Talk:Creation scientists tend to win debates with evolutionists

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Is this true? I don't live in the USA, so I don't really know what is happening there. But in my country, like in most (all?) European countries, creation scientists don't win the debates at all. In fact, this debate does not even exist, because I have never heard of any "creation scientist" in my country, and most people here think creationism is ridiculous. Maybe this article should include information about other countries. Enkul 05:37, 28 June 2010 (EDT)

Why delete the Talk page for this page of bilge? Maybe too many reasonable people were showing up and laughing in your face for the absurd assertion it is premised on? No creationist has ever won a debate with an evolutionary scientist... for the same reason that the Vatican didn't "win" the debate with Galileo that the Earth is at the center of the Solar System. Even when they imprisoned him, they were still ignorant (debate) losers. Joseph8th 12:43, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
Unless we can reproduce the talk pages, which appear top have been Oversighted in their entirely, this locked article is orginal research allowing no input or discussion from editors. It belongs in Essays. Rob Smith 14:28, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
Joseph, wrong! wrong! wrong! In January 2006, the BBC reported concerning Britain: "Just under half of Britons accept the theory of evolution as the best description for the development of life, according to an opinion poll. Furthermore, more than 40% of those questioned believe that creationism or intelligent design (ID) should be taught in school science lessons. And this in Charles Darwin's homeland! Please see: evolution for citations. Plus, the Question evolution campaign appears to be filtering into England. If you think Richard Dawkins, with his current "lady problems" (Elevatorgate) and his reputations for cowardice (see: Daniel Came), is going to be effective opposition, think again! :) Conservative 15:18, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
That's off topic. The question is (A) where are the previous discussions to this mainspace article page? and (B) why is this original research essay in mainspace? Rob Smith 15:29, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

I don't know the answer to your first question. Second, I don't think it is original research (I cited sources) and even if it is, if memory serves, I think Conservapedia allows original research to be in main space articles. Conservative 15:58, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

Yes, we may need a page to clarify that. I look into it. Rob Smith 16:05, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
Fine, given that evolutionists have tried to inject their nonsense repeatedly into this article if memory serves, I did lock it. They hate admitting they get trounced in debates and they have turned into cowards by largely dodging debates now. Plus, I cited multiple excellent sources re: evolutionists losing debates so this is by no means original research. Conservative 16:10, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
I have emailed the website owner and some fellow Sysops to keep the article, keep it locked, and to overly react to evolutionists opposition. I don't see a point in caving into atheist/evolutionists opposition for this important article nor do I see a point in engaging in wheel spinning. Conservative 16:42, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

Contents

Article title

This is a great article, but I think it should have a bit smaller title. Perhaps move it to essay? Or merge it with another article? NickP 16:31, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

That's a good suggestion. We could merge it into Atheism and Debate, maybe put it in a section called "Creation Scientists Tend to Win the Creation-Evolution Debates". ...oh, wait. ;) --Sid 3050 16:37, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
I have emailed the website owner and some fellow Sysops to keep the article, keep it locked, and to overly react to evolutionists opposition. I don't see a point in caving into atheist/evolutionists opposition for this important article nor do I see a point in engaging in wheel spinning. Conservative 16:42, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
Right now the big concern was over deleted and oversighted talk page discussions. User:Conservative said he wasn't responsible, and I believe him. Certainly trolling, foul language, abusive comments should be reverted and in extreme cases oversighted, but not wholesale deleting and oversighting of Archive discussions. Reader feedback & suggestions for improvement are a good thing.
On a side note to User:Conservative, sorry I wasn't able to get back to you on our private correspondance. You and I are a lot alike, tuff skin, able to shake off intemperate and immoderate remarks directed at us, bullets bounce off our chests. Good to see you still standing on your feet! Rob Smith 18:09, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
Oh no, I am not an evolutionist. This is a great article, and I think it should be kept. All I am suggesting is perhaps putting this info as part of another article, or perhaps find a better name. This is not a problem with the content, just the aesthetics of the title (and the fact that it is difficult for someone like me to search for). I appologize if my request came the wrong way. NickP 16:44, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

Nick, thanks. Some of this information is incorporated into 3-5 Conservapedia articles including Atheism and Debate. Conservative 16:50, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

No problem. I'm glad I could point that out. NickP 16:53, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
RobS, no problem. You have one up on me. I don't think I am willing to try the bullets bouncing off my chest experiment. :) Conservative 18:35, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

Done. Conservative 12:41, 24 October 2012 (EDT)

Shockofgod

I know it mentions Shock of God, but I have closely observed his channel, and there are plenty of examples of him winning debates against atheists. I remember a specific debate (I can't find it at the moment, but I'll try), where the atheists simply refused to even respond to his points, and then just claimed the themselves as the winner. Despite the fact that they invited Shock on to debate with them, they refused to even debate his famous question and instead focused on something completely irrelevent (I believe it had to do with the idea that Christianity is based off of Paul, not Jesus's, teachings. NickP 16:52, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

I like Shockofgod and his question, but I deleted the material I added concerning him in this article as it was not germaine to the article's topic except in a very ancillary way as he mostly has been involved in atheism vs. theism/Christian issue. Only recently has Shockofgod been promoting the Question evolution! campaign. Conservative 18:41, 23 July 2011 (EDT)
Ah, I see what you mean. Anyways, keep up the good work, Mr. Conservative! NickP 22:32, 23 July 2011 (EDT)

Does anyone really "win" these debates?

Most creationism vs. evolution debates don't have a winner. One side presents their argument, the other presents their's. They don't really crown a winner at the end, whoever won is up to the viewer to decide.

Reply: I'm only a talk show host, but the debates I've had with plenty of evolutionary scientists have been easy: http://kgov.com/eugenie-scott http://kgov.com/michael-shermer http://kgov.com/aronra (he doesn't really count yet I guess) http://kgov.com/lawrence-krauss etc. They're rather easy to beat. And here's the test we've used for decades to determine at the least, who *thinks* that they won the debate: The side that promotes the debate is the side that at least thinks that they won :)

Why don't you put your errant hypothesis to the best. Debate VivaYehshua on the 15 questions for evolutionists. Conservative 16:06, 17 July 2013 (EDT)

Double redirect?

I would like to remove the Essay:Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates double redirect, because it is distracting to have to click twice to get to the page you want. Warmest regards, DavidCalman 23:39, 25 January 2013 (EST)

Personal tools