" false claim from creationists do you think still holds water?"

So now, Jerry, you too falsely claim macro-evolution has been observed. The fact is no Creationist has ever said variation and micro-evolution has not been observed so to say that is what they are referring to is just a false statement. What they have stated is that macro-evolution, which is the theory of common descent by the way, has not been observed, and they are 100% right, and you are completely wrong. Your statement is a perfect example of how evolutionists rely on overstatement and disinformation to try and convince rather than educate thier readers.

 

[randman]

"What kind of bait & switch are you trying to pull?"

Is he not talking about abiogenesis? The context is abiogenesis relies on the principles of matter that we have observed and not "chance." Btw, he doesn' even bother explaining what critics mean by "chance" or "randomness" but he does make it clear that the properties of physical matter is the mechanism that creates abiogenesis.