Talk:Dinosaur/Archive1

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Modern Day Dinosaurs

I'd like to point out that some scientists consider Alligators, Crocodiles and Komodo Dragons to be modern dinosaurs. If the bulk of dinosaurs were killed by flooding/natural disaster, it is conceivable that since alligators, etc. did roam the earth at the same time as said "dinosaurs" that they are basically dinosaurs themselves and therefore survived the disaster (not surprising since alligators and crocodiles can both survive easily in water, and the komodo dragon is poisonous to touch and therefore not likely to be hunted to extinction).

Ignoring European myths about dragons, loch ness/etc, there is ample evidence in NativeAmerican mythology that some dinosaurs survived the disaster and were later hunted to extinction. Even today people still claim to have seen the legendary Gaasyendietha and Argont.

What scientists consider alligators, corocodiles and Komodo dragons to be dinosaurs? Sureal 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Creation scientists do. Which means that it's appropriate for this article. --Ashens 14:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Ah, that explains it. Cos, y'know, crocodillians kind of aren't related to dinosaurs (they're aquatic, dinosaurs were not), nor are Komodo dragons (which are lizards). Calling a Komodo dragon or a crocodillian a type of dinosaur is kind of like calling a bat a type of bird...
If you knew your Leviticus like you should you'd know that a bat is a bird! Leviticus 11:13-19 Crackertalk 13:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
Bats aren't birds, they're bugs: #1 Bats = Bugs. Every six year old knows that.--Prometheus 21:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
Bats are mammals. every 6 year old outside usa knows that!
You ruined my set-up XD. Sureal 13:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

No mention of popular documentary

Recently I have had the good fortune to observe a series of mini-documentaries and docu-dramas related to the topic of dinosaurs. It appears that Men and dinosaurs did coexist, during Biblical times and even well before then. Many people of the time used tame dinosaurs as transportation, as beasts of burden, and even as pets, as well. Shouldn't there be some mention of the well know documentary series The Flintstones on this page? Prometheus

Prometheus, there were no times before Biblical times. Myk 01:40, 29 March 2007 (EDT)

How absurd!

What are "Old-Earth Evolutionists"? Is there another kind of "evolutionist"? Is evolutionist a word?

Why is the word "evolved" in inverted commas in the second sentence?

Why are the creationists referred to as scientists whereas the "Old-Earth Evolutionists" are not?

Why does it say that the "Creation scientists" have beliefs based on evidence when it says no such thing about the "Old-Earth Evolutionists"? (who you might think have a better claim to beliefs based on evidence).

Why doesn't the article tell me anything about dinosaurs?

I will be back to do some editing. --Horace 20:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Note Horace's use above of the Britishism "inverted commas" instead of the proper American "quotation marks". This shibboleth makes his contributions look rather suspiciously like the work of a Wikipedia agitator. Dr. Richard Paley 17:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)
Please, don't start making anti-British ad hominem attacks… And "proper American"? Are you aware that the English language originated in Britain? Geekman314(contact me) 10:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
As I'm sure you are aware American English is a rationalised improvement on British English and is not influenced by France (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_english).
Is this rationalisation of the English language the reason your representative president cannot pronounce 'nuclear'? Instead he insists on butchering his own language preferring to pronounce it 'newqoolar'. He has learnt this because of the simplification of spelling which you call a rationalisation has meant that American English has forgotten how to pronounce even the most basic vowels. The rest of the world laughs at you, not with you.
Yep, resumé isn't at all French. Anyway, why do people care? I'm sure that if I was a Brit reading Conservapedia, I would think that a "strong anti-British bias" (to make a modified paraphrase of one of Conservapedia's ideas about Wikipedia) was evident. Geekman314(contact me) 19:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Heh this bit made me laugh. All English (Whether proper English or american butchered English) is influenced from the French. There's a reason the rest of the world uses the proper "foreign" spelling of words. Because it's not a dumbed-down version. Oh, and it's ZED, not ZEE. How is that a rationalized "improvement"? Was the alphabet too hard to remember without 'Z' rhyming with some of the other letters? And Linus, I think you're correct, except it's not so much an anti-British bias, as an anti-rest-of-the-world bias.
You, sir, are a bounder. Oops. Did it again. I would have thought that the substance of my contributions can speak for themselves. I am not any sort of agitator other than perhaps an agitator for accurate articles. --Horace 18:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)

There, that's a start. --Horace 20:49, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Courtesy

How about some discussion before editing Rich? --Horace 21:45, 22 February 2007 (EST)

Anti-Christian Bias

Why was all information based on the Creation worldview removed from this article? I thought this was precisely the sort of anti-Christian bias that Conservapedia was created to combat. Are people from Wikipedia trying to undermine this site? Well, nevermind; those interested to hear non-PC discussions of dinosaurs and Origins in general are welcome to come to CreationWiki instead. Dr. Richard Paley 01:41, 23 February 2007 (EST)

I removed this information because it does not speak for all Christians, and none of the sources even claimed to speak for most Christians.
Leaving aside the question of rampant apostasy in the modern Church re: Biblical Creation, I had originally clearly labeled those views as belonging to "Creation Scientists" -- for whom those sources do speak -- not "all Christians" or "most Christians". This was altered to "Creationists" in general (which is vague enough to include any number of errant views, including Hindu creation myths and Raelian extraterrestrial genetic-engineering delusions), and then the entire section was cut, leaving only the views of Darwinists. I do not see how these changes are consonant with the mission statement of Conservapedia (i.e. the elimination of Liberal bias which suppresses the Biblical worldview). Although it pains me to do so, I feel I must question whether those making these suspicious changes are working for the forces of Wikipedia to sneakily impose that project's PC, anti-Christian bias on this project. Dr. Richard Paley 16:56, 23 February 2007 (EST)
Furthermore, let me note that if this were merely a question of the views being presented in that paragraph only belonging to "some Christians", then why not add additional paragraphs explaining the views of the other so-called Christians instead of simply silencing the views of the (clearly labeled) subset of Christianity? Nothing is gained by this change except to give the false impression that all Christians agree with Darwinian views on dinosaurs. Was this the intent? Dr. Richard Paley 17:08, 23 February 2007 (EST)
I am a Christian, and I accept evolution as a fact. I think that it is clearly demonstratable in the real-world. I know dozens of other Christians who also accept evolution. I think it is out of place for a website that is supposed to reflect all Christian views to only promote the views of a minority of Christians called "Creation Scientists". They should be relegated to the fringes, as they do not represent most Christians views.
Rich, there is a difference between writing from the creationist viewpoint and honesty. An article that claims, for instance, that Helder has documented "fresh" dinosaur remains may or may not be creationist in nature, but one thing it certainly is is dishonest, because no such documentation has stood up to any sort of scrutiny. Anyone can make claims, but if you don't care about the actual validity of those claims, only what views they purport to support, then you are not engaging in true scholarly citation practices.Plunge 13:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Catholic links deleted

Very odd, I'd put in some relatively straightforward links to some Catholic views, and it seems to have been deleted by somebody named "Aschlafly" who deleted them with the comment "deleted incorrect Catholic doctrine about evolution" and then added a bunch of stuff from what looks like Southern Baptist websites. I don't know who this guy Aschlafly is, but I do not accept him as an authority on Catholicism. Is this conservapedia actually a "Southernbaptistapedia"? I would like to point out that not all conservatives are southern Baptists. Franklin.jefferson 17:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)

Aschlafly is the creator of this website. Prometheus

Edit by Sureal

I made an edit, rewording certain parts to make the article more neutral (and more in line with reality), and adding in a bit. I've also organised it with headings, 'cos it was a real pain to read before. However, it's still seriously lacking any actual information on dinosaurs. Anyone feel up to adding some? Sureal 13:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Birds

From a cladistic point of view, birds are not merely descended from dinosaurs, they are dinosaurs.Tsumetai 10:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure that's correct. After all, humans evolved from aquatic creatures, and yet we don't cite humans as marine life. Having said that, I'm certainly not an expert on this, so I may be horribly wrong. Sureal 15:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
So, so horribly wrong, Sureal, but don't sweat it. We are descended from amniotes, therefore we are amniotes, we are descended from vertebrates, therefore we are vertebrates, we are descended from mammals, therefore we are mammals, etc. down the classificatory tree for life. RedDedNedHed~~
Does that make me a Prokaryote? Sureal 18:25, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Picture

I think the picture that JC put up (innocently) is a parody picture that should be taken down. He thinks it's legit. Anyone agree?--AmesG 15:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

It's cute. But I'd get rid of it. Crackertalk 15:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
I'd say keep it. Given there's a section arguing for dinosaurs existing in biblical times, I think it's good that there's a picture that shows how absurd this would actually be! JamesK 15:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
The dino pic bit the dust @23:17 --Crackertalk 23:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Liberal Bias in Wikepedia...Really?

Conservatives trying to teach about dinosaurs! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikipedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!

"American English is a rationalised improvement on British English"

In English, "practise" is a verb and "practice" is a noun.

In the American dialect "practice" is used for both.

In English, "license" is a verb and "licence" is a noun.

Americans use "license" for both.

So much for "a rationalised improvement on British English".

CAS

I couldn't agree more with your comments. I use this site not as a reference source but rather as a place I go when I need a laugh.

"I'll take 'Word Origins' for 100, Alex"

If one is going to "discuss" dinosaurs, the least one could do is get the origin of the word "dinosaur" right. "Dinos sauros" is GREEK, not Latin.

Edit made.

AQ

The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because....

The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because I linked to it from the Theory of Evolution article which was very vandal prone before it was protected. Please be aware of vandalism. Conservative 07:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Can we expect this article to be linked to by the liberal blogs as a humour site shortly as well? Nematocyte 12:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, this page has become a joke. How can you eliminate the K-T paragraph??--Dave3172 12:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
It's impossible to take this page seriously. Actually it's impossible to take any page on this site seriously. However, being specific, it is absurd that this page is locked, and that "according to evoutionary scientists" is allowed, but not "according to creatiionists" is not mentioned once.
The above comment represents exactly what I am talking about - liberalism will 'creep in' to this article if we don't stop it, and soon. Please, Conservative, lock this article after you have finished editing it as you see fit. GodisGreat 13:56, 21 March 2007 (PST).

Protected "Dinosaur": protect to clean up. per Mr schlafly.

So how much factual information is going to be left here once this "clean up" has been carried out? Are normal editors incapable of writing a neutral article on dinosaurs?MatteeNeutra 12:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

It will be like Theory of Evolution - lip service paid to non-Creationist viewpoints, and snarkily at that. Massive amounts of pro-Creationist viewpoints, all sourced to the same two or three websites.
This site is rapidly falling into the same bias trap they claim Wikipedia suffers from.--Dave3172 12:22, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Falling? I would say it has long been down the pan! Normal editors are blocked for trying to remove bias, pages are locked for sysop's to put forward their own points of view unchallenged. There are only a handful of people who seem to be opposed to a website of pure Pro-Christian waffle. Oh well, at least I can put forward my PoV on Wikipedia. MatteeNeutra 12:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't even regard it as pro-"Christian", it's theological and scientific nonsense through and through. Nematocyte 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Yep Conservative has got his claws into this one. Should be exciting soon. Too bad to see my real science got all erased.--AmesG 12:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, that K-T paragraph must have hit too close to home...--Dave3172 12:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, Dave, see, the K-T Paragraph not only had the backing of basic geology, but also photographic evidence... that's pretty dangerous stuff.--AmesG 12:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, to be fair, they do have a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur...--Dave3172 12:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I know, we could create Liberalipedia: The answer to the answer to Wikipedia! I wonder if they'd create a page for us on here... MatteeNeutra 12:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Please do. If you do create "liberalpedia" we will probably make a page for you. --TimSvendsen 12:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Will you then lock it and wipe out sourced material?--Dave3172 13:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)


I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the 'clean-up'. After AmesG made his edits, the article was actually starting to look serious. But oh my god, I can't believe how Conservative has butchered it. He's deleted loads of well sourced, factual information, and I even noticed a complete and utter lie in there (please - point me to this peer-reviewed Creationist literature). Sureal 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Not to mention he's currently citeing Godzilla as evidence of young earth creationism. Nematocyte 13:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Raymond Burr

I'm very surprise the sentence about the "documentary" with "Raymond Burr" has survived this long, as if no-one remembers or cannot look up on [imbd.com], that the film in question is the original Godzilla . Godzilla, King of the Monsters! 1956. I also noticed that in referencing the film the fact that Raymond Burr was gay didn't get mentioned.--Crackertalk 12:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

-smacks head- Nematocyte 12:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm with Nematocyte with this one. Dare I ask: How has his being gay got anything to do with anything?MatteeNeutra 12:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
Because being gay is teh evil!!11!!1!!1!!!!!! Sureal 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Oi Vey

Someone, PLEASE introduce some factual information into this article. 95% of the article is about Creationism, and the possibility of dinosaurs living with humans. They could not have lived with humans, and the creationist section is biased. Where are the theories about the dinosaurs dying from a meteor and an ice age? Or them dying from lack of food? Oooohhhh riiiight, these are evolutionist ideas. I forgot we can't include those. Seriously, someone fix it. It's ridiculous. --ALFa 03:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

(EDIT: Oh...and dinosaurs dying because they weren't on the Ark? Come on. That Noah guy was either mean to not let them on, or lazy to not build a bigger Ark. Obsurd.)

(EDIT2: One more thing, when editing, use SOME other source than biased creationist websites, the bible, and other christian websites attempting to give an explanation why dinosaurs don't fit in logically with christianity.)

It did have that - there was quite a bit on the scientific view of dinosuars, fully sourced and everything. But Conservative - being the honest fellow he is - deleted it all as 'vandalism' (see above), added in some rubbish about Creationists having peer-reviwed literature, and locked the page to prevent anyone from 'vandalising' the page again. Sureal 13:01, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

Needed Corrections

Line 1 states that dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles. Note that not all dinosaurs were large.

Are you scared to be wrong?

Why can't we edit this page? Are you scared that some actual scientists with doctorates in paleontology might actually change this page so there is some truth in it? Dinosaurs never lived at the same time period as humans. If you claim that explorers saw a dinosaur, why don't you back it up with some citations. I'm surprised you aren't trying to say that the scientists put the dinosaurs in the ground and made the whole thing up. Just ask yourself, how would Nixon write this page.

No no, you have it all wrong, obviously the dinosaurs have such a superior intelligence that they can evade all detection by every human on earth, and they actually planted fake fossils in the ground to fool us all. Amazing what animals do to survive. On a serious note, yes they are scared to be wrong. --ALFa 16:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Protection as of 3/19

Conservative: You just deleted referenced facts. Is National Geographic no longer a reliable source? Should we put that somewhere? And then you "protected" the article. Are you now going to be the sole editor for this article as well? Myk 18:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Dear Conservative, please do not use your locking powers over content disputes. You removed what looks like TONS of well-sourced material. If you have an issue with the content, go to the Talk page before simply vaping several well-sourced paragraphs. This is NOT how a Wiki works. This is NOT your private playground. --Sid 3050 18:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Eh? They're the ones paying the bills, they're the ones who setup and maintain the servers, they certainly can do whatever they'd like with it. There's an element of community-building to wikis that means they need to use some restraint, but ultimately, it's up to them what kind of community they'd like to build (unless you're willing to start donating lots of bandwidth fees and technical support time). --Interiot 18:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
That's a fair point, Interiot, but there is nothing in the site guidelines (those seven simple rules which Conservapedia is goverened by) to support the deletion of referenced facts. I have been threatened with being blocked for deleting unreferenced opinion, what is the penalty for deleting referenced facts? Myk 18:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
I just pray to God Conservative doesn't own any firearms. Given his penchant for mis-using whatever power he has no-one around him would be safe. --Crackertalk 18:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
(sigh) Yes, you are right, of course. It's Aschlafly's server, and he could just put Goatse onto every page if he felt like it. But I went with what's in the rules and goals they themselves state. Most community projects are a tad more organized and actually hold people in power a little bit responsible for the actions. I think fewer people would be up-front with the rules of the site instead of having a bunch of unwritten rules, some case-by-case decisions and lots of stubbornness when it comes to ignoring complaints and questions. However, the best I remember him saying was something about temporary protection against vandalism (with "vandalism" having an interesting definition, but that's a different topic). --Sid 3050 18:33, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Wonder when I'll get banned next. Surprised it didn't happen when I re-added the facts to this article. Conservative, you still have outstanding questions that curious readers want to know: (1) why are evolution and religion so incompatible in your mind to claim that all evolution-related facts are fraudulent, and (2) what special knowledge do you have to know what is scientifically fraudulent? And in your answer, I don't want the site "Answers In Genesis" to come up once. Not once.-AmesG 20:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)
Conservative! You have work to be done here! The Godless are denying You! Edit, then lock! GodisGreat 13:58, 21 March 2007 (PST).

Farce

What is a good way to describe this page? Geez, do you want to include some facts about dinosaurs? It's not all about Creationist/Evolutionist arguments. At least put up a picture of a T-Rex chowing down on a Brontosaurus. It'd be wicked cool to see that kind of stuff. Maybe even a Raptor eating a man...

Experience with Dinosaurs

I can verify that Dinosaurs lived alongside men. In 1994, I went with my girlfriend to a remote Island in South America; following an invitation from a high profile business man who I won't name. It turned out that he had set up an amusement park with dinosaurs as the main attraction. When the parks electrical fence system was sabotaged by an IT worker trying to steal eggs to fund his debt problems, we were left at the mercy of various carnivore species including a T-Rex and a pair of Velocaraptors that could open doors. It was a horrible experience, but I did warm to the idea of having kids, and Jeff Goldblum's an idiot anyway so no real harm was done.


Conservative POV?

While I don't honestly care in which order the sections are placed, the section "Dinosaurs as viewed through Creationism" is not the conservative POV. It isn't even the creationist POV. It's the YEC POV at best, and should be rewritten to reflect that. Tsumetai 11:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Quote Mining

Your Mayr quote is a blatant misrepresentation of what he said. The full quote (found here: Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (Columbia University Press, New York, 1942), p. 196. ) reads as such:

"It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations. This is even more true for some of the ecological chain relationships (the famous yucca moth case, and so forth). However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence."

In other words, this explanation is the best we have so far because people like you, Conservative, have no evidence to the contrary --Dave3172 13:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

The sad part is, in changing around the cites, Ernst ends up being a creationist. --Crackertalk 13:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Unlocked

Unlocked for however long unless persistent vandalism lingers.

I hope users can contribute in a positive manner. niandra 13:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps you could unlock the Theory of Evolution page now. --Horace 13:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

He locked it again because I deleted the Ernst Mrawyr quote (see debate above) and a citation to CreationWiki :-(--AmesG 13:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

13 minutes unlocked! A new record! If only Conservative didn't have to take potty breaks, he could keep it locked forever. --Crackertalk 13:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Pfft, as expected. Someone's on a power-trip once again. Try reverting things you think are wrong rather than closing it up for your own personal discretion. niandra 14:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Were my edits wrong? I was just correcting what wasn't proven as fact. Isn't it also really bad form to cite to another Wiki??-AmesG 14:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I think she meant things Conservative regards as "wrong". --Sid 3050 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, she :) niandra 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Yup, I checked your user page after writing it and edited out the "(?)" part accordingly (but in such a high-traffic zone, it ran into a few edit conflicts and got delayed XD). :) --Sid 3050 14:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, it was fun while it lasted (the whole 13 minutes). But thanks for the vote of confidence, Niandra! The gesture is worth a lot, even if your good deed got undone by Conservative again. :)

In more hilarious news, check out this diff. Note the "Violations of conservapedia fact policy" comment in the left version and the "These are not facts! *delete delete delete*" edit on the right side. --Sid 3050 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I can't believe the user is basically just being a dictator of the article. This is a wiki-oriented site! If users post wrong information, you revert it but rarely use your power to protect so no one else can contribute! niandra 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I am utterly speechless that he removed all of that material. I generally try not to use unparliamentary language but the man is an idiot. --Horace 14:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Agreed. The edits between your unlock and his lock were not vandalism. They added sourced facts. If he has an issue with "propaganda" or something, he can try to bring things into a more neutral (*snickersnort*) tone. Simply deleting sourced material (repeatedly, I think) is just plain abuse. --Sid 3050 14:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
So what do we do about it?-AmesG 14:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Stop trying and leave site? Only use Conservapedia in dictionaries as an example of 'hypocrisy'? Laugh at anyone who cites this article? Sureal 15:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, I unlocked the article again, and reverted to the AmesG version that includes creationist and "evolutionary" views, but Conservative changed it back to his version within minutes. Tis a shame. ColinR 15:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

The gesture is highly appreciated, though! :) --Sid 3050 16:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

This article's getting worse

All I can say is - wow. Sureal 15:16, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought Conservative's edits were bad...--Dave3172 15:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
So do I. I'm just impressed with the badness. The article made my brain implode - that's never happaned before. :-)
Maybe instead of including articles for some topics Conservapedia should just link directly to Answers in Genesis. The current version of this article is beyond ridiculous.--Murray 15:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

More quote mining

The Scientific American quote that you cite is stripped out of an article that overwhelmingly SUPPORTS evolution - the question at hand was when the feather evolved. The surround context looks like this:

"Several lines of research have recently converged on a remarkable conclusion: the feather evolved in dinosaurs before the appearance of birds."

"Conservative's quote-mined paragraph"

"Progress in solving the particularly puzzling origin of feath-ers has also been hampered by what now appear to be false leads, such as the assumption that the primitive feather evolved by elongation and division of the reptilian scale, and speculations that feathers evolved for a specific function, such as flight. A lack of primitive fossil feathers hindered progress as well. For many years the earliest bird fossil has been Archaeopteryx lithographica, which lived in the late Jurassic period (about 148 million years ago). But Archaeopteryx offers no new insights on how feathers evolved, because its own feathers are nearly indistinguishable from those of today’s birds. Very recent contributions from several fields have put these traditional problems to rest. First, biologists have begun to find new evidence for the idea that developmental processes - the complex mechanisms by which an individual organism grows to its full size and form — can provide a window into the evolution of a species’ anatomy. This idea has been reborn as the field of evolutionary developmental biology, or “evo-devo.” It has given us a powerful tool for probing the origin of feathers. Second, paleontologists have unearthed a trove of feathered dinosaurs in China. These animals have a diversity of primitive feathers that are not as highly evolved as those of today’s birds or even Archaeopteryx. They give us critical clues about the structure, function and evolution of modern birds’ intricate appendages. Together these advances have produced a highly detailed and revolutionary picture: feathers originated and diversified in carnivorous, bipedal theropod dinosaurs before the origin of birds or the origin of flight."

THAT is the context. Of course, it supports the idea of evolution. Your hack job is simply a deliberate deception.--Dave3172 15:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Gah, I was just writing that. You beat me to it (and said it much better). Sureal 15:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Amazing what you find when you Google-search a sentence...--Dave3172 15:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Google search a sentence? I included the link to the full article! Conservative 16:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Look at the bolded portion of the above quote. They are "probing". The devil is in the details. Creationism is still the best answer. Plus, there are no transitional fossil to birds as I cited. Conservative 15:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Look at what comes before and after the phrase you bolded. You can't just take out one little piece and ignore the rest...well, obviously you can, as you keep doing, but it's misleading at best.--Murray 16:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Why do you insist on taking out a single phrase and ignoring the context? Sureal 15:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
The Scientific American article clearly states: "Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most mysterious." Let not pretend they have a good explanation. Conservative 16:37, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Yes - their evolution is not fully understood. However, that doesn't give you the right to quote mine articles to imply we know nothing about birds evolving from dinosaurs. Indeed, does not the existance of feathered dinosaurs (which was conviently missed out from Conservative's quote) give weight to the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs? Sureal 16:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe we could add something about..

Dinosaurs? This is what the article currently says about Dinosaurs - "The word dinosaur was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen[1], from the Greek for "terrible lizard" (fututor). Dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles that previously lived in abundance on Earth". - That's it! everything else is quoting mining about why evolutionists are wrong!

Sure that needs to be in there on convervapedia but surely an article about dinosaurs needs to spend a little time talking about the your actual dinosaurs! --Cgday 16:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I agree, I have unprotected the page as I protected by-mistake. By all means improve it, just keep your edits entirely un-biased. Thanks... Conservapedia Webmaster 16:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Question! When you say "keep your edits entirely un-biased", do you mean as "entirely un-biased" as you were when you asserted that the evolutionary view is "entirely false" or as "entirely un-biased" as Conservative was when he removed several fully sourced paragraphs, but at least admitted that creationists merely reject the evolutionary view and just believe that man and dinosaurs coexisted? --Sid 3050 16:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

SYSOPS: The compromise I offered is the only thing that will end ceaseless edit warring and more importantly.....

The compromise I offered is the only thing that will end ceaseless edit warring and more importantly you cannot state a "fact" that is not a fact.

Here is portion of what I wrote to user Aschlafly:

I tried to reach a compromise with the evolutionists and reasonably ask that they not have only one disclaimer and then go on stating "fact" after "fact" after "fact". I reasonably said when I composed: "according to creationist scientists". They refuse to do something similar regarding the claims of evolutionary scientists even though I took the time to put in front of their "facts" the phrase "according to evolutionary scientists". I protected the article until they agreed to do that.

Now I ask the Sysops to keep the article protected until the evolutionists agree to abide by Conservapedia rules and not state opinions as facts.

Conservative 17:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

Wasn't it, 'what follows is the mainstream scientific opinion' (which appears to have dissapeared) before the scientific side was given? Why do we have to state this more than once? Do you think Conservapedia's readership uniformaly suffers from some form of metal condition, and needs to be constantly reminded that they are reading the scientific/evolutionist side of the debate?

The repetitive sentance structure is disjointing to read, and an ecyclopedia should be as easy to read as possible.

The Creationist side can be the same. At the moment, it's painful to read. Sureal 17:19, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Surely that's sensible - the start of each section just needs the disclaimer once? --Cgday 17:25, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Is the following sentence a fact? "Close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period, and the beginning of what we call the Tertiary period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the K-T Event. This event obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive." Or is it scientists opinion? Before you answers that question please read this article: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2587 The truth is that there have been countless dinosaur extinction explanations given by the evolutionary position. You can't have countless sentences stating "facts" when they are not facts. The compromise is the only solution that will end the countless edit warring. Do the evolutionists, including AmesG, agree to compromise. If they don't I will ask Aschlafly to keep the page locked. Conservative 17:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
That section did say at the beginning that this is the current accepted scientific opinion. I see no reason why not to include it. ColinR 17:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Colin, Again, is this sentence a fact: "Close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period, and the beginning of what we call the Tertiary period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the K-T Event. This event obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive." yes? no? Please do not allow Conservapedia rules be broken. One little disclaimer followed by "fact" after "fact" after "fact" after "fact" is totally unacceptable. Conservative 17:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
It is a fact that that is what the mainstream scientific consensus is. Just as it is a fact that the Creation science opinion is that that never happened. Both claims ('this is what scientists believe...' and 'this is what creationists believe...') are, therefore, correct. Therefore a compromise has already been agreed upon, and the only person warring is you. Sureal 17:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, to be consistent with other pages, the Theory of Evolution page has no disclaimer and then "fact" after "fact" after "fact". You can't have it both ways Conservative. Which will it be?MatteeNeutra 17:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I hope you remember, Conservative, that your view if Christianity is certainly not the only one. Theistic Evolutionists, Old Earth Evolutionists, etc. would disagree with your edits. Stating your "cited" (sarcastically used due to the fact that half of them are probably unnotable, personal websites which carry no philosophical or scientific merit) material as fact, I would assume, is also not the best idea. --Hojimachongtalk 18:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
It is my understanding that Aschlafly wants to have a creationist perspective in the Theory of evolution article. I would also state that the Theory of evolution article establishes facts and constantly has phrases like "creationist assert" or "Opponents of the evolutionary position assert" etc etc. It also has candid admissions by notable evolutionists. Conservative 18:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Regardless, you seem to be forgetting that we are supposed to be writing a biased encyclopedic article. This reads more like a persuasive essay. It doesn't even have a good explanation of what a dinosaur is, it just jumps straight into criticism (without explaining what it is criticizing). --Hojimachongtalk 18:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

(unindent a bit)

What is this encyclopedia's standard for citations? Are blogs okay, or what? I'd like to see something like Wikipedia:Attribution. Not saying we have the same policy, but we should have some sort of policy. Makes it handy to refer to, when there's a dispute over what "can be in" and what "must go out". --Ed Poor 18:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Hojimachong, I would agree with you that info like dinosaur classification should be given. I was going to suggest to Aschlafly that we get an agreement with CreationWiki to copy material like "classification" for animal/plant articles. We then could cite the material and CreationWiki would get more traffic. It is a win-win scenario. Conservative 18:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
I'm against using anything from CreationWiki outside of referencing articles involving it. Furthermore, wikis are usually not considered reliable sources for citing. ColinRtalk 18:56, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

if this is going to be a creationist encyclopedia should there not be a disclaimer to that affect on the front page. Many of us are conservatives but we are not creationists - the two do not automatically go together - we all believe that biases should be out front where everyone can see them right? there seems to be an assumption that anyone who does not buy creationist must be a liberal but for many of us the two do not go together in that way. --Cgday 18:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I hate to nitpick, but to answer user:Conservative's earlier question, the statement re: the K-T event is a fact. Facts are provable by evidence. Creationism is an opinion informed by faith. Both are entitled to equal time as long as they are pronounced that way. Anything less is a breach of Cons. Comm'ds 1 & 6. Also, I really think we should either stop citing CreationWiki - it's not a primary source. Finally, the quote-mined text and the text from the 1942 book that user:Conservative didn't actually read should go.-AmesG 20:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Loch Ness Monster

Wait... really? We're going with the Loch Ness Monster? Myk 17:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh, good grief. Dpbsmith 06:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
You have a problem with this? I saw an excellent documentary on cable abotu the Loch Ness monster, and it was clear there has been a massive cover-up of this wonderful, Biblical creature's existence. If only we can finally capture enough evidence about it, I'm convinced the LNM could be a missing link that would finally blow the evolutionists arguments out of the water. GodisGreat 13:38, 21 March 2007 (PST).
If only you could find it. Myk 17:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, but it's had millions of years to practice hiding. Just a minute - should that be thousands?--British_cons (talk) 17:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
How about an article on how the Loch Ness Monster was domesticated by Piltdown Man? Dpbsmith 19:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Suggestion for intro

May I create a "sandbox" for alternative versions of the intro?

/intro

This has often worked at Wikipedia. --Ed Poor 18:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

You mean like Talk:The Theory of Evolution/draft, which we tried here with not much success? It could work well. What would be needed is a sysop
  • with a claim, accepted by the community, to be in charge of the article;
  • not personally heavily involved in editing it or otherwise ego-involved in the article;
  • committed to the concept of judging consensus, and updating the protected page in a timely way to reflect consensus wordings as they are are reached. Dpbsmith 05:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Compromise dialogue as far as "disqualifiers" like "according to evolutionary scientists"

I suggest the two sides work out a compromise here so the page can be unlocked. Conservative 18:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

I was always under the impression that in any wiki article, the article itself reflected a compromise between various editors. Unless, of course, a renegade with the authority to block a page and a mentality childish enough to do so actually went through with an act so senseless. Guess I'm wrong? --Huey gunna getcha 19:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

A common misconception: it's not automatic. It requires each contributor to be thoughtful and considerate.
Imagine a classroom where students are free to move their desks around wherever they want, and post anything on the walls. It could be heaven or it could be hell (apologies to The Eagles). Neither chaos nor harmony is inevitable. It's up to us.
I made 42,000 edits at Wikipedia since 2001, and I'm here to tell you that compromises are hard to reach. --Ed Poor 19:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)


What makes this article inherently different from anything else? Vandals target every entry there is, no matter how benign they may seem. Additionally, even among the conservative base this site attracts, differences of opinion are going to exist across the spectrum of material - from dinosaurs, to physics, to sex. Lastly, your analogy fails. When the classroom turns into a hellish romper room, the kids are not there to learn. By contrast, serious editors want their work to educate. We're all here for the same purpose, and censorship is clearly not part of that vision. --Huey gunna getcha 19:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

What a confused mishmash that comment was. I wonder why you came here. --Ed Poor 19:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe I should break it down for you. Protecting the dinosaur page doesn't make sense. Here's my reasoning: 1 - the page is no more prone to vandalism than any other page. 2 - the page is just as open to differences of opinion as any other page. 3 - your analogy is garbage, as it ascribes motives to editors which clearly don't exist.

Try to keep up. Slow minds keep right. --Huey gunna getcha 20:10, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Fair enough. Besides, I got a good laugh out of that last.
I take it, you'd like the Dinosour article to be unprotected. Well, so would I. How do we go about requesting this? --Ed Poor 20:56, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Conservapedia:Request Unprotection (in general, Category:Conservapedia maintenance is a good place to look for things like this). --Interiot 10:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

One of the arguments proponents of teaching ID in schools like is: "Children should be able to hear both sides, and make their own mind up". So why not do the same here? Have the dinosaur article link to two sub articles:

  1. Dinosaur origins according to Young Earth Creationists.
  2. Dinosaur origins according to non Young Earth Creationists.

And let each side do what they like with their respective articles. --JamesK 20:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Why only those two? What makes those two so special? Why don't you present the Native American or Ancient Greek or Hindu approaches to the creation of the world and how they each account for dinosaurs. --Mtur 20:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
I Wouldn't have a problem with that, of course. I only chose those two because this site is biased towards Christian YEC and they were the two "sides" currently in dispute. --JamesK 20:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Wouldn't that then be a better subject for comparative creation theories? (The different creation theories made up about 4 weeks in the comparative religions class I took in high school). --Mtur 20:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes it would ideally, but I can't see that happening on this site at the moment. I was just trying to make a suggestion that would break the deadlock in the short term --JamesK 20:43, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Cons, can we get the words "evolutionary" taken out of the science part of the article? It does nothing but make it sound like it was written by a three-year-old. If you want to convey the point, "I don't believe in evolution," please think of a good disclaimer.-
Also, could this compromise also apply to the anti-evolution polemic article that we also fight about? AmesG 21:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

"Creationist Scientists Perspective"

Part of the edit war involved someone removing "Creationist Scientists Perspective" and replacing it with "Creationist Perspect". I see no reason why this should be done. This is part of the conflict that is keeping the page locked although it is a minor one. Conservative 19:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

I think it might have something to do with the fact that creationism does not fit with commonly accepted definition of science... namely the natural explanation part of it. Myk 20:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Proposed replacement language for Loch Ness monster material

Pursuant to User:Conservative's suggestion here:

I propose that the paragraph currently reading

Since 565 A.D. there are reports about the Loch Ness Monster (Nessie by birth), a large Monster living in Loch Ness, near Inverness, Scotland. People who saw Nessie described the Monster as it would look similar to a dinosaur. In the life story of St. Columba, there is an account of him driving off a monster attacking a Pict. Some have taken this to refer to the Loch Ness Monster.

be replaced with this sentence:

Among those who believe in the existence of the Loch Ness Monster, one popular theory is that it is a living plesiosaur.[1]

Any pro-and-con stuff about the existence of Nessie can be worked out in the Loch Ness Monster article. No more needs to be said in Dinosaur other than to mention it briefly, if it all.

Mind you, I personally do not think there is any good reason to mention the Loch Ness monster in this article whatsoever, but if it were real and if it were a plesiosaur then, OK, it would be an example of dinosaurs and humans coexisting. (And if Barney were real he, too... oh, never mind...) Dpbsmith 20:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

  1. "New Quest Is Haunted By 'Nessie'", The New York Times, July 14, 1992, p. C4: "Believers say it resembles a plesiosaur and was trapped in Loch Ness during the Ice Age 12,000 years ago. The plesiosaurs were marine reptiles who are thought to have lived 65 million to 200 million years ago."


The DNA-argument

I just don't get it. After I read the linked article (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp), i didn't know if the author was serious. He explains correctly that Jurassic Park is just fictional and I think every scientist (pro- or contra-evolution) would agree with that but on the other hand he tries to use the "DNA-aspect" to show that evolutionist are in the minor-evidence-position in the dicussion about the age of dinosaur-fossils. I don't think that there is any evolutionist who ever wanted to publish a theory like "we have some base-pairs of dinosaur-DNA and now we really build a Jurassic Park"! Additionally I can't accept his statements about the fresh dinosaur bones. If you read his text properly you will see that the unfossilized bones are found in Alaska and Canada. Precisly on the northern slope of Alaska and on Bylot Island in Canada. Uh, wait...what can you find there? Yep, permafrost - which includes the words permanent and frost. So what could keep a good old dinosaurs bones fresh for millions of years? Keeping them frozen for millions of years, perhaps.

P.S.: Oh yeah, the point with these large amount of really reliable dinosaur sightings. Should we discuss the large number of UFO sightings and Elvis sightings in the same sentence? If I think about it, maybe all these sightings are true and there are lots of elvis-faced-dinosaurs who come in their UFOs to spend the summer holidays near Loch Ness?

Wow, not going to lie, I thought that article might have been a parody at first. This article tries to associate psuedoscience in a fiction movie to real science and "evolutionists." The author's arguments are simply ridiculous, and I have a hard time taking this seriously. As much as I disagree with Creationism, seeing the beauty and the awesomeness of nature and life (esp. after my recent afternoon at the aquarium), I can understand the argument that this universe must have a creator. However, articles such as this take every bit of respect I have for Creationism and rip it apart. Please, as a service to yourselves, Creationists, don't cite or refer to such articles. They're not going to help your case in anyone's eyes but your own. ColinRtalk 04:48, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

To User:Conservative

I was going to put this on your Talk page, but apparently it is currently protected ??!! I thought you were suggesting that the paragraph in Dinosaur be replaced with "a link," i.e. a short sentence linking to Loch Ness Monster, and that all of the details on whether it does or does not exist and whether it is or is not a dinosaur could then be presented there. That seemed very sensible to me, and I proposed specific language above. However, you haven't followed through, and based on what you say on my Talk page all I can say is that obviously I misunderstood you and I do not grasp what you want as a replacement for the incoherent paragraph that is there now. Dpbsmith 19:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Please add this to the article

Please add this material to the article:


In the United States during the 1900s, the public imagination was caught by the discoveries of Henry Fairfield Osborn (1857-1935) and the great competitive dinosaur hunters, Edward Drinker Cope (1847-1897) and Othniel Charles Marsh (1831-1899). Exploring in Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, they found numerous fossil dinosaurs. Their museums worked out the techniques for mounting and displaying them.

Osborn was a proponent of orthogenesis, as were many paleontologists up through the middle of the twentieth century. These paleontologists interpreted the fossil record as showing sustained, continuing, unidirectional trends in evolution, which they felt required some kind of driving principle in addition to natural selection. As the author of an encyclopedia article on variation and selection put it in 1911,

Selection cannot create the materials on which it is supposed to operate... Both sides concur in the position assumed by Darwin, that the word "chance" in such a phrase as "chance variation" does not mean that the occurrences are independent of natural causation and so far undetermined, but covers in the first place our ignorance of the exact causation.... No doubt a large amount of variation is truly indefinite, so that many meaningless or useless variations arise... But there are several directions in which the field of variation appears to be not only limited but defined in a certain direction.... When beetles, or medusae, or cats vary, the range of possible variation is limited and determined by the beetle, medusa or cat constitution, and any possible further differentiation or specialization must be in a sense at least orthogenetic - that is to say, a continuation of the line along which the ancestors of the individual in question have been forced. Darwin himself showed that different species in a genus, or varieties in a species, tended to show parallel variations.[1]

Roy Chapman Andrews (1884–1960), said to be the prototype for the fictional Indiana Jones, is famous for his discovery of fossil dinosaur eggs in Outer Mongolia.


Dpbsmith 08:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

  1. Mitchell, Peter Chalmers (1911), Variation and Selection, Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th edition, volume 27 (TON-VES), p. 906

It's a lie

Dinosaurs are made up! This page should be deleted. The world is only 6000 years old. Scientists planted the bones to make us think that the world is older. Everyone needs to read the Bible. It's the only truth.

Now, now conservative you didn't need to make a sockpuppet. Tmtoulouse 23:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
My God you're right! What were we thinking!? I'd go on a missionary journey tomorrow and tell EVERYBODY on Earth...but then I might fall off of the edge, so I'll just stay home. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cracker (talk)

OK, so what's a dinosaur?

The entry is titled dinosaur but the vast majority of it is nothing more than theological rambling about when they did in fact exist. By the way, alot of early fossil discoveries WERE put off by the religious as tricks of God to test our faith. One last point: has anyone here heard of the idea of the "God given light of reason"? It's the idea that God gave you a mind capable of understanding the world around you---all knowledge must be found by the individual mind, not regurgitated from one unthinking to mouth to another. You should look into it. Maybe it will change your perspective. --Pollyp

OH DEAR GOD FACTS MADE IT INTO THIS ARTICLE

Quick conservative block this page and delete, delete, delete. I have figured out conservatives problem. Asperger's Syndrome. I have to link to wikipedia because this site is spending all its time debating the Flinstones version of paleontology to develop actual articles. Tmtoulouse 21:42, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Burn! --Huey gunna getcha 17:14, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Please refrain from taking the Lord's name in vain. --TrueGrit 01:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Creationist Scientists - Oxymoron

"According to creationist scientists" is an oxymoron. Creationism is based on faith, and proof denies faith. So, if a "creationist scientist" was to prove that creationism is fact and not idle speculation based on insecurity, then the world would implode the existence of God would be proven. I could go on to prove that black is white, but then we'd all be in trouble at the next zebra crossing. (Adams, 1986:42)

Works Cited
Adams, D. (1986). The more than complete hitchhiker's guide. New York:Longmeadow Press.
--TrueGrit 00:59, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

You're joking, right? You can't cite Douglas Adams in this article. MountainDew 01:01, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

As opposed to the sources we have now? Myk 01:15, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, If we're considering AiG as a legitimate source to cite nearly every reference from, then Adams should be a fine reference. --Hojimachongtalk 01:22, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

It's these sorts of ad hominem attacks that encourage the view that anti-creationists are not interested in rational debate. Anti-creationists rarely explain why "creation scientist" is an oxymoron until pressed, and even then it comes down to the following:

  1. Creation scientist is an oxymoron because creationism is not science.
  2. Creationism is not science because we've redefined science in such a way as to exclude creationism.

The argument might get a bit more sophisticated than that, but that's what it boils down to in the end.

Philip J. Rayment 05:33, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Redefined 'science'? Um, mind giving any sources to demonstrate that? Cos at the moment, it seems as though you've just pulled that one from out of the air. Sureal 06:18, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
"Many today think that science is anti-God. Atheists encourage this view by claiming that their way of thinking is ‘scientific.’ In claiming this, they are merely redefining science to exclude God. In fact, science began to flourish only when the biblical view of creation took root in Europe as the Reformation spread its influence. The presuppositions that enabled a scientific approach to investigating the world—that the created universe is real, consistent, understandable, and possible to investigate, for example—came from the Bible. Even non-Christian historians of science such as Loren Eiseley have acknowledged this. Consequently, almost every branch of science was either founded, co-founded, or dramatically advanced, by scientists who believed in the Bible’s account of Creation and the Flood. And there are many scientists today who believe the Bible."[1] Philip J. Rayment 07:02, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
It might be due to the absence of any actual science. Tally up the number of actual scientific experiments and peer reviewed articles on Creation science, and you'll see what I mean. Nematocyte 06:20, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
What about the "actual science" and the peer-reviewed articles in the CRS Quarterly and the Journal of Creation? Philip J. Rayment 07:02, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
They are welcome to submit this "actual science" to a real journal, and then we can judge it by its merits. Nematocyte 10:01, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
How do you define a "real" journal? By whether or not it's creationist? Philip J. Rayment 10:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Forgive my dismissive attitude earlier, but I mean one which has gathered scientific respect by rights of their rigorus peer-review. That rigor is notoriously lacking in the YEC journals, so they garner little respect. Nematocyte 10:15, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
And yet you still have a dismissive attitude! On what grounds do you say that the rigour is lacking in the YEC journals? And for that matter, why can't they be judged on their merits no matter where they are published? Philip J. Rayment 10:18, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Mr. Rayment, rather a lot of scientific article are written daily, most are garbage. We need a system to avoid becoming bogged down, and to weed out those papers which contain follies which are often only apparent to an expert. It is impossible to judge personally on a case by case basis and so the system of authoratative peer review is needed. Nematocyte 10:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
And as I said, those journals are peer-reviewed. Philip J. Rayment 11:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I acknowledge that they are, but their standards are very poor. Nematocyte 11:09, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Do you care to back that slanderous claim up with substance? Philip J. Rayment 11:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
The basic physics errors which Tsumetai is referenceing demonstrates the poor standards. Since this discussion now merges with that one, it would be best to respond only below Tsumetai's responce to avoid duplication. Nematocyte 11:41, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
"Journal of Creation" is new to me, so I looked it up, only to find that "All our editors adhere to the Creation Ministries International (CMI) Statement of Faith and most papers will be designed to support this." And here's the statement of faith in question. Tsumetai 10:45, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Ah! "Journal of Creation" is just the old TJ renamed. Which, if memory serves, published a fair bit on Humphreys' execrable attempts at cosmology. Now there's a reliable source...though to be fair, they also published some sound refutations of the same. Tsumetai 10:48, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Ah! So your answer is to mock it! Great argument! No argument! Philip J. Rayment 11:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I thought the implied argument was fairly obvious. TJ published utter nonsense about basic physics, ergo not a reliable source. Tsumetai 11:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Same for you. Do you care to back that slanderous claim up with substance? Philip J. Rayment 11:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Gladly! Just let me dig out the appropriate articles and re-read them. I'll start a new section for it, so that it doesn't get lost here. Do you think it would be better here or on my Talk page? Tsumetai 11:28, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
It wouldn't have anything to do with dinosaurs, so on your talk page would seem the best. Philip J. Rayment 11:50, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I've started a page for it here. I'm off out for dinner soon, so I've just linked to the relevant articles so that everyone can get caught up in the meantime. Tsumetai 12:02, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
OK, done. Bit of a rush job, as it's after midnight, but it's a start. Tsumetai 19:16, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
How do we define "scientist" in a neutral way? It's not a degree, it's not a licensed profession... I think we have to fall back on self-description. If a creationist calls himself a scientist, he is... whether anyone likes it or not. But there might be a case for qualifying the description in the least obtrusive possible way. For example, if a person is described as a "creation scientist," the phrase should be footnoted with a reference to a biographical profile of the person in which they self-describe or are described as a "scientist."
Now, if a high-stature organization like the AAAS or the NAS, which can be said to represent "science" in the U. S., has actually made any official statements to the effect that "creationism is not science" then a stronger qualification would be appropriate... like putting "creation scientist" in quotation marks and footnoting that thus-and-such organization says there is no such thing... but I doubt the AAAS or NAS has made any such statement. Dpbsmith 10:38, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Guess what? The AAAS has said something relevant: AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory:
Whereas, to date, the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution;
Whereas, the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims;
Therefore Be It Resolved, that the lack of scientific warrant for so-called "intelligent design theory" makes it improper to include as a part of science education...
Dpbsmith 10:41, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Commonly, a scientist is someone with a Ph.D. in a scientific discipline, but I agree that the term does not have to be used that strictly. If a creationist calling himself a scientist should be qualified, why not the same for an evolutionist?
The AAAS rationale is self-serving nonsense. Who defines "credible"? They do. And I believe that ID has proposed scientific means of testing its claims; certainly creation science has. And how do you scientifically test evolution? Not some details of it, but evolution itself? Or naturalism, on which it is based?
So we are really down to "it's not science by decree". Wow. I didn't think that was the way that science was supposed to work.
Philip J. Rayment 11:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I agree that a PhD should not be a requirement; I've known several experienced University lecturers with solid research and publication records who simply never got around to it.
Every proposed test of ID I've ever seen turns out to be a test of evolution, but perhaps you've seen some I haven't. As to testing evolution in the abstract; computer models would seem to be the obvious approach. Been done already, of course.
Evolution is not based on naturalism any more than any other scientific theory. Hence theistic evolution. Science is, of course, based in methodological naturalism, by definition. Tsumetai 11:13, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Theistic evolution owes virtually nothing to theism; it's naturalistic evolution with God tacked on. Now there's an oxymoron for you! Yes, it may be methodological naturalism, but the effect is the same—rule God out from consideration. Where's the scientific test for that? Philip J. Rayment 11:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
You're making my point for me. Evolution is just evolution, regardless of whether or not one believes in God. Just like every other scientific theory. Tsumetai 11:28, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
How have I "made the point" that it is scientific; that it is testable (the basic idea, not specific details)? Philip J. Rayment 11:50, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Think we're talking at cross purposes. I meant that your comment seems to support my point that evolution is no more based on naturalism than any other scientific theory. Tsumetai 12:02, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
If you mean that I'm saying that all science is based on naturalism, then yes, I guess so, but the real question then is how much do various scientific disciplines really owe to that foundational assumption? I would argue that the ones that are not purely empirical, i.e. the ones that study the past (evolution, geology, etc.), when you don't have the past to measure, etc., owe much to the foundational assumptions, whereas the more empirical ones (e.g. chemistry), owe relatively little. Philip J. Rayment 22:40, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't think the distinction is particularly meaningful. There is always distance between observation and inference; always assumptions that need to be made to draw any conclusions. The same set of assumptions underlie all of science, and I don't think we can relax them more for some cases than others. Relax the assumption of naturalism and one has to deal with 'trickster God' scenarios, which bring inference to a grinding halt. Tsumetai 05:55, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Early scientists had no problem with a 'trickster God'; their faith, on which they based their science, not only didn't "bring inference to a grinding halt", it was the impetus for their science[2].
The problem with naturalism is not that it looks for naturalistic explanations, but that it excludes supernatural explanations a priori. This is akin to trying to determine the origin of an axe-shaped stone "tool" by ruling out human intervention even as a possibility, in the grounds that it is not a "natural" explanation. Surely if the evidence points to a creator, that explanation should not be rejected simply on the basis that it's not a "natural" explanation.
Philip J. Rayment 07:55, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
But that's a problem that applies equally to any scientific theory. No particle physicist considers supernatural explanation for tracks in cloud chambers, last I heard. I don't think your analogy works, either; human intervention is a natural explanation.
Perhaps it's worth a digression here to examine exactly what is meant by 'supernatural.' It isn't immediately obvious that the evidence could ever point to a supernatural explanation.
Incidentally, did you catch the update to my TJ page? It was rather late last night when I added it. Tsumetai 08:04, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
It doesn't apply equally to any theory. It applies to theories that try and explain the origin of things. We can observe what causes tracks in cloud chambers with repeated experiments, but we can't observe a dinosaur turning into a bird, and we can't rerun it to observe it. Besides, the Christian philosophy that engendered science taught that God made a world capable of being studied, and that God has stopped creating. So God was never invoked to explain current events, but was invoked to explain the origin of things.
Yes, human intervention can be classified as "natural" in one sense, but in another sense it's not, and either way, it's still analogous to supernatural intervention.
I did see the page, but I haven't digested it yet.
Philip J. Rayment 10:08, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
No, we can't directly observe what's happening in a cloud chamber. The best we can do is construct a hypothesis which makes predictions about things we can observe, and apply a coherent model of inference to derive conclusions. That method is equally valid for anything and everything, so long as predictions can be made.
And that's where human design and 'intelligent design' part company, too. We can use what we know about human capabilities, needs and motivations to generate predictions. According to ID, we're not allowed to speculate about the designer itself.
Incidentally, the indent is getting slightly absurd; if you don't have any objection, I'll move this discussion to its own section. Tsumetai 04:29, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
You may not be able to directly observe what happens in a cloud chamber, but it can be observed, with instruments measuring what's happening, etc. And you can run the experiments as many times as you like to test alternative hypotheses. As I said, you can't "rerun the experiment" of dinosaurs turning into birds to observe (measure) what happens.
ID doesn't speculate about who the designer is, but it does propose some things about the designer, such as being intelligent and capable of designing genetic systems. I don't think that this is much different to a human designer, about whom archaeologists may not know much, other than that the human designer is capable of creating the stone tool. In some cases they may know more (e.g. what type of tools particular people groups produced), but in other cases, it is enough to simply propose a human designer on the basis that the artifact could not occur "naturally" (i.e. by non-human means).
I've no objection to you moving the discussion.
Philip J. Rayment 05:24, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
I just don't see how you can use the term "scientist" when creationism involves no science and cannot be tested. I would also think that, for all the venom that is slung at science by the supporters of Creationism, that they wouldn't want that label attached to their cause.--Dave3172 10:58, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Creation science does involve science, and details of it can be tested, unsubstantiated assertions notwithstanding. And creationists do not criticise science—they support it. As for the venom and falsehoods slung at/about creationists... Philip J. Rayment 11:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)


Philip, what part of it can be tested? Can be put through the Scientific Method? Seriously, I would like to know. Maybe I haven't heard about it. --Dave3172 11:11, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Do a search for "11:56" on this page and you will find a post in which I listed a couple of examples of successful creationist predictions; i.e. they were testable. Philip J. Rayment 11:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Philip, I should think this was obvious. A "few" predictions does not a scientist make. To turn one of Conservative's arguments on its head, medieval doctors had a couple of correct predictions, and so did alchemists. That does not justify their entire practice, though. Congratulations on making some actual predictions - though I questioned those same ones on my talk page - but it does nothing to prove the credibility of the entire field.-AmesG 12:19, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Here we go again! I am asked to answer a particular question ("what part of it can be tested"), and having done that, find my answer disputed because it doesn't prove something else!
I responded to your previous questioning of those examples, pointing out that, like you have done here, your questioning was actually raising a different objection, rather than disputing the answers I gave.
Sure, it doesn't prove an entire field. But that was not the issue. The claim there was that creationism doesn't make (testable) predictions, and the claim here is essentially the same, that it cannot be tested. So I have shown both of those claims to be wrong, yet is there any explicit acknowledgement of that? No, instead different objections are raised as though they dispute those answers.
Philip J. Rayment 22:40, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Look, the easiest test for creation science is "is it falsifiable?" ColinRtalk 12:29, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Sigh. Read the discussion above. It it's testable then its falsifiable. I often get the impression that you blokes simply keep regurgitating the same old canards then never listen to the answers. Philip J. Rayment
Well said! Sorry, just wanted to add my support AND try the new signature. Is it annoying?-AmesGyo 12:47, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

How about not using the bible as the only source of creationist reference?

I mean, its bad enough to even have creationism in this "encyclopedia", but if its gonna happen, that means we have to get the views of every major religion

i'm sure this happens in many other articles as well

  • I cannot suffer myself to read most of this page, with unattributed posts. It literally makes my head ache, and there is no purpose in reading comments if one doesn't know who is making them. --~ TerryK MyTalk 21:49, 28 March 2007 (EDT)
    • From what I see, the vast majority of posts is signed. In this case, the point of that comment is valid, and a little check in the History section would quickly give you this diff, Mr. Sysop. --Sid 3050 07:46, 29 March 2007 (EDT)
  • Since I do not confine my efforts to one or two subjects, it becomes a pain, as I stated, going back and forth, interupting any train of thought I might have hoped to keep moving. But thanks for the tip! :-) --~ TerryK MyTalk 08:12, 29 March 2007 (EDT)