Talk:Human evolution

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

I'm not sure evolution of man has been "thoroughly disproven". I'm not saying it is true, I'm saying the page is inacurate. Perhaps a re-write? User:AddisonDM 28 December 2008

"Thoroughly disproven" is perfectly accurate. See Counterexamples to Evolution for a very brief list. - Rod Weathers 20:17, 29 December 2008 (EST)

That is a good list. Okay. User:AddisonDM 29 December 2008

This page is useless and looks silly, at two sentences long. Do any real (not Rod Weathers) editors here want it?? AddisonDM 11:46, 30 May 2009 (EDT)

I'll take a stab at it. I have seen both sides of the aguments, and took an evolutionary biology course in college, but the evidence isn't there. So I will try and write this page from the evolutionary stand point, but fixing what needs to be fixed to keep in in line with the truth. --BrandonB 14:17, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
Or not, as my factual edits have been reverted and the page locked. I'll find some other articles that I can edit, or maybe create some from the wanted pages list. --BrandonB 14:19, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
I was working on it as well, but from the standpoint of creation. If evolution is to be put in, it must be reduced to a theory; arguments countering this theory, as well as contradictions made by the Scientific method will be placed. Is that what you wanted to do, because if so, I will unlock it immediately. The neanderthals (as well as the australopithicines which will be added later) have to stay in do to their own placement in evo-books. Karajou 14:23, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
Yes, they are in evo books, but in the books they say that they are not really part of human evolution. If we want to show the problems with the theory, we should at least get it right so the Darwinists will accept the arguments, and not just give them a straw man to take down easily. The best way to debate someone is to learn as much as possible about their position in order to knock down what the believe, and not what we think they believe. For instance, while listening to lectures by fairly high ranking people in the field of Creation Science, many of them have mentioned the Piltdown and Nebraska men, the Archaeoraptor, Haeckel's Embryos, and many other well known frauds. When those people bring those examples up, most evolutionists (including me, in the past) would just shut off and not listen, as even they had accepted those long ago as frauds that are not part of the modern theory. We, as creationists, must stop using straw men and start using valid arguments against the true beliefs of the Darwinists if we want to crush their theory.
--BrandonB 15:44, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
I agree. I also did some thinking about your attempt at removing Neanderthal, and I think you are correct. The table should be restricted to just what evolutionists claim is the direct lineage in human evolution; an additional table could be added if needed to list the "dead ends". As to the frauds - Piltdown, Nebraska, etc - I don't want them in this article at all. Karajou 23:48, 5 June 2009 (EDT)
Personal tools