Difference between revisions of "Talk:Evolution"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 34: Line 34:
Is this article semi-protected like on Wikipedia, or is it fully protected so only admins can edit? I also added back the "Issues" section as it was removed for some reason. [[User:AcomaMagic|AcomaMagic]] 14:48, 18 August 2012 (EDT)
Is this article semi-protected like on Wikipedia, or is it fully protected so only admins can edit? I also added back the "Issues" section as it was removed for some reason. [[User:AcomaMagic|AcomaMagic]] 14:48, 18 August 2012 (EDT)
:::Evolutionism is technically a scientific hypothesis. See Popper quote in article. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:01, 8 January 2013 (EST)
:Evolutionism is pseudoscience. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:01, 8 January 2013 (EST)
==Popper Quote==
==Popper Quote==

Revision as of 16:01, 8 January 2013

Set 2 of Archives
Set 1 of Archives

Question Evolution! Campaign is achieving its goal - people are questioning evolution!

American young earth creationism increased in the last two years - Gallup survey. Question evolution! campaign and other efforts of creationists are working!.[1]

It is so good to be a Bible believing creationist! It is so easy to crush the pseudoscience of evolutionism. It merely takes getting the anti-evolution message out there.[2][3] Conservative 07:34, 2 June 2012 (EDT)

Whereas I, a different user, though I am Christian, see no problem with evolution, and honestly trust science more than certain political pundits and loudmouths.-unsigned comment

And I, another user, though I am an agnostic (however, I am inclined more towards atheism than ever due to articles like this) understand that evolution is a flawless theory. It is scientific fact, a certainty, that unnerves me as much as it does anyone else - and yet it is undeniably a fact because there is a huge body of evidence supporting it. This body of evidence is readily available in brilliant books that you can borrow from your local library, and impossible, if understood, to contradict (using logic and reason). It makes me sad to see debates raging on on this subject when the matter has long since been settled. Evoltuion is proven by the fossil record, without exception; by the science of genetics, without exception; it is actually played out visibly if you care to study the development of a human embryo; it sheds light (though of course, cannot be proven, as that would be a cyclical arguement) by the many oddities that plague human anatomy, such as vestigial tails, redundant organs, and certain instincts (like that twitch you feel when you are falling asleep and your arm falls: that is a best explained as remnant of a trait our ancestors developed to prevent themselves falling out trees). The often quoted existence of a 'missing link' is also imaginary, for reasons that would become evident to people who actually studied the facts of this issue. I am certain that every creationist, and evolution denier, in fact, every non ultra-Darwinist, has not thoroughly researched the topic. Charles Darwin and Richard Dawkins provide the most accurate overview of evolution in the scientific world. There is literally no reason to dis-believe in evolution, or even to believe in it. This is because it is not a question of belief. It has been proven. Therefore one does not need belief to realise it is true.-unsigned comment

Recently my son, devout of faith, laughed, "Ten minutes in the Natural History Museum teaches you how great God is, and how true evolution is." Certainly the majority of Christianity agrees with him. I do. And it is sad to see the unjust criticisms here of science, which must, by definition, take a mechanistic viewpoint. I'd advise the authors of this article to bear in mind this paraphrasing of our Lord Jesus's words, "Render unto science the things that are science's. . ." God's works are great and it's difficult enough to understand his purposes without blinding ourselves with ancestor worship in the form of Biblical literalism. That's just another form of idolatry. There are infinite possibilities to see Him at work everyday in our personal lives.Klasovsky 13:21, 8 January 2013 (EST)

Jesus expressly referred to the Great Flood, which university "scientists" deny today. Who do Christians say is right?--Andy Schlafly 13:58, 8 January 2013 (EST)
I'm a Christian. I also understand how allegories work. MattyD 14:05, 8 January 2013 (EST)


There are a few things, such as in the opening that isn't accurate. There is not several theories of evolution, evolution is the only theory but there are some theories within of how some processes work. The statement that the fossil record does not support evolution is also wrong. It is one of the main points of evidence for evolution. The information about 700 scientists signing the statement that evolution is wrong should also mention the Steve Project, which has taken names just from scientists who are named Steve and have many more names than the Discovery Institute. There is also statistics regarding medical doctors who do not believe in evolution, but for some reason does not comment on scientists in general, such as this poll [4] which states that 97% of scientist believe evolution. Crzyclarks 20:32, 2 June 2012 (EDT)

Is this article semi-protected like on Wikipedia, or is it fully protected so only admins can edit? I also added back the "Issues" section as it was removed for some reason. AcomaMagic 14:48, 18 August 2012 (EDT)

Evolutionism is pseudoscience. Conservative 15:01, 8 January 2013 (EST)

Popper Quote

The Karl Popper quote is taken out of context. For example the next line is: "and although it is no doubt THE BEST AT PRESENT AVAILABLE, it can be slightly improved." In addition, anyone who researches more will find that he recanted his view later in life.

I find incidents such as this common throughout the page, and I humbly ask for it to be unprotected so that I can fix the mistakes throughout. TAbbott 8:12, 2 October 2012 (BST)

You are talking out of both side of your mouth. If Popper's quote was not anti-evolution in character, then why would you claim he recanted? Secondly, leading Darwinist and philosopher of science, Michael Ruse declared the concerning Popper's statement and the actions he took after making that statement: "Since making this claim, Popper himself has modified his position somewhat; but, disclaimers aside, I suspect that even now he does not really believe that Darwinism in its modern form is genuinely falsifiable."[5] Conservative 14:58, 8 January 2013 (EST)