"True".Origin Lies Again

[ardipithecus]

Been a way for a bit...

Talk.Origins: Deception by Omission Jorge A. Fernandez keep in line with the rampant dishonesty found at The True.Origin Archives. Lets look at how it starts:

The Talk.Origins (TO) website (http://www.Talk.Origins.org) is promoted, among other things, as an educational site, a place for obtaining information on evolution and answers to the numerous criticisms to this theory. Although TO states that it is a “forum for discussion”—presumably unbiased—much evidence testifies to the contrary. I’ve been observing the TO site from the sidelines for quite some time and have until now restrained myself from responding to the materialistic worldview that this organization pushes on the unsuspecting. It is particularly distressing to me to read the feedback letters from young people and watching those impressionable minds being manipulated through TO indoctrination.

I dare anyone to find a single place in The Talk.Origins Archive that mentions it is "forum for discussion." Indeed that phrase does not appear anywhere in the Achive whatsoever. Indeed, the Archive is NOT a forum for discusion and is not a forum at all! Nor does claim to be unbiased. It clearly states in many places what side it is on:

"What is the Talk.Origins Archive?"

The Talk.Origins Archive is a collection of articles and essays that explore the creationism/evolution controversy from a mainstream scientific perspective. In other words, the authors of most of the articles in this archive accept the prevailing scientific view that the earth is ancient, that there was no global flood, and that evolution is responsible for the earth's present biodiversity.

The archive was established in 1994 to provide easy access to the many FAQ (frequently asked question) files and essays that were being posted regularly to the Usenet newsgroup talk.origins. Since that time, the archive has grown immensely. It now houses a "post of the month" feature, a local search engine, a user feedback page, and an extensive list of links to other web sites dealing with the creation/evolution controversy.


"Why doesn't the archive contain any articles that support creationism?"

The Talk.Origins Archive exists to provide mainstream scientific responses to the frequently asked questions and frequently rebutted assertions that appear in talk.origins. The archive's policy is that readers should be given easy access to alternative views, but those who espouse alternative views should speak for themselves. Hence, the archive supplies links to relevant creationist web sites within many of its articles. It also maintains a frequently updated and extensive list of creationist and catastrophist web sites so that readers may familiarize themselves with anti-evolutionary perspectives on scientific issues.

Jorge A. Fernandez is outright lying on this issue and so are the people behind True.Origin which make similiar claims at in the site's FAQ.

It does not help things that the article itself is highly inaccurate either....

 

[ashibaka]

Talk.origins itself is a forum for discussion. Maybe poor Mr. Fernandez can't distinguish between Usenet and the Internet.

 

[ardipithecus]

Originally posted by ashibaka
Talk.origins itself is a forum for discussion. Maybe poor Mr. Fernandez can't distinguish between Usenet and the Internet.

Fernandez knows. Indeed he was refering to the site as the context of his article makes very clear. There are no links to the newsgroup though links to Archive documents and mentions of feedback.

James J. Lippard posted in the newsgroup a feedback making a similiar observation. True.Origin gave a rather bizare response:

Dear Mr. Lippard,

Thank you for providing yet another fine example of evolutionary logic
for
TrueOrigin readers.  You wrote:

> Jorge Fernandez' critique of the [url]www.talkorigins.org[/url]
> web site seems not to realize that this website is the
> FAQ website for a Usenet newsgroup...

...and (even if it were true) Jim Lippard apparently thinks this would
somehow absolve the TO writers from responsibility for their use of
conspicuously deceptive omissions and oversimplifications to explain
their
beliefs?  The misleading and deceptive tactics invoked by the website's
writers are not justified either by the website's purpose or its
relationship to the newsgroup.

> Talk.origins most certainly is an open forum to which
> anyone can contribute.  I suggest that Mr. Fernandez
> use the newsgroup and post his criticism there.

It's an "open" forum, alright, loaded with evolutionist flamers of every
stripe, who think it's "open season" for burying creationists in
endless,
time-consuming threads full of fact-free evolutionary rhetoric and
pop-science sound bites.

The handful of reasonable evolutionary voices at talk.origins are more
than
offset by the cacophony of bigots whose sole aim is to deliver an
inexhaustible stream of rapid-fire inflammatory epithets, false
accusations,
and science-free, subject-changing, boilerplate jargon at creationist
posters.  Instead of being an environment for "open" and reasonable
dialogue, talk.origins excels as a feeding frenzy for evolutionary
zealots.

I suggest Mr. Fernandez has done his homework, and -- not prone to
waste his
time elsewhere -- has prudently posted his criticism in an appropriate
location.  Rest assured that any reasonable feedback from evolutionists
will
eventually find its way to the TrueOrigin feedback section -- but so
will
yours, giving TrueOrigin readers a realistic picture of typical
evolutionary
"logic" and "critical thinking skills."

> Items which appear on the website are items which have
> been originally posted to the newsgroup and undergone
> often fierce peer review.

...and by exactly what "peers"?  I suggest these "peers" are the
writers'
fellow evolutionist buddies, which hardly renders the website's
contents the
objective "exploration" it pretends to be -- yet another fact
conveniently
omitted from the website's deceptive façade.

Again, thanks so much for writing!

Regards,

The TrueOrigin Archive
[url]http://www.trueorigin.org[/url]

So it is clear that the True.Origins knows as well.

But even if that "True".Origin article did by chance make
that mistake, it would not justify the True.Origin from making this explicate claim about the T.O. Archive itself:

Why not just contribute to TalkOrigins instead of creating a whole new site?

In spite of the TalkOrigins publishers’ pretense to be “exploring the creation/evolution controversy” (as if their “exploration” were characteristically balanced and objective), even a cursory examination of the TalkOrigins content reveals that the site is heavily biased in favor of the evolutionary belief system. There was—and is—no evidence that material from a creationary perspective would meet with anything but the same out-of-hand rejection and/or the customary dismissive derision already poured out on the creationary viewpoint among TalkOrigins regulars. (This probably explains why there are no positive articles regarding creation science there, even though TalkOrigins was establish long before TrueOrigin.)

and

Aren’t you being biased by favoring only one side?

Yes! The important thing is that there is no pretense here that anything other than that is taking place. There are plenty of places on the web where the evolutionary mod!el is articulated and staunchly defended. No one is demanding that they give “equal time” to a contrary position, and they have no obligation to do so. The same is true here: This website was established expressly for the purpose of giving voice to the creationary perspective—not under a contrived pretext of “exploring” the debate, but to expose the faulty logic and false assumptions that comprise much of the popularly embraced evolutionary belief system.

I think it is fair to say that it is policy of True.Origin to outright lie about The Talk.Origins Archive.

Of course they have many other honesty problems like quoting out of context, making many false claims, etc.