111
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 1:
Line 1: + + Line 93:
Line 95: + + + + + + + + + Line 113:
Line 124: + + − + + Line 137:
Line 151: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
→Native??
== Uncatagorized ==
I think all of you ID proponents (creationists) should just ignore the fossil record, get your favorite version of the bible (I'm a King James lover myself), reread Genesis, and then stick your heads in the sand.--[[User:Darwinliveson|Darwinliveson]] 09:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
I think all of you ID proponents (creationists) should just ignore the fossil record, get your favorite version of the bible (I'm a King James lover myself), reread Genesis, and then stick your heads in the sand.--[[User:Darwinliveson|Darwinliveson]] 09:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::::It is really funny. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 20:49, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
::::It is really funny. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 20:49, 18 March 2007 (EDT)
this has as much scientific backup as the information stated in the article. very nice theory --[[User:Completeliberal|Completeliberal]] 23:13, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
:Care to get into specifics? Unless you do, this reply to a six-month-old comment is pointless. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 23:26, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
specifics? i'm talking about the theory with regards to the existence of Noah's ark. can you prove this? yeah it might be in the bible. but many things in the bible were scientifically incorrect-for example the stories of adam and eve. these were obviously proved wrong. yeah i respect the bibles teachings of good morals yet the facts in it are wrong. my issue with this site is that it is an educational resource yet encourages ignorance. --[[User:Completeliberal|nomen]] 23:44, 25 September 2007 (EDT)
: Can I prove that Noah's Ark existed? What sort of proof would you like? I can't give scientific proof, because it's ''history'', i.e. outside the realm of science. But I can point you to ''historical'' evidence, such as the Bible.
: What is "scientifically incorrect" about Adam and Eve? And how and where were they "proved" wrong? And what other supposed "wrong facts" does the Bible contain? I don't know of any, despite studying it for many years.
: And despite me asking for specifics (which you did to some extent), you then come out with another unsubstantiated over-generalisation, that this site "encourages ignorance". Where, specifically, does it do that?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:42, 26 September 2007 (EDT)
== why is this page locked? ==
== why is this page locked? ==
:Evolutionists hold that ''all'' animals are non-native to the place they are currently living since they have been scurrying about for billions of years transmogrifying themselves into different things. "Now native" allows for both the Darwinian and Biblical views, as it expresses the idea that kangaroos have been habituated to Australia for thousands of years. This is a reasonable compromise, except apparently to the Darwinists who want to turn Conservapedia into Wikipedia through a slow death of a thousand cuts. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 15:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:Evolutionists hold that ''all'' animals are non-native to the place they are currently living since they have been scurrying about for billions of years transmogrifying themselves into different things. "Now native" allows for both the Darwinian and Biblical views, as it expresses the idea that kangaroos have been habituated to Australia for thousands of years. This is a reasonable compromise, except apparently to the Darwinists who want to turn Conservapedia into Wikipedia through a slow death of a thousand cuts. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 15:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
MylesP comments. The good doctor Paley might find some of my ruminations concerning precisely this subject on my User Page of some interest. The irony has probably escaped you (unless you are a Doctor of Philosophy) but "a thousand cuts" nicely describes the technique behind "Occam's Razor", which is the removal of elements of an argument which are determined to be unnecessary to the validity of the argument pursued. Science is not just one giant farrago of every imaginable entity. That's Hinduism, or Masonic Lore. Science amasses data, but it REDUCES principles. The history is science is a thousand and ten thousand "cuts". Anyway, have I gander at what I wrote, and see what you think. Btw, I didn't see any reference on your page as to what you are Doctor of, and from what much respected Ivy League college. Perhaps you could satisfy my curiosity on this matter? (As this is an old thread, I will post a copy of this note on your User Page. [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 23:44, 27 October 2008 (EDT)
::I'm fairly certain that "transmogrifying" comes from Calvin and Hobbes and isn't even remotely the same as evolution. Why are people like the good Dr. here always confused as to the actual definition of evolution? It is simply the slow change of organisms over the course of time based on which organisms are most successful at passing on their genes to the next generation. It's not like a whole different creature is born and it's a new species. It's slow genetic recombination and drift. That's all. WHY is that so hard for people to grasp? Anyhow, it just frustrates me that so many people in America are perfectly happy not understanding the world around them. The US is getting further and further behind the rest of the world. It's like we're backsliding and not even trying to regain our footing. Perhaps one day Doctors will be able to refuse antibiotics to people who don't believe in evolution. Those newly evolved bacteria can just wipe out all the stubborn creationists who refuse to believe that evolution can happen and is all around them. {{unsigned|Quisculus}}
::I'm fairly certain that "transmogrifying" comes from Calvin and Hobbes and isn't even remotely the same as evolution. Why are people like the good Dr. here always confused as to the actual definition of evolution? It is simply the slow change of organisms over the course of time based on which organisms are most successful at passing on their genes to the next generation. It's not like a whole different creature is born and it's a new species. It's slow genetic recombination and drift. That's all. WHY is that so hard for people to grasp? Anyhow, it just frustrates me that so many people in America are perfectly happy not understanding the world around them. The US is getting further and further behind the rest of the world. It's like we're backsliding and not even trying to regain our footing. Perhaps one day Doctors will be able to refuse antibiotics to people who don't believe in evolution. Those newly evolved bacteria can just wipe out all the stubborn creationists who refuse to believe that evolution can happen and is all around them. {{unsigned|Quisculus}}
:::Please read [[Definitions of evolution]]; evolution is not just a change in organisms. Perhaps America is losing ground because it has forgotten/rejected much of its Christian heritage that gave the world things like [[physical science#Beginnings|science]]? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:43, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
:::Please read [[Definitions of evolution]]; evolution is not just a change in organisms. Perhaps America is losing ground because it has forgotten/rejected much of its Christian heritage that gave the world things like [[natural science#Beginnings|science]]? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:43, 16 July 2007 (EDT)
:I agree, "now native" seems to be a contradiction in terms, and thus a joke. If it is left, it needs to be explained that native to a place means "has lived there for a long time" rather than "originated in". For Australian animals, this is a particularly important idea. [[User:Myrtle|Myrtle]] 01:06, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
:I agree, "now native" seems to be a contradiction in terms, and thus a joke. If it is left, it needs to be explained that native to a place means "has lived there for a long time" rather than "originated in". For Australian animals, this is a particularly important idea. [[User:Myrtle|Myrtle]] 01:06, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
::I've changed it to eliminate the word entirely (what do you think?), although the word "native" is interesting. It's definitions include "being such by origin", which in effect assumes an evolutionary history, but which I doubt is always strictly applied anyway (e.g. the platypus would probably be considered native to Australia, even though fossil evidence shows that they existed in South America, which makes one wonder just what the evolutionary origin point was). Another definition (admittedly not strictly applicable here) is "being or composed of people inhabiting a region from the beginning (Example: "''Native Americans''")", which begs the question, "the beginning of what?", and suggests that the word does not strictly have to mean from the beginning of (a) the continent of America, or (b) the beginning of humanity. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
::I've changed it to eliminate the word entirely (what do you think?), although the word "native" is interesting. It's definitions include "being such by origin", which in effect assumes an evolutionary history, but which I doubt is always strictly applied anyway (e.g. the platypus would probably be considered native to Australia, even though fossil evidence shows that they existed in South America, which makes one wonder just what the evolutionary origin point was). Another definition (admittedly not strictly applicable here) is "being or composed of people inhabiting a region from the beginning (Example: "''Native Americans''")", which begs the question, "the beginning of what?", and suggests that the word does not strictly have to mean from the beginning of (a) the continent of America, or (b) the beginning of humanity. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 02:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
:::It reads much better now, thanks. Origin questions can get a bit controversial; e.g. the native Americans consider that they have always been there, although others may think otherwise.[[User:Myrtle|Myrtle]] 17:31, 20 July 2007 (EDT)
== Genetic bottleneck ==
== Genetic bottleneck ==
==Rarely fossilize==
==Rarely fossilize==
Darwindude ... please cite your sources before adding information. It may be true, but you need to show that. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 21:11, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Darwindude ... please cite your sources before adding information. It may be true, but you need to show that. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 21:11, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
== Mats of vegetation ==
Was the argument that kangaroos floated across the Indian Ocean to Australia on mats of vegetation inserted into the article to make Young Earth Creationism look foolish? It's completely implausible. [[User:Tradcon|Traditional Conservative]] 20:29, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
:I see that the cited source doesn't actually say that kangaroos traveled on mats of vegetation. (It does cite an anonymous "evolutionist" who says that lemurs ''may'' have traveled this way to Madagascar.) Perhaps this should just be removed? [[User:Tradcon|Traditional Conservative]] 20:55, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
::Fair enough; I have removed it. One problem is that that source is not talking about kangaroos in particular, but more generally about how various creatures got to Australia. The clear suggestion is that some creatures may have got to Australia on floating mats of vegetation, but without being specific about which creatures, and presumably this is only likely to apply to much smaller creatures. I'm still not altogether happy with some of the remaining wording in that section. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:19, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
== Evolution ==
Evolution should wikilink to [[Theory of Evolution]]. [[User:CalebRookwood|CalebRookwood]] 21:01, 8 September 2007 (EDT)
:Done. Thanks. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:19, 9 September 2007 (EDT)
== Junk the article, start over ==
This article reads like something a second grader would write and needs significant work. Starting with "Kangaroos are the largest Marsupials alive today" is simply un-encyclopedic, if for no other reason than people who want to learn about kangaroos are certainly not likely to know what it means for them to be marsupials.
Then there is the whole section discussing origin, where scientific theory is relegated to a position less worthy of note than aboriginal-Australian myth. It is also mostly composed of questioning of the relevance of its merit, simply by accusing scientists of not believing in a deity. That issue belongs on a whole other page. [[User:AngelOfMercy|AngelOfMercy]] 14:15, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
:Feel free to suggest a new opening, or even change it yourself, if you have something better, but I'm personally not convinced that your criticism of the reference to marsupials is valid.
:As for the second part of your criticism, however, I flatly reject it, as you are equating the evolutionary view (i.e. the atheist origins myth) with "[[natural science|science]]". Scientists who start from a position that one view is not worthy of being considered because it requires a Creator in Whom they don't believe, are not being scientific, but are imposing their worldview (a.k.a. [[religion]]) on the evidence in an unscientific manner.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:52, 29 October 2007 (EDT)
:: Assuming only for the sake of argument that your statement is true, how would that be different from what is going on here? Isn't the assumption of creation just as equally an imposition of world view on aboriginal Australians?
::: Thanks for choosing to address my response instead of ignoring it and pushing your own POV as many do.
::: What I said was that evolutionists are imposing their worldview on ''the evidence''. That is not the same thing as imposing a creationist view on ''the Aboriginal view''. Furthermore, if anyone is imposing a view over the Aboriginal view, its the evolutionists. Aboriginal views (and there is more than one) are all ''creationist'', in that they all believe that kangaroos were ''created''; they don't believe that kangaroos ''evolved''.
::: The parallel that you should be asking about is whether creationists are also imposing their worldview on ''the evidence''. In a sense they are, but there are two differences between what creationists do and what evolutionists do:
:::* Creationists do not claim that every phenomenon is a direct creation by God, even though they believe that He is the ''ultimate'' source. Therefore, they are free to choose between a supernatural explanation (e.g. God directly created grey kangaroos) and a "naturalistic" one (e.g. that grey kangaroos are the result of speciation from the original created "kangaroo kind"). Committed evolutionists, especially atheistic ones, rule out one of these choices before even considering it.
:::* Creationists point out that, ultimately, we all must interpret the evidence within our worldview, so in that sense evolutionists and creationists are both doing the same thing. However, Creationists acknowledge this point, whereas evolutionists deny it, by claiming that their views are "science" and "fact".
::: I hope that clarifies things somewhat.
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 19:04, 3 November 2007 (EDT)
== Delete last section devoted to evolutionists = atheists ==
I have deleted the last section which began with "For example" and continues with a statistical breakup of how many biologists are praying on their knees as contrasted with how many are shaking their fist at the Almighty, as unarguably off topic. This is an article on kangaroos, not the blind bigotry of atheistic biologists. In any case, it is not clear of what the "example" is supposed to be. If necessary, and I don't think it is, there should be a link to one of the "Let's all create a New World - a new medieval world" sites. I might note in passing that I have never seen an article in Wikipedia (or any other encyclopedia or scientific journal for that matter) on the origins of kangaroos, camels or mole-rats which felt it necessary to expound on the religous beliefs of those individuals who had been responsible for the research. So who are the bigots now? {{unsigned|MylesP}}
: I think the section that you deleted came about by someone adding that the vast majority of biologists believe that 'roos evolved, as a sort of not-so-subtle argument-by-majority-view, so someone else added correctly that this "majority view" was a worldview-based view.
: The "for example" was an indication of the worldviews, to support the claim that their views on 'roo origins was worldview-based. I agree that this thought didn't flow terribly obviously.
: You are only partly correct that Wikipedia (etc.) don't expound on the religious views of the scientists with particular views, but this is because they don't recognise that one's views of origins is based on one's religious views. They work under the false premise that evolution is objective science rather than worldview-based assumptions. You are partly ''incorrect'' because if someone tries to put a creationist view into a Wikipedia article, you will very quickly have the religious basis of the creationist view expounded, as justification for not putting that view in at all.
: As we are not Wikipedia, and do not have this anti-Christian/anti-Creationist bias, we are happy to (a) present both views, and (b) explain why different people have different views.
:Having said all that, I'm generally happy to avoid arguments in articles about which view is best, i.e. simply keep it neutral and, where origins is relevant at all, mention both views briefly.
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 00:46, 30 November 2007 (EST)
::I found the same bit put back in the article. Either someone is very zealous or very confused. I removed it once more.--[[User:Fizz|Fizz]] 16:11, 5 December 2007 (EST)
== Baraminological musings (where are they now?) ==
Re: the following excerpt on Kangaroo origins:
According to the origins theory model used by young earth creation scientists, modern kangaroos are the descendants of the two founding members of the modern kangaroo baramin that were taken aboard Noah's Ark prior to the Great Flood. It has not yet been determined by baraminologists whether kangaroos form a holobaramin with the wallaby, tree-kangaroo, wallaroo, pademelon and quokka, or if all these species are in fact apobaraminic or polybaraminic.
(quote ends)
I gather that the hocus-pocus below is a long-winded way of saying that these estimable baraminological “scientists” have not yet decided if the listed animals all came from one ancestor. I am wondering how long it will take these researchers to determine an answer to this question, and what research has been done to date. Are there any papers published on the baraminological status of such animals? Is there any field research being undertaken trying to interbreed them to see if they are hybrids?
I am also interested in why it is only kangaroos that have been described in baraminological terms in Conservapedia. Correct me if I am wrong, but is there any other animal at all, marsupial or otherwise, that has been given this bizarre treatment? And if not, why not? Surely, every article on an animal should have a similar note on the musings of these tireless researchers? [[User:MylesP|MylesP]] 00:49, 7 March 2008 (EST)
:MylesP, your bigotry does you no favours. Some of your questions are valid and I would be happy to answer them, but your sarcasm and putting "scientists" in "scare quotes" as though they are not really scientists is abusive ad hominem, and referring to a scientific discipline that you don't agree with as "hocus-pocus" is arrogance as well. Therefore, you don't deserve an answer. In fact, you've earned yourself a short block [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 04:11, 7 March 2008 (EST)
== The atheist and/or evolutionary view ==
Before a revert war breaks out: '''The theory of evolution is not atheistic.''' It makes ''no statement whatsoever'' about the existence of a higher power. One can believe in a higher power and also believe that evolution caused the origin of species on Earth. '''Don't confuse "not Christian" with "not theistic."''' Furthermore, being atheistic does not necessarily mean one subscribes to the theory of evolution. --[[User:Rspeed|Rspeed]] 17:34, 8 September 2008 (EDT)
: The theory of evolution is atheistic not primarily because it makes a statement about a higher power, but because it is based on the presumption of no higher power. That is, it is an attempt to describe origins without invoking God. Further, for many people it ''does'' mean just what you say it doesn't mean. Sir Julian Huxley:
{{QuoteBox|In the evolutionary pattern of thought there is no longer either need or room for the supernatural. The earth was not created: it evolved. So did all the animals and plants that inhabit it, including our human selves, mind and soul as well as brain and body. So did religion.[http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/4322/105/]}}
: What other view than evolution would atheists subscribe to?
: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:21, 9 September 2008 (EDT)
:: That's not true, though. What Julian Huxley described ''isn't'' the Theory of Evolution. It states nothing about either the origin of Earth, the origin of life on it or the existence of a god or gods. It says ''only'' that the variations of life we see today evolved from earlier forms via natural selection. That's all. There is nothing that says that, for example, a deity didn't create the Universe and Earth, plant life on it and created the rules by which evolution would occur. It's compatible with theism in general, just not the majority of creation myths.
:: Atheism means a statement about the nonexistence of gods. Evolution is a biological theory, it doesn't even come ''close'' to touching that topic. You can't have either a theistic or atheistic scientific theory because the scientific method cannot test the supernatural. Secular is the adjective which best describes a scientific theory in regards to the existence of gods. That is, it's entirely unrelated.
:: There are two alternatives (that I can think of) to the Theory of Evolution that an atheist could subscribe to which have also been, at some point, well-accepted: Spontaneous Generation [http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio114/spontgen.htm] and [[Jean-Baptiste_Lamarck|Lamarckism]].
:: --[[User:Rspeed|Rspeed]] 19:45, 11 September 2008 (EDT)
::: What Huxley was referring to was wider than just the biological theory, that is true. But the biological theory is based on the "pattern of thought" as he put it. This pattern of thought is anti-Christian in nature, and compatible with atheism.
::: Evolution is more than just evolving "from earlier forms via natural selection". By that definition, creationists can believe in evolution. "Evolution" also encompasses the entire evolutionary "family tree". Whether or not it includes the start of that family tree (the ''origin'' of life) is a moot point. Many evolutionists ''have'' included the origin of life in the term, although I agree that many today reject that, and the currently-accepted ''mechanism'' (mutations and natural selection) doesn't cover the origin. See also [[Definition of evolution]]. You are correct that evolution, ''strictly speaking'', doesn't say anything about the origin of the "rules" of evolution, but ''in practice'', it does say things along those lines. This is because evolution is based on ''naturalism'', the view that ''nature'' is all there is; that is, there is no ''super''natural, and atheistic scientists use evolution to argue against God.
::: Further, although technically evolution doesn't say anything about the origin of the laws of evolution, etc., it does say plenty that contradicts the Bible. That justifies, I would suggest, claiming that evolution ''does'' "come ''close'' to touching that topic".
::: True, you can't really have a theistic or atheistic scientific theory, but evolution doesn't really qualify as "scientific", because it is based on atheistic views, such as naturalism.
::: As for your alternatives to evolution that atheists could subscribe to, your second example is merely a different mechanism for the theory of evolution—but it's still evolution. I take it that your first example refers to spontaneous generation ''of each different life form'', as opposed to the spontaneous generation of the ''first life''. That being so, I will concede that as a possibility. Nevertheless, that view is long out of favour, so the only real option that atheists have left is evolution (in some form or other).
::: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 21:37, 11 September 2008 (EDT)