Talk:Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Personal attacks

AugustO, I am sure the homosexual members of the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck that you belong to who were "married" in one of their "churches" are going to love the material you posted here. Liberals love error. By the way, what are your thoughts on the Conservapedia homosexuality article? Conservative 08:47, 12 January 2012 (EST)

Is there a reason you have deleted and then recreated this page without any of the preceding posts? It does seem rather arbitrary. Davidspencer 08:52, 12 January 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative, have you anything pertinent to contribute to the debate? Otherwise I just go to ignore your invectives. AugustO 08:59, 12 January 2012 (EST)

August), is your liberal Protestant denomination still declining in their membership? How is that church's embracing of Darwinist naturalist philosophy and liberalism working out for you guys? Any miracles happen in the last service you attended? "O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called" (1 Timothy 6:20) "holding to a form of godliness, although they have denied its power; Avoid such men as these." (2 Timothy 3:5) Conservative 09:07, 12 January 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative, the Question Evolution! campaign provides a list of questions to be asked, e.g. in school. What good are these questions when they can be answered - and these answers can't be rebutted, because those who should provide such rebuttals prefer to use their time to alienate their fellow Christians? AugustO 09:11, 12 January 2012 (EST)

AugustO, fellow Christians? You still haven't answered my questions from our last exchange or other questions I have. There have been too many heretical groups in history calling themselves Christians for me to automatically believe without due diligence that they are bona fide Christians. The fruit I have seen from my preliminary investigation is not encouraging. Conservative 09:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)
@user:Conservative: Concerning your first post here: I think I told you on the Community Portal, that AugustO's church does not marry homosexual couples. It is one of the things that is stated rather clearly on their German website...--VPropp 11:13, 12 January 2012 (EST)
True, you told me and did not show me. My preliminary research definitely leans towards them embracing this practice although it is not absolutely conclusive. Of course, this could better be cleared up if AugustO simply answers my questions. Conservative 09:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)
  • I doubt that there is anything I could write about me that would change your heart.
  • The answers to your questions can be found in the internet, I think you will have more trust in your own research than in any of my statements.
  • You seem to have not much of a problem to condemn the 900,000 members of the EKKW (or the 23,000,000 members of the EKD) as heretical! What does more harm: to condemn and insult a fellow Christian - or to engage respectfully in a debate with a member of one of the many heretical groups in history calling themselves Christians.
  • All of this doesn't matter when it comes to the 15 questions for evolutionists. Really, I don't know how you want to witness to any of the hostile atheists when you can't keep your cool in this sheltered environment?

AugustO 09:45, 12 January 2012 (EST)

AugustO, have homosexuals been "married" inside of Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck "churches"? It is an easy enough question for you to answer unless of course you want to hide something as liberals often want to do. Conservative 09:54, 12 January 2012 (EST)

Is this 15 questions for evolutionists or just simply 15 questions for AugustO? Adambro 09:55, 12 January 2012 (EST)

  • What has this to do with Debate: 15 questions for evolutionists? Is this a typical example of the tactic of diversion which is often used by liberals?
  • No "marriages" have been performed - but there may be congregations which have allowed "blessings".
AugustO 09:58, 12 January 2012 (EST)
Evobabbling, women "pastors" "blessing" homosexual "marriages", declining membership - the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck is on the slope. Of course, when you start flouting biblical authority and ignoring the large amount of evidence for the Bible, that's what happens. Conservative 10:23, 12 January 2012 (EST)

Thanks for your telediagnosis! Now, can we get to the debate at hand, or do you prefer to stick to personal attacks - at tactic often used by liberals? AugustO 10:26, 12 January 2012 (EST)

August, when you start presenting actual evidence instead of just-so stories and stop ignoring the large amount of evidence for the Bible and the effects of when a church does this, then we can start debating. Conservative 10:31, 12 January 2012 (EST)
August, by the way, what do you think of Conservapedia homosexuality article in terms of the factual evidence it presents? Conservative 10:35, 12 January 2012 (EST)

I don't see how the perceived decline of the EKKW has anything to do with the 15 questions - how does the very existence of a church you hadn't heard of a month ago can influence your evidence? Please, stop obfuscating (a tactic often used by liberals), and try to support the Question Evolution! Campaign. AugustO 10:44, 12 January 2012 (EST)

I am just point out through the social science of history using church history in particular what happens when churches put on their liberal evobabble skiis and liberalism ideology goggles and start going down the slope - moral depravity and the condoning of the behavior of pretentious fraudulent shysters such as User: RudrichBoucher. Conservative 11:03, 12 January 2012 (EST)
I'm intrigued, the history of which churches have you looked at? The accusation of moral depravity was used during the Reformation quite often and on both sides. Yet Catholicism and reformed churches still flourish.--VPropp 11:13, 12 January 2012 (EST)

Thanks for pointing out! Now I can see the following dialogue happening somewhere in Texas:

  • Pupil: Here are fifteen questions you can't answer, Mr. Evolutionist-Teacher!
  • Teacher: Well, let's see. Question One isn't that difficult to answer - Darwin's 1859 book was called On the Origin of Species, not On the Origin of Life, his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started. Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though there is a scientific debate about the creation of the universe... So, what do you say?
  • Pupil: RudricBoucher is a pretentious fraudulent shyster!

Yes, that will show the teacher! AugustO 11:14, 12 January 2012 (EST)

Hi AugustO, I've always found this answer (Evolution is about origin of species not origin of life) quite lazy. If you contest the fact that God created the species as they are today, you will have to provide an explanation for the beginning of life as well. To me, it's a bit like saying "I don't know how the thief got into the house, I just study how he stole the money"... --PhilipN 15:24, 12 January 2012 (EST)
By the way, I thought you had more than just 3 answers ?--PhilipN 15:26, 12 January 2012 (EST)
  • To provide a theory of everything is a little bit to ambitious for me - most theories have a more or less well-defined area which they are covering: Quantum mechanics starts to explain much of the world shortly after the big bang (if there was one). And there may be specialists who are only looking how the safe was opened in the burglary without knowing how the thief entered the house. Their expertise may help to solve find the criminals. But you should state you rebuttal in the actual debate.
  • I hadn't contributed to the previous version of the debate. There have been more answers to the questions, but they were deleted. I can't reconstruct them on my own...
AugustO 15:44, 12 January 2012 (EST)
  • So, should we add our arguments directly into the debate page, isn't it going to be messy ?
  • Oh, I had not noticed that the previous version had been deleted... I believe this is the consequence of an edit war with a senior admin !--PhilipN 15:54, 12 January 2012 (EST)

VPropp, Western Roman Catholicism which has many members which have embraced liberalism and evolutionism (particularly starting in the 1950's and accelerating post 1960's), is not flourishing and is: bleeding members, plagued with scandals and experiencing a shortage of priests. It is not uncommon for Jesuits in academia to claim the Bible is riddled with historical error, etc. etc. Conservative 17:11, 12 January 2012 (EST)

89 percent of children from evangelical families leave the church before they get to college. Source: Christian Post And guess what, Conservative, its because those children are not willing to throw away the last 150 years of scientific and social progress in favor of your idiosyncratic and inconsistent interpretation of the Bible. The fact is, it really isn't necessary for evolutionists to convince you of evolution's truth. Nobody here believes that you, or CMI, is debating in good faith anyway, so its no skin off my nose if you keep ranting and raving until the cows come home. All we have to do is wait for your lazy, backwards, lunatic fringe of Christianity to die out; at this point, the only people who believe that evolution and belief in God are incompatible are fundamentalist religious wingnuts and obnoxious militant atheists, both of whom have serious financial incentives to keep this "debate" going on indefinitely.TonyPark 15:25, 13 January 2012 (EST)

Heresy hunting

"Conservative", if you're really on the lookout for the "many heretical groups in history calling themselves Christians" why don't you start with Uncle Ed? I guarantee you that no matter what August's church believes, it doesn't include the idea that Jesus is a rich old Korean guy who owns the Washington Times. --MarkSpace 11:18, 12 January 2012 (EST)

Lately, my editing at this wiki has been on the world economy, the 2012 U.S Presidential election and the Question evolution! campaign (which will accelerate the global decline of atheism). I will paraphrase and take liberties with a quote a relative of mine said to me: "In life, you have to pick your battles" (the actual quote related to his relationship with his wife). While it is certainly possible for me to battle every religious faith different from my own and every false ideology (Darwinism, liberalism), ultimately I am a mere mortal (or perhaps several). :) Of course, if Richard Dawkins' wacky false ideology (which is bereft of evidence and counter to the vast evidence we have for Christianity) were true, I could easily be an advanced piece of artificial intelligence left by little green men who were the product of Darwinian evolution! Conservative 16:46, 12 January 2012 (EST)
User:Conservative, applying the defintion of Christianity that you seem so fond of using (capitalist, anti-homosexuality, pro-life, anti-evolution, democratic) the number of real Christians might be between 60 and 100 million globally. You seem to lack any sort of imagination of other countries or understanding that their structures, as much the American structures, are fundamentally different rom each other. Quite frankly, I and most other people would say that upon reading this discussion, you belong in a mental asylum. As I have lived in Germany all my life, it is very probable that that was were the German authorities would put you. And I believe they would be right in doing so. --NekD 17:38, 12 January 2012 (EST)
NekD, I would suggest using Firefox as it finds typos and misspellings. You misspelled the word definition. Second, please demonstrate I have defined Christianity in the exact manner you have claimed (for example, I personally believe in a republic with a representative government rather than a democracy plus capitalism. Plus, where have I said that biblical Christianity precisely prescribes a certain form of government or economics?). Third, you seem to be quite angry and have a penchant for armchair internet pop psychological diagnosis. I think I struck a nerve and pointed out some unpleasant truths for you. Often, the bitten dog yelps the loudest! Lastly, consider reading this essay. Conservative 18:10, 12 January 2012 (EST)
Really? Are you that stupid not to recognize trolling? Have you so gotten used to being called insane that it doesn't even jump out at you?
Most people will believe the exact opposite of what you tell them, Kenny, that it because you are so often wrong people have stopped counting the times you are wrong and started counting the times you are right. --NekD 18:22, 12 January 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative, you should follow your own advice. Then you wouldn't have to erase revisions to cover up your mistakes while lecturing others on theirs! AugustO 18:20, 12 January 2012 (EST)

NekD, I see you are unable to back your claim that I have defined Christianity in the precise manner that you claimed I did - very telling. :) Second, I am used to armchair internet psychological diagnosises by some very angry and frustrated members of a certain website who have many members afflicted with Severe Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder. :) However, I don't give credence to the obsessive ruminations of atheist clowns. By the way, no true skeptic claims to know my/our name. :) Conservative 18:35, 12 January 2012 (EST)
Ha, ha, diagnosises. Obviously Ken's Firefox dictionary needs an update. Gerrard 16:50, 13 January 2012 (EST)
Hi Conservative, I've seen you say "no true skeptic claims to know my/our name" a couple of time and I was wondering, what do you mean by that ?--PhilipN 19:07, 12 January 2012 (EST)


User:Conservative, earlier I tried to answer one of your questions... AugustO 19:08, 12 January 2012 (EST)

AugustO, that was not the question I specifically asked. Oftentimes, liberals engage in the style over substance fallacy rather than address the facts I present so I can understand your reluctance to address central issues. Once again, you prove to be a slippery character who fails to address the relevant questions I ask. Conservative 19:16, 12 January 2012 (EST)
  • LOL* taking into account your comments on this very page, this is the funniest thing I have seen today! AugustO 19:20, 12 January 2012 (EST)
PhilipN, see symptom #8. Often, people with SCOCD like to obsess about various Conservapedia Admins, but unfortunately for them their one-way obsessions are unrequited obsessions not shared by the targets of their obsession. Conservative 19:23, 12 January 2012 (EST)
AugustO, I was just trying to be helpful. He had two typos in his post to me. I merely made a single helpful suggestion. I didn't desperately create a whole web page of material indicating I had style over substance issues when it comes to my debate opponents that I was obviously losing to like you unfortunately did. Conservative 19:27, 12 January 2012 (EST)

d. Conservative 19:27, 12 January 2012 (EST)

I'd like to point out that every question on the page has an evolutionist response as of writing, and it is not looking good for the Question Evolution campaign. Maybe it should be changed from "15 questions evolutionists cant answer" to "A fifteen question exam on basic high school evolutionary biology, with some weird, bizarrely vague questions thrown in."TonyPark 19:42, 12 January 2012 (EST)
Tony, do you attend a public school? The reason I ask is that in many public schools it doesn't matter if the answers to questions on tests are wrong answers or poorly answered, they still pass the students onto the next grade level. Tony, it appears as if you don't yet understand that poorly answered questions deserve a failing grade. Conservative 19:54, 12 January 2012 (EST)

User:Conservative, I created a whole web page discussed the first sections of your article on homosexuality on its talk-page. Judging from the corrections you made to the article afterwards I get the impression that I not only tried, but actually succeeded in being helpful! You're welcome!

As for losing the debate - where is this debate? I can find only personal attacks, while I am waiting for your rebuttals to evolutionists' responses.

AugustO 19:59, 12 January 2012 (EST)

Now I can see the following dialogue happening somewhere in Texas:

  • Pupil: Here are fifteen questions you can't answer, Mr. Evolutionist-Teacher!
  • Teacher: Well, let's see. Question One isn't that difficult to answer - Darwin's 1859 book was called On the Origin of Species, not On the Origin of Life, his theory didn't cover the very beginnings of life, but what happened when speciation started. Similarly, we have helpful physical theories about the behavior of objects in the universe, though there is a scientific debate about the creation of the universe... So, what do you say?
  • Pupil: RudricBoucher is a pretentious fraudulent shyster!

Yes, that will show the teacher! AugustO 11:14, 12 January 2012 (EST)

AugustO, you still haven't answered all my questions. For example, is the Evangelical Church of Hesse Electorate-Waldeck still in decline as far as continuing to lose members? It still appears to me that they are on the slope. Conservative 20:04, 12 January 2012 (EST)
Conservative, do you like anchovies on your pizza? I ask because it is about as relevant to this debate as where I went to school. If you want to debate the questions, feel free to add something to the debate page. How is the Question Evolution campaign going to cut global atheism by 50% without Conservative there to defend the 15 questions that every evolutionist can answer?TonyPark 20:08, 12 January 2012 (EST)
One of the questions is: "Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence, taught in science classes?". I was just pointing out to AugustO that the evolutionism/liberal "Christianity" religion he is subscribing to is morally bankrupt, produces bad fruit and is in decline and the reason it is taught in science classes is that pretentious fraudulent shysters (such as User: RudrichBoucher) want to promote it. Anyone who has read this article or this article and similar material on the internet (or simply honestly examined God's creation) is very aware of this matter. Conservative 20:19, 12 January 2012 (EST)


User:Conservative, have you read the material of the Question Evolution! Campaign? It's about the theory of evolution, not the catechism of the EKKW. AugustO 20:29, 12 January 2012

Thank you Conservative, I needed a summary of this day long non sequitur you've managed to build up. Making fun of AugustO's church gave you an excuse to dodge the real debate, but that's okay because nobody expected your input to be anything but a demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect. If you want to talk turkey, take your best shot ON THE DEBATE PAGE. Otherwise, go write another "essay" about atheism and . TonyPark 21:02, 12 January 2012 (EST)

Open memo to User:Conservative

Christianity has changed quite a bit over the course of its history. Differences in theological interpretation, cultural tradition, and even geopolitical circumstance, have given rise to the many diverse denominations of Christianity that exist today. As early as the second century, there were scholars (a few of whom are now saints) who openly doubted the historicity of certain aspects of the gospels; including the virgin birth, the resurrection, the exact nature of Jesus' divinity, many of the miracles, and even Christ's message in general.

The New Testament, as it survives today, is not, by any stretch of the imagination, the "inspired word of god". Instead, it is a compilation of writings which were agreed to be considered "canonical" at the Council of Rome in 382 AD. This council was convened by Pope Damasus I at the request of Emperor Theodosius I. Up until that time, there were at least 30 different gospels in widespread circulation and use; many of which disagreed widely on many key points. At the time, the Roman Empire was in a state of massive political upheaval (it would collapse entirely only eighty years later) and it had turned to its new state religion (Christianity) to provide political and social stability. Central to that aim was defining a core set of doctrines to define and unite Christianity, and also safeguard the political interests of the Roman state. The books and epistles that were ultimately included in the New Testament were deliberately chosen because they satisfied these aims.

Because of this, attacking a user's denomination of Christianity is an inherently meaningless exercise. Even the Catholic church acknowledges that it is not so much the substance of a person's faith that matters--it is that they have faith.

To summarize the Bhagavad Gita (and this is appropriate, considering that there are more philosophical parallels between Hindu and Judeo-Christian scripture than there are differences), mankind lacks the capacity to properly comprehend heavenly things (Jesus himself made similar assertions). It is not the place of mankind to judge the righteousness of men. Only God, with his heavenly perspective, can do that. This is one of the core tenets of Judeo-Christian philosophy--that is, leave the judging to God.

Accordingly, questioning another person's faith is highly inappropriate. "Spread the word" means just that, spread the word; don't attack another person for their interpretation of the word.

I know I speak for more users than myself on here when I say this. Please desist from making faith-based personal attacks. It is highly inappropriate (by all interpretations of the Gospel), and it is highly offensive.--RudrickBoucher 22:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)


Open question to readers of this page

Because I believe that answering these questions in more detail would be a fun intellectual exercise, if the Conservapedia community would be okay with it, I would like to compose a 1-2 page answer to each of these questions and post them here as an essay. This would probably take me about a week to do (I have other, real, work to do on top of this), but I would be more than happy to do it if people are interested in reading more in-depth answers to each of the questions.

In the name of taking a balanced approach to such an effort, I am open to collaborating with other users on here in such an effort. I may even be able to get some of my colleagues to weigh in as well. Collaborating with one or more creationist users may also be particularly helpful, that way I can be sure of addressing all of the concerns underlying each of the questions.

Anyway, just food for thought. I know that there are already a number of pages devoted to this topic on here, but if people are interested, I am willing to do it. --RudrickBoucher 21:44, 12 January 2012 (EST)

Colleagues? Do you mean other biologists or your friends from the Pretentious International Society of Shysters? Seriously though, its not like these questions are deeply insightful inquiries into evolutionary theory. A reasonably astute high schooler with an interest in biology could answer them satisfactorily. The answers for every one of these questions is freely available on any number of research web sites. CMI is not interested in having these questions answered; if they keep repeating the phrase "15 questions evolutionists can't answer", they can continue to denigrate and disrespect the work and motivations of the thousands of scientists without actually doing any work to come up with questions that might actually stump them. Save your effort. TonyPark 22:29, 12 January 2012 (EST)
I have a few co-workers and classmates who are interested in this debate. Many of them have backgrounds in different sub-disciplines, so their input would be valuable. And, no, it's not wasted time at all. As scientists and educators, it is our duty to address misconceptions in the public square. --RudrickBoucher 22:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)
As a creationist, I am always interested in discussing the matter. Anyway, I believe most of those 15 questions are disapointing, there are other far more interesting questions to ask. I may try to draw a list of questions of my own if you are interested.--PhilipN 22:11, 12 January 2012 (EST)
If you want to come up with additional questions, I'd love to see them. A civil discourse is the only way that this tired issue will ever finally be put to rest. --RudrickBoucher 22:48, 12 January 2012 (EST)

TonyPark, I didn't force RudrichBoucher to confess that he acted with a degree of pretentiousness in describing his relevant resume as far as the creation vs. evolution issue.[1] He freely admitted he overstated his resume. I am merely reminding Conservapedians of his self-described character deficit and that the material he writes cannot be trusted in terms of its truthfulness. Conservative 04:38, 13 January 2012 (EST)

The following comment was previously deleted:
User:Conservative, when you stated AugustO, as far as the issue of dealing with a difficult people: our recent discussion, other events and material I read recently, has caused me to rethink matters and make some beneficial changes, I hoped this would include stopping the stream of invectives you are hurling seemingly randomly on anyone who crosses your path. There is no need to call User:RudrickBoucher a pretentious fraud and shyster, and those who defend him whiners. You yourself are often inconsistent in your statements: sometimes you describe yourself as a single person (I take a part in a nativity play, I'm too sick to play my part) sometimes you imply that you are a group of people. Following your example, I should disregard everything you write and answer to any of your statements with: User:Conservative has proven to be a dyscalculexic fraud. AugustO 17:54, 11 January 2012 (EST)

I assume you are smart enough to know that if there were more than one person sharing this account that a person in such a group could refer to themselves as I. :) Second, I do understand that Darwinists love the word random, however, if you could curb your enthusiasm in this matter, it would be appreciated. Third, RudrichBoucher is a self-described person who engaged in pretentious behavior concerning his creation vs. evolution resume. Perhaps you should consider asking him to stop hurling invectives against himself. When a creationist hears an evolutionist self-admit to engaging in fraud, it is similar to him posting a "kick me" sign on his back. :) Conservative 10:52, 13 January 2012 (EST)

Then you are lucky: there is certainly no scientist who never made an error - and good scientists will acknowledge those errors. You may take these acknowledgements out of context, and just say: "you admitted to be wrong - I won't listen to you ever again and ignore your arguments and the facts which you are presenting".
And now I understand why neither you nor Aschlafly are able to admit errors: you are afraid to stick a "kick me" sign on your backs. So you have to keep up all the charades which cumulate over time, looking more and more foolish (really: I am many?)
But experience of life tells us that a human who pretends to err never cannot be trusted, so your tactic may fail you (errare humanum est).
AugustO 11:20, 13 January 2012 (EST)
Conservative, this is not a debate about RudrichBoucher's resume, nor does anybody but you think that he has engaged in "fraud." Nobody gives a crap about one line in a conversation you had with him months ago, and nobody cares that you think he is a shyster. Rudrick's qualifications are irrelevant to the debate about evolution vs. creationism. You have contributed NOTHING to this debate, except for personal attacks on the participants. If you notice, all of the spaces under "What an evolutionist would say" are full, and almost all of the spaces underneath "What a creationist would reply" are empty. Why don't you take 5% of the effort you spend trashing AugustO's church and use it to actually make some content?

Oh, and by the way, don't just write another paragraph attacking someone and paste in onto all 15 questions. There is no excuse for that level of immature behavior.TonyPark 11:35, 13 January 2012 (EST)

It does seem a little ungracious to take someone's admission that they may have overstated the case on a peripheral point, and beat them over the head with it and call them a fraud and a liar. I should say that allowing people to qualify, explain and refine what they say is fairly essential to a constructive dialogue. Otherwise, you are just going to encourage pig-headedness and heel-digging.--CPalmer 11:51, 13 January 2012 (EST)
Darwinists have had over 150 years to provide sufficient evidence, yet they are still dogged by legitimate charges of engaging in deceit (see: Atheism and deception), suppressing evidence, using strong arm tactics and being chicken to debate and losing 300 debates to Dr. Duane Gish. Instead of having shifty people posting some lame material at CP, why don't you ask the evos Shermer, PZ Myers, and Dawkins debate the 15 questions with CMI? Are you afraid they will chicken out like atheists Penn Jillette and Don Exodus2 or like the 2010 Global Atheist Conference? :) Conservative 11:55, 13 January 2012 (EST)


Obviously it doesn't take Shermer, PZ Myers, and Dawkins to address the 15 questions satisfactorily. So why bother them? Just because you want to get their attention for your campaign? AugustO 11:59, 13 January 2012 (EST)

On the subject of creationist/evolutionist debates, I do find the idea quite amusing since they inevitably involve and attract people who are so firmly entrenched in their position that to acknowledge the other side may have made a good point, however small, would be impossible for them. I do wonder whether there has ever been a debate on this subject that has actually been anything other than a waste of time. Whether the questions here can ever be satisfactorily addressed is a similar issue. Adambro 12:08, 13 January 2012 (EST)
AugustO, Darwinists are struggling to gain wide acceptance in the USA even though Darwinism has been around for 150 years plus anti-Darwinist conservative Christianity is exploding in the world. The situation is not good for Darwinism and the cloud of being disingenuous hangs over Darwinism. For example, Stephen Gould talked about the dearth of supposed transitional fossils being a "trade secret". Does real science have "trade secrets"? I realize that you don't like me pointing out the licentious and fraudulent behavior of Darwinists, but Jesus said that bad fruit does not come from a good tree and it certainly right to point out egregious behavior by shysters. Conservative 12:13, 13 January 2012 (EST)

CPalmer, the shyster RudrichBoucher did not say he may have overstated his resume. He said he said he was a "bit pretentious".[2] He admitted to engaging in pretentiousness. Please do not unnecessarily cloud the issue. Conservative 12:20, 13 January 2012 (EST)

What's the difference? I have an interest in politics and often discuss them online, but hold no formal position. So, what if I described myself as "a political commentator"? That would be an overstatement, and/or, it would be pretentious. Either would be an apt description. I am not clouding the issue at all.
Also, I see from one of your user subpages that you enjoy the work of Orson Welles. If you don't like pretentiousness, perhaps you should rethink this!!!--CPalmer 12:51, 13 January 2012 (EST)


Stephen Jay Gould, a well-known evolutionist and professor of geology and paleontology at Harvard University, has stated, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of the branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."

"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

"Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups." Stephen Jay Gould, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, p.261

Hmmm, it would appear that you "snipped" a few words from something Gould said, interpreted it in a way that suited you and only you, and then posted it like we're all twelve year olds who will shut up if you quote someone smart. Since apparently you don't understand why quote mining is wrong, or why an appeal to authority is not logical or convincing, I'm going to explain it to you again.

  • Just because a famous scientist had an opinion doesn't mean it is true.
  • Just because a scientist doesn't subscribe to evolution does not negate the fact that 99% of scientists do.
  • Just because you can find a quote in a famous scientist's book that expresses some reservations about some aspect of evolution does not mean that the whole theory is in doubt.
  • Just because you found fault in something a poster said does not mean you can ignore everything they say afterwards.

Since apparently User: Conservative is a group of immature people, and not just one extremely inconsiderate individual, I would appreciate it if whoever is controlling Conservative at the moment could let the rest of the posse know that they actually have to have EVIDENCE to win a debate. Insulting someone so much that they leave in disgust is not a victory.TonyPark 12:46, 13 January 2012 (EST)

Instead of having shifty people posting some lame material at CP, why don't you ask the evos Shermer, PZ Myers, and Dawkins debate the 15 questions with CMI?
  • Conservapedia is the natural place to comment on the Question Evolution! Campaign, as so much is written here about it already.
  • Why do you betray the trust of the pupils who think that you provide them with magical bullets in their discussions on evolution? It doesn't take Shermer, PZ Myers or Dawkins to answer these unanswerable question. And even incorrect answers will shake the faith of the persons who can't rebut these answers on the spot.
  • You are encouraging ill prepared young men and women to engage atheists in discussions on evolution. Most times these debates won't follow the script you dreamed of in your tree house!
  • And when those boys and girls come here for more ammunition, you fail to provide it. Instead you are playing word games and engage in senseless ridicule.
AugustO 15:49, 13 January 2012 (EST)
I see that you could not come up with bona fide fields of science that have uncomfortable "trade secrets" that they hide from the public. I find that very telling. "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology." - Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard paleontologist. The reason why Darwinism has such a bad reputation in the world is that the field is infested with shysters promoting it. That reputation is not going away and shysters like RudrichBoucher and Darwinist women "pastors" who "bless" homosexual "marrriages" endorsing Darwinism exacerbates this significant problem. Plus, the Question evolution! campaign will sully this horrid reputation further as Darwinists cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions. Conservative 18:49, 13 January 2012 (EST)

I've blocked Conservative for violations of naming policy. He blocked RudrickBoucher for 90/10, so I figured he should follow the rules too. Anybody interested in having an actual debate, now?TonyPark 20:10, 13 January 2012 (EST)

There are evolutionist responses to each of the 15 questions. One creationist rebuttal has been given, and a calm discussion followed without accusations and name-calling. I like that format, and wish to continue with such discussion. --RedGoliath 01:16, 14 January 2012 (GMT)
The reason why Darwinism has such a bad reputation in the world is that the field is infested with shysters promoting it. That reputation is not going away and shysters like RudrichBoucher and Darwinist women "pastors" who "bless" homosexual "marrriages" endorsing Darwinism exacerbates this significant problem.
Then you should perhaps not try to counter Darwinism on scientific reasons, but start a smear campaign to sully its reputation (a tactic often used by liberals). Oh wait, that's exactly what you are doing.
AugustO 03:25, 14 January 2012 (EST)
Once again you distort matters. It is already sullied. And if evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions and sully evolution's reputation further that's certainly not the fault of creationists. By the way, it is appears as if the Question evolution! campaign is picking up speed in January and February.[3]. :) Conservative 03:42, 14 January 2012 (EST)
And if evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions and sully evolution's reputation further that's certainly not the fault of creationists. To write this sentence on the talk-page of an article in which the 15 questions are answered reminds me of the announcement of Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf (a.k.a. Baghdad Bob, Comical Ali) who claimed that there were no U.S. troops in Baghdad, and that the Americans were committing suicide by the hundreds at the city's gates while American soldiers were already all over the city. If you fail to understand the reference, I'll spell it out for you: your statement is highly ironic.
And for this fatal impression it doesn't matter how often you repeat that the answers are not satisfactory or even false. They are not refuted - that is all what matters.
AugustO 07:55, 14 January 2012 (EST)
Conservative, could you please post on the debate page and tell the evolutionists why each of the answers they have given are wrong? --RedGoliath 14:29, 14 January 2012 (GMT)
After almost ten days, I think it's safe to interpret his failure to submit scientific evidence in support his position as an admission of defeat. --JHunter 00:46, 23 January 2012 (EST)
I wouldn't say he's failed. User:Conservative has linked to sites giving answers to each of these questions. I would suggest to him though, to put links to specific answers under each question, so that users can get creationist responses to any specific question easily. --RedGoliath 01:14, 24 January 2012 (GMT)
The trouble with the "rebuttals" to the "answers" given at the links which User:Conservative posted are that the answers are not reflective of the answers given here, nor the answers which are commonly given by experts in evolutionary biology. The "answers" rebutted at the linked pages are aimed at commonly-encountered creationist talking points (implying that they were authored with the intention of providing "straw men"). --JHunter 21:02, 23 January 2012 (EST)

A few more questions for evolutionists

As requested by User:RudrickBoucher (who has been blocked), I provide a few more questions for evolutionists here: User:PhilipN/Essay:Questions to evolutionists. Feel free to post answers on this page.--PhilipN 23:17, 29 January 2012 (EST)

Removed

I would like to point out that User:Conservative removed this debate from the debate topics page. I think that deserves an explanation. Ayzmo :) 20:12, 29 February 2012 (EST)

Personal tools