Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 2

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Why has 'this page ... been locked to prevent editing'?

Why has 'this page ... been locked to prevent editing'? Are those who locked it afraid to debate the points at issue (such as the very title's assumption that evolution is just a theory rather than an observable fact), or are they pretending that there are no points at issue (almost as if the Bible said so, when in fact it has nothing whatsoever to say on the subject, apart from suggesting some Divine input)? If the first, then they are admitting to the weakness of their position. If the second, then they are frankly misrepresenting the truth. Which, when you think about it, is a bit ironic, to say the least! If knowledge of the truth is supposed to set you free, what is suppression of it supposed to do? --Petrus 12:08, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

There is simply no valid reason for this page to be locked. If one is to present a fair and balanced article on a controversial subject, one cannot close off the avenues leading to knowledge (in its true sense). Censorship is simply unconscionable. NousEpirrhytos 17:30, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Give me a break! We're not censoring anything. We're just writing this article with a conservative perspective. That's not censorship and you ought to be ashamed to write such preposterous claims. And, of course, your absurd comment that we close off "avenues leading to truth". That's what Wikipedia does. We are opening the avenues of truth, but you don't want to see it. All you want to see is the filthy lies that come out of your mouth. That's not knowledge; that's foolishness. Scorpionman 07:43, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Methinks describing NousEpyrrhytos's comment as 'filthy lies' reveals (a) abuse, (b) contempt, (c) bigotry and (d) extreme lack of perspective. Still, at least we shall all know in future how seriously to take Scorpionman's contributions. --Petrus 08:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

What, the same as you take Conservative's contributions? Scorpionman 13:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
It's locked to prevent vandalism and inappropriate edits. Wikipedia also locks many of its pages. We have unlocked pages too when the inappropriate edits decline.--Aschlafly 17:34, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Define "inappropriate". NousEpirrhytos 18:21, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
He just told you! Stop asking dumb questions. Scorpionman 07:35, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

He did nothing of the kind. Stop ignoring what the texts actually say, whether biblical or otherwise. --Petrus 07:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, he did. That's a really stupid question. What texts? Scorpionman 07:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

(a) No he didn't: if so, quote the above definition. (b) It wasn't a question at all. (c) What NousEpyrrhytos wrote. --Petrus 08:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Aschlafly, the last part is an extreme euphemism. The protection log shows which pages were ever unprotected:
  • Examples of Bias in Wikipedia on March 11 (or 10, in some US time zones), re-protected within seconds.
  • Theistic evolution on March 9 (or 8), had been protected while draft had been created.
  • ACLU on March 8, re-protected half a day later because you didn't want an unsourced and possibly out-of-context quote to be removed.
  • Earth on March 1, with the reasoning that the protection had been unnecessary.
  • Dinosaur on March 1, with the same reasoning.
  • Template:AboutC on January 19, because the admin didn't mean to protect it.
  • The Theory of Evolution on December 18, re-protected since February 24 (or 23) to give Conservative control over it. This diff (right after re-protection) nicely shows what counts as "inappropriate edits" on Conservaedia.
  • User talk:BenjaminS on December 4, by BenjaminS (apparently an error or a test - protection lasted less than one minute)
  • Main Page on December 1, November 30 and November 22, re-protected since December 19 to prevent vandalism.
  • How To Create a Conservapedia Account on December 1, with the reasoning that protection had been unnecessary.
10 cases, including the one which had been unprotected for less than a minute. 4 cases have been re-protected (and still are protected). Out of the 6 still unprotected cases, 5 had been protected unnecessarily. These numbers count the Main Page as one case (one of the 4 protected cases). If you count it as three cases, the Main Page breaks down into: 1 re-protected case, 3 protection/unprotection cycles happened without any vandalism causing them.
So I think you might want to rephrase your statement a bit. --Sid 3050 18:39, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Hey Squid (oops, Sid), I looked at the diff that you claim shows "inappropriate edits". I'll tell you what was inappropriate: the trash that was rightfully removed. None of the "misconceptions" that were previously listed are valid. Microevolution and macroevolution are not used to describe two different fields of research, they're quite different in process too. Microevolution doesn't turn chimps into people, and speciation is not macroevolution. The only real misconception about evolution is by evolutionists: that it is a fact. It is a theory, and I'm not confused about that term. Scorpionman 07:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Wow, coming up with silly names. What is this? Elementary school? After seeing how you basically taunt everybody who argues for more balance and a dose of reality in some articles, I kinda hope that you're just a clever vandal. However, I fear that you really believe that the current excuse for an article about the "Theory of Evolution" is great. The majority editor is a guy whose sole goal is to prove it wrong, no matter what. That's like asking a radical atheist to write an article about God. Yes, Conservapedia is proud to have its bias (even though it never openly admits that on the more prominent pages - for a site that accuses Wikipedia of concealing, distorting, and omitting things, Conservapedia seems awfully eager to hide its own blatant bias and the fact that tons of articles are stubs), so the few pro-balance people are of course fighting a lost battle. This article will probably NEVER be unlocked (the same goes for ACLU, Faith, Second Law of Thermodynamics, YEC, and others), and the "good conservatives" will tell themselves that they finally managed to tell The Truth.
But you know what amuses me to no end? This section from Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: "Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored." How fitting, considering that this article here ONLY has "facts" against it and got protected to prevent it from ever being exposed to pro-evolution material. I said it before, I'll say it again: Conservapedia replaces Wikipedia's alleged bias with full, 100% ultra-pro-Christian and radically pro-conservative bias. It has become different than Wikipedia, but not better. And people like you make me doubt that that will ever change. --Sid 3050 09:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Why should it change? Look, the point is that Conservapedia is going to be conservative, not "radical" just conservative, and Wikipedia is going to be liberal. Now if you don't like this then just stick to Wikipedia or EvoWiki (talk about a biased site!) Scorpionman 14:20, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
this page is ridiculous, it is give no scientific evidence for the creationism theory. please, this is meant to be an unbiased site not a christian rave page
It's amazing, actually. Anywhere else, you'd just be a sad little troll, but here, you're quite likely on your way to become a good role model. I have better things to do than "discussing" with somebody who I could automate with a Greasemonkey script. Just push the button and insert a generic "Conservapedia is good because it's so biased, but Wikipedia is bad because it's so biased! Because our bias is in line with God and The Truth!" speech into the current textbox. Push another button, and it dishes out a taunt. How does it feel to know that your entire existence could be replaced with a few lines of code without anybody noticing the difference? :) --Sid 3050 16:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
It is amazing how many pages are protected against free speech on this website. I just was pressing "Random page" for some times. And many pages were protected. In wikipedia only some pages are protected against IP's. Here EVERY page is protected against IP and many pages are protected even agains logged-in members. I do not get it. What are you afraid so much about here? That people help articles to improve? That people share their knowledge?
Or is it just that you are afraid that some people might correct some wrong things that you wish to have true? The censorship on this webpage reminds me to the worst dictatorships in the world. Hitler burned books and people, who were against the regime were killed. When Eastern Europe was communistic - people were not allowed to say anything against the leaders or the political system. Especialy Scorpionman reminds me to the communists from the German Democratic Republic. They were building the wall through Berlin to imprison their own people in their state. But they told to the imprisioned that the walls are for keeping out the bad capitalists.
Scorpionman tells: "It's locked to prevent vandalism and inappropriate edits. " - Why is the "wall" around the article? To prevent vandalism? Or is the truth - to keep bias? HE also writes: "We're not censoring anything. We're just writing this article with a conservative perspective. That's not censorship " - That is how the comunists were arguing. Even when they were starting to build the wall, they said "Nobody wants to build a wall". Sonds quite similar to "We're not censoring anything." --Itsjustme 19:10, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Ha ha, what you said is pretty amusing. Serious, but amusing nonetheless. I assume you've been reading Chris Hedges' new book on Christian m? He asserts that we're dangerous terrorists who are trying to take over the country and kill anyone who holds views contrary to their own. We must stop them!" Sounds like paranoia. That's what liberalism has degraded to: paranoia. You know, ironically, this is exactly what happened in ancient Rome! Christians were viewed as a threat, and consequently were treated horribly. They were burned, thrown to the lions and other horrible things I won't say. I'd say we're coming very close to that in America: "Christians are a threat and we need to remove them." And as for the other stuff, no we're not afraid of your beliefs, heck you can belive anything you want! We're not afraid to debate you either, but frankly it's not really edifying or constructive. It doesn't do anything either, especially these silly internet arguments that culminate in nothing more than name-calling and childish insults. Now unless you have something useful to post, don't bother posting, like I've said before. Scorpionman 22:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Since this conservative view of evolution doesn't please you, I don't expect any will but why don't you try reading CreationWiki's article on evolution? Perhaps you may find it at least a little more satisfactory. Cheers. Scorpionman 22:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Hate to disappoint you and all, but 9 out of 10 people in America actually believe in a supreme being. You have references to God in your pledge of allegiance. Now, please tell me how Christians are percieved as a threat. As for the 'stop with the insults' line, you were the one who used Squid. I mean, thats not even a decent and/or witty insult. It reads like its written by a 16 year old who's voice hasnt broken yet and who gets beaten up at school. And about the paranoia, its always the conservative parties that use fear and paranoia as a tactic to get themselves elected. Examples of this include the use of the percieved threat of communism, terrorism...whats next? atheism? sounds like it from what you're saying...sure, Christians were burnt at the were a lot of other people. It was a tragedy, but so were the Crusades. If you're not afraid of debating then allow other users to edit this site. ---Dezza91 03:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I have no power of the locking or unlocking of this page, so stop complaining to me about it and complain to Conservative or Aschlafly. I don't get beaten up at school, I was homeschooled and my voice has broken. But that's enough information; it's not safe to give out too many facts about yourself over the internet these days. Christians are percieved as a threat; you've obviously never heard of Chris Hedges or his book on the Christian Right and how we're ts and trying to take over the country. If you haven't, read it. It's ridiculous, but it will show you that I'm right in what I "claimed". I even found an article on the internet the other day (some obscure site and I forgot the address, it wasn't even worth remembering) that talked about how dangerous Christians and creationists are. Make sure you do the homework before immediately denying what I said. Scorpionman 14:54, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't believe scorpionman is for real. He (she?) is a provocateur.

If there's a provocator here, it's you, Juglander. Scorpionman 14:54, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
One thing I think scorpionman is forgetting that being conservative and christian are not necessarily the same thing. Also, there are many christians who believe evolution happened (I myself happen to be one). And it helps to be open minded, I have my opinions, but if you can make valid arguements to one point my opinion can change, but attacking my beliefs without backing it up does a greater mis-service to you. Jrssr5 12:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

The guy's got a point, scorpionman. Chris Hedges wrote a book ripping off Christians. Wow. Does that mean everyone holds his views? You were homeschooled? HAHAHA! We're complaining to you because you defend the locking of this page, not because you were responsible for it. And you said you found one site that says how dangerous Christians are? One site? I can show you sites that deny the Holocaust, and provide evidence that is completely true. That doesn't mean that most people hold this view. That doesn't mean that the Holocaust didn't happen. All it means is that they got 1 piece of evidence about population redistribution and ran with it. They forgot to mention the video evidence of people (mainly Jews, but there were others, particularly Russian peasants) being shot, tortured, abused, and basically being treated like animals. You are taking a single book and saying that this a majority viewpoint. I could take the manual on witchcraft, and claim that its a majority viewpoint. Show your evidence, from an independant source, that a clear majority of people worldwide (America doesn't constitute the globe and all it's people) believe that the Christian Right is threatening and dangerous. --Dezza91 23:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)


This talk page should be archived, as it's getting too long and my browser always takes a long time to open it. Scorpionman 08:03, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

You could even say it's evolved to a more advanced state! BaggerOfWolves 08:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Ha ha, clever! Scorpionman 13:23, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Done. Tsumetai 08:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Seems to me

that this is a very radical site. I think it might be appropriate to notify the FBI and have the terror alert raised... I sense a Christian Jihad.

Did you allready inform FBI?
No doubt you've been reading Chris Hedges' new book about Christian m, no? Scorpionman 22:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Creationist Lies, and Hoaxes

"In fact, one consistency among the Dover school Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories, and outright lies under oath..." - Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District 400 F. Supp.2d 707, n.7 at 727.

dude i saw that too...scary. i don't htink god wants us to lie to force his Word on others. --Ilovecoulter 23:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
That quote reminds me of Job 13:7-9 (CEV)
"Are you telling lies for God and not telling the whole truth when you argue his case? If he took you to court, could you fool him, just as you fool others?"


I have serious problems with this article. It provides a plethora of evidence against evolution, but it does not list any of the pro-evolution facts, of which there is an equal if not greater number. We are striving for the truth, what is best for Christian doctrine, is that correct? GofG ||| Talk 21:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Once again, voicing your own opinion. Like the Proverbs say, a foolish man refuses to listen to instruction, but prefers to err his own opinion. I'm not trying to offend anyone, if anyone did any offending it was the Bible, and the Bible has every right to. Since you claim that the evidence for evolution "is equal to if not greater in number", then give us a few examples! The only ones you'll be able to give is speciation, which is not evidence for macroevolution, and no doubt fossils such as archaeopteryx and tiktaalik, each of which are full-one or full the other. Now stop with this nonsense. Scorpionman 22:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
In all fairness, evidence for micro evolution is evidence for macroevolution. It shows that it can happen, and theoretically if it were to happen when an entire population was located in one spot, it wouldn't be too far off. --Ronnyreg 22:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
No, you're wrong. Evidence for microevolution is not evidence for macroevolution. Do these little mutations cause the organism to change to a totally different animal? Do random mutations happening all the time cause evolution toward the more complex? No! Mutations are either neutral (which certainly wouldn't advance evolution) or they're harmful. In rare cases are they beneficial, and these rare beneficial ones are hardly anything to talk about. You know I still can't see why you're taking this here instead of your precious "Talk.Origins" website Scorpionman 22:47, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
of course evolution isn't random, did you ever pay attention in biology? Evolution happens to give an aid or advantage to a species, and generally it stays the same species but is a little varient. Mutations are sudden major changes in a species, by the way, often due to a major change in typically environment or diet. Mutation is different from evolution. I don't see why you have to be so bitter, you act like evolution proves God doesn't exists.--Ronnyreg 22:55, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Evolution proves nothing, on account of the fact that it isn't even proven. I'm referring to macroevolution by the way. Microevolution has been observed and proven, but it doesn't support the Theory of Evolution. You got a wrong definition of mutations; they are any change in the gene code. You should be well aware that the most famous effect of mutations is cancer, which is not beneficial but can cause death. Scorpionman 23:03, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
So cancer would be a mutation, but not an evolution. We're talking about the specific of evolution. Even if my definition of mutation is wrong, you're arguing something that doesn't actually have to do with evolution. --Ronnyreg 21:34, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

What Evolution is and Is Not

Evolution is genetic change over time; any evolutionary biologist - the only person qualified to make this judgement - will tell you this. It simply deals with change in genes. There is overwhelming evidence for this, including that DNA replication is not perfect, small changes in an amino acid chain produce profound effects, and not all organisms within a species are exactly the same. Over extended periods of time, these differences add up to large changes within a species.

Evolution is not an explanation for the origin of life. Before the origin of life, there were no genetic mutations, so it would be wrong to apply evolution to the origin of life. That is a question that must be taken up with chemists and geologists, not evolutionary biologists. It is unfair to point out flaws in evolution's explanations on the origin of life if it makes no attempt to do so.

Evolution also does not explain the origin of the universe. These seems obvious, but people still point out flaws the theory's attempt to explain the origin of the universe, even though it only describes changes in genes over time. Astronomers and physicists describe the origin of the universe, not evolutionary biologists.

Finally, evolution is one of the major unifying themes of biology. Organisms would not exist today if they did not change over time. The earth changes, and organisms change with it.--Venfayth 22:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Stop digging up dead arguments. Scorpionman 22:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
And these are "dead arguments" exactly how? JoshuaZ 22:53, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
Just how many times have they been used and not proved a thing? Scorpionman 14:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
Hmm? An argument not convincing someone doesn't make it a bad argument. JoshuaZ 14:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
The burden of proof is on you, Scorpionman. For over a hundred years, the theory of evolution has been tested to try to prove it wrong. As of yet, nobody has succeeded. What is your scientific proof that genes do not change over time?--Venfayth 23:01, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
No, the burden is on you. You don't have proof that they do change over time. And the theory of evolution has been disproved, though evolutionists will not admit it. And the Bible has been around a lot longer than your theory and it has never been disproven, so you've got nothing to brag about. Scorpionman 08:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Did you honestly just say the Bible has never been disproven? When it comes to scientific matters, the Bible has constantly been disproven. "The sun stood still and the moon stayed — and hasted not to go down about a whole day!" (Joshua 10:12-13) This seems to conflict with the heliocentric theory of our solar system. We now know that the sun does not revolve around the earth, and that is fairly clear. I noticed that you are a young-earth creationist and believe that the earth is 6,000 years old or so. However, the grand canyon is six million years old, according to all modern geologists. Are you telling me that you know more than scientific proof? Don't give me any crap about a flood forming it; it still takes millions of years to carve that out of the ground. People have spent years objectively studying rock formations around the world, and they have concluded that the earth is billions of years old. You have one poetic book to support your case. I have more than a hundred years of scientific evidence, experiment after experiment, all proving my case. How does creationism explain poodles? Those dogs obviously were not around at the beginning of the world, and in just a few thousand years, they have truly changed from their original form: wolves. You claim that fossil evidence fails to support evolution, but try to find a fossil of a poodle that was alive at the same time as the dinosaurs. Plus, whale fossils have consistently supported the theory of evolution.--Venfayth 17:21, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

If that be so, perhaps you might feel inclined to list some of the undeniable evidence proving that evolution is erroneos in all aspects it claims to explain. Regardless of your own personal feeling on the accuracy of either opinion, codes of conduct for debating scenarios place the burden of proof upon yourself at the present time.--Fpresjh 09:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Self-discrediting of Conservapedia

Well, at least the obvious tic tendencies of the Christian Right, as demonstrated by Conservapedia's paranoid locking out of anything that does not reflect its articles of faith, should put sensible, adult readers on their guard and warn them not to take anything it says too seriously! Thanks to this, I'm afraid, it is already pretty much self-discrediting - and is rapidly becoming a veritable conspiracy of ignorance into the bargain. --Petrus 06:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

So you believe that creationists are dangerous terrorists who are trying to take over the country by terror and force? Like I said before, Nero thought the same thing, and so he put many Christians to death. However, none of his assumptions were correct, Christians were not trying to take over Rome and they're not trying to subdue America either. Obviously you've been reading Chris Hedges new book on Christian m. Where is the evidence behind his claims? Hmmm? Where are our nuclear weapons, weather control devices, bombs, guns and so on? Scorpionman 14:34, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
And your nonsense about an "ignorance conspiracy" self-discredits you. Maybe Conservapedia does need more content, and perhaps it should show both sides of the issues, but what good do you think you're going to do by making all these absurd claims? If you talked reasonably with Aschlafly (and by reasonably I don't mean going "This whole website is nonsense. None of it is true. You're all a bunch of idiots."), maybe he might change his mind and semi-protect it. So why don't you post your comments on his talkpage. Scorpionman 14:37, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
I'll briefly point out that Petrus made no claim that "creationists are dangerous terrorists who are trying to take over the country by terror and force". It isn't very civil or productive to associate with people extremist statements that they did not make. JoshuaZ 14:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

That is what can be interpreted. Scorpionman 08:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

All i have to say about this argument is thank goodness for evolution. If not for this natural phenomenon we would all be identical in genotype to Noah and his wife (did she have a name?... I mean, she did all the work, right? Cooking up the dinosaurs and dodo birds for food.). If not for evolution we would all be condemned to a long and slow-living existence with life spans far too long to remain interesting.

I have no idea what on earth you're talking about. Scorpionman 08:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

yes, this is obvious.

No it isn't. Nothing is obvious anymore. Scorpionman 14:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Scorpionman finds himself alone and confused with his backward thoughts. There should be no patience for people like you. The sooner evolution naturally select out Scorpionman and other's who think like him the better off as a society we will be. He fixes selective and biased information to prove his narrow point of view and further proves he knows nothing but what he knows which the more he talks amounts to less and less. Conservapedia has given him a forum to vent his ignorant views and I feel many are seriously trying to educate him but he does not deserve to be educated. We should preserve this site for future generations to laugh and marvel at our ignorance and then use it to teach the young and impressionable before they get indoctrinated into religious dogma.

transitional states

lots of folks i talk to seem to misnderstand what it means to have a fossil of a "transitional state"; the current (rather short) section on transitional states also reflects this misunderstanding.

i'd suggest modifying or appending the "transitional states" stub to reflect the idea that we DO have fossil evidence of things that can be considered transitional states, depending on your definition, and the problem is that most people tend to have an uninformed definition.

not that this proves evolution or anything, but this section of the current article is a misrepresentation/misunderstanding.

here's the research:

Lack of 'Credible Transitional Forms'?

ever heard of Archaeopteryx? or Ambulocetus?

He's got you there, Scorpianman--Dezza91 03:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

No, he doesn't. Achaeopteryx was a bird. Ambulocetus seems to share a lot more in common with crocodiles than either of the others. Scorpionman 08:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

This page ( lists all transitional fossils known through 1997 (they gotta update!), which is already quite a long list. The last thing on their list is their references (direct link to it:, which you can see cites sources such as "Science", "Nature", publications of the Smithsonian, Harvard University Press, various textbooks, other scholarly journals, and conference proceedings...clearly a wide array of support for the existence of MANY credible transitional fossils. Given this, I don't see how one can legitimately claim that there is a lack of credible evidence.

They can't credibly claim a lack of evidence, but they CAN protect the article, and then fail to answer your replies about how there is evidence.--AmesG 11:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
AUGH! (Fixed the overly long word. If possible, avoid adding horizontal scroll bars to pages. --Sid 3050 14:51, 14 March 2007 (EDT)) Scorpionman 13:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Scorpionman, I do not understand why you choose to engage these mindless users, when they cannot respond in any form of intelligent conversation. It is a lose-lose situation when you are dealing with close-minded people such as them. As for a response to such "questions" they raise: We had to prevent vandalism and non-factual material from being posted on this page. There is no supported evidence that supports any of the proposed material. The article is protected; it will remain protected. Period. Deal with it. How's that for a response? --<<-David R->> 13:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Oh, sorry I didn't see your comment. I just wanted to make it clear to them why the page was protected and that it's not for censorship reasons, but nothing can really be made clear to them. I don't believe I saw Aschlafly's comment asking me to move to a different subject but I'll try to avoid this if I can. Scorpionman 17:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Tell me about it! Where are all your little friends, huh, Scorpionman? None of them here! They're afraid of the truth! Look, evolution is proven, duh! Why can't you get that through your thick skull? C'mon, just look at that list and see! There's no evidence for creation! A bunch of right-wing conspirators get together and start trying to abolish the truth here! It's ridiculous! And they keep on blocking the page so the truth can't be put there! Idiots! Why don't you just give up and conform to the truth? You'll be happier, healthier, and wiser. Come with us and find TRUE knowledge! Caveman 13:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
There is no objective proof of evolution. Just the fitting of facts to the theory. --TimSvendsen 13:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
I think I've heard that one before, and I seem to recognize it as an evolutionary argument, but I won't make that assumption yet. And once again, may I please direct you all who are unsatisfied with this article to the one at CreationWiki? Scorpionman 13:17, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

There's so much more that could be here.

Looking over the Evolution page, it seems rather barren. There's quite a bit more information that would be very useful to readers. I've gleaned quite a bit of this from various creationist sources, and they might help add even more information to the page. I would say that all of the following information is at least as academically viable and accurate as the information already present.

You should reference the popular Peppered Moth study, noting that the researchers glued dead moths in place to photograph them. Don't mention that this is a common practice in entymology; instead, present it as though it is some sort of scandal. Most readers won't research the issue further and discover that the practice of gluing dead insects is common when attempting to illustrate graphical features -- especially when comparing two different specimens that don't usually hold still in the wild -- and will instead assume that the photographers were engaged in deliberate deception. Also, point out that the peppered moths don't normally rest on tree trunks. Don't mention, however, that they do rest on the undersides of tree branches, which are essentially the same colour as tree trunks. Also point out that the moths are only active at night, being nocturnal. Most readers won't realise that this means that the moths will be resting -- and thus more vulnerable -- during the day. Instead, try to imply that the moths aren't around at all during the day -- as if they cease to exist -- so that you can imply that colouring is of no consequence because they can't be seen. You can find a lot of these arguments in Ann Coulter's latest book.

You mention Piltdown Man, but you don't mention that it is reported that there were over 500 doctoral dissertations written on Piltdown Man. I've tried to track down these dissertations, and I can't find a single one. It's quite likely that the claim is false, and that no actual dissertations exist at all, but you don't have to mention that. Just say that it is reported that there were 500 dissertations written and most readers won't bother researching and discovering that the "report" is inaccurate.

I'm somewhat disappointed that the page has no references of the social consequences of accepting the theory of evolution. The creator of Darwin's Deadly Legacy, who has a webpage here, goes into detail of the social consequences of the theory of evolution. You can easily reference sources claiming that the theory of evolution is responsible for eugenics. Be sure that you don't mention that eugenics was practiced in societies that existed thousands of years before Darwin was born, just reference the instances of eugenics policies endorsed post-Darwin. Suggest that the theory of evolution implies a moral mandate to kill (or at least sterilize) the "weaker" races. Most people won't realise that such a claim is an appeal to a logical fallacy (appeal to consequence), and hopefully most of your readers won't understand that scientific theories (including the theory of evolution) don't actually dictate action or define morality and that the theory of evolution doesn't actually suggest that Jews, blacks or any other genetic group of homo sapiens is definitively "weaker" than another (because "weaker" is a relative term often dependent upon a myriad of interacting environmental conditions). Just say that Hitler determined that the Jews were weaker and hope that the readers will assume that it's a logical conclusion drawn from the theory of evolution and then imply that Hitler was following the "directives" of evolution. Don't actually use the word "directive"; evolution has no "directives", so you'll have to just let your readers incorrectly infer that it does using vague language. Try suggesting that the theory of evolution does not define acts of genocide as morally wrong. This is factually correct, and many readers won't stop and realize that the same is true of all scientific claims; after all, how many people would stop and realise that the Law of Gravity carries with it no moral compunction not to push people off of buildings? Saying that the theory of evolution suggests that genocide is a good thing would be lying, but saying only that the theory of evolution does not proscribe genocide is technically truthful, and can lead people to believe the same thing.

This can be helped further if you again suggest that the theory of evolution claims that God does not exist. Hopefully your readers won't actually study the theory to learn that such a claim is false. Mention that the theory of evolution does not involve God. Try to word it in such a way to give the impression that the theory actually denies the existence of God (but don't actually say it outright; the claim is false, but the goal is to give the impression that it is true without actually saying it) and that without God, there is no good or evil. Then suggest that if there is no good or evil, that destroying a few people for the betterment of humanity as a whole is a good thing. Hopefully most people won't see that you've directly contradicted yourself. Also, most people won't see that you've essentially admitted that you believe that Jews are in some way inferior to non-Jews (by capitulating that it would better humanity to off if not for killing being morally objectionable). Also, hopefully most people won't see that you've completely gotten off of the subject of the merits of evolution, and that you're trying to disprove an event by saying that you find the (implied) consequences of that event being true as morally repugnant, as if reality depends upon what you find acceptable.

I hope that my suggestions are useful to you. I think that the research that I have referenced is of the same intellectual integrity and honesty as the current evolution page here. With a little work, this page can become a great resource for those looking for the creationist position, a repository on the common creationist objections to the theory of evolution, with all of the research and honesty one would expect from a professional creationist outfit.

I'll do some more digging to find some more claims of equal intellectual merit and accuracy.

Dimensio 11:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I think we should just kill off all the creationists. They keep on opening up their big traps and squelching the truth. Can't we do that, huh, huh? Caveman 13:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
I do not believe that your response, which suggests an inappropriate act of violence, has any relevance to my posting. I am curious as to why your only contribution to my suggestion is a non-sequitur. Dimensio 14:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
I would not attempt to understand anything Caveman writes. He is incompetent in a field of intelligent conversation. His response only goes to validate protecting this page. --<<-David R->> 15:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Duh, I even can't remembur mi own pasword! I had to make new one! Whaddya mean I'm untilligent in meningful convursashun! I shure am! I talk good! But I still think that we should kill off all creationists. If I had my club first I'd take out David R, then Aschlafly, then Jimbo Wales, then George Bush, then Emperor Palpatine, then Eragon, then Johnny Cash, then Scorpionman! huh huh! CroMagnonMan 17:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I belive David was right about you, CroMagnonMan/Caveman. Come on, half the people you listed aren't known for being creationists! And your threats are of no consequence to anyone here, so stop being immature. Scorpionman 17:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Creationism popular among the less intelligent

According to, a source cited on [Examples of Bias in Wikpedia](see entry 22, source 24), those without a high school diploma are more than twice as likely to believe in creationism than their college-graduate counterparts, (65% vs. 25%). Also, those living in or near poverty (Under $20,000) are almost twice as likely (59% vs. 29%) to believe in creationism than their well-off counterparts (Over $50,000). Of course drawing conclusions based on these facts would not be appropriate, that is far too Wikipedia-ish, I do think they have place in the article. They do, after all, come from a website that creators of Conservapedia have used often, proving its credence. --BushHugger 13:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

You know what? Shut up. Scorpionman 14:43, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
I'll bet that the reason is because most of the major universities in the US are liberal, and therefore college grads from these universities of course believe what they are taught there. Now doesn't that make sense? Scorpionman 14:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Your second response, after your initial request for the previous individual to "shut up", appears to be a non-sequitur. What has liberalism, whether present in "most of the major universities in the US", to do with the theory of evolution? Dimensio 14:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Scorpionman, when you respond to such users, you are only hurting yourself. I think I told you once to refuse to respond. Aschlafly has already told you to move onto another subject. What is the worst these users can do on a talk page? Also, please refrain from descending to their level of conversation. --<<-David R->> 15:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
David, is there any reason why you remove the word " t" from Scorpionman's edits all the time? I've noticed it at least twice within the past few edits. --Sid 3050 15:18, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
I just noticed that the same apparently happened a week ago on his Talk page, together with a warning about offensive language. How often will he be "warned" before action is taken? And will his overall behavior here and on other people's talk pages factor into this? --Sid 3050 15:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
The offensive language he was talking about, Sid, was the word "crap". I can't believe that you think I should be blocked for arguing. I mean, if I should be blocked for arguing then so should you because that's pretty much all you do on this site. Scorpionman 16:59, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
I wouldn't want you banned for arguing, but you're a complete troll who does little more than namecalling and "Well, duh!" arguments that have VERY little value as an argument. And I still want to know why David acts repeatedly alters yours posts to edit out the word m/ t. --Sid 3050 17:51, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
You know, on Wikipedia you would have been blocked for calling me a "complete troll". It would be like me calling you a complete idiot. And please explain why you think I'm a complete troll. I don't recall ever saying "well duh" anywhere. And haven't you been saying that all along? Scorpionman 21:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I can explain that: my comp filters out potentially offensive(not obscenely offensive words for some odd reason). In the case of " t", I do not know why it is deleting it. I am not doing it on purpose. --<<-David R->> 18:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Sid should be blocked for name-calling. Calling me a "complete troll" counts as name-calling, and that's not acceptable on any Wiki. Scorpionman 22:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
...don't you think that your browser/computer is slightly disruptive for this project? At least promise me to never edit Fascism then... --Sid 3050 18:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
Grunt, snort, grunt grunt snort, beeeelllch, buuurrrp, grunt, snort, ptbhtbhtbhtbhtbhtbhtbhthb, faaaarrrtt, smack, smack, chew, spray, uuurrrp CroMagnonMan 21:57, 14 March 2007 (EDT)