Talk Origin & Evolution - Deception By Omission
February 15, 2007 9:36am CST
The Talk Origins Website is promoted, among other things, as an educational site, a place for obtaining information on evolution and aswers 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 materialstic worldview that this organization pushes on the unsuspectiong. It is particularly distressing to me to read the feedback letters from you people and watching thos impressionalbe minds being manipulated through TO indctrination TO states that in their group they also have Christian and other religious evolutionists - people that believe in God, believe in a creation by a deity, but also believe in evolution (ie. middle-grounders) To employs this strategy to give its visitors a sense of universal appeal, i.e that anyone, regardless of their beliefs, may subscribe to evolution. But what evolution are they referring to? The one that says "things change" (this is science), or the one that says "that's how everything came to be (this transcends science and is philosphical naturalism - a metaphysical position)? TO uses the two interchangeably. Yet, ayone who knows the score realizes that middle - grounders are at best marginally tolerated by 'pure-blood naturalists - as these say. "the hypothesis of God is unnecessary!" Why, then do the pure[bloods tolerate these naturlistic 'misfits'? There are probably many answers to this question but two are worth briefly mentioning: 'divide and conquer' and 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend.' Thus, naturalists welcome whatever sows dissension among creationists and, therefore, anyone disagreeing with the fundamentalist Christian position in any way while accepting any part of the the evolutionary doctrine is embraced by them (at least for now). TO promotes the view that the creation-evolution controversy is a war of 'religion versus science'- 'emotion versus reason.' This view is held mostly out of ignorance, but there are undoubtedly those within the TO organization that understand the matter will enough to know better. However, TO does very little to educate its audience on the philosophical foundation of its position. This is deception by omission - Taken from Trueorigin.org - a site which scientifically challenges Talk Orign on numerous topics
15 Feb 07
First I would like to made it clear to all that I am not associated with talkorigins, have nothing to do with it, but I respect it. I am still waiting to see you show your refutations about the evidence in talkorigins. The copied text has nothing of it, has errors (Theory of evolution is not metaphysics, it deals with life, how life came to change to what is today, not how everything, the universe, came to be), has some accusations (after all can you proove that the atheist evolucionists do not accept the theist evolucionist on what regards evolution?) Also, it is good to remember, the creationists are the ones who started attacking the theory of evolution and the creationists are also used to join forces (young earth, old earth, etc) when attacking evolution. Explain also, in your words : Do you think that someone who believes in God cannot also believe in the theory of evolution? If So, Why? Lastly : What is the Scientific Theory of Creationism? Can you write its definition?
• Puerto Rico
15 Feb 07
I wasn't aware that ever waiting for any refutations about the so-called evidence of Talk Origin. Where would you like to start? Are you saying that the universe didn't evolve? Gee the guys who study stellar evolution will be awfully disappointed to hear that! Obviously atheist evolutionists don't agree that God had anything to do with evolution. I guess I don't understand your question. I believe that someone who believes in God can believe in microevolution, changes within a species to adapt to changing environments. However, as I stated the theory of evolution doesn't say anything about an intelligent agent having in part in evolution. If you can find God as an agent mentioned in any scientific definition of the term please post it. I'd also like see a detailed account of how the theory incorporates God into the concept of evolution. Now from a pure philosophical perspective, sure people can believe in anything they want but theistic evolution is no more science than biblical creation. Now can creation be proven scientifically? I'd say yes. Intelligent design does a good job in providing evidence for design.
16 Feb 07
Start? Well, choose a topic and start, I am here waiting. Is that the way that you choose? First I said that the Theory of Evolution deals with life, not the universe. Do this mean that I said the universe didn't evolve ? NO. But you want to make things sound like this, because as a typical creationist you try to create a lot of smoke, since you lack arguments to sustain your point of view. Again you create some smoke, I did not ask about atheist evolucionists, I asked if evolucionists cannot believe in God. Period. So I repeat, more clear this time : Do you think that a evolucionist cannot believe in God? Yes or No and why. The theory of evolution doesnt't say anything about an inteligent agent because there is no need of an inteligent agent to explain it. Science deals with the natural. No god or inteligent designer is needed to explain the Theory of Evolution. The theory doesn't incorporate God, the point is another, Can a evolucionist believe in God? yes or no and why. will you answer or will keep making smoking and runing away from answering it. Have a little more courage, it doesn't hurt. For ONE example of a biologist that I know, he works with studies of the Theory of Evolution, is a christian and he believes that God just started the evolution process. See, someone can believe in God and also the Theory of Evolution. You said that creationism can be proved scientifically. Write the Theory of Creationism, what is its definition? Can you write it? Give evidence to sustain it. Do not keep speaking, like a parrot, "I think that Inteligent Design does a good job providing evidence" Show the evidence, you claim to have/know. Still waiting for your refutations of Talkorigins and your evidence for creationism, and you definition of the Theory of Creationism, and If someone can believe in God and in the Theory of Evolution. Will you answer, or just run away from my questions?
2 people like this
• Puerto Rico
16 Feb 07
1)Pick a topic? Great! How about the mechanisms for evolution? Which one do you favor and why? 2)The Theory of Evolution has seven distinct and interrelated phases set up by science in the following order: 1. Comic Evolution - The development of time, space, and matter from nothing. 2.Stellar Evolution - The development of complex stars from the chaotic first elements. 3. Chemical Evolution - The development of all chemical elements from an original two 4. Planetary Evolution - The development of planetary systems from swirling elements 5. Organic Evolution - The development of organic life from inorganic matter 6.Macro- Evolution - The development of one kind of life from a totally different kind of life 7.Micro- Evolution - The development of variations within the same kind of life. Now, are you going to persist with your overly simplistic concept of the theory? I take it you are prepared only to discuss #6 (*By the way these stages are not from some creationist site so don't bother with that defensive tactic.) 3. Again, a person can believe in evolution and God? YES! Do the two beliefs conflict in any way? YES! Evolution asserts to be a totally naturalistic and UNDIRECTED process. If it is undirected then obviously God didn't direct it. Get it! 4. Tell you friend the biologist that theistic evolution falls between evolution and intelligent design but it is NOT synonymous with the undirected evolutionary process. 5.Let me first define science. A field of study seeking to better understand natural phenomena through the use of observation and experiments. Relationships are sought between cause and effect. However, this does not mean that the first cause must be naturalistic. It is poor logic to say that because science deals with the natural, cause and effect relationships, the first cause must be a natural event. Specified complexity ( which include irreducible complexity and complex specified information) is a reliable indicator or hallmark of design. Many biological systems exhibit specified complexity. Undirected or unintelligent causes (such as the causes embraced by Darwinism) do not suffice to explain the origin of specified complexity in biological systems. Design or scientific creationism constitutes the best explanation for specified complexity, irreducible complexity, and complex specified information in biological systems