Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
350,907
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 326:
Line 326: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive Set 2 (view source)
Revision as of 07:17, February 12, 2011
, 07:17, February 12, 2011no edit summary
Excellent research re: genome and the evolutionary paradigm: http://creation.com/genome-mania [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 07:41, 16 October 2010 (EDT)
Excellent research re: genome and the evolutionary paradigm: http://creation.com/genome-mania [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 07:41, 16 October 2010 (EDT)
==Suggested addition==
I would like to add some further points from Dr Behe's later book ''[[the Edge of Evolution]]'' to the section "Implausible Explanations and the Evolutionary Position", specifically regarding how Dr Behe empirically proved that ''even if'' we accepted the huge assumptions made by evolutionists, ''their very own theory'' cannot account for the diversity of life we currently see. I guess this article is locked as it was a target for atheist trolls, so if it cannot be unlocked perhaps an administrator could add some more info regarding evolutionists lack of any answers to Dr Behe's findings? [[User:PhilipM|PhilipM]] 17:27, 18 November 2010 (EST)
:::Write up some material and post it here. We can stick it in the article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:29, 1 December 2010 (EST)
=A quote out of context=
Reference 262, quoting Eugenie Scott, is out of context and does not reflect the message of the general article. [[User:AnaC|AnaC]] 20:54, 30 December 2010 (EST)
:You have to prove your argument much better than that if you want to persuade anyone.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:15, 30 December 2010 (EST)
::Mr. Schlafly, you beat me to it! AnaC, my comment was going to be similar to the above comment, if you wonder why I post no reply but indicate so on your talk page. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] <sup>[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]</sup> 22:17, 30 December 2010 (EST)
<br>
After reading the entire article, I came to the conclusion that the article points out several different reasons extraneous to the actual ideas being presented that would suggest a tilt in favor of the creationist discussion
Scott states:
""What usually happens in these debates? Usually they take place at
the invitation of the other side, and usually they take place in a
religious setting or minimally under religious sponsorship.
That's the first problem. '''The audience that is most anxious to
'''come, and that will be recruited the most heavily, is the one that
'''supports the creationist.''' In the comparatively rare situation
where the debate is held on a college campus, the supporters of
good science and evolution are invariably in the minority in the
audience, whereas the creationist supporters seem to exercize every
effort to turn out their crowd."
The author also talks about debate format as a possible cause:
"The goal of a debate (I assume) is to
teach the audience something about evolution and the nature of
science. This is possible in a debate format, but '''it is difficult
'''to do well, because it is not easy to do quickly.
....
How long does it take to straighten out your audience on this
matter? The creationist has made a simple declarative sentence,
and '''you have to deal with not an easily-grasped factual error, but
'''a logical error and a methodological error, which will take you far
'''longer to explain.''' As I was writing this, a community college
teacher called to tell me she had trouble convincing her students
they were made out of smaller parts! Now maybe not all audiences
are at such a primitive level that they don't even accept cell
theory, but given the fact that your opponent just has to say, "It
didn't happen" (i.e., "there are no transitional forms",
"radiometric dating doesn't work," etc.) means '''you have a bunch
'''more talking to do from the get-go'''."
.....
'''I have no objection, by the way, to appearing on radio and TV with
'''creationists, and have done so many times.''' In this format, it is
possible to have some sort of point-counterpoint which is (though
it seems odd to say it) not possible in a formal debate format. On
the radio, I have been able to stop Gish, et al, and say, "Wait a
minute, if X is so, then wouldn't you expect Y?" or something
similar, and show that their "model" is faulty. But in a debate,
the evolutionist has to shut up while the creationist gallups
along, spewing out nonsense with every paragraph.
And finally, the author suggests a method for dealing with this format flaw:
With this format, the audience is given digestable bits of
information and is not overwhelmed by a barrage of impossible-to-
answer nonsense. The evolutionist at least has a fighting chance
to teach something about science and evolution.
'''Of course, whenever the ICR has been presented this option, they
'''have refused to debate.
It seems to me that way that the quote was used, it was meant to support the view that evolutionists do not want to debate out of the perceived inadequacy of their own arguments, but the author states that it is because of the structural flaws of the debate itself. The author states in the essay that the debater and his supporters think he did a good job, so in the end both parties think they did well, only that, according to the author, the creationist is perceived to have won because he has a lot more support from the audience.
Seen in this context, it would be more useful to use a different quote to support the point of view, since the author is not sincere in his expression that creationists win the arguments. [[User:AnaC|AnaC]] 22:51, 30 December 2010 (EST)
:But if we recruited heavily, without financial incentives and the like that are normally presented at scientific conferences (no need to hide it, I've seen the same actions taken at financial conferences) and with simply word of mouth and such, I highly doubt we'd have any tangible turn out or visible support if our beliefs were without merit. That's basic psychology and really just common sense, wouldn't you agree? While evolutionists and other such members of the "scientific community" need financial incentives, the promise of glory upon publication in like-minded journals, etc, we don't have this receptive atmosphere. Rather, we have only the weight of our arguments to persuade people. Perhaps this and not the "heavy recruitment" (which the author you mention, interestingly enough, ''does not'' detail in any way) is the reason for our support? Did that possibility occur to you? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] <sup>[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]</sup> 23:11, 30 December 2010 (EST)
::I do not understand what you are trying to say. I am simply quoting the author, and that is what he claimed--I have no knowledge of whether his claims are true nor the implications they may have if they were (or were not), nor do I know the motivations of the people who do go to the debates. But in any case, if true, the numbers would skew the result, regardless of the method of recruitment.[[User:AnaC|AnaC]] 23:28, 30 December 2010 (EST)
:::My apologies if I wasn't entirely clear. My reasoning is this: the simple fact that, from personal experience, audiences that share are beliefs have no additional incentive, outside of hearing them validated, to come to such a debate, while evolutionists and other followers of Scott most likely ''do'' have additional incentives, whether they be financial, extra credit in classes, etc. The fact that in spite of this difference, our support vastly outnumbers all other groups combined at such debate, in essence makes the level of recruitment irrelevant. Also, keep in mind that Eugenie Scott is one of our loudest and most vociferous critics. I trust that you're aware of her "participation" in the problems in Dover, where an issue that simply did not concern her suddenly became her business? Interestingly enough, she immediately published a book using her newfound publicity. Do my previous comments about entering a debate for financial incentive seem more clear with that example? [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] <sup>[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]</sup> 23:38, 30 December 2010 (EST)
::::I do not know anything about the author, nor what she has chosen to do with her life. You stated that "The fact that in spite of this difference, our support vastly outnumbers all other groups combined at such debate, in essence makes the level of recruitment irrelevant.", which I do not understand. I do believe that moral conviction is a much stronger motivator than any financial gain. From my experience, spiritual motivation is one of the strongest motivators that exists. However, I do not understand how this pertains to the fact that the author did not mean to "confess" that creationists win debates, since she does not believe that they were playing fair. The article does not address this, and gives the impression that this is what the author truly believes.[[User:AnaC|AnaC]] 23:53, 30 December 2010 (EST)
:::::I don't have time at the moment to respond to this immediately as I'm on my way out the door, but if you have any pressing questions, you can email me (tyler.zoran@gmail.com, it's also on my user page) and I'll address them ASAP in the morning. Otherwise, I'll try to respond here tomorrow. Thanks! [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] <sup>[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]</sup> 00:00, 31 December 2010 (EST)
::::::In the meantime, though, research Eugenie Scott a bit more if you can. You'll find it very interesting, especially when you realize the perspective that influences everything she does. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] <sup>[[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]]</sup> 00:01, 31 December 2010 (EST)
Experiments on Evolution the article states: The theory of evolution posits a process of transformation from simple life forms to more complex life forms, which has never been observed or duplicated in a laboratory.[11][12]
However this has indeed been observed in nature and experiments demonstrating evolution have been performed in a laboratory, such as Richard Lenski's bacterial studies. Lenski has made all his strains available and it would only be appropriate to repeat the experiments and find flaws in them before dismissing them outright.
: You can't be serious. If that research paper had been submitted to me by a college student, then I probably would have returned it ungraded for reasons explained long ago (and still available) on this website. (Also, please sign your postings using the signature button at the top of the edit space.)--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 11:45, 12 January 2011 (EST)
::::There are too many creationists in the audience! A classic case of a whiny evolutionist. Were you personally trained to "defend" evolutionism by [[Essay: Does Richard Dawkins have machismo?|this fellow?]][[User:Conservative|conservative]] 17:18, 12 January 2011 (EST)
== Fossil Record ==
The fossil record is not needed to prove the theory of evolution it stands on its own without the fossil record, in fact several animals such as soft bodied animals such as flatworms will not fossilize and leave fossil records, yet we know they exist and have existed in the past.
Many people simply do not understand what fossils tell us or what we can use them for. However to say they disprove the Theory of evolution is simply incorrect. After all even Gravity is just a theory
Separation of Pro/Anti Evolution.
My concern is that rather than detailing what constitutes Evolution and then later the criticisms of the theory, the form of the entire piece is about vaguely describing an evolutionary component and immediately refuting it as utter garbage and leaving it at that. Is it really so difficult to present one side without trashing it as soon as humanly possible. Also, Evolution being a key component in the development of racism is ludicrous. The Spanish Caste system was in existence long before the theory of evolution was introduced. I thought Conservapedia was about providing a place for truth, but what I see here is a place for people who only want the kind of truth that serves to reinforce their viewpoint. I fully support providing evidence which challenges the theory and yet I suppose giving Evolution fair representation is just a sign that I've been corrupted by liberal bias.
:Perhaps there is another way for you to contribute on this subject, but apart from this article. Try articles on natural selection, genetics, various plants and animals, geology, and so on, in which you can explain what main stream science says about them, as well as providing evidence refuting it. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 15:31, 10 February 2011 (EST)
::::[[Essay: As always, there is more work to be done|Evolutionist excusitis]] always happens when evidence is asked for. Please get a real worldview like biblical Christianity which [[Christian apologetics|has plenty of evidence to support it]] and not one you always have to make excuses for. As far as the history of racism in Europe, was racism solely the result of the Spanish Caste System or were there events contributing after? It seems to me as though you are offering a rather simplistic and inadequate commentary here. I would suggest reading material on [[Nazism]] and then contributing to that article. By the way, are you an atheist? If so, please provide proof and evidence that atheism is correct. Generally speaking, atheists such as as [[Richard Dawkins]], are rather weak when it comes to [[historiography]] as can be seen [[Richard Dawkins, atheist atrocities, and historical revisionism|HERE]]. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 16:39, 10 February 2011 (EST)