User talk:CPanel

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1

This is the username for the Conservapedia Student Panel. Please Submit any problems and requests you have here.

Thank you for creating the student panel and letting us newcomers join your homeschool project. It's an honor to be here, and if there's anything I can do to help, don't hesitate to ask. --Ed Poor 18:20, 9 April 2007 (EDT)
Your very welcome! Your work to help with this project has been amazing. We greatly appreciate all your contributions. ~ CPanel 18:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Contents

Regarding a concise defintion of the theory of evolution

I am glad to hear that the panel came to a decision on this matter. I have a question though and it is probably based on the panel seeing a prior version of the article and not the current article.


Here is what a panel spokesperson wrote:

"We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way. However, we agree that the article lacks an adequate, concise explanation of the Theory of Evolution." [1]


Here is what the article states now and I only give certain key portions:

Today advocates of evolution no longer adhere to "natural selection" as the definition of evolution, but rather define it simply as any "change over time" in the genetic composition of a population....


Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines evolution as a "theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations." [1].....


Evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky wrote: "The process of mutation is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution." [2] Evolutionists believe that the processes of mutation and natural selection created every species of life that we see on earth today after life first came about on earth. [3] Creationist scientists believe that mutations and natural selection would not cause macroevolution. [4][5][6][7][8]


MY SUMMATION STATEMENT TO THE PANEL:

I think the above current version gives a concise and adequate explanation of the theory of evolution and Aschlafly concurrs. I am hoping that the panel agrees and that they based their statement above based on a prior version they read.

Conservative 18:32, 9 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

References

  1. http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/evolution
  2. http://www.nwcreation.net/geneticquotes.html
  3. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/improbable.asp
  4. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/mutations.asp
  5. http://www.trueorigin.org/mutations01.asp
  6. http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i1/improbable.asp
  7. http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3831
  8. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/selection.asp


The article has been improved significantly since we began working on this issue. Some of the Panel may not be aware of these changes. They have been contacted, and after they give their opinions, we will post the results here. ~ CPanel 18:41, 9 April 2007 (EDT)


The above is actually non-sensical. No scientist equates natural selection with evolution. Natural selection is one of the processes that drives evolution, hence the need for a well written summary of the scientific aspect of the article. I cannot really participate in the Creationist part, as I am no expert, and it needs to be well written by one of the many experts here. Please feel free to refer to Talk:Basic Evolutionary Theory. Thanks for your time.--PalMDtalk 18:36, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Well, Conservative has once again taken it upon himself to delete an entire article comprising hours of work. I have corrected my link above, as he has moved it to the talk page, however the talk page is no longer connected to an article.--PalMDtalk 18:58, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

Restore of edit

After the decision was made, this edit removed one of the referenced works. The Origin of Species is the text that started this all. It would be remiss to not include a link to the book for people who want verify references and quotations. --Mtur 19:23, 9 April 2007 (EDT)

A response to this would be appreciated by many of us. --Jtl 17:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

The evolution decision

Can we take from this a general principle; that before criticizing something, we should always first explain what that thing is? Tsumetai 04:42, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I 2nd this motion. Jrssr5 08:31, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

TOE

Why don't you semiprotect the article, so that newly registered or unregistered users are unable to edit (as they are usually the ones behind vandalism) but registered users can? It's really not the best decision to only limit it to the sysops ScorpionStep on me and get stung 08:07, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree with Scorpion on this point. There are a lot of editors here who wish to help improve the article. It is nice to see a decision finally made and hope that it does heaps of good for the site. Jrssr5 08:31, 10 April 2007 (EDT)

Age of the earth

Panelists: if you're still watching the Talk:Theory of evolution page, then you might have run across the following dialogue:

This site is a joke and doing this goes against my better judgement, but I will add my tuppence-worth. Radioactive dating of metamprphic rock will only give a date for the metamorphic event. All information is lost regarding the original date of the rocks formation as there is too much movement of isotopes through the mineral structure. In non-metamorphosed igneous rock, there are clues in the mineralogy and chemistry that a geologist would use to mark isotopic movement in or out of the mineral being dated and would, therefore, be aware of the potential for inaccuracies. All radioactive dating now uses isochron methodology to remove the possibility of error. I will leave it as an exercise for the reader to look up isochrons and discover how they are used in modern geology. Splodge 07:47, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
The RATE Group have already thought of that. They discuss isochron dates extensively. Isochron dating does not "remove the possibility of error." This is another example of your theory does not work under my theory, so your theory must be wrong.--TerryHTalk 09:58, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Oh dearie me. The RATE group anomalies are produced by flawed experimental data. Isochron measurement requires that the rock samples are cogenetic (formed at the same time from a common pool of material within which the isotopes and elements are relatively homogenous). This was never done by RATE. For example, RATE geologist Steve Austin has stated (Austin, Steven A., ed., 1994. Grand Canyon: Monument to Catastrophe) that the samples he took came from four different lava flows and an extracted phenocryst.
Austin knows he will get the wrong results this way. In Austin, Steven A., 1988. "Grand Canyon lava flows: A survey of isotope dating methods," in Impact #178, he mentions that this kind of false isochron is well known and cites (Faure, Gunter, 1986. Principles of Isotope Geology, Second Edition. New York: John Wiley and Sons pp 145-147) on the matter.
But truth is not the objective of these creationist groups. They generate propaganda in the form of pseudo-scientific articles that fool the layman into thinking that there is something suspect. To understand what is going on requires an in-depth understanding of the science that most people do not have. Splodge 13:00, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Ladies and gentlemen, you need have no doubt that Steven A. Austin and his colleagues thought of every issue that Mr. Splodge mentioned--and furthermore, Mr. Splodge is probably passing on misinformation from Talk.Origins. If you want some detailed explanations, then may I suggest this article:

"(Talk.Origins) Isochron date of young Grand Canyon lava is excessively old." CreationWiki, The encyclopedia of creation science. September 7, 2006, 00:26 UTC. Retrieved April 14, 2007.

Mind you, I don't suggest that Mr. Splodge is originating a fabrication. I merely suggest that he thinks he has a club with which to deal the coup de grâce to the young-earth position, when in fact he has a bruised reed. I submit this to you so that you may take it under advisement in deciding the direction of the article Theory of evolution.--TerryHTalk 19:19, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

If the RATE group have considered the issues I have raised, I assume you will be able to produce documentaion as to the fact? I do believe Conservapedia has a policy regarding unsubstantiated claims. Note that mine come directly from the publications of RATE group members. And if it helps any, Mr Splodge did earn a degree in Geology from Edinburgh University some 25 years ago. Splodge 07:37, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Macroevolution article - request a ruling

I am writing to you regarding the current Macroevolution article. I find the current article unacceptable and given your stated position on the Theory of evolution article I would like you to rule on this subject.


Currently the article has these statements:

"Paleontology, developmental biology, and comparative genomics contribute most of the empirical evidence for the known patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution."

Next the article has a section entitled:

"Methods of Macroevolution"

This of course assumes that macroevolution occurred.

If you could rule on this matter it would be appreciated. In the meantime, I am going to revert back to the non Pro-evolutionary theory version. I would appreciate it if the article critical of macroevolution were kept and the article kept protected. We don't need to be double minded on the macroevolution and theory of evolution issue. Conservative 17:08, 14 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

Conservative, you have taken the above out of context. The very first line stated that macroevolution was a hypothesized process, in other words an idea not a fact. The next line was what you posted above. It seems that you misunderstood the context of the paragraph. The second line about the three fields would not be in opposition to any stance on conservapedia due to the first line stating that macroevolution is an idea not a fact. To not say that the three fields did not provide information would be a lie, where did the idea come from? I do not see how the methods of macroevolution could be a problem considering the number of pages on the site that use methods. There is no double mindedness between macroevolution and ToE on this cite because the macroevolution makes no claims of its stance on rather it is fact or fiction it is just a description of what scientists would consider macroevolution. My statements were cited, from university sources not from freelance websites, and no claims were made as to if macroevolution was fact or fiction, this was due to a chat with Ed Poor about keeping the edits open and placing ideology into the page, let the reader decide. If this page was to be a problem then perhaps those students that planned to take the SAT should look else where for as it stands the previous edit, before I added information, would not have given enough information to make the article a use (hence the reason for the VSA flag at the top of the page, that conservative moved after he reverted my edits).--TimS 08:59, 16 April 2007 (EDT)
It is a skeleton of information with only links to outside sources. The author takes no position on the merits. It is, altogether, neutral. What could possibly be wrong with it? -AmesGyo! 17:11, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
Referring conflicts to the panel is supposed to be a last resort. What efforts have you made to resolve your issues with the editors in question?
I urge the panel to reject outright any case presented to them before every other avenue has been exhausted. Tsumetai 17:31, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
I back Tsumetai on this. There has not been adequate (if any) attempt to resolve the issue first. Philip J. Rayment 20:04, 14 April 2007 (EDT)
I concur with Philip and Tsumetai. Along with missing the point of both "encyclopedia" and "wiki", the user has refused to engage in any other dispute resolution avenue. --Hojimachongtalk 00:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

We need a ruling or something about this. Conservative keeps reverting the edits and has locked the page many times. He has yet to talk with anyone about the direction of the page and basicly has hijacked it from both users and sysops. Are we to assume that the page is to be locked until further notice to allow for edits/reverts only by Conservative? Could someone please give some direction so that I know if I am wasting my time by editing pages to have them hijacked?--TimS 11:24, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Submitting "Adult stem cell"

I believe there is a bias inherent in this article that has been undefended. It currently strikes an un-encyclopedic tone which I have tried to remedy to no avail. CPanel, please inspect this comparison to tell us which version is more encyclopedic, and more neutral.-AmesGyo! 22:56, 14 April 2007 (EDT)

Submitting "homosexuality"

I am also submitting the article on homosexuality for review by the panel. The allegations are threefold. First, it is utterly offensive, sending the message that homosexuals are individuals on the "outside" of a society that condemns them, when it is not the case. This offensive characteristic of the article is doubly damaging, as bigotry is evil for its own sake, and for the harm it causes anyone who may be homosexual, upon hearing the outrageous claims of the article. Second, the citations on the article are poorly sourced, explained, and blown out of proportion to deliberately exaggerate the medical "harms" of homosexuality. I suggest that the Panel engage in a full review of the cited sources, in comparison with other sources with which I will provide them. Third, the article is not "family friendly." It encourages a small-minded view of the world that leads to bigotry, hatred based on immutable characteristics, and on a simpler note, the diseases it describes, etc., are objectively not something that someone would want children to view, which I understand is the main goal of this site. I have tried to address these problems on the article since day one of my involvement here; rather than get caught up in another edit war, which is unproductive, this is a more responsible track.-AmesGyo! 10:48, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I say it should be deleted for violating commandment 3. --Hojimachongtalk 16:49, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

What happened to my request?

1. What happened to my request that you explain your bizarre decision in relation to the Theory of evolution page?

2. Could you explain your bizarre decision in relation to theTheory of evolution page? --Horace 19:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

SYSOP/Adminstrator Hojimachong is making big pro-evolutionist changes in the article now

Statistics are inherently liberal --Hojimachongtalk



Admistrator Hojimachong is now making big pro-evolutionist changes in the changes in the Theory of evolution article as can be seen by this edit: http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=109823&oldid=109791 The panel clearly said they did not want the direction of the article changed. Hojimachong seems to think the panel's decision is irrelevant and that Hojimachong is the one to decide. I do not think this is the way things should be done. I do think something needs to be done about this matter. Conservative 21:56, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative

For the love of a higher power, they aren't "pro-evo", they're statistical facts. Statistics (i.e. "scientists agree that the ToE is valid") aren't evil. --Hojimachongtalk 21:59, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Please take your alleged evolutionists "facts" to Wikipedia where they have a much lower threshhold in terms of what is considered a fact. Conservative 22:02, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
LOL! Conservative, take a math class. Learn the definition of "statistic". It's an indisuputable fact that the godless, liberal, atheist scientific community has a virtually unanimous consensus about this evil, godless theory called "evolution". --Hojimachongtalk 22:07, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
The irony is almost too much to bear. It must really irk you that no one is actually reading your, uh, diatribe, but that thousands read the one on wikipedia. Etaroced 22:08, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
The evolutionist have cried wolf over and over and over again. I saw your "citing much evidence to support the theory" and immediately reverted without bothering to even look at your "religioustolerance" and pbs citations. Read the Theory of evolution article which the panel approved and doesn't want to see changed in terms of its direction. Stop trying to be king of Conservapedia. Conservative 22:13, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
"KING of Conservapedia?" You arrogant, ignorant... well, perhaps we're crying "wolf" because we are actually trying to build a conserevative encyclopedia. You are trying to build a widely censored grab-bag of half-truths. Note that I actually want to discuss this with you. Yes, consider that first sentence a personal attack. I'm through with people who don't actually want to build an encyclopedia. You are a hypocrite, a liar, and the reason that Conservapedia did not succeed like it could. --Hojimachongtalk 22:17, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
Thank you for showing the panel that you are a beacon of reasonableness. I am sure they are very impressed now. Conservative 22:25, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
You're hardly a bastion of reasonableness, mr. Lock my talk page for two weeks. --Hojimachongtalk 22:27, 15 April 2007 (EDT)
That was purely a accidental mistake on my part. If memory serves I was being pestered by AmesG and I merely forget to unlock it after I locked it. Conservative 23:01, 15 April 2007 (EDT)conservative
Do I have to separate you two?--Elamdri 22:30, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

I haven't looked at the article so have no opinion on the relevance or otherwise of the statistics that Hojimachong added, but it is not correct to paint statistics as neutral facts, because it is possible to introduce bias by the selection of statistics to include. Philip J. Rayment 22:34, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

OK, fair enough. The article already has enough statistics which refute evolution. --Hojimachongtalk 23:39, 15 April 2007 (EDT)

Panel submissions

I was under the impression that submitting a case to the panel was supposed to be a last resort for major conflicts only. If this is still the case, I suggest setting some rules to prevent abuse; after all, you are all students and you have better things to do with your time than adjudicate every petty squabble which comes up. To that end, I submit the following:

No user should submit an article to the panel for review without first:

  • clearly stating their objections on the talk page of the relevant article
  • inviting discussion of these objections
  • inviting comments from any editors involved in the dispute, on their personal talk pages

If the discussion does not lead to a conclusion, the user should then:

  • propose at least one possible solution to the conflict ('everybody do it my way' does not count)
  • request the opinion of at least one neutral sysop

I don't think this is particularly radical; it's just good editorial practice in a group environment. If users can learn to solve their disputes through discussion, the project as a whole can only benefit.

I would also suggest that any user who attempts to bypass any reasonable dispute resolution process, and instead chooses to waste the panel's time by getting you to fight their battles for them, should be censured, up to and including permanent blocking if necessary. Tsumetai 07:57, 16 April 2007 (EDT)

Submitting [[CP:RFA]] and [[CP:RFB]] for official ratification

I hereby submit the pages linked to by the above redirects for transformation into official Conservapedia policies, where the result of the vote is binding. The current state of the RfA process simply takes potential applicants to an enitity, whether it be Sharon, Philip, Andy, or the Panel, which can decide, regardless of the community's desire, whether an individual becomes a sysop. I respectfully ask that you consider my request. --Hacker(Write some code) 06:53, 22 April 2007 (EDT)


References tag to allow references to be used above; please do not remove.


HELLO? HELLO?

Is there anybody in there? I posted two questions above and have received no response. --Horace Conservapedia:Requests_for_adminship#Support_2|Vote Horace for sysop 20:17, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

So did I. --Hacker(Write some code • Conservapedia:Requests for adminship#Support|Support my RfA) 18:01, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

I further solved the issue of the definition of the evolutionary theory

I realize that the "defining of what evolution is" is a issue the panel is discussiong.

Here is a revision of the article that was recently made:

"Today advocates of evolution no longer adhere to "natural selection" as the definition of evolution, but rather define it simply as "change over time" in the gene pool of a population over time through such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift. [2]"

I think now that what the theory of evolution is has now been adequately explained. Conservative 01:18, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Glad you think that, but it's still not a good definition. ColinRtalk 01:31, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Thank you indeed

It is a great day for me. Thank you for this privilege.


--User:Joaquín Martínez, talk 15:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

Request: Define the audience, and comment on articles written at too high/low a level

I'd like the panel to come up with some statement of the age level we should be keeping in mind as the audience for Conservapedia, and I'd like the panel (and only the panel) to indicate... in some gentle way... articles that are written at too high or too low a level.

I'm thinking high-school-plus-or-minus two years (i.e. junior high school through college sophomore). Dpbsmith 12:25, 28 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the idea. The panel is working on it now. ~ CPanel 20:03, 28 May 2007 (EDT)
Please don't define it in terms that only an American would understand. We don't have "junior high schools" here, and I think "college" has a different meaning. Philip J. Rayment 03:06, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
Apologies. I was thinking of "high school" as the range User:Fox delineated below. A college sophomore would be twenty. Dpbsmith 05:38, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
In England, that would encompass ages 12 through 17 or thereabouts. Fox 04:55, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
Thoughts: World Book as one possible model
I've sometimes used the phrase "like World Book, not like the Britannica." On checking, I see that World Book Encyclopedia seems to avoid any direct statement of an age range, but does emphasize its direct connection to "students" and to school curricula.
It says in fact that it is "Straightforward and understandable to students of all ages and levels"[3] (which, literally, would include college students, graduate students and medical students) but says at History of World Book
However, it says its content is guided by research on how students use World Book, and "Last year, World Book received about 50,000 data cards from students in grades 3-12" suggesting that they are thinking of "students" aged 8 to 17.
They say elsewhere, in History of World Book, that
The first edition of The World Book Encyclopedia, issued in 1917, set a new direction for encyclopedia publishing. "As a rule," wrote Editor in Chief Michael Vincent O'Shea in the preface to that first edition, “encyclopedias are apt to be quite formal and technical. A faithful effort has been made in The World Book Encyclopedia to avoid this common defect.”
The 1930’s saw the formation of an Editorial Advisory Board composed of distinguished educators. The Board launched an analysis of typical school curriculums, which provided the editors with data on the subjects being studied in all grades from kindergarten to high school. Today, World Book editors continue to develop content that meets curriculum needs.
Dpbsmith 05:38, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
Thoughts: What to do if an article is too detailed/technical
I would think that it would be a mistake remove valid material just because it is too detailed, too technical, or written for too advanced an audience. It is also hard to adjust material down to a very different age group.
I'm thinking that perhaps an article that is too advanced might be moved from XYZ to XYZ (advanced), and XYZ be started with a template requesting a more elementary article, and of course a "see also" section linking to XYZ (advanced).
Or something like that. Don't delete anything, but make it clear that Conservapedia has a requirement for an (essentially new) elementary article on the same topic. Dpbsmith 06:02, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
Just a thought, not a suggestion per se: I seem to recall seeing a comment from Ed Poor - I will try to find the exact quote asap - which stuck in my mind as a sensible observation. It was along the lines of, "A reader shouldn't have to go away and consult another textbook in order to be able to understand an article." Fox 06:13, 29 May 2007 (EDT) Added: To clarify, it was at Talk:Gene expression and the associated edit summaries in the history. Fox 06:31, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
Advanced and simplified articles would be one way to go. Another would be to have a simplified summary at the start of a more-advanced article. Philip J. Rayment 11:04, 29 May 2007 (EDT)
Thank you everyone for your great ideas. We have agreed upon a statement of the appropriate age level and it is posted here. ~ CPanel 16:39, 1 June 2007 (EDT)

Situation on Template:Christianity

A situation has come up on Template:Christianity as regards whether or not Mormons are Christians. I have reverted the page to its original form and will keep it frozen pending a decision. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Site Sheriff(Sysop)Geo. 21:44, 11 June 2007 (EDT)

Adolf

Adolf Hitler's name is spelt differently in the same paragraph. (Adolph and Adolf) The correct spelling is Adolf. -- The preceeding unsigned comment was added by Luojie

Evolution

A first stab at proposed changes to the theory of evolution page.

The theory of evolution is a term primarily used to describe two different concepts:

  • The idea that organisms change over many generations through the process of variation and natural selection
  • The idea that all life on Earth is descended from a single protocell, and differentiated into its various forms solely through the processes of random variation and natural selection.

While there is no controversy regarding the truth of the theory of evolution in the first sense, there is a great deal of public controversy regarding its truth in the second sense. Specifically, creationism is an alternate viewpoint which holds that all life is not related, and life did not develop entirely by the processes of variation and natural selection; rather, a Creator designed and created life in a number of different, distinct, and unrelated forms, and endowed that life with the capacity to adapt to a changing environment through the processes of variation and natural selection.

Mechanisms of evolution

The following mechanisms are proposed for the processes of evolution:

Origin of life

  • Metabolism world hypothesis: the hypothesis that life originated with a spontaneous non-genetic metabolica cycle, and later evolved into cells;
  • RNA world hypothesis: the hypothesis that life originated with RNA, which had the capacity to act both as gene and enzyme;

Variation

Selection

Ungtss 22:21, 24 June 2007 (EDT)

Minor suggestion for several locked articles

I've noticed that many of the locked articles tend to capitalize nearly every word in the headings of an article. Here is an example from Theory of Evolution:

   * 1 Mutations and the Life Sciences in General
   * 2 Little Consensus Regarding an Evolutionary Process
   * 3 Genetic Code, Processing of Biological Data, and Biological Information
   * 4 Evolutionary theory and Cases of Fraud, Hoaxes and Speculation‎
   * 5 Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms
   * 6 The Fossil Record and the Evolutionary Position
   * 7 Paleoanthropology
   * 8 Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium
   * 9 Implausible Explanations and the Evolutionary Position
   * 10 Statements of Design
   * 11 Theory of Evolution and the Scientific Journals
   * 12 Effect on Scientific Endeavors Outside of Biology
   * 13 Age of the Earth and Universe and the Theory of Evolution
   * 14 Scientific Community Consensus and the Macroevolution Position
   * 15 Social Effects of the Theory of Evolution
   * 16 Further Reading (including free on-line versions)
   * 17 See also
   * 18 External Links
   * 19 References

All this capitalization is difficult to read and, in my opinion looks rather awkward in the table of contents. Please consider changing these headings. Thank you. SigmaEpsilon 12:21, 16 August 2007 (EDT)

They are titles, so I vote to capitalize them. ~ SharonTalk 21:35, 16 August 2007 (EDT)
I think they're more like headings, not titles. If each one were the title of a book, I'd understand. Look any other encyclopedia's subdivisions. Does anyone else capitalize (nearly) every word? It just looks weird to me. I know you don't like being compared to Wikipedia, but content aside, they do tend to have nice formatting on most of the articles. A quick check on a few random articles from Encyclopedia Britannica also shows no such over-capitalization. SigmaEpsilon 23:53, 17 August 2007 (EDT)

Social effects of the theory of evolution

Please consider putthing this under the control of the CPanel. DaiseyCutter 17:11, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

Missing important information

I've thoroughly read the entire article and while the lead section does do some justice to the science, the article is seriously lacking in the current view of evolution, namely what is the prevailing theory today - Modern Synthesis. This theory combines Natural Selection, Mendelian Genetics and other scientific fields and is preeminent in the study of biological evolution. I am a pretty knowledgeable scientist who has researched much on the subject, but I'm not sure how this exactly works. I would love to contribute to the article or submit some information. Is this possible? Regards. Wisdom89 12:35, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

Dead-End Page

I think that the dead-end pages list should be updated. Most of the articles there are not dead-end pages. Lukecorlando 21:52, 14 October 2007 (EDT)

Delete Day of the Year pages

We need to delete the "day of the year" pages. They are ridiculous, and lower the credibility of conservapedia.Lukecorlando 18:01, 15 October 2007 (EDT)

Editorial Policy Question

I've been trying to discuss potential edits to the Communism page, and have run into User:RobSmith, who has twice, in short order, threatened the "BanHammer," both of which appear to me to be absurdly inappropriate. As I think is apparent from a review of the commentary, both threats were (1) based on a completely unjustifiable characterization of my points; and (2) premature, even had I been saying what I was accused of saying, since, surely, the first response to bad ideas should be to explain why they are bad. Only when someone reveals themselves to be unreasonable and uninterested in participating in an intelligent exchange does it make sense to censor them, I would think. Frankly, I'm shocked by the juvenile conduct of RobSmith, and find it to be an embarrassment to me, as a conservative. I believe the decision to grant this individual authority to threaten the "banhammer" should be reviewed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by QBeam (talk) 11:45, 19 October 2007

Personal tools