Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 24

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Student Panel

I have been bold and removed the Student Panel Decision. Now, before everybody is rushing to the Rollback and Ban buttons, allow me to explain why the text was utterly outdated and pretty much useless:

  • "the article will remain protected indefinitely" - Yes, just like tons and tons of other articles. Big whoop. (This is a problem by itself, but one I won't tackle right here, right now.)
  • "to protect it from inevitable vandalism" - .................right.
  • "We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way." - Aaaaand this is the main reason why I removed the decision:
    • The Panel made the decision in April 2007. Right now, the earliest revision of the Evolution article is dated February 9, 2011. Without knowing what the April 2007 version looked like, what counts as a major change?
    • Between the first and last visible revisions alone, the article gained ~10k - not a major change? To put the number into perspective, Date of the Exodus is smaller than the amount this article has grown.
    • Those who have been around since back then know exactly that the article has changed in major ways since then.
  • "Those who wish to assist in improving this article should submit proposed changes to the panel for review." - Too many issues to list here. I honestly don't think this applies (or should apply) anymore.

I hope there can be some discussion before I'm just bluntly reverted. --Sid 3050 17:44, 18 July 2011 (EDT)

We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way.

Since the Student Panel decreed this in April 2007, User:Conservative has edited this article over 1000 times (see here). The original version as approved by the panel can't be seen here at Conservapedia, as the article was deleted & recreated without edit-history a couple of times afterwards (see here). This is quite surprising, as the article is protected: why should authorized personal edit the article in a way that these edits have to be hidden?

Fortunately, the version from Mai 1, 2007 can be seen here - courtesy to the wayback machine.

The differences are stunning: Not only is this approved version much shorter (roughly a third of the current article), all the parts linking evolution with Atheism, liberalism, etc., are missing!

These parts seem to change the article in a major way. And they are definitely not helpful when formulating an adequate, concise explanation of the Theory of Evolution.

So it seems that the Student Panel should review this article again!

RonLar 15:18, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

The article still reflects that macroevolution is pseudoscience so no real sweeping changes were made - just enhancements. Given that Andy's first homeschooler group liked my work, I think we all know that all I have to do is make a call to Andy explaining things and Andy and his Christian homeschoolers will endorse my efforts. In short, this is an evolutionist Pickett's charge. I have talked to Bible believing Christians and they like this article. I hope this clears things up for the evolutionists and atheists. Conservative 16:21, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
Thank you. Then let's not do anymore reversions of these polite editors comments on this discussion page, please. Rob Smith 16:23, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
Conservative, the disclaimer indicates that the student panel decides about the editing of this article, not Aschlafly. You position seems to be that you follow their wishes while ignoring what they are saying.
We other don't have this luxury: we have to follow what is written. For the sake of clarity something has to be changed:
  • either your way of editing
  • or the disclaimer.
RonLar 16:58, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
RonLar, why are you so interested in this disclaimer? I doubt most CP editors - and virtually no readers - knew it existed before you started talking about it. Why does it matter so much? If it were me, I'd just leave it. Jcw 17:04, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
Anyone who reads the article and tries to change something will find the disclaimer: it's often the only thing which is there on the talk-page.
And then you see that despite this disclaimer the article is edited over and over again...
These are things which irk me: I ask myself - how can it be? How many changes were there?
And then I get miffed, as it gets difficult to answer these question, as the article was deleted over and over again.
And so, I look deeper into, just to see that the dichotomy can't be explained.
So, there is an objective contradiction between the disclaimer and the edit history. Ignoring such a thing is just not my way.
Hope that helps.
RonLar 17:13, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
These are valid questions and justifiable points. I can't guarantee you'll get an answer to your questions, but nonetheless, it is very appropriate that this talk page is where they should be raised, and an accurate record of the user comments be maintained here. Rob Smith 18:27, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
Two Conservapedia creation vs. evolution battle scenarios - Conservapedia evolution article: Conservapedia Evolution article battle: RonLar vs. Andy and his Christian homeschoolers part 1 and CP Conservapedia Evolution article battle: RonLar vs. Andy and his Christian homeschoolers part 2 :) If RonLar persists, it should provide some humorous entertainment. :) Conservative 18:36, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
I'm not sure how that answer follows the question or comment. Where did such terms as "battle" enter into this user's question? No one has been confrontational here. They're asking simple, legitimate questions, which warrant a simple, respectful response. Rob Smith 18:32, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
Another example of what you think as being debating skills? ceterum censeo: Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, debated successfully someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.?
Could you, Conservative, updated the disclaimer? Something like
Aschlafly and his home-schoolers endorse Conservative's ownership of this article
RonLar 18:50, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

It is very sad to see someone with Acute Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder make an attempt to water down Conservapedia's evolution article. On a lighter note, Personal remark removed of denied requests to make this article more palatable to evolutionists. The popular Christian YouTube video creator Shockofgod coined the phrase "Atheism is the Wile E. Coyote of worldviews" and it certainly applies to atheism and evolutionism. Conservative 19:08, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

Again, you had the opportunity to score a few points in a discussion with someone whom you regard as an evolutionist and atheist. Again, you wasted this opportunity:
  • you didn't address the discrepancy of the text of the disclaimer and your behavior as detailed in the beginning of this section. The casual observer of our discussion gets the impression that you don't have a valid explanation
  • this impression will be assured by your meandering answers which are ripe of non-sequiturs and unsubstantiated statements:
    • Acute Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder again, an ad-hominem. Doesn't invalidate any point I make
    • On a lighter note... This whole section doesn't make sense for any onlooker, maybe it is clear to you...
So: How many valid points have you made? (The answer is none)
RonLar 19:25, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
You might not acknowledge that you are engaging in a evolutionist Pickett's charge, but of course we both know you are. Conservative 19:32, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
And again: ad hominem. What does this matter in this context? What will it matter in an actual debate that your interlocutor is pure as lilies or an evil villain?
The audience generally can't judge the character, it has to judge the arguments.
And in this regard you obviously can't stand your ground.
RonLar 19:43, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

The effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism

The effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism.[1] Conservative 17:55, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

  • The campaign runs since May
  • The main announcements of success were:
    • the greeting of a single new volunteer
    • the conversion of a single atheist
  • Color me unimpressed. RonLar 18:01, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

I am sure people said the same things about Christianity in its very beginnings. But look at it now:

In 2011, the American Spectator citing research published in the International Bulletin of Missionary Research reported that atheism is on the decline as a whole in terms of adherents.[2]

The American Spectator declared:

The report estimates about 80,000 new Christians every day, 79,000 new Muslims every day, and 300 fewer atheists every day. These atheists are presumably disproportionately represented in the West, while religion is thriving in the Global South, where charismatic Christianity is exploding."[3]

Atheism is based on nothing and it is easy to cut down and the explosion of Christianity in China is proof of this. A grassroots effort and not a top down strategy will be effective against evolutionism and atheism since many courts are currently populated with pro-evolutionist judges. Atheism doesn't have a prayer against the Question evolution! campaign. Conservative 18:21, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

Is the Question Evolution! campaign situated in the Global South or in the West? Your study therefore doesn't corroborate your claim that effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism.
BTW: as a means of debate prognoses are only working if their effect can be seen during the course of the debate. When will the Question Evolution! campaign show the first signs of being devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism?
RonLar 18:37, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
It seems as though someone is determined to edit out various comments to you so my desire to communicate with you has greatly waned. Conservative 18:51, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
For me, it seems that you deleted this talk page at 18.37 today. It was restored, deleted, and again restored. What went missing during this process?
But of course, I appreciate your concern about missing comments and edit histories! No one should suffer from wanton deletions of material - as you so rightly state, this dampens the desire to communicate and to contribute to the project.
Is this another dialogue which your are just abandoning?
RonLar

Just unlock this article and please stop embarrasing yourselves? Simple request guys. {user JPL}

Why was this talk page deleted and the edit history erased...

... by User:Conservative at 18:37, 6 August 2011? RonLar 18:46, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

See my previous post here. Namely, "It seems as though someone is determined to edit out various comments to you so my desire to communicate with you has greatly waned." Conservative 18:52, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
Which comments went missing? You can undelete them! And you should! See my edit in the previous section... RonLar 19:05, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
And frankly, I'm the last person to blame for material going missing! RonLar 19:06, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
I was going to comment in the previous section, but my whole train of thought was derailed by this deletion of my comments after I requested twice they not be tampered with. Rob Smith 19:13, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

Evolutionist science professors are cryin' to their mamas about the Question Evolution! Campaign

Evolutionist science professors are cryin' to their mamas about the Question Evolution! Campaign.[4] :) The campaign is already in a hall of academia. :) Conservative 15:11, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

As I said at Talk:Main Page:
The statement A South African university science lecturer is posting the 15 questions of the Question evolution! campaign on his office door which is right by the break room. is based only on an anonymous comment to an article at creation.com
I don't doubt that such a thing could have happened. But I don't think that the main page should feature probably bogus stories only because they have some plausibility.
Your source just repeats this uncredited blog entry. Please remember: Everything you post must be true and verifiable . So, this story may be true, but it is certainly not verifiable.
RonLar 15:29, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
I suggest you fly to South Africa and tour the halls of university Physics departments near their breakrooms. :) Conservative 15:45, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
Is this a humorous attempt to deflect the fact that the story is virtually unsourced? Then it has failed. RonLar 15:52, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
Many creationists are no doubt enjoying their summer and school has not begun yet. Wait until the campaign goes into full throttle mode. :) Conservative 16:13, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
So until the end of September we have to cope with bogus stories? RonLar 16:15, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

Obvious intentions of bias in the article

"announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution."

They fail to point out that they represent probably less than 0.1% of all scientists, and that a single scientific forum could have more members..? So why are they using this in the article?

Rather than provide actual data, this article quotes a few scientists who have made points which support the views of the article. There is no cited information which shows the opinions expressed are universally correct; more of the article is spent disproving evolution than explaining it (which is barely done at all).

Given discrimination, how many are eager to answer surveys or go public? Second, science is not a voting booth. Conservative 13:43, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
Science is an open forum. Despite the fact that this article states several legislations have been made to enforce Creationism in schools, they have been overturned by the Supreme Court.
Proponents of creationism in these cases stated that
Creationism is not science, and
failed to produce any articles which supported creationism in any peer-review forum. Valuables 17:42, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

Listing fraudulent evidence offers only to attempt to discredit a theory. There's as much to talk about for Creationism, and it doesn't have any real effect on educating people about the theory or its evidence or lack-there-of, as this article doesn't address any evidence of evolution. Valuables 17:42, 11 August 2011 (EDT)

I see you still have no supported your claim that science is an open forum. By the way, how much history of science material have you read? For example, are you familiar with historical figure Ignaz Semmelweis?[5]Conservative 02:00, 27 August 2011 (EDT)

changes to the evolution article

Although the Conservapedia evolution article is a thorn in the side of many internet atheists/evolutionists (as it cites evolutionists candidly admitting the many fatal and serious weaknesses of the evolutionary paradigm) and continues to be a well trafficked article at Conservapedia, Conservapedia is considering making some changes to the CP evolution article. Of course, evolutionism devotees and other cranks will play no part in the revisions. There is no pressing need to do this, however, given that the Question evolution! campaign will grind away at evolutionary nonsense with great alacrity as Shockofgod will be promoting the campaign "full throttle". :) [6] Conservative 13:45, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

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."[7]

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

expansion to point

The article states: "Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists."

However, this isn't particularly accurate.

In the scientific community, around 70% of scientists are Theists; around 95% of scientists in general support evolution. If 100% of Atheists support evolution, then 92% of Theistic scientists support evolution... This isn't a minority by far.

In fact, given, as obviously at it is, that Christianity is the largest religion, Christianity is proportionately the largest support of evolution.

The Catholic Church, in fact, strongly advocates evolution as the real way in which species originated, Pope Benedict XVI saying "According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution."

Did the majority of scientists prove evolution to be a valid and undeniable fact? If so, then all of our articles have to be changed to reflect it. If it's not a fact, then this website will show it. Karajou 12:25, 8 November 2011 (EST)
Valuables, the article says "most prominent and vocal advocates" of evolution and gives footnotes. Did you read the footnotes? If not, why not? You certainly didn't cite the information the footnotes contained nor are you adequately addressing the most "vocal and prominent advocates" issue and seem to be trying to obscure this issue. Why aren't you addressing the information given in the footnotes? There must be a reason. What is it? Are you intentionally employing the fallacy of exclusion? Also, how vocal was that Pope on this issue? Was that Pope always pushing evolutionism? Next, atheists have a reputation for being quarrelsome, socially challenged men. Are you an atheist? I ask because I have noticed that atheists often employ the fallacy of exclusion. I also ask because it seems you are being needlessly quarrelsome given what the sentence actually says and the supporting information cited via the footnotes. Also, if you are an atheist, do you have have any proof and evidence that atheism is true? The biblical Christianity certainly has an abundant amount of evidence supporting it. Anyways, we all know that evolutionism is a false ideology and there is no evidence supporting it. It is just window dressing for wanting to rebel against biblical authority. Plus, the Question evolution! campaign is going to make it very difficult to propagate evolutionism. Conservative 14:06, 8 November 2011 (EST)
One other point, the evolutionary paradigm taught in high schools and universities and promoted by evolutionary scientists is purely naturalistic. However, the Catholic church's evolutionary paradigm is theistic evolution. Conservative 01:19, 9 November 2011 (EST)

Transitional Forms

There are thousands of transitional forms. Just look in a Natural History museum. Yes, there are a few missing links that have not yet been found, like the transition of dinosaurs to birds (archaepteryx could be, but more research is needed) but for most transitions, there are plenty. There are transitional forms that have been found that show the transformation of a hippo/bovine-like animal to whales and dolphins. This article should change to reflect this. - User:Samsonnn

You forgot the fact that these so-called "transitionals" are transitional because someone said so. Saying so is one thing, proving so is quite another, and until someone sees it actually take place (read "film at eleven") then we're not going to take the word of a scientist saying it's a fact that animal A evolved into animal B because he stuck what he called a transitional between the two. Conservapedia is not going to call evolution a fact. Karajou 10:10, 9 November 2011 (EST)
Samsonn, there are not thousands of transitional forms as can be seen HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE. As for your comment, "more research is needed", you might want to read this essay. Conservative 11:10, 9 November 2011 (EST)

@Conservative: A creationist blog does not have more validity than papers written by actual scientists. Read the scientific papers, look in the museums! To deny the existence of transitional forms is the same as saying that almost every biologist in the world is conspiring against creationism.

@Karajou: What about all of the fossils which are shown to be a certain age by radioactive dating of the surrounding rocks? Evolution by natural seletion usually takes too long to be seen within a few human generations, so biologists have to rely on fossil records etc. but there are a few instances where it can and hass been observed. Often, this is due to a species being isolated on an island and differentiating significantly from the mainland type within a human lifetime. Artificial selection is a similar mechanism to natural selection, but happens on much shorter timescales. That is why cows produce so much milk, and horses can pull heavy carts, and how sheep produce fine wool. Farmers choose the characteristics that give optimal products and breed them; over time, the species changes to become better at what it is being bred for. Natural selection follows the same principle, except the purpose is survival and the watchmaker is blind. Here is a very interesting video which shows unconscious artificial selection in action; it has given very interesting results; a human face on a crab shell!: Here --Samsonnn 09:08, 13 November 2011 (EST)

Samsonn, you are being illogical and did not address the information I cited HERE and HERE and HERE and HERE. You are employing the fallacy of exclusion because your evolutionism is merely window dressing for wishing to rebel against God and to ignore the Evidence for Christianity. Second, the grassroots Question evolution! campaign will aggressively reach people such as yourselves before they have been indoctrinated into evolutionary propaganda. The evidence for biblical creation/creation science and against evolution is superior, but it has never been promoted on a wide scale through a grassroots campaign to young people and other individuals. Conservative 10:08, 13 November 2011 (EST)

Samsonn, by the way, I have noticed that many atheists employ the fallacy of exclusion. Are you an atheist? Do you have proof and evidence that atheism is true? Conservative 10:11, 13 November 2011 (EST)

I am not an atheist. I am a moderate Christian, and consider the bible allegorical, but that is irrelevant. I do not let my religious views get in the way of my science. Evolution is in the field of biology, so biologists are the best people to get knowledge from in this area, not creationists (many of whom don't even seem to even understand evolution, perhaps because attempts have been made to censor it from our schooling)

Regarding the link to the Conservapedia section of 'lack of transitional forms', I have made it clear that I find it fallacious; that is why I am talking about it here, so I can get a consensus to correct it. And the links to the creationist website are full of fallacies also. And as I have said, because it was written by a creationist, who has clearly already made up his mind about evolution, and not a biologist, then I don't think that it is a reliable citation. Give me a link to the work of an actual scientist and I will listen. --Samsonnn 12:27, 13 November 2011 (EST)

Samsonn, I cited biologists in this article. You still did not address the evidence I presented. You won't be editing at Conservapedia anymore due to your poor contributions. Lastly, your contributions lead to me you were a liberal atheist editor. Conservative 15:00, 13 November 2011 (EST)
Personal tools