Talk:Question evolution! campaign/Archive 2

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

One Question for Creationists

How did God create DNA?

It's not a frivolous question. What were the steps (in whatever level of detail is known) that the Lord went through to plan, design and assemble the DNA that He put into all living things? --QPR 18:07, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

Why don't you ask Him? I am sure if He finds your question to be important, He will gladly answer it. :) I would make sure that you repent and become a Christian first (if you have not done so already), before you issue your petition. Conservative 18:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
Conservative, instead of avoiding the question entirely, we should at least point him the right direction.
God has woven each of us together, individually, since the time of conception. (Psalms 139) ~ JonG ~ 18:22, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
Clarification: Why don't you ask Him? I am sure if He finds your question to be important, He will gladly answer it. :) I would make sure that you repent and become a Christian first (if you have not done so already), before you issue your petition. With the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and asking for guidance about your petition, I am sure that you will not ask amiss. Conservative 18:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

@JonG - thanks. That quotation does certainly suggest a Biblical awareness of DNA, but it's still really a restatement of the fact THAT God created DNA, not a description of HOW he created it. --QPR 18:28, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

Then, frankly, Conservative is correct. The "How" cannot be answered by us (or as far as I know, by The Bible). For that, you will have to ask the Creator himself. Keep your thirst for knowledge. ~ JonG ~ 18:31, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
So does that apply to other enquiries? Was Jenner wrong to work out how to vaccinate against smallpox for himself?--QPR 18:37, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
And if it is a mistake for me to ask this question, isn't it also a mistake for the Question Evolution campaign to ask precisely the same question?--QPR 18:40, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

First sox, then shoes. I would make sure that you repent and become a Christian first (if you have not done so already), before you issue your petition. With the indwelling of the Holy Spirit and asking for guidance about your petition, I am sure that you will not ask amiss.Conservative 19:49, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

Why have you never addressed the 15 answers to this campaign. 2 people have so far published answers in the talk archive page yet you keep talking as though no one can answer these questions. MaxFletcher 19:57, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
Faux answers do not count. See: Evolution and Atheism and deception.Conservative 20:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
What do you mean "faux answers"? What's faux about them? You haven't countered a single one of them. MaxFletcher 20:16, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
Proverbs 26:5 Conservative 20:23, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." Seems to mean avoid ad hominem attacks and go after the argument itself. --Chouston 21:05, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
that's not an answer. The way I see it (and I am no atheist) is that the 15 questions can and have been answered. Why not respond and rebut them? MaxFletcher 21:33, 7
Faux answers still do not count. See: Evolution Conservative 21:37, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
What is faux about them? MaxFletcher 21:39, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
Max, why do you continue trying to engage "Conservative"? It's very clear he has no interest in honestly participating in any discussion. He's right. Everyone else is a fool. You've never gotten anything but deflection or sneering responses! Nate 21:51, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
Because I am genuinely interested. I want to know why the answers people have provided are incorrect. I am learning about creationism and i want to know why these answers do not satisfy creationists. MaxFletcher 21:54, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
Then obviously he's the wrong person to help you. I've learned a lot from Talk Origins, EvoWiki, and Creation Ministries International. You can write to CMI and they have responded to my questions. Nate 21:59, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
I have written to CMI before to and received a very courteous reply. MaxFletcher 22:01, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
Because if you could satisfy creationists with correct, logical, scientific answers, then they wouldn't be Creationists. When you reverse the scientific method, no amount of answers derived from the correct order is going to convince them. He's not going to answer us according to our alleged folly, because it isn't folly. --Chouston 22:03, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
I don't know if that's true or not. I do know that the apologetics that CMI and creationists I have seen use is sometimes presuppositional in nature and strongly influenced by reform epistemology. Without getting into it in any detail, my impression is that presuppositional apologetics answers nothing of interest, just like creationism. It ends up being nothing but argument by assertion and occassional tarring of people who don't believe exactly as the presuppositionalists do, which includes Catholics who get called "liberal" and "un-Biblical". Cornelius Van Til wrote that people who beleive differently are Satanically deceived. That's offensive and it gets repeated at places like CMI as fact. Those who do not hold those beliefs, which creationists describe is "worldviews", live in a material reality that is unintelligible to creationists because they do not accept exactly what creationists are told is a literal reading of the Bible, when in reality many others like certain Catholics (me!) read the Bible literally and come at radically different conclusions about what creationists call "history". I have no idea what "Conservative" believes because he won't tell us. I also don't care at this point since he's shown himself to be incapable of or at least uninterested in learning and teaching about the Bible, science, and creationism. He wants to throw quotes at you and repeat himself. Max, if you'd like to learn about the Catholic Church it may be interesting to you. I can point you toward some good resources for getting back in touch with your faith in Christ if you would like. Please let me know. Peace. Nate 22:19, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
Seems to me that Conservative's line of reasoning, though it may have its merits, runs counter to the idea behind the Question Evolution! campaign. The fifteen question are intended to engage atheists and evolutionists on their own ground (in that they think their arguments are based on reason/science/logic) and hopefully persuade them that they are wrong. Once that's achieved then their is a chance that they may accept God as the only remaining alternative. But to suggest that such people must accept God first is clearly not going to work - that's not the way they think. Similarly, dismissing answers to the fifteen questions as 'faux' is going to be counter-productive. It may be a good way of reinforcing one's own belief, but it has little chance of persuading anyone else to change theirs. --QPR 12:37, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
You go beyond what I said. I suggested no cookie cutter approach. Jesus and his apostles did not have a cookie cutter approach to dealing with people. Conservative 13:49, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
Sorry, I don't get the analogy.--QPR 15:40, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

UK Contact details

How do I contact the UK Question evolution! campaign? AlycaZ 17:42, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

What's wrong with public education?

I just want to say that the Question evolution! campaign has provided me with a lot of new valuable information not readily available in the public school system. Why is it that public universities create entire departments aimed at promoting the liberal agenda, but when it comes to teaching information like this campaign does it is simply out of the question? DerekE 15:57, 20 August 2011 (EDT)

I'm pretty sure the "campaign" at this point is just a scheme to sell T-shirts and bumper stickers, not to provoke any meaningful discussion on the validity of evolution. Any Freshman Biology major can easily answer all 15 questions, why would a serious academic institution embarrass themselves by even acknowledging this farce? I have serious reason to believe that this is not actually a serious attempt at promoting scientific integrity, but is an attempt to scam hard-working, god fearing Christians out of their money. Evolution has flaws, but the campaign fails to address any of them in a meaningful way, and even seems to barely understand the actual theory of evolution that scientists promote. FCapra 18:07, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
Perhaps that's a flaw in the campaign strategy to get their desired message out there? I don't know enough about it to understand all of the information presented in the campaign. What are some of the good points of discussion that should have been used that were not?
Another good point you brought up is on this concern: "why would a serious academic institution embarrass themselves by even acknowledging this farce?" In the link to a Department of Social Justice at a university that I consider an extraordinary academic institution, would you consider this -- as an education path at four year university -- to be somewhat embarrassing? I do.
It would be much less embarrassing if they accompanied the embarrassing department of Social Justice with a department of Constitutional Studies, or something along those lines. Surely you wouldn't think a Department of Constitutional Studies is an embarrassing idea? The only information the UW offers on the Constitution is what's mandated:
[e]ach educational institution that receives Federal funds for a fiscal year shall hold an educational program on the United States Constitution on September 17 of such year for the students served by the educational institution. - Section 111 of Division J of Pub L. 108-447
The UW's mandated 20 megabytes on the Internet can be found HERE. Try not to laugh. It is a serious academic Website.
Lastly, FCapra, the response you gave is chilling because, as pointed out in an article Conservapedias InTheNews linked to, regarding Rick Perry's evolution question in The Right Answer section it states:
...[L]ike the populace in Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” people are afraid to check them out. Afraid because the evolutionists have convinced everyone that anyone who disagrees with them is stupid or unfit for his post. Evolutionism isn’t the only premise that people are afraid to check. Keynesianism, or the idea that a society can tax and spend its way to prosperity, is another.
The UW's department of Social Justice is probably bias. So, since there are so many highly acclaimed universities that are willing to dabble in Social Justice as an academic study, why not offer an opinion and the freedom of expression from all points of view? Why would a study that questions evolution be any more or less embarrassing than the study of taxing and spending our way into prosperity? That is what confuses me, and should be disturbing most people who consider these facts. DerekE 19:21, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
The beauty of science is that it doesn't care about public opinion. Scientists have been trying for years to disprove evolution, because that would lead to tons of new research opportunities, book deals, and almost universal fame. They would be the modern equivalent of Darwin, or Marie Curie. There is no point in an anti evolution campaign directed at the public, because it doesn't matter. There are only two reasons to direct this towards the public: To reassure one's self of one's own ideals through popular acceptance, and to make some easy money off of trustworthy Christians. If CMI actually cared about refuting evolution, they would hire scientists to preform experiments, not pass around a badly written pamphlet. Science questions evolution all the time, they just always keep getting the same answer.
Just so you're clear, I'm not against questioning scientific theories. I just feel that the question evolution campaign is a scam, not an actual scientific endeavor. FCapra 20:40, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
True, science doesn't care about public opinion, as it should be. Your points are well taken. I personally appreciate science because it has helped humanity achieve great advancements in certain types of technology. It's just when politics takes over a type of unproven science to move forward with an agenda that I have problem with. Usually when this happens it's accompanied with increases in taxes, decreases in liberty, and hordes of drive-by mouths telling everyone they are stupid if they don't believe their theory is a fact. Liberals probably lost momentum in their global warming movement due to these silly tactics getting exposed. You can tell the liberals sense this loss too, when all of a sudden MSNBC starts spouting about a crisis of aliens coming to destroy humans because somehow these aliens know that this fake global warming we cause is going to heat up and devour the entire uinverse.
Going back to Perry's answer on evolution, I think it was a good answer without getting to into it with someone who clearly wanted to make a scene. I can just see the day when liberals will shout about some sort of crisis where we must stop our evolving or else we will become mutant aliens or something. All it will take to stop this crisis is higher taxes and more unions... So let's get on it!!! Seriously though, your point is well taken. ;) DerekE 15:14, 21 August 2011 (EDT)


You're far more forgiving than I am, Derek. I think hiding behind a child and attempting to use him as a ventriolquist's dummy as the woman in the video did is worse than cowardly. I don't blame Governor Perry one bit for refusing to be baited. --Benp 15:39, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
I like to try and view things from both sides while keeping true to my own opinions and values. I am a forgiving person, but I'm not one to forget quickly. As for the woman and her use of a child to make a scene, I agree with you 100%. Similar to the time the SEIU went to the house of a bank CEO and scared the child inside the home, I think tactics like these are despicable and it goes to show what kind of values these thugs have. Their character lacks any sort of moral boundaries or ethics, it's sad really. It's difficult to forgive a woman like that when you know she would gladly exploit children for her own benefit in the future, wihout even thinking twice about it. These are the type of people who end up working for Acorn hiding child prostitution rings because they make a dollar from it and it benefits their selfish desires. DerekE 15:06, 22 August 2011 (EDT)

Punctuation of the article title

Do we need the exclamation mark in the article title? It's like Joomla, which is often advertised as "Joomla!" to draw attention to it. But it makes it hard to link to, when writing encyclopedia articles.

I'd like to call it the Question Evolution campaign, and say that's slogan is, "Question evolution!" Note that I have placed the exclamation point in the slogan, rather than in the name of the campaign. --Ed Poor Talk 16:55, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

I agree with you Ed, the grammar looks rather strange. Who has "move page" powers? MaxFletcher 16:59, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
I do, but I want to wait a bit in case the move would be too abrupt for others. If no one objects by the end of the month, I'll move it. No hurry. --Ed Poor Talk 17:12, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
I defer to you, Ed! MaxFletcher 17:25, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
I think we should let this sleeping dog lie. If we changed it, content would have to change in Conservapedia as a result and the extra work doesn't seem justified. Conservative 14:54, 31 August 2011 (EDT)

Something is Fishy

Is it just me, or does the entire Question Evolution campaign seem like a poorly though-out scam to try to sell T-shirts to people? Rather than try to do any actual scientific research or bring up legitimate gaps in evolution theory, CMI seems to just be repeating poorly researched soundbites that allegedly "disprove" evolution, while refusing to engage in any meaningful debate and relying entirely on grassroots movement to support themselves. I really don't think this campaign is something any halfway reputable website should advertise. It just seems like they are so many more effective, though less profitable way, to bring up legitimate arguments to evolution. CMI seems to have such a tenuous grasp on evolution theory, they don't even understand that some of their question LITERALLY have nothing to do with evolution theory. Evolution may be poorly supported by science, but there is no reason to stoop to their level in an attempt to disprove it. FRodgers 21:36, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

Have you ever noticed that liberals use the word "seem" a lot when they do not have a strong case? :) I really do not see a strong case being made. Conservative 22:20, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
Actually I agree with FRodgers here. While there is much to say against evolution, the Question Evolution! campaign just ask some unrelated questions. For example: Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?It is not because a theory is useless that it is false. In fact, there are not much scientific breakthroughs due to creation neither.--ARamis 22:25, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
i can't think of any evolutionary scientific breakthroughs either. But neither can I think of any creation ones - does anyone know of any because then we could make a Creationary Scientific breakthroughs article. MaxFletcher 22:29, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
FRodgers and ARamis are like typical evolutionists, argument by empty assertion. For example, how does the price of the question evolution printed t-shirts in the usa compare with other printed t-shirts? I noticed that zazzle charges twice as much for a printed t-shirt. Also, why does CMI allow people to print up their own t-shirts using their design if their purpose was to sell t-shirts? You case is non-existent. :) You can start whining about the supposed costly tracts now. :) Conservative 22:55, 8 September 2011 (EDT)
That answers that but, outside of the branding talk (I care not for t-shirts - I always wear collars!), lets make a Creationary Scientific Breakthroughs article. MaxFletcher 23:13, 8 September 2011 (EDT)

A Response to the "15 Questions" from a biology student

1. How did life originate?

Truthfully, we don't know. Science is built upon repeatable evidence as provided by observation and experimentation. There is very little evidence, one way or the other, regarding the exact mechanism of the origin of life. Science cannot rely on dogma, and the existence of scripture is hardly evidence in support of divine creation; therefore the most scientifically sound answer here, relying on the evidence, is that we do not conclusively know. That said, there are a few good hypotheses that have been presented--notably the "RNA world hypothesis", for which there is actually quite a bit of evidence--but not a single one of them can be conclusively demonstrated yet.
Organic compounds, such as amino acids and nucleic acids, will form spontaneously--albeit in trace amounts--wherever the proper elemental ingredients (Carbon, Nitrogen, Oxygen, Phosphorous, and Sulfur) and environmental conditions can be found. The common thread underlying all naturalistic hypotheses on the origin of life is that at some point these compound polymerized (which will happen spontaneously if the conditions are right) into larger polymeric biomolecules and that a very tiny minority of these molecules were able to self-reproduce. The rest, as they say, is history.
This may seem a far-fetched phenomenon to happen by chance until you consider the scale on which these events happen. Out of millions of trillions of randomly formed polynucleotides or polypeptides (the actual number is probably many orders of magnitude larger than that), all it takes is one with the capacity for self-reproduction to get the process started. Self-reproducing strands of RNA, for instance, can be created and identified in a lab by a much smaller-scale screening of random nucleotide sequences--that this could be the mechanism for the origin of life on Earth is quite plausible.

2. How did the DNA code originate?

The phrase "DNA code" here is alarmingly vague. Does it reference the specific pattern of which codon encodes a particular amino acid in a protein? Does it reference interactions between nucleic acids and ribozymes (enzymatic RNA molecules)? Or does it reference the "central dogma" whereby DNA encodes biomolecules, the expression of which is regulated by cell metabolism?
In reference to the system of 64 codons (nucleotide triplets) encoding the order in which one of twenty amino acids are incorporated into a polypeptide (a protein), we are still not entirely sure. Interactions between ribozymes and amino acids form the basis of protein production in modern cells. We have pretty good biochemical insight into the function of this system but, until we get more evidence, much of its origin remains subject to conjecture.
As for mechanisms by which DNA/RNA/Protein interactions emerged, much of it has to do with the 3-D structure of these molecules. Again, as for de-novo emergence of this system, the jury is still out, but mechanisms of variation within these systems between lineages are quite well known. In fact, comparing these variations across lineages is one of the most effective ways of understanding their functioning.
Considering other facets of structural genetics, we actually have a pretty idea where they came from. For instance, the itron-exon / RNA splicing mechanism that allows a single eukaryotic gene to encode multiple protein-coding mRNA products seems to have emerged from bacterial retroelements. There is quite a bit of data supporting this.

3. How could mutations create a new biochemical pathway?

They do every day. That's why old antibiotics don't work, that's why first-generation HIV drugs are obsolete, that's why my Aunt's pet poodle doesn't look like a wolf. In terms of more complex processes (say genes and proteins that regulate development) the concept is pretty straightforward. A gene is duplicated (this happens quite a bit), at first, the duplicate copy of the gene is redundant (or, depending on how completely duplicated it was, non-functional). Then, as mutations occur in the duplicate gene, it's sequence diverges and it can ultimately acquire a new function. This process is very well observed both in nature and in the laboratory.

4. Why is natural selection taught as evolution?

It isn't. Natural selection is taught as one of the major mechanisms underlying evolution. Evolution refers to phenotypic (metabolic and morphological) change within a population of a given species over time. Other important factors contributing to evolution and speciation are spontaneous allelic variation (genetic mutation) between individuals, genetic drift (change in prevalence of a given allelic variation within a population over generations), and reproductive isolation of a given population.
Environments change over time, an allelic variation producing a phenotypic variation that allows an organism to reproduce more efficiently in its environment will be increasingly represented in future populations. Therefore, the population will "adapt" to meet the demands of its environment over time. Natural selection is simply the tendency of individuals better adapted to their environment to reproduce more efficiently.

5. How did biochemical pathways originate?

In bits and pieces. Many metabolic reactions are spontaneous, most enzymes simply catalyze them (speed them up). Duplicating one enzyme, and giving it time to change in structure, leads to the emergence of new enzymes. If the new enzyme confers a reproductive advantage (e.g. by allowing the cell to use a new source of fuel) then, obviously, it will become increasingly prevalent in future generations. Furthermore, by re-purposing duplicated parts from various pathways, new pathways and complex structures can, and do, emerge quite efficiently. The only caveat here is that the intermediate forms of such pathways and structures must also function to confer some reproductive advantage--again, this is also observed to be the case.

6. Living things look like they were designed, how do we know that they were not designed?

Have you ever choked on a large bite of food, unable to breathe because we both eat and breathe through the oropharynx? Have you ever heard of the "blind spot" in the visual field of each eye? Modern organisms are overflowing with counter-intuitive "design flaws" that are leftover from the evolutionary process. While this, in and of itself, is not evidence against design, it does call into question the engineering credentials of any hypothetical designer. Furthermore, there is no direct scientific evidence to support such design. Science is all about empirical evidence, circumstantial evidence is not sound science.

7. How did multicellular life originate?

Cells talk to one another--a lot. Even individual bacterial cells secrete and detect chemical signals, they even secrete bio-films to live communally and cooperate with one another. That individual variation would create mechanisms allowing for cells in cooperation to "specialize" and, thus, become cooperatively more efficient is not a stretch of the imagination at all. The alleles present in these cooperating cells (which are very likely to be closely genetically related) will be passed more efficiently to future generations. Multicellular life has arisen separately several times. There's quite a bit of evidence to support that this is essentially what happened each time it did.

8. How did sex originate?

Increasing the genetic diversity of a population facilitates adaptation and is generally good for the population as a whole. Sex, in the most reductive sense, is simply the process of mixing the genetic material of two indivuals--it allows reproductive advantages conferred on an individual by allelic variation to combine with other advantageous alleles. It also protects against the effects of deleterious alleles on an individual's ability to propagate their genes. In a sense, it's a way of "hedging the bet".
As for the origin of sex, it's been around for a long time. Even the simplest bacteria exchange genetic material with one another. As with all of evolutionary biology, an idea that works is generally kept. Why change a good thing?

9. Why are the "transitional fossils" missing?

They're not. While the fossil record is incomplete at best, it does document, in detail, many major evolutionary transitions. For instance, we've found fossils of dinosaurs with feathers, whales with legs, and mammals (which have a distinctive hip-bone morphology) that lay eggs. Whale evolution from a dog-sized land animal ancestor is very well documented; we have intermediate fossils illustrating virtually every step of the transition.

10. How do "living fossils" remain unchanged over hundreds of millions of years?

They don't. Even the modern organisms from the oldest lineages are different, albeit in sometimes minor ways, from their ancestral forms. The body plans and survival strategies that continue to work will continue to persist--that's natural selection!

11. How did blind chemistry create the mind and morality?

It wasn't blind chemistry. Selection favors what is effective, what is effective then persists and can be further improved upon by more selection--evolution is not a process of ad-hoc randomness, "order" is provided by the force of natural selection weeding out less adaptive variations and favoring more adaptive variations.
Intelligence is quite adaptive for the human ecological niche. The mind is biological, modern neuroscience is just starting to unravel the biological mechanisms underlying cognition--what we've found so far is astonishing, and it's just the tip of the iceberg! Besides that, as anybody who has ever owned a cat will tell you, many animals are remarkably intelligent; on the flip side, as anybody who has ever squished a worm on the sidewalk will tell you, many animals with more primitive central nervous systems are not.
We still do not have the complete story behind the evolution of the human brain--but if you want to see transitional forms of cognition from more basal lineages, visit a pet shop!
As for morality, many animals display an in-born sense of right and wrong. As a social species, an innate need to cooperate with the group and establish stable social structure is essential for human survival. While the precise biological mechanisms underlying morality are still unknown, any trait that facilitates this would be strongly selected for.
A good case study for this is psychopathy. The underlying biological causes of psychopathy are relatively well-known, as is the phenotypic manifestation of psychopathy--put simply, psychopaths lack an inherent sense of morality.

12. Why is evolutionary "just so" storytelling tolerated?

It isn't. Yes, as we find new fossils and new molecular evidence, we have to adjust our model of the "tree of life". This is science, we build the best hypothetical model we can with the evidence available, and where new evidence contradicts the model, we adjust the model accordingly.
Playing with his finches, Darwin never could have imagined the wealth of information and new techniques available to modern science. Yes, some of his individual predictions on relationships between species were incorrect. Indeed, many old predictions have given way to newer models as more data becomes available. However, the general idea that speciation results from natural selection acting on phenotypic variation within a population is better supported by the available evidence than it has ever been.
Scientific paradigms and models change--that's the nature of science. Using this as the basis for refuting evolution is similar to doubting the existence of gravity because of special relativity.

13. Where are the scientific breakthroughs due to evolution?

Everywhere! Consider recombinant insulin derived from genetically-engineered bacteria, consider much of modern epidemiology (diseases change over time), or even consider the cereal crops that humans have been selectively breeding for millenia. How about the breakthroughs that have been made in the biomedical sciences using animals to model human disease? To use disease gene research as an example, the whole justification behind studying human birth defects in mice and fish (and fruit flies!) is the relatively close (from a history-of-life perspective) evolutionary relationship between humans and these species. And this assumption of evolutionary relationships has not let us down--it gets good results!


14. Why is evolution taught as operational science instead of history?

Ever heard of astronomy? Making observations to test hypotheses and streamline extant models is science. When a scientist in a lab does an experiment he must observe the outcome to get results and arrive at a conclusion.
The predictions made by the theory of evolution are quite testable and are tested in labs around the world every day. In fact, evolution is an essential cornerstone in every aspect of modern biology. To go with my example from the previous question, without the paradigm of evolution much of the lab work that gets done today would not be possible.

15. Why is a fundamentally religious idea, a dogmatic belief system that fails to explain the evidence taught in science classes?

Creationism is generally kept out of the classroom.

--RudrickBoucher 20:31, 13 September 2011 (EDT)

To RudrickBoucher, the purported biologist: I merely looked at the beginning of your response and already saw unclear, unsupported and unreasonable assertions. You wrote about the Origin of Life: "Truthfully, we don't know. Science is built upon repeatable evidence as provided by observation and experimentation. There is very little evidence, one way or the other, regarding the exact mechanism of the origin of life. Science cannot rely on dogma, and the existence of scripture is hardly evidence in support of divine creation; therefore the most scientifically sound answer here, relying on the evidence, is that we do not conclusively know." First, who is "we" and why is it that we supposedly don't know. Second, you failed to refute the significant amount of evidence supporting Christianity and the Bible (I suggest reading the page, its citations and the external links given). Also, you failed to address intelligent design and creation science theorists arguments concerning the origin of life. Instead, you "argued" by mere assertion. Given the unsupported and inauspicious beginning to your response, I can't say I read the rest of it. By the way, given your apparent penchant to argue by mere assertion and your apparent penchant to commit the fallacy of exclusion, are you an atheist? If so, what proof and evidence do you have that atheism is true. Lastly, if you pay more attention to logical principles in the future, it would be appreciated. Conservative 22:35, 13 September 2011
We ALL have evidence that atheism is true. Atheism is a lack of belief in gods, and it's indisputable that many people - especially in my country - lack belief in gods. Does God exist? I firmly believe that He does. But others don't, therefore atheism is true. It's WRONG, but that's not the same thing. --SamCoulter 23:06, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Your response is so strange Conservative - this user isn't here to refute the significant amount of evidence supporting Christianity and the Bible but is here to answer the 15 questions which he seems to have done a rather good job of yet you dismiss it out of hand with a strawman and by claiming it all assertion while admitting you didn't read it. MaxFletcher 22:55, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
Max, your purported inability to fully understand my post is strange given my use of bold font to highlight his error and my clear commentary on his error. Conservative 22:58, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
No, I understood just fine. This is a list of 15 questions for evolutionists to answer not for creationists to answer. So you can't complain when he gives you an evolutionist answer! You also failed to address the rest of his post. MaxFletcher 23:03, 13 September 2011 (EDT)
SamCoulter, is atheism merely a lack of belief in the existence of God or gods? Is there a significant amount of encyclopedias of philosophy that take issue with that notion? If so, which ones? Conservative 00:49, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
"A-" Without. "-theism" Belief in gods. "Atheism" Without belief in gods. Anybody can say whatever they like about what they personally think "atheism" means, but atheists say it means a lack of belief in gods. Do WE let THEM tell us what Christianity means? If not, why should THEY let US define what atheism means? Sorry, but if we want to argue against their point of view we need to let them state what that point of view actually is. --SamCoulter 01:08, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Sam, I do find it telling you did not answer my relevant questions about encyclopedias of philosophy despite being given the sources. Second, "Atheism: a + theos, denying god, (Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology-1966[1] Third, "Atheism: all are coined words from the Greek atheos, denying the gods, a word introduced into the Latin by Cicero in the form; atheos, a-, negative, prefix, and theos, a god, (Etymological Dictionary of English Language-1958)" [2] Conservative 02:01, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Words change in meaning. For example people still talk about "the exception which proves the rule," a saying which makes no sense whatsoever. The reason it makes no sense whatsoever is that now we use "prove" to mean "confirm," whereas when that saying was coined it meant to TEST. I don't care what Cicero or the ancient Greeks took atheism to mean any more than I care what some 50 year old encyclopaedias take it to mean or than I care that "distaff" now means female descent but used to be a spinning implement. The fact is that atheism now means a lack of belief in gods, and that's the ground we have to fight on. --SamCoulter 09:55, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Well, I don't think it's quite fair to criticise Rudrick Boucher's post on the grounds that it didn't refute all the evidence for Christianity in that long apologetics article, or provide conclusive proof for atheism. Those are both big tasks that would surely run to many, many pages to complete in full - and Conservative's response only covers one out of the fifteen questions! The Question Evolution! pamphlet doesn't make it at all clear that dozens or even hundreds of pages are needed for an answer to be considered satisfactory.--CPalmer 09:47, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
It's not my fault that Christianity has an embarrassment of riches when it comes to evidence and that there is no proof and evidence that atheism is true. That is the monkey on the back of RudrickBoucher. By the way, by the end of the day, there will be about 300 less atheists in the world and about 80,000 more people calling themselves Christians and I don't believe that RudrickBoucher or the coward Richard Dawkins are going to change that. Conservative 10:22, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Certainly, if it's the case that evolution supporters are wrong, they can't be right. But isn't it a bit disingenuous to ask them these questions, already knowing that you will reject any answer that is given? I think they are good questions, but only if asked in the spirit of encouraging dialog and furthering the understanding and insight of both sides. That should be the objective of questioning anything: to promote truth, not to promote conflict.--CPalmer 11:07, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Conservative, thank you for your sound criticism. I did kind of overuse the "royal we", I used it in reference to the best consensus of the scientific community. I do apologize for using over-generalizations and assertions--considerations of length were the limiting factor. To really properly answer most of these questions in sufficient detail would require several pages of writing each. It was my aim to be succinct and factual without being too esoteric. That said, my other aim was to provide scientific answers to these questions based off what is currently known in the field. It was not my intention to argue theology--simply scientific evidence; as such, I purposefully avoided addressing the Christian Apologist position. I will say up front that I am not an atheist--I am Roman Catholic, and I agree with the church's official position that naturalistic evolution is compatible with Christian faith. Finally, I do want to admit that, in hindsight, it was a bit pretentious and perhaps inappropriate to label my responses as "a biologist's answers". I am a developmental biologist by trade, although I am still in training. I have a BS in cell and molecular biology and I have completed graduate-level coursework in developmental biology. I am also about to start a PhD program in developmental biology. Additionally, I have three years of experience researching kidney development and the pathogenesis of kidney diseases, from which I have published in peer-reviewed journals. --RudrickBoucher 18:20, 14 September 2011 (EDT)
Is history a social science? Are social sciences part of science? The answers to both of those questions is yes. The historical evidence is valid evidence for the Bible and it cannot logically be swept under the rug. Archeological evidence has been found that corroborate historical accounts in Genesis plus we have historical/archaeological evidence relating to other parts of the Bible such as resurrection of Jesus Christ. For example, please see evidence relating to the Tower of Babel and other events described in the book of Genesis HERE and HERE and HERE. I see no logical reason to withhold relevant evidence and see it as fallacious reasoning that employs the fallacy of exclusion. Conservative 03:48, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
Rudrick, by the way, as far as response to Question #1 nothing happens "by chance". The probability/chance of a coin coming up heads is 50%, but probability/chance does not make it come up heads. Chance/probability is just descriptive, but it is not a causal agent. Please read this. Lastly, I am a Protestant and obviously being a Protestant, I believe the Roman Catholic Church has made many errors. For example, the Galileo incident. I sadly have to make the confession that I am still not impressed with your response to Question #1 and I still feel little compulsion to read your responses to the rest of the questions. Conservative 05:16, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
Conservative, if you are so confident in your own arguments, I suggest you read all of mine; that is, unless you're afraid it might challenge your own dogmatic beliefs... --RudrickBoucher 22:57, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
Rudrick, judging by your response to question #1 and my rebuttals, I don't believe you are making arguments. I would prefer to spend my time addressing bona fide arguments. For example as far as my rebuttals, and I am just giving one example, you have yet to show anything happens "by chance" nor are you admitting error on this point. Jesus said, "He who is faithful in a very little thing is faithful also in much; and he who is unrighteous in a very little thing is unrighteous also in much. (Luke 16:10). If you have shown yourself unfaithful in your response to question #1 and my rebuttals of your response to question #1, then why should I assume your "responses" to questions 2 through 15 are any better? At least thus far, you are showing yourself to be stubborn and proud person who is not amenable to correction. Conservative 23:48, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
OK, let's look at his response to question 10. Ask any evolutionist that question and their reply is going to be "They don't." Now, how are you going to prove them wrong? Coelecanths? Good luck. Do you know how many fossils have been found of the living species of coelecanth, Latimeria chalumnae? None. Do you know how many living specimens have been found of coelecanths known from fossils? None. Living examples of fossil Jurassic sharks? None. Fossils of modern species of horseshoe crab? None. This is a BAD QUESTION and we shouldn't be asking it of evolutionists because they can answer it EASILY. You may not be satisifed with their answer but they don't care; you asked them for an an answer provided by their theory and they can give you one which within the framework of the theory you are discussing is perfectly valid. Instead why not ask them how the Type 3 secretory system managed to simultaneously add the 42 parts needed to make a bacterial flagellum? Guess what? They CAN'T answer that. --SamCoulter 10:04, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Actually, we can answer that question. Please read my answers to questions 3 and 5 for background on this explanation. First, there is quite a bit of structural diversity in bacterial flagella between species; furthermore, within eubacteria, there are at least three distinct types of flagella. This diversity, by itself, is actually a pretty good place to start the evolutionary story. The number of genes encoding components of the flagellum ranges from 27 in C. jejuni to 44 in E. Coli. This level of genetic divergence while maintaining structural homology would probably make the flagella a good case study in microbial evolution as well...
Each of the 24 "core" flagellar proteins shares homology with other proteins doing other jobs in the cell. Most of these are proteins involved in other secretion systems. Indeed, the evidence suggests that the flagellum arose from a secretion system.
Starting with the secretion system, subunits of ATP synthase were then incorporated (this alone would provide crude function). After that, remaining components were added by simple gene duplication and diversification.
I know I gave kind of a short answer. I do not have much background in microbiology, so I am definitely not the best person to ask on this topic. Anyhow, if you'd like more detail, you can find two good papers on the topic here and here. --RudrickBoucher 02:29, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Oh, Conservative, plenty of things happen by chance. Ever study quantum mechanics? --RudrickBoucher 02:29, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
There's a certain half-dead cat who can attest to that ;) --RudrickBoucher 02:31, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Thanks for the references, they were interesting but they don't really resolve the problem. I have no issue with the idea of gene duplication adding the necessary material for a smaller structure (the T3SS) to evolve into a larger one, but the problem is in the application of evolutionary theory to that. If we take E coli with 44 genes involved in coding the flagellum, and say that 25 of these coded for a fully functional ancestral secretory system, it's certainly possible for gene duplication to result in a still-functional SS with 44 genes, and the 19 non-coding genes will be free from selection pressure and able to mutate pretty freely. However for natural selection to turn this SS into a flagellum you need one of two things: Firstly you could have a series of plausible intermediate structures, each of which is beneficial and therefore selected for, and each of which results from a mutation of ONE of the non-coding genes in the SS. You don't have such a series; I'm aware that one coincidentally exists for the vertebrate eye, which is why "eyes couldn't evolve" is an argument I'd never use, but there isn't one here. Secondly you could have simultaneous complementary mutation of ALL 19 non-coding genes to take you from the SS to a functional flagellum, which obviously would then be selected for; the odds against this strain even even scientific notation.
In my opinion this IS a valid argument against evolution, and while you can certainly point to a lot of homologies between flagellum genes and others within the cell I don't think you can bridge the gap between the T3SS and the flagellum. I know that many scientists are trying to resolve this issue, and I think their eventual failure to do so is a lot more likely to show them the truth of creationism than the "Question Evolution!" campaign, which in my opinion is mostly intended to give its originators something to congratulate themselves about and certainly has no chance of making any inroads in the scientific community. Anyway I'm wary of breaking the 90/10 rule here, so please feel free to email me and we can discuss it further. --SamCoulter 09:22, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
RudrickBoucher, I suggest you add your answers to the Essay:Answers_to_Question_evolution!--ARamis 17:27, 18 September 2011 (EDT)

Origin of life is part of the evolutionary paradigm

"No one claimed that abiogenesis was irrelevant to the evolution debate until evolutionists realized they were losing the debate on it. Indeed, abiogenesis is also often called ‘chemical evolution’ (see Natural selection cannot explain the origin of life and here just one example of a paper by evolutionists proving the point, titled, “On the applicability of Darwinian principles to chemical evolution that led to life”, International Journal of Astrobiology 3:45-53, 2004)."[3] Conservative 03:41, 16 September 2011 (EDT)

Actually abiogenesis has never been part of the theory of evolution. Evolutionary theory describes the diversity of life, not it's origins. It's correct that many evolutionists also apply evolutionary principles to abiogenesis, in the belief that differential reproductive success could have created living cells from organic chemicals, but it still isn't part of theory, it never has been and it's trivially easy for evolutionists to prove this. Evolution is wrong, abiogenisis is both wrong and impossible, but they are NOT part of the same theory and we shouldn't claim that they are. --SamCoulter 20:00, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
Sam, this is yet another case of you not adequately responding to that material I posted. For example, if you went to the page I cited: "...the ‘General Theory of Evolution’ (GTE). The evolutionist Gerald Kerkut defined this as ‘the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form.’1 This is a perfectly justifiable definition, and one that secular scientists would agree with—and this is what the dispute is about!".[4] In short, it is part of the evolutionary paradigm. You can pretend so called "principles" are not part of a paradigm, but it is not convincing. The Merriam-Webster Online dictionary defines a paradigm as "a philosophical and theoretical framework of a scientific school or discipline within which theories, laws, and generalizations and the experiments performed in support of them are formulated; broadly: a philosophical or theoretical framework of any kind." Evolutionary philosophy certainly includes so called evolutionary principles. That is why the origin of life is called "chemical evolution" by evolutionists. Conservative 23:35, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
But the "General Theory of Evolution" is the one developed by Darwin in the 1840s and it was replaced by the Modern Synthesis DECADES ago. Why argue against a theory that evolutionists abandoned in the 1930s? Tell them it doesn't answer the 15 questions and they're just going to shrug and say "Yeah, we know. So what?" As for chemical evolution, abiogenesis is only ONE way in which the term is used; it's also used to describe the cascade of elements formed by fusion inside stars, and quite clearly THAT isn't part of evolutionary theory either. By using non-standard definitions of what evolutionary theory is you're just opening yourself up to accusations of making strawman arguments. Abiogenesis isn't part of the theory of evolution and we shouldn't be claiming that it is. --SamCoulter 23:52, 16 September 2011 (EDT)
Two word for you: "chemical evolution". Those two words are the piano on the back of your evolutionary paradigm. As far as so called "stellar evolution" that is part of the evolutionary paradigm/philosophy too. The paradigm is bankrupt though. As far as evolutionist accusations, $1.50 and an evolutionists accusation will get you a cup of coffee. Conservative 03:17, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Stellar evolution refers to the progress of stars through the Main Sequence, NOT the element cascade in their cores. Once again you are trying to use a non-standard definition, and once again you are giving evolutionists a perfect opportunity to dismiss us by saying we don't know what we're talking about. We are trying to PERSUADE people here, and how persuaded are people going to be when they see a FALLACIOUS argument here, use it against an evolutionist then get shown that actually evolutionists aren't saying anything like that? Not very, I would say. As for stellar evolution being part of the "evolutionary paradigm," well, what IS the evolutionary paradigm and why are you determined to concentrate on it rather that what's actually being taught in schools, which is the THEORY of evolution and has nothing to do with stars or the origin of life? --SamCoulter 09:25, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Sam, given your propensity to not adequately respond to posts directed towards you, I cannot say I read your post with any degree of due diligence and I merely browsed it. Secondly, anyone who reads the atheism and evolution articles and their respective sources and attached articles can clearly see that constellation of evolutionary nonsense (cosmic evolution, galactic evolution, stellar evolution, planetary evolution, chemical evolution, biological, etc. etc.) is merely mumbo jumbo without evidence. It is akin to astrology. Also, given your propensity to inadequately respond to comments and questions directed towards you, I hope you didn't get your hopes up in terms of me wanting to have a discussion with you. Lastly, given your obsession with the atheism and evolution articles at Conservapedia and I think you are beginning to develop Acute Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder. Conservative 19:03, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Acute Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder? Never heard of it. I wonder who discovered this fascinating new mental disorder? Not you, by any chance? --SamCoulter 19:13, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
You might consider reading the post above which I just posted. By the way, given your propensity to not adequately respond to the post directed towards you and being very similar to a brick wall, I may move from merely browsing your posts to not reading them at all. Conservative 19:19, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
My "obsession," as you put it, with these two articles comes from my concern at the spread of atheism and evolutionism and my desire to do something about it. Something that might actually WORK, that is, rather than asking ridiculous questions about "living fossils" that evolutionists are only unable to answer because they're laughing so hard. As for brick walls, would they resemble the ones erected around any article you've decided you own on here?
Feel free to stop reading my posts any time you like; that's your right.--SamCoulter 19:25, 17 September 2011 (EDT)
Sam, if you sincerely want to stop the spread of atheism and evolutionism create some new articles on atheism and evolution. This is something which I don't believe you have done yet. Here is a list of some of the articles that need to be created: http://www.conservapedia.com/Conservapedia:Atheism_Project Conservative 03:31, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
That's where we disagree. I DON'T think most of these articles need to be created, and many of them could actually be counter-productive. What's the point of an article on "Atheism and God"? What's it going to say - "They don't believe in Him"? What is the "Atheism and Obesity" article intended to achieve? Are people supposed to accept Christ as part of a weight loss plan? You've pointed out elsewhere that this article is 20 pages long, and indeed it is. On the other hand CP's article on hydrogen - which is only the most abundant and important element in the entire universe - is barely more than a stub. Are we trying to create a valuable resource where people can find useful information without being subjected to the biases of Wikipedia - a trustworthy encyclopaedia, in other words - or just have some fun calling PZ Myers a gutbucket? --SamCoulter 10:30, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
I suspected that you are an atheist and that you would not create any new evolution or atheism articles. Of course, this further confirms my suspicions. You did say that you don't think MOST of these articles need to be created. It will be very telling if you don't create any new atheism or evolution articles. Conservative 13:09, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
It will indeed: it'll tell you that I don't think these articles are worth creating. I have explained exactly WHY I don't think they're worth creating and it has nothing to do with me being an atheist, which of course is utter rubbish. --SamCoulter 13:17, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
You said MOST of those atheism articles don't need to be created. That means you believe SOME of those atheism articles need to be created. Of course, if you don't create any, it will confirm my suspicion that you are an atheist. Conservative 13:30, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
OK, I'll state my opinion a bit more clearly: I don't think ANY of these articles actually NEED to be created, and most of them SHOULDN'T be. An issue like state atheism can be dealt with perfectly well as a section of the Atheism article and something like "Atheism and Christmas" isn't worth bothering about. So atheists give presents and decorate Christmas trees? Yes, they do. So what? If someone writes that article it will achieve precisely nothing except to give atheists a good laugh. They celebrate Christmas because they enjoy the celebration; they don't care what it really means and they don't care what you say about them celebrating it. Accuse them of hypocrisy for celebrating it? They're going to say "We enjoy it and we don't care what it's supposed to be about." Is it worth creating yet ANOTHER ad hominem piece attacking atheists when CP's article on oxygen is less than 250 words long?.
I am not an atheist and I'd much appreciate it if you stopped insinuating that I am. --SamCoulter 13:58, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
Sam, are you going to create any new atheism and evolution related articles? If not, why not? You do say you are very concerned about atheism and evolutionism, but you are not creating any new articles on these subjects. Why is that the case? Conservative 15:06, 18 September 2011 (EDT)
I've already told you that I'm not going to create any new articles on atheism and evolution and I've explained why: because I think they're a BAD IDEA. What's the point of an article about Atheism and Christmas? Do you think Richard Dawkins is going to suddenly decide "Oh, I like Christmas cake! I better accept Jesus immediately!"?? The way to counter atheism and evolution is to put good, unbiased information into CP, not create infantile articles claiming that atheism is the work of Satan because PZ Myers could do with eating less. What CP needs is massive amounts of high-quality information of the sort that will make people want to come here, rather than to Wikipedia, when they need to find something out. It already has more than enough childish ad hominems and I'm certainly not going to add any more. --SamCoulter 09:20, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
Well said! --RudrickBoucher 21:00, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
Nice to see that somebody's listening. User:Conservative certainly isn't. --SamCoulter 21:04, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
Wrong, there are a myriad of relevant evolution and atheism articles that could be created. For example, there are various figures of atheism, historical periods of atheism, schools of thought, etc. that have not been created. For example, 19th century atheism. I still think SamCoulter is an whiny atheist filled with excuses and rationalizations. Conservative 21:27, 19 September 2011 (EDT)
And I think you're a parodist. I wonder what everyone else thinks? --SamCoulter 21:46, 19 September 2011 (EDT)

Editing

How come this page is locked? --Mike Cook 21:46, 20 September 2011 (EDT)

It's a way of censoring facts that they deem inconvenient. --RudrickBoucher 16:50, 4 October 2011 (EDT)

This article seems like it is trying to endorse Youtube user ShockofGod more than explain anything or offer any useful information. USer:Gelatin

You are not being very specific when it comes to supporting your contention. It seems like you are just spoiling for a pointless internet argument. Conservative 22:00, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
Well in six of the sections on the article it makes a direct reference to the youtube user ShockofGod which makes it seem like more of an endorsement to him than to the actual campaign, in addition it puts too much priority on him as opposed to other evangelicals with the same message. Gelatin


Enthusiastic Student Response

Why does this section exist? The only examples included are two youtube comments, and a photograph of a model wearing a QE t-shirt. This is not remotely illustrative of an "Enthusiastic" student response, or any kind of response at all. In point of fact, youtube is so well-known for the poor quality of its comment threads that citing it may be actively harmful to the credibility of the article. I've looked for more substantive examples of students reacting to the QE campaign, but have found none. Calling students' response "Enthusiastic" is, frankly, misleading when there's no actual evidence that it has been anything of the sort... furthermore, there's no reason whatsoever to have a separate article for "Enthusiastic Student Response" when it has no more information than is included in the section on the main QE page. If nobody provides additional evidence, I will take the liberty of editing out the "Enthusiastic" part of the title, and strongly urge that the section be deleted in general. DGalore

If YouTube is so well known for the poor quality of its comment threads, then why didn't you cite supporting articles mentioning this from reputable sources? Consider working on your research skills. Conservative 11:24, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
By the way, you just gave me an idea for another article on the Question evolution! campaign. Thanks. 11:35, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
Like I said, sir, I tried to find more reputable sources, and was unable to do so. Since I can't find anything, I can't in good faith claim the response has been "enthusiastic." As far as my research is concerned: I have searched Google, Yahoo et. al with variations on the searchstring "College Student response to Question Evolution!", and have checked through the archives of my own college newspaper and various other major college publications, and found no significant references. The article cannot stand as-is - we either need to find better sources, or change it to reflect the lack of them. Citing nothing but youtube comments is, frankly, embarrassing and discredits the article. DGalore
At the very least, it should not read "Enthusiastic" in any case. The section should be titled just "Student Response to the QE! Campaign." Given the liberal bias on college campuses, it is inconceivable that student response will be universally enthusiastic. Pretending that the only response has been rapturous enthusiasm is neither encyclopedic nor informative. DGalore
DGalore, setting aside the fact that no true skeptic claims to know my gender, you haven't shown you have done your due diligence. I suggest not giving up you day job and if you have any life long dream of becoming a reporter. Conservative 11:59, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
Sorry - I was only trying to be respectful, since you're a senior member of the site and I'm very new! I don't use wikis much, so I'm not well-versed in internet etiquette... Anyway, to the point: Do you have any evidence for the Student Response page? Because if I don't, and you don't... who does? DGalore
I suggest getting a book on investigative reporting. I am sure your local library can help you. Thanks once again. I just created Enthusiastic responses to the Question evolution! campaign. You input was very helpful. Conservative 14:04, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
I'm glad to see my suggestion proved helpful, at least. You did a great job, I think it looks a lot better now! If I run across anything to add to the new page, I'll be sure to do so.DGalore

Question evolution! campaign axman cometh

An advocate of the Question evolution! campaign wrote:

"We have some great news to report! A person who loves the Question evolution! campaign has made the commitment to intensely promote the campaign. Hundreds of hours are going to be added to promote the campaign in the short term. He is going to relentlessly swing his Question evolution! axe at the rotten tree of evolutionism and nothing is going to distract him.

We already know that the evolutionists are impotent against the 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer so the widespread distribution of these questions is going to be very demoralizing to evolution supporters. Questioning, critical reasoning and open inquiry are toxic to evolutionary belief so we are very much looking forward to the widespread dissemination of the Question evolution! campaign."[5]

See: Responses to the Question evolution! campaign Conservative 08:19, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

Personal tools