From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


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.--Darwinliveson 09:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Commandment 1 of this site is "what you post must be truthful and verifiable". Anyone with half a brain knows ID is utter bollocks.

I think we should include both creationist and evolutionist perspectives on kangaroo origins. Conservatives aren't monolithically creationist, and even if that were the case it'd be useful to at least be familiar with the other side's position. --John 22:26, 7 March 2007 (EST)

The evolutionist perspective on kangaroo origins is speculative at best. A search for "kangaroo evolution" only shows up 221 results, most of which are people selling kangaroo meat! If you think you can explain just what their views are, you're welcome to try. Dr. Richard Paley 02:28, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Well there might be slim pickings on the 221 google hits you ran....we might have better luck looking at the roughly 4,000 peer review journal articles on kangaroo and marsupial evolution from Tmtoulouse 02:34, 8 March 2007 (EST) so we are on the same page. Tmtoulouse 02:35, 8 March 2007 (EST)
If the scientific perspective on kangaroo origins is "speculative", what does that make the religious perspective? Nematocyte 05:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)
The Truth, perhaps? Dr. Richard Paley 06:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Well, you are welcome to read through those to tease out the evolutionist perspective on kangaroo origins. Personally, I'd rather read through the 7790 peer-reviewed articles on Intelligent Design (which surely puts the lie to the claim of liberals that ID is not science) Dr. Richard Paley 06:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

The problem with your point above, Dr. Paley, is that all of those articles cited above were not "peer reviewed" by scientists - that is why ID is not a science. You let me know when the next ID article is published in Science or Nature--Darwinliveson 09:51, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Bah! There is a MUCH easier way of settling this: [1] ........hmmmm okay I guess I do loose. Tmtoulouse 11:37, 8 March 2007 (EST)
On the other hand...[2]Tsumetai 05:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Most of those are books, not peer reviewed papers. The rest appear to be about engineering, or pointing out the flaws in intelligent design as a biological mechanism (perhaps you should have read the papers before posting that?). Intelligent design proponents are old earth creationists, so they would state that the origins section as currently stands is incorrect. Nematocyte 06:58, 8 March 2007 (EST)

While some ID proponents may have old-earth leanings, Intelligent Design Theory itself is neutral to the age of the earth and merely proposes to detect evidences of intelligent design in life, not the history of the earth and creation. Dr. Richard Paley 07:16, 8 March 2007 (EST)
So you concede that "7790 peer-reviewed articles on intelligent design" is not an accurate statement? Nematocyte 08:26, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Tmtoulouse's link above to kangaroo evolution was claimed to be "roughly 4,000 peer review journal articles" but that number includes books and articles not actually about kangaroo evolution. I made my point clearly with the link to search results using an even more stringent criteria of putting quotes around the term. Nematocyte, if you are going to be so knee-jerk hostile to anyone who isn't an evolutionist, perhaps you should go back to Wikipedia. Also, I'm glad you concede your incorrectness about Intelligent Design Theory's earth-age relevance. Dr. Richard Paley 11:27, 8 March 2007 (EST)
I'll presume that you are by this response agreeing that 7790 number is inaccurate. As to the kangaroo number, if you look through the actual citations in that google scholar search on the first page one has easily 3 or four relevant hits that are not books and a slightly larger number on the second page. If that continues one has presumably easily 300 peer reviewed sources. JoshuaZ 11:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)
In fact I do not contest that ID is age-neutral. My claim was that proponents were old-earth creationist, and by "proponents" I mean those who seriously attempt to forward the theory in at least a superficially scientific manner, such as Behe and Dembski, both of whom are old-earthers. Nematocyte 11:39, 8 March 2007 (EST)
What in the world does that have to do with anything I said above or the topic of kangaroo origins? Again, I think your anti-creation hostility is getting the best of your reason. Dr. Richard Paley 11:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Dear Doctor, it related to your claim of the "7790" ID papers (which I take it you have retracted), and my assertation that those who did forward intelligent design would agree with me anyway. It appears you have no scientific base to speak of for your model of kangaroo origins.
Using the exact number 7790 was obviously in jest to point out the over-zealousness of the 4000 number. Were you not reading the light-hearted exchange between Tmtoulouse and myself above or were you just looking to pick nits (or a fight)? As to whether some ID proponents share with you errant views on the age of the earth and might speak outside of their specialty vis-à-vis kangaroo origins, that has nothing to do with anything preceding your assertion. Notice I referred to articles on "Intelligent Design", not "Intelligent Design proponents talking about something that isn't Intelligent Design". Dr. Richard Paley 12:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Incidently, are you the same Dr. Richard Paley I seem to recall reading an infamous article by extolling the evils of the Mac OS and Pokemon [[3]]? I thought that was satire. Nematocyte 12:22, 8 March 2007 (EST)

For the record I wasn't totally serious with my number claim, I was being facetious to make the point that google hits is not a good measure of the potential for information in an entry, and also that the places in which to get your in depth information for the evolution of kangaroos is not personal webpages but rather more scholarly sources, which are available. I think number games are silly, as I hope my google fight post above demonstrates. Tmtoulouse 12:05, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Dr. Richard Paley is not a Doctor, and certainly not trustworthy if we're basing everything on Google searches: As a matter of fact he's a hoax, which sadly is very realistic on this site:

I suspected he might have been a hoax when I found the article, but he still seems indistinguishable from many of the other contributors. Nematocyte 11:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

"religious theories"

What is the point of the last paragraph on the kangaroo entry? Yes, australian aboriginal beliefs about the creation of the earth are religious in nature, but how is evolution a "religious theory"?

And more importantly, why can I not edit the page to remove this?

If this project is to be taken seriously, ridiculous comments like that need to be weeded out. dropkickmejesus 22:21, 13 March 2007 (GMT)

"Ridiculous comments like that" are preciesly what distinguish Conservapedia from pro-liberal sites like Wikipedia, and it's precisely why Conservapedia is so much better. We lack the bias that makes Wikipedia so unreliable. --Ashens 04:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Could you please explain to me why evolution should be considered a "religious theory". I note that the offending phrase has been removed. dropkickmejesus 17:59, 14 March 2007 (GMT)

This is the worst website I have ever seen. Ever. Creationism is about as stupid an idea as eating your own sh**.

Actually, eating feces may be sensible in some situations. C. difficle infections due to shifts in colonic flora are a growning problem. In the past, fecal enemas from healthy donors were used. Currently, antibiotics are used. It has been proposed to feed people fecal emulsions to prevent or treat the infection. No, I am not making this up. Palmd001 23:38, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Kangaroo evolution - By 110 million years ago, mammals had diverged into two distinct groups, the placental mammals (a group that includes humans and most modern mammals) and the marsupial mammals (a group that includes koalas, kangaroos, wombats, and pouched mice). These groups evolved for millions of years in two increasingly different directions. As we follow the evolution of marsupials, we find their history to be further shaped by the drifting of the continents. The ancient landmasses of Laurasia and Gondwana broke apart to form the continents, isolating one group of marsupials on the continental island of Australia while isolating another group in South America. These separate populations of marsupials were left to evolve in parallel for some time. Comparison reveals that, although placental and marsupial mammals formed seperate lineages, they still evolved similar adaptations. In some cases, placental and marsupial mammals physically resemble each other: the pouched marsupial mouse and the harvest mouse, the marsupial mole and the common mole, the marsupial wombat and the marmot, the tasmanian wolf and the wolf.--Joobs 17:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

On the article, which seems to condemn the possibility of evolution, it states "Kangaroos have adapted to the varied conditions across Australia in many ways." Now, correct me if im mistaken but is adaption not just evolution, but on a smaller scale. Many many adaptions over millenia IS evolution, is it not? Therefore if these kangaroos really did sail across on mats of vegetation and didnt evolve, how did they adapt to the conditions of australia?? Does anybody know?? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Loveandpeace (talk)

No, adaptation is a built-in mechanism in the design of living creatures. Adaptation involves (mostly at least) an elimination of some genetic information (for example, the elimination of genes for short hair on creatures living in cold climates), allowing them to become more specialised. Goo-to-you evolution requires the addition of brand-new genetic information, which is a different thing entirely. Yes, evolutionists will equivocate and call adaptation evolution, but specialisation will not provide now organs, etc. for living things, so cannot result in the evolution of new kinds of creatures. Philip J. Rayment 11:05, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps arguments would be clearer if you stuck to the mainstream definition. By the standard definition, adaptation is evolution. Larger changes over longer times are also evolution. If this adversion to the word "evolution" could be overcome then dialoge would be much easier. Nematocyte 11:25, 1 May 2007 (EDT)
The problem is that the definition of evolution is so woolly it can cover almost anything. Philip J. Rayment 11:35, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Space Ship Theory

I think the origin of the kangaroo should also include discussion of a belief held by many of Riley Martin's followers, the O-Qua Tangin Wann. They believe that Kangaroos originated from the "mothership" from the planet Tan. The alien visitors from Tan visited Earth a few hundred years ago and brought with them a male and female kangaroo. The "mothership" decided after visiting serveral continents that Australia was the best fit for their kangaroo species.

Lay off of the mushrooms. They're not good for you. MountainDew 04:48, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

If some conservatives believe it, we should give it equal time! --Scrap 04:52, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
(And it's at least as believable as the idea that they migrated from the Middle East to Australia without ANY getting off along the way.)
So your "suggestion" was just another jab at conservatives. Why are you even here, Scrap? Do you think that Conservapedia is just a dumping ground for your mean-spirited anti-Christian jokes? --Ashens 05:00, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Of course it's not just for me to make bad jokes. It's also a source of unintentional hilarity, and a terrifying cautionary example of the perils of Groupthink. And I hardly think that was "mean-spirited", just really silly--I'd have to work mighty hard to out-crazy some of the "serious" posters here. --Scrap 05:05, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
It is really funny. --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 --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. 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. --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?
Philip J. Rayment 02:42, 26 September 2007 (EDT)

why is this page locked?

Why isn't anyone allowed to edit this page? Can't an Australian even make some constributions about an animal in his own country?

Apparently the origins of the kangaroo are a hot button issue. How informational will an encyclopedia be where any animal entry says "As with all animals, Noah brought them all on an ark impossibly small to hold them all... blah blah blah...." --Truth is bipartisan 20:48, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

Land Bridge from Europe to Australia was not in any sources.

Land Bridge from Europe to Australia was not in any sources. Please keep that out in the future. Conservative 23:34, 19 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

The reference to "land-bridges" was added by someone, who is apparently confused, to replace the reference to the catastrophic continental drift theory. Please keep that in in the future. Dr. Richard Paley 15:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

It should be noted that this page is all speculation.


How can something be "now native"? Native refers to where something came from. If you're going with the normal evolution thought, then they are native to Australia. If you're going with the tale that they came from the Mid-East, then they are native to the Mid-East (or ideally where they came before the flood, which could be australia). Jrssr5 13:07, 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. 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. 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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Quisculus (talk)
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 science? 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. 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. 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.Myrtle 17:31, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Genetic bottleneck

I know what a genetic bottleneck is, but I don't know what evidence it would leave. Could someone enlighten me before I remove that new bit about there being no evidence that kangaroos have been through a genetic bottleneck? Philip J. Rayment 20:11, 5 May 2007 (EDT)

I think the evidence it would leave would be a close genetic similarity between all members of a particular species. I think cheetahs went through a genetic bottleneck once, according to a documentary I saw, - although if the Noah story is true, so did every species...

cheetah genetic bottleneck in plain english the same in scientific terms Totnesmartin 14:05, 15 May 2007 (EDT)

A "genetic bottleneck" occurs when a certain species experiences an event that causes the entire species population to go nearly extinct. It can occur during processes of natural speciation (when few members of the population separate and start their own population) or from the introduction of a new natural predator. What happens is that after the near extinction event, the population gradually goes larger until eventually there are many more individuals and there is a substantial, self-sustaining species. We know that a genetic bottleneck has occurred, for example, in cheetahs because every animal has a very similar genetic make-up, which indicates that the entire cheetah species as we know it today originated from only a few individuals. This is also why cheetahs are generally prone to many familial conditions that result from inbreeding between genetically similar individuals. This last post is right to assume that if the story of Noah's arc were true, all species on this planet would exhibit similar genetic patterns. After all, what the Bible says is that Noah brought two of every animal on the arc and the rest drowned in the great floor. However, this is entirely not the case. Humans, for example, are by far the most diverse species on the planet due to the ease of international travel and mixing of different nationalities over the course of time. There are also 300,000 different varieties of beetles on this planet. Dogs and horses are just two more examples of species that maintain great genetic diversity, mostly through human intervention over thousands of years. Just another example of where the Bible got it wrong.
However, I know very little about the evolution of kangaroos. It sounds plausible, though, that a few kangaroos may have repopulated the entire species following the continental drift that separated Australia from the mainland.
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wagnerpe (talk)
I should have realised the answer to this before. These explanations presume that the species that we have today are exactly the same as those that came off the ark. But that is not the model. Take canines, for example. On the ark would have been two of the canine kind, and from that the various species and varieties of dogs and other canines have developed. That is, the two canines on the ark had all the genetic potential found in wolves, dogs, etc. today. The same would have applied for the kangaroo kind; there would have been a pair of "roo kind" on the ark, and from that have developed red kangaroos, grey kangaroos, wallabies, etc. So there is no "evidence" of a genetic bottleneck in the form of limited genetic variability simply because the specimens on the ark were not of limited genetic potential. Cheetahs obviously went through a genetic bottleneck after they became highly specialised (i.e. of limited variability), unlike the creatures on the ark.
So much for the claim that the Bible got it wrong! And beetles could have survived off the ark, on floating mats of vegetation, so that's irrelevant to this discussion.
Philip J. Rayment 11:43, 29 June 2007 (EDT)

Rarely fossilize

Darwindude ... please cite your sources before adding information. It may be true, but you need to show that. 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. 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? 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. Philip J. Rayment 04:19, 9 September 2007 (EDT)


Evolution should wikilink to Theory of Evolution. CalebRookwood 21:01, 8 September 2007 (EDT)

Done. Thanks. 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. 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 "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.
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.
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? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MylesP (talk)

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.
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.--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? 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 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. --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:
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.[4]
What other view than evolution would atheists subscribe to?
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 [5] and Lamarckism.
--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 supernatural, 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).
Philip J. Rayment 21:37, 11 September 2008 (EDT)