Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 5

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

I think it should be changed

Although I believe in the Creation of the world as per the Bible, I think this article started off kind of wrong, and there's a lot of infighting on the talk page right now that's just not resolving it. One side is going to have to put a detailed description of evolution, and the other is going to have to accept the inclusion of evidence against it. With that stated and out of the way, here's what I propose:

  • Re-write this article to be a general discussion of what evolution is supposed to be, its history, who started it and why, and well as evidence (in general terms) that is used by scientists to support it, and such evidence that contradicts it.
  • Create separate articles on specific points on evolution, such as natural selection, comparative anatomy, macro-evolution and the like, where the subject can be discussed in detail (and it shall be discussed in detail), as well as relevent evidence that contradicts it.

The student needs to know the basic facts, items, tenets...everything about this subject, and it needs to be well-written and researched; at the same time, the same student who has a question pertaining to the validity of evolution needs to have that question answered in a concise, authoritative way, which includes the same kind of attention to detail. So, let's drop the infighting and begin to work on how to make this article the best it can be. What say you? Karajou 15:19, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

How do you planned to do that with a locked article? surely the first stage has to be the ability for editors to em.. edit? --Cgday 16:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Opening up the page for editing creates the risk of someone introducing their bias into the article. The admins do not want any "bias" apart from their own dishonest anti-evolution bias in the article. That's why editing is only open to someone who will shamelessly lie about the theory of evolution. The admins here want to create the false impression that one must be a young-earth creationist Christian in order to be a conservative. Still, I'm surprised that the article doesn't include some of the lies about alleged social "consequences" about evolution (evolution leads to fascism, communism, eugenics; all who accept evolution are atheists; evolution is racist; etc). Give it time, I guess. Dimensio 16:28, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I think it needs a COMPLETE REWRITE by some one who actually knows what they are talking about. Ataxia 16:37, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

And I suppose you always know what you're talking about all the time? You have all the answers? You Know Everything? You can easily disprove any contrary theory? I think we should leave this to the people who do know what they're talking about and not to incoherent beat-around-the-bush people like you. Scorpiontalk 16:49, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Scorpion, I am not an expert in evolution, and I guess neither is Ataxia, but as there are editors on this site that are, I think that is who was being referred to. Don't be so confrontational. Myk 17:43, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't claim to know everything. I just know that this article is a distorted version of evolution and needs to be changed. Ataxia 16:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

See what I mean about the infighting? Prides are going to have to be swallowed and locked away first. Then all of us are going to have to work on a plan as to layout and structure. I'm sure we can agree to do that. Karajou 17:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I hope so. Scorpiontalk 18:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I want the next subheading below filled with ideas as to structure and layout. Karajou 19:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Let's see - where do we begin with this?! Darwin's Theory of evolution is just a theory. Evolution however is an accepted fact. Believe in Darwin's theory or give us another one that fits the evidence better. Now, I'm not an expert in evolution but at least I'm not lying about the evidence. Pretending that the evidence doesn't exist doesn't make it go away and doesn't make your beliefs any more valid. It just makes you look stupid. Rod 12:44, 20th March 2007 (GMT)

Evidence is a lot of times based upon interpretation. Scorpiontalk 12:09, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
No, it's not. Interpretation is based on evidence, not the other way around.--Richard C. Mongler 20:12, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
I beg to differ. Evolutionists are always bending evidence so it will fit their theory. Scorpiontalk 10:17, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
No amount of interpretation will make a bad model give good predictions. Tsumetai 10:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
True story. Scorpion, remember we had this talk on my talk page. Changing a theory to fit new evidence is good science. It may be bad religion, because you have to dispose of your 6000 year old earth deal, though.-AmesG 10:27, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
6010 as of last October 22 to be exact. And I wasn't invited to the party. I'm depressed. NousEpirrhytos 16:44, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

New Layout

Proposed changes:

  • Definition of Evolution should be changed to something like: "Evolution is the scientific theory that successive random genetic changes led to complex life. Under evolution mutations that are beneficial to the survival of the organism (and hence make it more likely to reproduce) are passed on to subsequant generations. Ataxia 09:34, 21 March 2007 (EDT)


Does everyone here just choose to be ignorant to the fact that all species, including humans, evolve over time?

You got it.

Is it a shock if I said that our nuclear composition began is stars, yes stars. Before a star dies it grows massive and creates larger atoms, including carbon. We, living beings, are carbon based. This material that we are composed of came from stars, billions of years ago. I believe in God and feel closer connected to him because of how I was created. He didn't just make everything at once. He made the processes that after billions of years could reach perfection. The work of God is still going on, it is all around us, just look, don't be afraid of what you will see. --Flax+ 21:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm with you Flax. I don't think evolution harms a belief in God. I've challenged this guy to explain to me why it does, but he won't answer the question, and instead banned me for asking him twice. Meh, what're you gonna do.-AmesG 22:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
And what room does the Bible have for that? Scorpiontalk 22:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, since the Bible was written long before DNA and RNA was discovered, before zoology or biology existed, before the commonality of life forms was discovered, its authors did the best they could to explain things based on the knowledge of the time. (And no, I'll not entertain any of the usual "you atheist evolutionist" drivel.) NousEpirrhytos 19:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Okay, and you also don't tolerate any Young-Earth creationist "drivel". But yes, the writers did the best they could, although really it wasn't them but God. You'll also notice that the bat is classified with birds in Exodus (I forgot where, but it's in the list of "clean/unclean" animals). This has been taken as a contradiction to science, but this is absurd, since the Bible was written long before any of our modern classification systems came into being. Scorpiontalk 07:58, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
So you agree that evolution need not eviscerate the Bible? Also, conceding arguendo that God wrote the Bible (but isn't humanity, his translator, extremely fallible? And do you really believe God intends his word read literally?) isn't it possible that God structured the Bible primitively so as not to overwhelm our primitive understandings of science? Would it serve His purpose to disclose all of science in the Bible? Or would he want us to come upon our own discoveries in our own time?-AmesG 08:05, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Man is fallible, but because God told them what to write, what was written can't be fallible. The text is the best interpreter of the text; so unless it indicates otherwise, it should be read literally. God probably did allow animals such as the bat to be classified along with birds, so as not to confuse those who saw the written laws; back then, that's probably how they understood it. And as for God "not disclosing all science in the Bible", Bob Jones Sr. said, "While the Bible was not written as a science textbook, it is scientifically accurate." Therefore, setting aside those few confusing classification elements, the Bible is essentially correct when it does delve into the realms of science (such as astronomy). Scorpiontalk 12:32, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
So the Sun orbits around the Earth? Or is that allegory?-AmesG 23:37, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

What do you mean. the Bible does not say that the sun orbits the Earth. --CPAdmin1 23:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Does too. God made it do that... you know... in that passage?-AmesG 23:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Of course...I mean like, how else could the sun stand still for Joshua? NousEpirrhytos 17:05, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Ha, easily refuted. The sun appeared to stand still. We still say the sun sets and rises, we don't say "Well, the earth's tilting away from the sun now," we say "The sun's setting." Obviously, it looked like the sun was standing still, but in actuality it was the earth that was standing still. ScorpionStep on me and get stung 09:54, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Im sorry, Young Jedi Scorpion, but you made a little error there. The earth doesn't change it's tilt to cause the sunset. Crimeney!! The earth "revolves" around its "axis" causing the pheomenae we know as "night" and "day". As the earth orbits the sun, the axis relative to the sun changes and this causes the thing we call "seasons". Take your little map thing and fold it into a ball-shape to create something we call a "globe."

So what if God simply appeared to create the universe in 7 24-hour days? What if, despite appearances, it was actually many thousands of years? Or is that, somehow, different, because you want it to be?-AmesG 10:48, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
The text is the best interpreter of the text. I'm not sure about all that "Biblical literalism began in the 1800's" stuff, but I have to disagree. Long before that, people believed in a literal six-day creation. It's not different because I want it to be; it's different because that's what the Bible says, and unless otherwise indicated, it should be taken literally. Or are you just going to say that we can decide which parts should be figurative, so we can avoid the Ten Commandments? ScorpionStep on me and get stung 23:30, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Compromise Here Too

Perhaps we can work something out to have an equal-time article, or at least one not so biased and polemical. I think perhaps making the evolution article a real article, and then directing users to the Theory of Evolution page for YEC views, would be a good compromise.-AmesG 22:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Create a new article called criticism of evolution. Ataxia 09:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

What cracks me up is the misuse of the word "theory". Hell, gravity is a "theory" but I don't see anyone flying off into space. (Yeah, yeah, just wait for the Rapture). NousEpirrhytos 19:39, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I wish you guys would stop always using gravity as an example. Heck, you can't disprove gravity. Just try jumping out of a ten-story window and see what happens! Scorpiontalk 12:34, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
That's precisely the point. You could disprove the theory of gravity by doing that, if the theory of gravity was indeed wildly wrong. It isn't, but that doesn't make it any less a theory. The point Nous is making is that calling something a theory doesn't in any way imply that it's on a weak footing. Tsumetai 12:48, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Be Honest

This article goes wrong in the very first sentence. I did not get any farther than the "Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms" section, which is a thoroughly discredited polemic against the theory.

Obviously the whole purpose of this article is to discredit the modern theory, and probably even the fact that evolution happens - "macro evolution", as creationists call it. Why not be honest about it? Refer the reader to the real wikipedia for the prevailing scientific view, rather than giving a botched attempt at explaining it here. Then here you can rehash the arguments to the effect that it can't really be that way. You can find them all (along with their rebuttals) in the archives of

Yeah, and on CreationWiki you can found refutations of those pitiful "rebuttals"! Scorpiontalk 08:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Just because they respond using things that look like arguments doesnt mean that they are good arguments. Like more creationist arguments, they are paper-thin, designed to sound good enough to someone who isn't particularly informed and isn't likely to do any of their own research. Plunge 15:21, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
All expected from an evolutionist. They're not "paper-thin"; they're good solid arguments and they do the research. Mark Isaak isn't exactly encouraging anyone to think for themselves, either; he's teaching them that YEC is wrong, wrong, wrong and that they should approach this conclusion uncritically. Scorpiontalk 07:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
This is a good solid argument? Tsumetai 08:04, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

This is an encyclopedia not a debate. objections like the fossils one should be mentioned but not as fact. Ataxia 09:37, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, this is a discussion page. NousEpirrhytos 17:39, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I was talking about the article. Ataxia 18:51, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Which Christians? (subject re-instated as it hasn't been fully discussed yet)

All over Conservapedia I keep finding 'Christians believe this' and 'Christians believe that', when in fact the vast majority of world Christians (Catholics, Anglicans, Orthodox...) don't believe anything of the kind. Whether in respect of evolution, the Bible, creation or anything else, the project seems to have suffered a narrow-minded American Protestant scriptural-literalist take-over. Isn't it time contributors tried to adopt a more thoughtful approach reflecting the views of Christians generally (if, that is, it has to adopt any view at all), instead of those of the unrepresentative extreme right-wing fundamentalist nutters who, except in the USA, are very much in a minority? --Petrus 12:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

And everywhere else has suffered a narrow-minded atheistic evolutionist take-over. Scorpionman 13:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
And I view your brand of Christianity as paganism. Now if the name calling is over, User:Petrus has raised some important points about the diversity of Christianity. Nematocyte 13:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, he has. Thinking of Christians as a block of people unified in dogma and beliefs is a foolish undertaking. Even early, Christianity was not a unified group -- as it grew new schools of thought, called heresies, (originally without the perjorative meaning) popped up all over, and for good reason: the bible, both OT and NT a chock-full of inconsistencies and contradictions, and each sect has taken from it what it wants. Thus, Christianity runs the gamut from a wrathful god whom none can please to a loving god whose sacrifice of his son redeemed all sins unilaterally. NousEpirrhytos 13:50, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Pray tell me what these so-called "inconsistencies and contradictions" are. Scorpiontalk 17:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Textual differences between Galatians and other Pauline epistles would be one. But all those are accounted for because Paul pitched the Gospel differently to different communities: there's no rhyme or reason to most of the epistles. Also, a few lines in the Synoptic gospels contradict e/o, but that's also accounted for since they were written at different times, just like any historical source. That said, it is true that most Christians aren't YEC.-AmesG 22:06, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
Scorpio: Did Jesus say, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?", "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" (yes, the difference between Eli and and Eloi does make a difference), "Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do", or "Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit"? NousEpirrhytos 20:29, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Pray tell me where you got "Eli, Eli" from. Jesus said both "Father, forgive them..." and "Father, into thine hands i commit my spirit." One gospel writer probably heard him say the former, another the latter. They needn't all see, hear, and write the exact same things for the Bible to be reliable. Scorpiontalk 12:32, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Why was this subject archived (and thus removed from discussion) after only one day? Does somebody not want it discussed? If so, I wonder who and why? --Petrus 08:23, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

It was most likely archived because some users refuse to listen to other point of views. They will ask you to explain your viewpoint down to the most indepth level, but when asked to explain theirs, they leave the thread. And for the record, I believe in God and evolution ... what does that make me? According to scorpionman, an athiest believer in god. Jrssr5 08:32, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

So, curiously enough, did Darwin (who was a student of divinity, no less)! And so, of course, do many Christians, if not the majority. --Petrus 08:43, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

It has nothing to do with that. I archived it because my browser was having trouble opening it, it was getting so long. That's what has to happen when a talk page gets too long. If you want me to explain my viewpoint (which I believe I have already) I'm a young-earth creationist who believes that God created the world in six literal days. I believe in microevolution and speciation, but not fish turning into frogs. There, are you now satisfied? Scorpiontalk 08:33, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
???? What browser are you using? Dpbsmith 10:48, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I have a feeling it's more of a connection issue on his end ... 14kbps doesn't do too well. Jrssr5 11:14, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, it's shorter now, so your browser should be OK. Meanwhile, you're entitled to your beliefs, but not to assume that everybody here - or even the majority of Christians - shares them. Which, of course, is where we came in... --Petrus 08:43, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

crickets ... crickets Jrssr5 10:40, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

"...nor is religion manifold, because there are various sects and heresies in the world. When I mention religion, I mean the Christian religion; and not only the Christian religion, but the Protestant religion; and not only the Protestant religion, but the Church of England."—Fielding, "Tom Jones" Dpbsmith 10:52, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

Just to add to the 'what do most Christians think about Evolution' argument: Roman Catholicism, with a billion members, is bigger than all of the other Christian denominations put together. Catholicism is a dogmatic religion - in other words, a Catholic must technically accept the teachings of the Church rather than working out what to believe independently. (paradoxically, Catholics are required to use their God-given capacity for reason to draw conclusions about the world around them, hence the many 'à-la-carte Catholics')...Catholic teaching accepts that evolution is 'more than a theory' - albeit seeing it as God's continuing work. Thus, in raw by-the-denomination terms, the vast majority of the world's Christians accept evolution.

The Young-Earthers among you may find this hilarious, my biology teacher in Senior Year (many moons ago in Ireland) was a priest who had no problem at all teaching us the Theory of Evolution as fact. He was a bit less comfortable with Human Reproduction, poor guy... By the way, check this out: [1] Stallthedigger

Absolutely. So it ill behoves anybody here to try and hijack 'what Christians believe' for their particular sect! --Petrus 12:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
I've known some people who insisted that they were good Roman Catholics and appeared to be very devout... but did not accept some of the teachings of the Church. I knew one who did not believe in papal infallibility, and who believed that transsubstantiation was purely symbolic. When I asked how that could be, since the Church says you have to believe in these things to be a good Catholic, he replied simply "Yes, the Church does say that, and the Church is wrong about that." Dpbsmith 16:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

True - and it's also true that many, if not most, Catholics in the West conveniently ignore dogma on social teachings like extra/pre-marital sex, cohabitation, contraception, divorce, homosexuality etc. That's what I meant by "à-la-carte", and I wasn't using it pejoratively - a lot of Catholic social teachings are seen as unreasonable and anachronistic (justifiably, in my opinion). In fact, à-la-carte probably describes the majority of Western Catholics.

As to the dogmas you mentioned, transsubstantiation is the single most important part of Catholic worship, and best illustrates the reason-v-dogma paradox: reason tells the communicant that what she/he tastes is unleavened bread, while a combination of faith and Catholic teaching tells him/her it is the physical manifestation of Christ's body. The conflict isn't a failing or a sin, it's simply one of the 'great mysteries' of Catholicism like the Immaculate Conception, the Assumption, and the Holy Trinity. Receiving Holy Communion is supposed to be an act of faith, not an exercise in suspension of reality.

Papal infallibility is widely misunderstood by Catholics and non-Catholics alike (no assumptions about your acquaintance here!): it doesn't mean that the Pope has mystical powers, or that everything he says must be taken as the Word of God, or that he can't commit sin; it's simply a convention introduced in the 19th Century to ensure continuity and unity of Catholic teaching. By this convention, the Pope has the power to issue binding decrees on matters of faith and morality. It's extremely rare and has to be done very deliberately according to a particular procedure - the last such decree was issued in the Fifties to put the Catholic belief that Mary was 'assumed' body-and-soul into Heaven on the level of incontrovertible dogma. The rub for non-Catholics is, of course, that Catholic dogma also teaches that such decrees apply to all Christians, and by ignoring them your faith is 'deficient'. You naughty deficient Christians, you. stallthedigger 10:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

See ex cathedra NousEpirrhytos 17:47, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

single organism

The intro paragraph states "The Theory of evolution is a scientific theory which states that all organisms on earth originated from a single common ancestor". Is there a reference to the "single organism" part?

Probably to a book that this guy didn't read but wants us to think he did ;-)--AmesG 16:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
That's the mainstream scientific consensus, can't you get it? The mainstream scientific consensus is that every living thing evolved from a single common ancestor. Scorpiontalk 17:05, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
Maybe you might want to actually read up on evolution, rather than pronouncing your misinterpretations based on the misinterpretation and fears of others as fact. And I do mean read up on it: take a walk on the Darwin, read Gould, read Dawkins. Hell, I'd wager that everyone here has read the bible, why not reciprocate? NousEpirrhytos 19:46, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm afraid I don't share your confidence. I would wager that very few people here have actually read the Bible - especially the fundamentalists - apart from the bits that they've been told to read! If they had, they wouldn't display such ignorance about it. --Petrus 12:41, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
I've ready enough of them to know what they say on it. And since you're so demanding that we read your junk, why don't you read something by Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati or Henry Morris? Maybe you have read the Bible, now read someone else's opinion on it other than your own, since you're so eager for me to do that with evolution. You really need to "take a walk on the wild side". And BTW, since I seem to be wrong in your eyes about evolution, what's your definition? Scorpiontalk 21:17, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
And we don't believe that dinosaurs existed. We think that they were just the discarded "chicken" bones of giant alien picknickers. Ha ha Scorpiontalk 22:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
It's very fortunate you added the clarifying "Ha Ha". --British_cons (talk) 12:17, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Sarfati? Good chess player. NousEpirrhytos 17:50, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, I'm actually a good chess player too. So what? Is a chess-playing scientist an oximoron? ScorpionStep on me 22:33, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Huge Problem Here

This article is completely inaccurate, and someone should be appointed to clarify it.

Quote: The basic principle behind natural selection states that organisms adapt to new circumstances, by means of spontaneous genetic mutations found in the generation after a change is encountered, or they die.

This is INCORRECT. Natural selection says that organisms that are best suited for their environment are more likely to survive long enough to reproduce. The organisms themselves do not evolove. The mutations do not affect the living organism. Random mutations create a pool of variation, and organisms who happen to have been born with useful mutations are more likely to reproduce successfully. THis is a key misunderstanding here!!! Palmd001 13:29, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks Palm. I went back to old version. Conservative 13:37, 22 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
Thanks, I'll check it out. Palmd001 14:14, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Creationist Scientists

"Creationist scientists" is a contradiction in terms. By their very own definitions creationists use belief as their bedrock of understanding. And belief is not scientific -- it cannot be tested, disputed, defended, nor explained. On the other hand, science should be entirely rational, testable, and changeable based on new discovery (of course it's a human endeavour so it doesn't always work that way). So-called creation scientists are just creationists who seem to be trying to glue on a veneer of biassed science to try to make their beliefs more acceptable.

I didn't edit the page, but I recommend the deletion of "scientists" after "creationist".

No, there are creation scientists. But you're right when you say belief isn't science—for that matter, evolution isn't science because it's a belief! Your comment is completely inaccurate, Mr. Anonymous. You are extremely biased and prejudiced and there's no further point in arguing. Shut up or get out. Scorpiontalk 14:21, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Come on Scop, make nice with them. The point is valid, if abrassively stated. Evoloution is science, and falsifiable, whether or not you choose to believe it. Creationism is not a science, not falsifiable, but it is certainly a valid belief system for someone to adopt. It just cannot make predictions or be used to do anything scientific.Palmd001 15:06, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Palm, how is it unscientific and unfalsifiable? Scorpiontalk 21:44, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Scorpion, this question has been addressed ad nauseum on my talk page. It's a good treatment by a real scientist - PalMD001 - and I suggest you read it -AmesG 21:46, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Tell me in a nutshell why it's unscientific. Come on, if you're going to make this claim you'd better be able to back it up. Scorpiontalk 21:49, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
To be "scientific" a claim has to be amenable to scientific inquiry. It needs to make new predictions which are testable. Originally "Creation science" could have been called scientific as they made a number of claims relating to the structure of the strata and the absolute age of rock. As more data came in these predictions turned out to be incorrect. At the present Creation science can be summed up as "the Earth is 6000 years old, but the actions of the flood made it look incredibly similar to an old Earth, down to the radioactive decay of the minerals. Ignore the starlight." Such a proposal makes no new prediction (except perhaps we would expect mineral analysis from Mars to be young since it lacked a hypothetical flood. And in addition creation scientists do precious little actual science beyond inept criticisms of evolution. So for these reasons many consider their description as "scientists" to be innaccurate. Nematocyte 10:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
How do you know they don't do any science? How about that trip to Alaska that resulted in the find of unfossilized dinosaur bones? If that's just a criticism of evolution, then the trip to Ellesmere Island to find the Tiktaalik fossil was just an attack on creationism. Scorpiontalk 11:20, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Could you give me reference to the journal that one appeared in? I seem to have missed it. Nematocyte 11:29, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
You wouldn't by any change have confused yourself about the find of unmineralised tissues inside some dinosaur fossils, would you? There's no reason why that couldn't survive so long on rare occassions. Nematocyte 11:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Googling for unfossilized Alaska dinosaur only seems to give creationist sources on the first page. Hmmm... Oh, wait! There's also this thing (do a fulltext search for "Alaska" in there to jump to the relevant section). Yes, that's definitely an incredible discovery. Especially this quote from AiG itself: "To date, our tests have not been able to confirm the 'unfossilized' hypothesis. [...] From our results thus far, the bones should not be referred to as 'unfossilized'." Yeah, whoops. --Sid 3050 11:41, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
That article, which claims that AiG is "nothing but a lie", is full of lies. They claim to know for sure that dinosaurs didn't exist in the Bible, that Ken Ham is promoting lies etc. I don't know why you rely on them for. There were unmineralized tissues inside the bone, and how could those tissues go for 65 or more million years without fossilization? Especially the red blood cells. Further argument is just a waste of time, to tell you the truth. Bang on all you want about how AiG is just a stupid hoax, YEC's are stupid liars, and how I am such a bigot. I've got more things to do, so goodbye until you have something important to say (which you won't) ScorpionStep on me 22:30, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
One more thing: I'd like to know where AiG says that they can't confirm that. ScorpionStep on me 22:31, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I am not interested in casting aspersions on your beliefs, even though I don't share them, and I would be happy to engage in peaceful, respectful conversation with you any time.Palmd001 22:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Scorpion, in response for your request to prove why Creationism isn't science and falsifiable, (assuming you understand that for a scientific theory to be valid it must be falsifiable) I present one question. How can you show Creationism to be wrong? The ball's in your court. ColinRtalk 22:38, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Just to clarify Colin's question, all you need to do is to come up with a fact/scenario which, if true, would disprove creationism. It does not actually have to be true, just potentially true. You dont have to disprove your theory, just show that it is possible.Palmd001 22:51, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, if we found a fossil which shows a perfect link between man and ape (or between fish and frog), then that would no doubt show creationism to be false. Or of course if none of the Bible's predictions literally came true, then of course that would throw out the YEC. But nothing like that has happened so far, but it doesn't need to either. There. ScorpionStep on me and get stung 23:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
If none of the Bible's preidctions came true? Or if any of the Bible's predictions failed to come true? Myk 00:27, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Out of curiosity Scorpion, what do you mean by "a fossil which shows a perfect link between man and ape". Do you think that evolution says that there should be a single fossil showing that there was a being exactly half human and half ape? You should read this. --Horace 00:29, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
Sorry to harp on it Scorp, and btw I have the utmost respect for you and your views, but giving a piece of evidence that helps a competing theory is not the same as presenting falsifying evidence for the theory in question. See my stegasaurus bone example. So, all you need to do is come up with a potential piece of evidence, not even necessarily true, that, if true, would render creationism false. I would give you an example, but I cannot come up with one because of the "Godditit" problem.Palmd001 14:15, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Article Locked?

I was just wondering why this article has to be locked? I was hoping to add further detail to the article on the exact details of the Darwin-Wallace theory of evolution and was prevented from doing so. Could someone please explain to me why this was necessary and how this helps you to be better than Wikipedia?

This article is locked and controlled by one editor who refuses to put his name to it (and no wonder given the poor quality of the piece). He has titled himself "Conservative" in what has turned out to be an insult to every sensible conservative on this site. --Horace 17:57, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
It is locked to prevent vandalism (i.e. swear words, sexual language, name-calling, etc.) It's not locked so that you can't edit it; but if you're going to post stuff like "Evolution is the Truth and creationism is false" then of course that would validate it being locked. And apparently people have been doing that, so that validates its block. Period. Scorpiontalk 21:48, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
That is just nonsense. It is locked so that I cannot edit it. It is a silly page that discredits this site. Period. --Horace 22:53, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Well then, if you don't like it go visit some pro-evolution site. Period. Scorpiontalk 22:56, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
So, what you're saying is that this site has an anti-evolution policy? I thought this site was all about being "a conservative encyclopedia you can trust". Not some cheesey piece of ill-considered one-sided propaganda. Your ideas about what it is to be conservative surprise me. --Horace 23:11, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
Conservative is the right-wing of the political spectrum. Conservatives generally are pro-life, anti-homosexual, pro-creation, pro-Christianity. I think it's your ideas of conservativism that are wrong. Jeremiah was a bullfrog...Scorpiontalk 10:15, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
You're confusing "right wing" with "Christian fundamentalist." There is a difference, no matter what Bushie tells you.-AmesG 10:16, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Well, I suppose that not all conservatives are fundamentalists, but there's no reason for you to attack fundamentalism like that. But that name you gave the President is extremely rude and disrespectful. I don't care if Gorey doesn't like him, you have no right to do that. Scorpiontalk 11:23, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
I believe your constitution explicately does give him that right. Nematocyte 11:28, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Okay, Nematode, since he has the right to call our president names I guess I can call you what I just did. Now it doesn't credit me any, though, does it? Scorpiontalk 14:13, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
When will this article be unlocked? This is getting ridiculous. Sulgran 22:43, 22 March 2007 (EDT)
I dunno, ask Conservative. Scorpiontalk 22:56, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Tomorrow locks the one-month anniversary of protection. --Hojimachongtalk 23:13, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

I can get champagne. Hoji, just an idea, you could post a link to the draft of the Evolution article you're writing on the top of the talk page so would-be contributors could edit it.-AmesG 23:20, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

Great thing about a wiki, scorpion, is that you can go back through the history and see what gets deleted as "vandalism." [[2]] Does that look like any of the things you described, or does it look like a reasonable thought out neutral explanation of what the theory of evolution is and how it's used? Myk 00:43, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

I just browsed the history back to before it was protected, and most of the "facts" were just vandalism or silly attacks on creationism or simply downright lies. Please, this isn't going to make the article any better. Scorpiontalk 11:17, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Look at the Diff that Myk proferred. Those are cited scientific facts.-AmesG 11:18, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Perhaps with just a little re-wording, they would be. Yes, at least it says that "it is theorized that all organisms share a common ancestor", but what's the difference between that and the opening sentence on the article now?
So the first sentence of the article is correct. Good for Conservative; he can't be all wrong all the time. But let's see the forest through the trees and glance at the rest of the 90 citations of AnswersInGenesis.-AmesG 11:26, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
What's wrong with their citations? Tell me what you think is wrong. Scorpiontalk 12:59, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Ummm...AiG has zero scientific credibility? Nematocyte 13:01, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
How can you back this up? If I say that you are wrong, I can back it up with this link. Scorpiontalk 14:09, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
Um, providing a source by AiG to support AiG is like a circular argument. "I know Bob is smart because Bob says he's smart, and since Bob can't say he's smart unless he's smart he must be smart." NousEpirrhytos 17:57, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
This is a list of creation scientists! Come on! You're using a circular argument here: "I know Bob is stupid because Steve say's Bob is stupid, and since Steve can't say Bob's stupid unless he is stupid, he must be stupid." IT CUTS BOTH WAYS. Jeremiah was a bullfrog...ScorpionStep on me 22:21, 23 March 2007 (EDT)
There seems to be some confusion as to what I meant. When I said AiG did not have scientific credibility, I did not mean that AiG did not have any members of staff with any scientific qualifications. Rather, what I meant is that their views are not considered scientifically accurate by the vast majority of scientists (which includes most ID proponents). A cursory examination of their articles reveals why this is so, with logical fallacies, bible verses and outright lies composing the bulk of their entries. Nematocyte 09:57, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I have addressed the issues with AiG before, but you chose to ignore it. AiG openly admits in their mission statement and their statement of faith that they start with a preassumed conclusion of literal Biblical accuracy (as they interpret it). They fit all observations to fit their conclusion and they refuse to consider that their assumed conclusion might be incorrect. This is what they do as an organization, not as individuals. They are trying to fit evidence to an unchanging conclusion. This in the antithesis of science. Science is about adapting, changing or even discarding conclusions to fit new evidence, not about trying to explain away all observations to prop up a preassumed default conclusion. And, as I said before, if you're going to assert that "evolutionists" do the same thing, you will need to provide evidence of this. AiG openly admits that they start with a conclusion that they will never alter or reject (which is the opposite of science). This is why their claims cannot be considered scientifically viable. Show me any "pro-evolution" organization that openly admits to doing the same thing (and, as I said before, quoting Lewontin won't prove anything). Dimensio 10:33, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Admin comment:

Editing Theory of evolution requires registration. If anyone sees only a "source" link and no "edit" link, please drop a note on my talk page. I will look into it. If the article requires complete unlocking, I will discuss this with the admin who protected it. --Ed Poor 10:51, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

This Article Needs a Clear Paragraph Summarizing Darwin's Theory or a Title Change

Why is the first paragraph of the aricle (besides the abstract) "Lack of Any Clear Transitional Forms"? Wouldn't an encyclopedia article want to explain its topic before introducing the reasons why the topic is wrong? Not sure what this article is trying to do. Perhaps it should be called "Reasons the Theory of Evolution is Wrong."

I am not interested in casting aspersions on your beliefs, even though I don't share them, and I would be happy to engage in peaceful, respectful conversation with you any time.Palmd001 22:34, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

Riiiiight. ScorpionStep on me and get stung 22:37, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

No, really...I have never been anything but respectful. The fact that I disagree with you doesnt mean I dont respect you. Palmd001 23:10, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

I am not esposing or promoting any belief. I am merely asserting that an any article on any topic should describe it before going into couterarguments. Criticism is important, especially in science. But without representing the theory of evolution accurately, it is not a valid encyclopedia article. This is an encyclopedia, right? As it stands, this article does not even discuss the theory at all, so we can't even begin to approach accuracy. Surely you wouldn't disagree that an article on a given topic must actually describe the topic, right?


1: This article needs to be changed to be less biased and more accurately represent the facts.

who's to say what are the facts??--BenjaminS 15:49, 26 March 2007 (EDT)


  1. Ataxia 18:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  2. Tsumetai 18:59, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  3. Sid 3050 20:19, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  4. AmesG 20:21, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  5. Myk 20:29, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  6. Dpbsmith 20:30, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  7. Sulgran 20:33, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  8. Hojimachongtalk 21:31, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  9. Palmd001 23:08, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  10. Petrus 06:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
  11. MatteeNeutra 06:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
  12. Cgday 07:08, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
  13. --Murray 15:28, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
  14. --British_cons (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
  15. Jrssr5 22:29, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
  16. Nematocyte 05:18, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
  17. Land Dweller 05:33, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
  18. --Dave3172 12:07, 28 March 2007 (EDT)


  1. TerryHTalk 19:00, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  2. Crackertalk 20:42, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  3. --BenjaminS 23:12, 24 March 2007 (EDT) Who's to say what's the "facts"

2: This article needs to be opened up for editing.


  1. Ataxia 18:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  2. Tsumetai 18:59, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  3. Sid 3050 20:19, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  4. AmesG 20:21, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  5. Myk 20:29, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  6. Dpbsmith 20:30, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  7. Sulgran 20:33, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  8. Hojimachongtalk 21:31, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  9. --BenjaminS 23:12, 24 March 2007 (EDT) I don't mind protecting it again at the first sign of vandals
  10. Petrus 06:34, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
  11. MatteeNeutra 06:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
  12. Cgday 07:08, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
  13. --Murray 15:28, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
  14. ----British_cons (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
  15. Jrssr5 22:29, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
  16. Nematocyte 05:18, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
  17. Land Dweller 05:33, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
  18. --Dave3172 12:07, 28 March 2007 (EDT)


  1. TerryHTalk 19:00, 24 March 2007 (EDT)
  2. ScorpionStep on me and get stung 19:42, 24 March 2007 (EDT) A little rewording, but not the whole spirit of the article.
  3. Crackertalk 20:42, 24 March 2007 (EDT)


Let's try some democracy. Ataxia 18:55, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

It's not so much a question of bias. But the title of this article is Theory of evolution, not Why the theory of evolution is wrong.

The ideal article would be one that an evolutionist agrees gives a fair and accurate description of what evolutionists as well as creationists believe. The only difference between it and a "mainstream" article is that it would not present evolution as unchallenged fact, and it would devote more space and give a more complete and fairer representation of problems and objections.

Furthermore, when marshalling objections, it should not present a random grab-bag of every objection, strong or weak, that can be possibly be or ever has been mustered against the theory of evolution. It should present the best-supported and most cogent problems. Dpbsmith 20:39, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

My proposal is to have a draft written up by experts, to focus on the actual theory of evolution, and a section on objections to the theory. If the article is to be titled as it is, the objection section should be shorter than the body of the article. Otherwise another full article can be devoted to objections.Palmd001 23:32, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

True "experts" are in short supply here, although Wikipedia has shown you don't necessarily need them. But I'd respectfully suggest that if we do want an expert involved here, we should all be very nice to Tmtoulouse. Dpbsmith 06:49, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Does any admin have the will to revert this back to the unbiased version? I'd appreciate it. Note from above that Conservative is pretty much the only admin that DOESN'T want it that way.-AmesG 00:53, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Democracy is antithesis to the fascists percepts of Conservapedia. Tmtoulouse 00:55, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

I think the people have spoken here. Ataxia 16:10, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

And ancient Jewish religious tradition held a majority decision to be the will of God! --Petrus 12:00, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Retitle or Open

You can't just ignore this. Look above - a vast majority of the people who care about this article thinks it's unrepresentative of actual evolution, and should either be retitled or opened for editing. Pick one, but don't just let it slide.-AmesG 10:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Once again this article has been locked and become a place for discrediting evolution. Why was the background science removed from the article? This article is not on the theory of evolution and should either be re-titled, opened for editing or (in my opinion) deleted and started again. The article is unbelievably biased and contains much irrelevant information. --Tomt 11:56, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
User:Conservative does not want the hours he put in to creating this entry to go to waste so he locks it. He put hours into creating this article because he was the only one working on it because he locked it. What do you think the possible outcomes of this situation are? Either Conservative stops being a sysop here or the article remains locked. There's no other way for it to end. Myk 12:00, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Is there a way to have him impeached? Ataxia 16:13, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

If he continues his unilateral editing, inadequate communication, and general style of editing, it will speak for itself. But no, impeachment is only for extreme cases. See what User:Tmtoulouse did yesterday. --Hojimachongtalk 16:15, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
This article must remain locked because of its controversial nature. We are currently working to improve it. My suggestion to is to rewrite the article on your computer, and then submit your work to a SYSOP. After reviewing it, we will incorporate it into the article. ~ SharonS Talk! 16:16, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
It's controversial nature is exactly why it should not be locked, especially not in order to be edited by someone who has shown a distinct lack of flexibility.--Murray 17:04, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
SharonS, I am a SYSOP. That doesn't mean I act unilaterally or protect pages to preserve my specific ideological view. --Hojimachongtalk 16:18, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

While Wikipedia might be the great evil in the universe, they have a very sensible policy that an SYSOP who is editing a page may not use his/her powers in the course of editing that page - they get "uninvolved" SYSOPs to do that. This is going to just around and around until you have something similar plus it's likely to hinder the overall growth of the site as people will quickly form the view that SYSOPs are able to act how they like with little or no challenge. --Cgday 16:54, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

The latest bout

It would appear somebody has tinkered with Conservative's precious Theory of Evolution article rant. I think his comment "I don't want two types of footnotes" at the first sign that somebody might try and add something useful, sums it up really. This page makes Conservapedia a laughing stock. ASchlafly this guy has gotta go before he destroys the very meaning of Conservapedia.MatteeNeutra 17:14, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Don't listen to him, Andrew. This page is just fine the way it is. Conservative is laying it on the line.--TerryHTalk 19:50, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Don't worry. Andy backs Conservative anyway. There are FOUR archive pages filled with people pointing out errors and complaining about Conservative's policy. Andy did NOTHING, aside from saying that Conservative is doing a fine job. The page only opens back up (only to be reverted and re-locked quickly) occasionally because of other sysops effectively risking their necks by opposing Conservative. --Sid 3050 19:54, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
How about wasting their time? All these oppositions are because of intolerance of Conservative's views. These guys are hardly "risking their necks". All they're doing is shouting and screaming and cursing at this guy for his views. Stop whining about this page; it's fine the way it is. If you're not satisfied with it, like I've said a billion times, GO TO WIKIPEDIA!!!!!!!!! Or evowiki ScorpionStep on me and get stung 23:27, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Maybe the fact that pretty much everyone involved has criticized Conservative more than once speaks for his editing style. See the poll elsewhere on this page, I think it speaks for itself. And again, it's not the content that Conservative adds that I have a problem with, it is his unilateralism, abuse of power, and inability to engage in simple discussion that creates problems. --Hojimachongtalk 23:30, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Scorpion, some of us want this wiki to turn into something more than the joke it currently is due to Conservatives edits. Nematocyte 05:18, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Alternatively, leave it as it is, so that everybody knows it's a joke? I wouldn't recommend it, but, hell, if that's what the paranoid fundies around here want! --Petrus 06:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I think several people (including me) are approaching that point or shot beyond it already. Conservapedia apparently aims for being a complete joke. The Colbert Report of wikis. Otherwise, it wouldn't break its own commandments or allow such an abuse of power (both things aren't limited to this article alone). --Sid 3050 09:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I agree with Sid. I came here originally with the intent of trying to help make this a viable entity, but have seen no major forward progress made. People keep confusing personal opinions with encyclopedic entries. All articles need to be unprotected and open for editing. Only then will information flow. One opinion is not necessarily the reflective of correct facts and everyone needs their chance to improve this site. Only then can this possibly become a "Trustworthy Encyclopedia". Jrssr5 09:16, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
And who's to say you're not confusing your own opinion with fact? And if we open up all the protected pages, vandalism and nonsense will flow, not information. I've actually vied for semi-protection, but so far have not recieved a single response on the subject. And tell me, why is this site a joke to you? I suppose it's a joke to evolutionists, because they like to laugh at everything that contradicts them, but you can go ahead and do that if you want. Heck, laugh till you throw up, but it won't undermine the truth here. ScorpionStep on me and get stung 10:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Extraordinary how that argument keeps coming up: 'if we open up all the protected pages, vandalism and nonsense will flow, not information'. Haven't its proponents heard of reversion? It happens all the time on Wikipedia, but it seems to survive. What they're into isn't protection, it's plain, old-fashioned paranoia. I mean, as if nonsense wasn't already flowing - as a direct result of their actions! --Petrus 12:13, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Scorpion, I come from the UK and there has been some coverage of Conservapedia in local newspapers and the like. There has not been a single article written about Conservapedia that has tried to back up its ideas, ethos or spoken highly of its encyclopedic content. In fact, Conservapedia is openly mocked for its, quite simply, Puritanical and stupid articles (particularly referenced was this page, The Earth and Dinosaurs all of which are actually in the realms of ridiculousness for their sheer lack of fact!).
I also find it hard to see that evolutionists laughing at creationists is in any way different to this article here which is, quite frankly, creationists taking the piss. Perhaps both sides are as bad as each other but that does not mean we can't have balance; even Jesus listened to people he thought were wrong you know. MatteeNeutra 11:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, Scorpion, but I think I'm gonna step on you here, and getting stung be damned. See, for one, "evolutionists" aren't the people you're talking about. The people you're talking about are scientists, who deal in reality with actual verifiable facts. And yes, they do laugh at young-earth creationists, because you don't use verifiable facts, and delude yourself into thinking you do. Don't caricature us just because you can't understand the science, or choose not to. You can be willfully blind to science if you want, but that doesn't make it go away for anyone but yourself, and don't pretend it does. Your viewpoint is fine as a faith, but for the love of God and the free will and reason that he gave us, don't insult us by forcing your narrow view down our throats.
Here's the deal: you stop messing with science, and science agrees not to mess with faith. Science never has deliberately messed with faith: you only assume it does. So think the clash away, the same way you thought it into being.-AmesG 12:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Scorpion: I'm not confusing my opinion with facts, my opinions have been formed over the years by research and listening to other's opinions. I'm actually able to alter my opinion if sufficient evidence of another opinon is provided.
As for opening articles up, if enough people are allowed to edit, the vast majority will overpower the vandals (adding citeable facts is not vandalism, but you already know that) and valid entries will rise.
This site is a joke right now because, as pointed out repeatedly, only a few sysops are allowed to edit the high controversial articles. And they're not even articles at that, they're essays. I've suggested before, there should be an article on the theory of evolution which explains what it is, then have another where the YEC's can express their distaste for science and expound what the bible says. Jrssr5 15:45, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I could stay here and continue to waste my time arguing with you pigheaded individuals, but why should I? I don't know why I even bothered replying to your mindless rants about how this page doesn't suit your pitiful view. If I reply to your nonsense, it's just going to start another bout of guffawing from you, so I'm not gonna bother. And unless you have something sensible and reasonable to say, I'm also not going to bother. If you're just going to continue to confuse science and your narrow opinions, I'm not going to listen. And if you're just going to mindlessly accuse me of being narrow-minded just because I won't conform to your beliefs, I'm also not going to listen. "Stinging be d---ed" notwithstanding, the more you step on me the more it's gonna happen Ames G! Deal with it! ScorpionStep on me and get stung 18:13, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Now, I'm no expert on the matter but I believe you just did reply, despite your statement that you would not. There is a large difference between listening and what you are doing (you are in fact not listening, in case there is confusion). Oh well, if we can't make you see reason we could always just stand on you with boots on. After all I believe that humans are considerably heavier than scorpions. Ooops, squash! Regards! MatteeNeutra 18:25, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Now I'm a mutant scorpion, larger than a car and impervious to your pitiful feet. Now I'll squash you! Here's the squash: I'm not listening to your reason because it isn't reason. It's just mindless raving. There. Kind regards ScorpionStep on me and get stung 18:40, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
BTW, you should change your name to "Viper", since that's what you do. ScorpionStep on me and get stung 18:46, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Scorpion, first, curious as to your age. Second, it's not narrowmindedness to ask that you open an article on the encyclopedia to unbiased scientific fact. I've given you every opportunity to present your views and you've given me none to prevent mine on this site. I ask one last time, will you give me the courtesy of actually reading up on evolution, science, et al? Would you? Please? -AmesGyo 19:05, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm guessing 15. But since I've been incorrectly dubbed an athiest what do I know? Jrssr5 19:19, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm old enough to know better than to answer that question. However, I am quite older than 15. Now, AmesG, I told you I have read up on evolution. I actually used to think it was truth. But of course, once I actually discovered some creationist sources (such as AiG) that discredits this, I know better. Now, have you read up on creationism from sources other than evolutionists? ScorpionStep on me and get stung 21:27, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I did read AiG through & through, and participated in a lot of these debates back at Rice, such that I became well informed on the creationist position. /sigh. I can't argue with someone who thinks AiG is a good scientific source; there's no common ground. Alas :-( -AmesGyo! 21:29, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I also have read a great many of the Talk.Origins rebuttals, and I even e-mailed them asking several reasonable questions. Did they answer? No, not to a single one. However, Ames, I must agree with you on that last point; there is no common ground, therefore we can't really do any profitable discussion. But what's that "Rice" you're talking about? ScorpionStep on me and get stung 21:44, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Rice University ... it's in Texas Jrssr5 23:05, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Good place full of smart kids - Rice University. Top of the major research universities in things like evolutionary biology et al (my degree, though, was in history). It's in Houston, yes.-AmesGyo! 23:07, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Yeah, it makes sense that you came from a secular university. The university that one comes from most often shapes his worldview. ScorpionStep on me and get stung 23:39, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Intention to edit

In order to avoid creating any problems with editing the evolution article I thought I should flag my intention first in order to allow discussion beforehand.

I intend to remove the paragraph in the Formation of the theory section that refers to Jonathon Wells. The paragraph seems to be somewhat of a non sequitur (at least in that position in the article). The paragraphs preceeding it don't seem to relate to the proposition contained within the Wells paragraph. There is a step missing. Darwin's observation of the different beaks on the finches appears to have set him thinking about the process of evolution but is the species boundary the issue here? (because the Wells paragraph seems to be all about hte species boundary).

Further, the idea of "no net evolution" seems misguided. --Horace 20:23, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Have I got this straight? You want to remove entirely a key rebuttal to the process that led to the formation of the theory? This is the same exact problem that Wikipedia has. Everybody who is anybody over there, wants so much to believe that evolution is a fact, that they want no one to read any rebuttals to it.
Your intentions might have seemed honorable if you had proposed to move that paragraph to another point in the article. But you propose to remove it entirely. That seriously compromises your trustworthiness, sir.--TerryHTalk 20:32, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
First of all, nice use of the word "sir". One just doesn't see enough of it these days. Secondly, I posted here precisely so that the edit could be discussed before it happens. If it happens.
The problem that I have is that the paragraph does not seem to be appropriate where it is. It is not an answer to anything at the moment. The preceding paragraphs are merely historical and do not present a pro-evolution case. The very fact that you refer to the Wells paragraph as a rebuttal is a further indication that it is in the wrong place. Move it by all means. It just does not go where it currently sits. --Horace 20:37, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
I'll leave the movement of the paragraph to the original author. I just want to make sure that we both understand one another. However, we agree on one thing at least: manners were a lot more elegant in times gone by. If we all returned to such elegance--well, we might not necessarily be able to resolve all our disputes, but we might at least be able to observe some common ground even while we dispute various principles and conclusions.--TerryHTalk 21:42, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
Well said. --Horace 21:44, 25 March 2007 (EDT)
There is, of course, the minor detail that Wells is just plain wrong; none of the many species concepts biologists use requires complete reproductive isolation, let alone "inability to interbreed." Tsumetai 06:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I also intend to edit (working my way down) the section headed "Lack of any clear transitional forms". The section states: 'Darwin himself admitted that his theory required the existence of "transitional forms." However, Darwin saw no such transitional forms, but hoped that someone in the future would find them'. This is supported by two references. If you follow the referenced links the assertion is not born out. The links are to articles which make reference to The Origin of Species. The pages appear to make the error of misunderstanding a sentence in Chapter 10. A more careful reading makes it clear that Darwin was merely saying that the fossil record (as it was known then) did not contain a finely graded series of fossils showing change from one species to another. Not that there were no transitional forms at all (a very different matter). --Horace 21:41, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

Glad to see the fight continues. You could always revert to this version, which I think is pretty good, and then work your way through expanding it.-AmesG 09:53, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

You have overstated the case. There are a fair number of transitional forms in the fossil record, some of which I discussed in a contribution that was edited out. A discussion of early birds in in . Note that it states that the fossil record for birds is thin because bird bones are thin.

I changed the theory of natural selection to mechanism and also added that natural selection is based on environmental stresses to a population. I propose that the other paragraph outlining natural selection be moved to natural selection page due to redundancy.--TimS 11:21, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd like to restructure this, pending the editing of all of its sections to correct or at least acknowledge its bias. I'll try to restructure it in keeping with the way that the article looked before Conservative's last rampage on it. Would anyone object to that restructuring? I'd be careful to keep any of the good edits that you all have made lately.-AmesG 11:45, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I support doing a restructure. A pros and cons would work better than the current topic heading then bash before presenting any information relevant to the topic.--TimS 11:55, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I believe that the relevance of the section "Age of the Earth and Universe and the Macro evolutionary Position" should be questioned. The age of the earth is not an exclusive claim of biologists. Furthermore biology does not make any statements about the age of the Universe, only the life on earth. The surmised scope of the section is far reaching for the theory of evolution page.--TimS 11:53, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Another point is in reference to the AIG citations. AIG has been shown on several occasions to mislead and misinterpret empirical data and research. Perhaps a better source would be preferred. After reviewing many of the articles on AIG I noticed that most were written by BS and MS degree holders while very few were from PhDs and few were submitted, found or cited in other scientific journals or literature.--TimS 11:53, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Indeed. One might wonder why the statement "The macroevolutionary position asserts that the earth and universe are billions of years old" has two citations to creaionist websites, and none other than those two. Why exactly are we going to creationists for an explanation of what the mainstream position is? There are, apparently, still some people who think this article is fine the way it is. I invite them to explain this. Tsumetai 12:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
The edit I had before Conservative's latest (and dare I hope last?) explosion removed the "Age of the Earth" section and also removed a bunch of AiG cites. Should I just revert to that one? It was a Saturday version.-AmesG 12:15, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I would say yes. I must inquire what background Conservative has to make the edits to this page? He seems not to understand science nor does he cite sources from noteworthy scientists. Does he not understand that the value of a scientist's claims comes from the published peer reviewed research the scientist has on a topic? AIG has very few scientists that have published papers let alone published research papers that are peer reviewed. He also seems to understand the scope of a scientist's understanding in detail of a topic. While it is not uncommon for a scientist to reach outside of his or her field of study very few do. When a mathematician starts to make claims about molecular genetics (without evidence of studying the topic) and how mainstream biological science is wrong, then warning bells should be going off.--TimS 14:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
You ignore at least two salient facts in the above discussion:
  1. Peer review depends, first of all, on the acceptance by both reviewer and submitter of mutually agreeable principles and rules. Creation scientists are routinely subject to job discrimination, to the degree that the mere mention of the notion of special creation is now grounds for termination. Does it really surprise you that creation scientists never get reviewed? What reviewer has ever been able to lay aside his or her preconceived notions about the origin of life? None.
  2. If the earth is younger, by any reasonable order of magnitude, than evolution scientists routinely claim it to be, then evolution is impossible. Abiogenesis (the origin of life from non-life) and even the claimed change-over-time of species, regardless of their origin, both require a tremendous time frame. Falsify that time frame, and you falsify evolution. That is why the age of the earth is relevant.--TerryHTalk 14:39, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Terry, just so you are aware if the science is sound then publication occurs. Science is all about defending stances. The reasons why creation science papers are not peer reviewed by other scientists is because they do not wish expose their straw men for what they are. Many scientists have stepped forward to refute the claims from creationists on research basis. Either the research provided by the creationist was lacking in data or made to many assumptions to be valid research. I suggest that you take the time to learn the process of publication in scientific journals before making the stance that the scientific community is picking on creationist views. Just a point many scientists have asked for research from creationists for years just so they could invalidate it by empirical evidence. If the research was sound then invalidation would not occur.--TimS 16:57, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Very true, if the Earth was any younger evolution would be in trouble. I did not state that the age of the earth was irrelevant but that the scope of the section was far reaching. Perhaps the debate over the age of the Earth and Universe should be done by geologists and astronomers, not Biologists. We (Biologists) use the information provided by those areas of science to support the claim of evolution not the other way around, that evolution supports their claim to the age of the Earth. The scope of the Theory of Evolution is about change in life not when the planet was first formed, astrophysicists study that. If we are to keep this section under the Theory of evolution then it should also be inserted into every section about physics, geology and astronomy or it will look like it is, a bad fact less attack on evolution.--TimS 16:57, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Theory of evolution is not just a materialist explanation, many nonmaterialists support the theory. The Catholic church supports the theory of evolution. Andrew please give us a cite for your claim that it is just a materialist theory.--TimS 17:07, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I reverted your edits because you changed a statement is plainly true, and replaced it with something less informative and more liberal. The theory of evolution is a materialist explanation. No one disputes that. Calling it "science" is less descriptive, because some scientific theories are not purely materialist explanations (e.g., Newton's gravity). Also, your use of the word "science" in the first sentence is ideological rather than informative. There is no (unbiased) reason for the term "science" to be there.
Andrew the Theory of Evolution is as materialistic as the theory of gravity. Both look for natural causes for the observed. You can not make a claim that one is materialistic without claiming the other.--TimS 17:41, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Tim, the theory of evolution is materialistic. You haven't denied it yourself. The statement in the content page is a precise, informative definition. Don't change "materialistic" to "science", because science may not be limited to materialistic theories, depending on one's theory of science. Newton's theory of gravity entailed a controversial "action at a distance" that defied strictly materialistic views of his day.
Andrew modern science is materialistic. Newton's theory of gravity has been refuted with special relativity, and modified with additional understanding of gravity. Since the call for empirical evidence to support claims of science in the late 1800's scientists hold a reductionism view when regarding their research. When you make the statement "science may not be limited to materialistic theories" you are incorrect. Science will look for materialistic causes to their observations. Even theoretical physics takes a reductionism point of view and looks for the materialistic causes for their hypothesizes.--TimS 10:53, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Nor should the theory of evolution be described as explaining the "diversity" of life, because many proponents of evolution like it due to the alleged lack of diversity in life, such as common DNA.
The theory does explain the diversity of life Andrew. The accumulated genetic changes over time, which the theory supports, are the explanation for the diversity of life. Conserved DNA is a link but in no way refutes diversity. This is my professional field of research--TimS 17:41, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Again, you're not refuting the informative first statement in the content page. Many, perhaps most, evolutionists support theory based on the *lack* of diversity in DNA. To equate the theory of evolution with diversity simply misses the main the reason many people subscribe to it.
Don't replace factual statements with liberal edits on Conservapedia.--Aschlafly 17:22, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
If your statements are factual please support them with cited sources. I can and will cite my edits, considering how long I have taught and researched this topic as a scientist.--TimS 17:41, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
You don't doubt the truth of the first sentence yourself, so I don't see why citations are necessary. But they should be easy to find if you like. I'll take a look now.--Aschlafly 18:36, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Got any sources for the "many proponents of evolution like it due to the alleged lack of diversity in life" statement?
Yeah, check out all the DNA/evolution claims.--Aschlafly 18:36, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Andrew, you need to be specific. How about Non-random genomic divergence in repetitive sequences of human and chimpanzee in genes of different functional categories.

, --TimS 12:39, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I'm also not entirely sure where Netwon's theory of gravity stops, but a Graviton is a type of matter and it is used in many scientific explanations of gravity. I'm not entirely sure if thats covered by Newton's theory though so you might be right.MatteeNeutra 17:29, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
No, gravitons are not part of Newton's theory. Not at all.--Aschlafly 18:36, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I will be the first person to agree that TOE is materialist, and I intentionally left it in my ongoing edits. Palmd001 17:36, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

You're right. Thank you for saying the obvious.--Aschlafly 18:36, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I do not claim that it is not materalistic, all science is materalistic. I just want to point out that the materialistic overtone should be used on all theories if it is to be used on this one. Many are using the term materialistic as a negative.--TimS 17:41, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

New Edition

Curious as to the comments. CPWebmaster, please note that this is a consensus document-AmesGyo 15:14, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

There is no such thing as a "consensus document" on Conservapedia. Please submit the new version to the Panel before implementing the changes. CPWebmaster 15:22, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Okay, full disclaimer now, please. Who exactly is on the Panel? Where does it actually say that a Panel has any say on this wiki? Who would we turn to in order to contact the Panel? Who do we contact when we feel that the Panel is screwing up? And the most important one: Why did you choose to use a wiki if you're not interested in consensus? --Sid 3050 15:31, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Panel? What Panel? Is there an expert on evolution on this Panel? An expert from each field to be discussed? A trained chimp? Please clarify. Palmd001 15:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
This is the last I heard about any 'Panel'. If this proposal has now become policy, perhaps the commandments should be updated to reflect that, and all sysops officially notified. Furthermore, any articles under the Panel's consideration should be clearly marked as such; our editors are not psychic. Tsumetai 15:37, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Im sorry, I couldnt take it anymore, and I had to correct some basic inaccuracies.Palmd001 15:40, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Yes, the proposal has become a policy. Somehow nobody posted it onto the page. All edits that cause conflict (lie this one) must be submitted to the panel for permission. CPWebmaster 15:43, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I almost forgot about that... so "58 advanced homeschooled and college-bound students" now get to dictate what we should write and what we shouldn't write? And the result is "The Trustworthy Encyclopedia"? Oh boy. At least put that into the rules: "Conservapedia might look like a wiki, but you may only write what the Panel approves of.". Put it right under "Conservapedia officially supports Young Earth Creationism as Truth". --Sid 3050 15:46, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I see. we get to put our case before the panel makes its decision? Is there an appeals process? Who decides which edits cause conflict? Tsumetai 15:50, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm skeptical as to how well a panel of high schoolers will arbitrate this. I think it'd be better if there wasn't a panel and this went by a true wiki style. But if a panel is to be implemented, then it should include students and other editors to help level the playing field. Jrssr5 15:56, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Unless this "panel" is composed of experts, or consults experts, in the field in question, it is not a panel, but a propaganda committee, and should be labelled as such. This panel should probably limit itself to judging things such as obscenity.Palmd001 15:57, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

The Panel is to resolve conflict, not "dictate the site." So far, this would be the only edit submitted to the Panel. This is no cause for alarm. Most likely, your edits will be allowed. There is no "appeal process" currently, but that is an excellent idea, you should submit it. CPWebmaster 16:01, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Submit it to whom? Where? A very unwieldy process, since there are so many editors and so many large and small edits. What would get submitted? All around bad idea, but its your funeral.Palmd001 16:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

What about the various edits that led to comments like "unacceptable behavior" or "Read the Conservapedia Commandments!" simply because a higher-up disagreed with them? My Wikipedia edits seem to classify as "conflict" (even though I certainly did not sense a serious conflict before Andy locked down the article and gave me a warning). See also my comment on User talk:AmesG. --Sid 3050 16:07, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Sorry, scientist on caffeine here, correcting wild inaccuracies, not vandalizing, dont lock me out.Palmd001 16:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

I said "major conflicts". We still want this site to function just as any other Wiki would. What exactly is wrong with a Conflict Resolution group? CPWebmaster 16:13, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Then define "major conflict". A conflict that ends with me potentially getting banned DOES count as a "major conflict" in my book.
And other than the fact that we don't know who is in it, who oversees it, how we contact it, when exactly we should contact it, that it's not in the rules, that the article was not marked as conflict-protected, that Conservative (whose few hundred edits that caused a major uproar) apparently is not affected by this rule, and that you simply forgot to tell anybody of the existence of this Panel, not much is wrong with it. --Sid 3050 16:18, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

PLEASE do not revert my current edits until I'm done, I think you will be pleased with the result. I will not tamper with creationist lingo, just correct biologic facts. Thanks. Palmd001 16:32, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Not correct biological facts, you mean evolutionist lingo. GMAB ScorpionStep on me and get stung 21:51, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Im sorry Scorp, but I cant take seriously the comments of someone who doesnt understand what the cause of night and day is.PalMD 10:49, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Cause: Rotation of the earth. Earth turns, one side is thrown into darkness, the other side recieves the sun's light. Now are you convinced? ScorpionStep on me and get stung 23:06, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
But I thought the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it. Bet you can't prove me wrong.-AmesGyo! 23:08, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
It's a little more gradual than the Earth just flipping over, but he's got it generally right. Myk 23:10, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Flying Spaghetti Monster did what? Made the earth stand still? Sure, or perhaps Joshua was simply superhuman with the ability to make earth stand still! Or maybe the earth itself was sentient and stood still for him! How are those for wild speculations? ScorpionStep on me and get stung 23:23, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Welp, they're all not falsifiable, that's the point, so none of them are science.-AmesGyo! 23:25, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I'd like to refer folks to the above conversation, reprinted on my talk page, where I did have to instruct Scorpion on the causes of night and day, so, given he can repeat it back, he may be trainable.PalMD 00:19, 28 March 2007 (EDT)


...when did the Panel decide on ANY version? Reverting to ANY non-blank version is a conflict edit right now. Otherwise, please show me that the Panel said that the current version is approved. --Sid 3050 16:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

The panel solves major conflicts, it does not censor posts. CPWebmaster 16:15, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Correct. You, Andy and Conservative do the censoring. --Sid 3050 16:18, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Double wait... User:Conservative's user page and talk page implies that he is taking a leave, but he is still making edits? Why is his talk page blocked? Myk 17:52, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Because he's afraid to death of you and he's going to dig a hole and hide in it and edit from there and filter out everything that contradicts creationism and throw guided missiles at you and blow you up! There! ScorpionStep on me and get stung 18:22, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm sorry... what? Myk 18:25, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
who knows! the whole site seems to be spinning down into self-parody! --Cgday 18:27, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Simply put, I was parodying your view of what he might be doing. For all you care, he might be doing what I said he was. And, Cgday, if you think this site is just a parody why waste time on it? If it's just a stupid joke, go join your atheist friends at Wikipedia! They'll be more than happy to recieve you! But just because you say it's a joke and you laugh at it doesn't mean that what it says isn't true. ScorpionStep on me and get stung 18:44, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
I was asking a question... I didn't propose a view for you to parody. However, my view would be that editors and especially sysops shouldn't have locked talk pages. Myk 19:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Maybe because they don't have time to answer all your silly questions? ScorpionStep on me and get stung 21:50, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Scorp, I gotta tell you, it's hard to carry on a reasonable conversation with you. I'm glad you're a conservative. Myk 22:28, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
It's kind of hard to carry on a reasonable conversation when one's conversation partners are unwilling to do so. Now what was so offensive about my answer? ScorpionStep on me and get stung 22:32, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Oog, I see what you mean about his page being locked. I really do wonder why he would do that; especially when that would prevent other conservatives from leaving messages. My apologies, Mike. ScorpionStep on me and get stung 22:35, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Materialism and suchlike

This entry refers to the theory of evolution commonly taught, without reference to God, in schools. "Materialistic Evolution differs from Theistic Evolution in saying that God does not actively interfere with evolution."

Those are two different statements. One can teach evolution leaving the question of whether or not God interferes completely open. Unless we have solid evidence that the version taught in schools actively denies that God can interfere, we should revert to 'scientific,' which is consistent with both 'materialistic' and 'theistic' evolution. Tsumetai 19:25, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

That is my point. You can call evolution is a materialistic theory without calling all other scientific theories materialistic. Science explains things through logical natural processes, many define this as materialistic due to the lack of paraphysical content in their work. So to call evolution materialistic is correct but in doing so you must define all scientific theories as materialistic as well. This call for evolution to be labeled as materialistic is just another perversion for those not understanding science. Many religious and opponents use the term "Materialistic" as a negative and often supplement it with "Godless". This is why I have issue with materialistic is this article. If you want to place it there then it should be in every scientific theory on this website.--TimS 10:41, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Maxwell and opposition to evolutionary theory

Here's an article that suggests that James Maxwell wasn't opposed to evolutionary theory, and that claims that he was are based on a quote taken out of context. --Epicurius 19:57, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

You removed the useful edits at the beginning and eviscerated the definition of evolution and natural selection. As currently stated, it is INCORRECT. Please revert. PalMD 19:28, 26 March 2007 (EDT)


I hate to edit an article which few others can, but that 13% thing was not a correct interpretation. We need to be careful what we say about evolution - it's the first (and maybe only) article the media jumps to when the scrutinize us. And the intro was misquoting a poll commissioned by the most liberal media group in the US - the one which forced out Bernard Goldberg - but I digress. --Ed Poor 20:26, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, the vast majority of articles seemed to point at Kangaroo. This article also is a major target, though. However, the media will most likely pay less attention to details like that and instead go on about the overall tone of the article and the style ("Let's not say what the stuff in this section is all about or how it's linked to the overall article. Instead, we'll just cite people and leave those quotations without any conclusion or explanation!").
But fear not: Conservapedia doesn't care what the "liberal media" (=every news source that does not say that Conservapedia is super-awesome) says, anyway. If it did, it would actually consider for a split second that the tons of criticism may have a point. So worry not about what the media thinks. Those liberal "journalists" don't get it, anyway. --Sid 3050 20:48, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

To quote Mr. Colbert, reality has a known liberal bias.-AmesGyo! 21:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Your reality does. But real reality doesn't. And frankly, Sid, why should we care about all the mud thrown at us? Geez, you don't care about those the majority that criticize evolution! There's no reason for us to go worrying about what every little crackpot supermarket tabloid criticizes conservatives for. ScorpionStep on me and get stung 21:32, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Thank you for proving my point, Scorpion. :) --Sid 3050 21:39, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
What point? 8-| ScorpionStep on me and get stung 22:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)


I know quite about about evolution. What direction shall we take this article? Can we divide it up and each of us take a different section? --Ed Poor 20:35, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Thanks, Ed. I know far more about evolution than the various supernatural (not meant as a pejoritive) critiques. However, in the critique sections there are some significant misunderstandings. I have no interest in removing the critiques of evolution, or even diluting them, just correcting the science, where it is mentioned. See for instance the section on fossil record where there was no mention of punctuated equilibrium, and the whole natural selection thing that keeps changing back to a fundamental misunderstanding.PalMD 20:39, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

It's not a "fundamental misunderstanding". It's the correct understanding of this contemptible lie that states that this theory has gone unchallenged ever since it came out. That is simply not true; the thing is, when evidence turns up that puts evolution in question the theory is simply bent to fit the evidence, or vice versa. ScorpionStep on me and get stung 21:31, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
You mean evolution is evolving? --Horace 21:34, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
LOL @ Horace. But, then, my GODS, Scorpion (sorry, quoting Battlestar - the season finale was so good!) but as previous discussions have held, that's the way science works. You only toss out a theory when something categorically disproves it; until then, the theory just takes shape, as reality lends it flesh. NOTHING has come up to categorically toss out the basic construct, or the theory as a whole. NOTHING. Except, of course, creation science, but let's be honest with ourselves.-AmesGyo! 21:41, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
No, nothing has ever come up to even throw evolution into question. Nothing at all. The theory (oops! I mean fact) has stood completely proven and unchallenged for all time. LOL ScorpionStep on me and get stung 21:49, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Right. Again, you could point to something that does question the basic concept.-AmesGyo! 21:53, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Right? Whaddya mean "Right"? I was being sarcastic. ScorpionStep on me and get stung 22:08, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Haha, you were, I know. That's what's funny. But you were right! Again, feel free to offer something that does challenge the basic concept, but I accept your apologies.-AmesGyo! 22:09, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Right about what? That God doesn't exist? ScorpionStep on me and get stung 22:10, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Whoa! Why does evolution being correct mean that God doesn't exist?! That's insulting to us both!!!-AmesGyo! 22:11, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

If every living thing came from a common ancestor, POOF! there goes Genesis. Of course, this hasn't been proven, therefore no POOF. ScorpionStep on me and get stung 22:15, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Your faith is shockingly shallow, and limited to only creation! First of all, we're talking about evolution, not big bang. Evolution eliminates God as the creator of Man, and I'll eliminate God's DIRECT influence as far back as the Big Bang, but even that doesn't eliminate God! What about the majestic beauty & simplicity of a Creation of Natural Laws, ordered by God to be discoverable, manipulable, and entirely self-contained? Isn't that something beautiful in and of itself? That's Einstein's God, and Jefferson's God. If you cabin your faith to only Genesis, it sounds like you're worshiping the Bible, not God.-AmesGyo! 22:18, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
hmmm...I see what your faith is. Judging from your most recent post, you seem to be a deist. I guess the question is not whether God exists, but whether the Bible is His divine word. What do you think? Is it, or isn't it? ScorpionStep on me and get stung 22:30, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Divine word, or literal word? Look, I'm a historian and (soon) a lawyer by trade, so I read old documents all the time, and you know what I've found about ancient sources? They're very, very rarely reflective of literal truth. I'd say "never." And that's just the Roman sources. Go back 6,000 years to the writing of Genesis, and you're working on oral tradition. You can't take any of it literally, as a historian. On faith alone, I don't think God intended the Bible to be read literally, at all. And I know for a fact that Biblical literalism as a movement is of fairly new provenance (say 1800s?). So not even the ancients regarded it literally. Don't you think it's shallow, though, to say that God's "Truth" is only as deep as the most basic level of interpretation?-AmesGyo! 22:59, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Hold on here a minute. How do you know that nothing they said is ever literal? Give me an example of an ancient document which isn't literal. So you're saying that all that stuff about the destruction of Rome, the ancient wars, isn't true but it's just referring to something else? Now I'm confused. What do you mean by literal now? ScorpionStep on me and get stung 23:26, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Plutarch, Suetonius, Livy, Josephus, Herodotus, etc. To ancient historians, writing history was like writing legend today.-AmesGyo! 08:01, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

HOLD ON! The fundamental misunderstanding I referred to (pay attention young Jedi Scorpion) is about natural selection as the driving force of evolution. Natural selection is like really isn't in dispute; only evolution is (and there, im being kind and concessionary). Natural selection is consistently screwed up here. Im am NOT disputing your right to dispute's your funeral (good luck getting an NIH grant), but the real problem is the misunderstanding of both natural selection and evolution. That is why it would be reasonable to let experts state that part, and allow experts on creationism (of which there are many here, but im not including you) to take care of that part.PalMD 22:53, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Also, what Palmd said.-AmesGyo! 23:01, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
Uh...whatever, but it's not my funeral. It'll be the best thing I do. ScorpionStep on me and get stung 23:26, 26 March 2007 (EDT)


It is clear that we will have to work in small, incremental steps to build this article into something that is quasi-presentable. I have created a proposed layout of the article at User:Hojimachong/EvolutionOrganization. I think this looks a bit more like an encyclopedia article regarding the organization of information. It includes headings to clearly describe the concepts of evolution as it is currently accepted, a section for evidence supporting evolution, and a section for evidence opposing evolution. Please add more headers and subheaders as you see fit, but don't move the headings around (i.e. putting the evidence against evolution at the very top). If you wish to dispute the order, I would be happy to discuss here or at my talk page. --Hojimachongtalk 22:59, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

HELLOOOOO (waves hand around) looking for some feedback here... --Hojimachongtalk 00:55, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

You want more? I pretty much got slapped down already by the Schafly man. Any idea if he might accept this?PalMD 01:00, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

I thought your subject headings looked very good. --Horace 01:05, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Agreed; looks good to me. Of course, even with the right organization, the content can still go astray, but it's certainly a good starting point. I took the liberty of adding a sub-section. Tsumetai 07:56, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Best of luck with that - the current version seems to be the worst yet - what sort of encyclopedia starts with Argumentum ad Populum? The simple fact is that this site does not want an article on the theory of evolution - it wants a simplistic piece that is actually "why the TOE suxs!" --Cgday 01:51, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

That's what Ive been trying to correct in the first is quite irrelevant to the theory what the majority of lay people is very relevant to politics.PalMD 01:52, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Mhhhh. Willingness to edit seems to have hit a new low after The Shadow Council was revealed and once Andy decided to "clarify" things with his poll and such. It's ironic. The article is unprotected, but nobody makes real content edits because of resignation or fear of being reverted, warned or (temp-)banned. --Sid 3050 07:26, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe they have some sense not to add a bunch of ad hominem nonsense to the article, like you want to do. Tell me, how is the article ad hominem? ScorpionStep on me and get stung 07:51, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Care to clarify where I said such things? Otherwise, I really think that you should tone down your attacks on people you don't like. --Sid 3050 07:54, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
It was the hive mind to which all who disagree with Scorpion belong to. And he probably mistook ad populum for ad hominem. Nematocyte 07:58, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
It's not just disagreeing with me, it's disagreeing with all other YEC's and God. ScorpionStep on me and get stung 14:42, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
I think you should rephrase: "with all other YEC's and our God." Your God is most certainly not my God. A lot of people disagree with YEC. It is how people portray that disagreement that is usually the problem. When people simply denounce something else because it conflicts with their train of thought, rather than looking at both sides and coming to a rational understanding of both and then forming an opinion, the problems roll in. Exactly the same comes with peoples disagreement of Evolution (as this page clearly shows). MatteeNeutra 14:56, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
So you assume that no one who disagrees with evolution has looked at both sides, while everyone who attacks YEC has looked at both sides? Let me tell you, I have looked at both sides and have come to a rational conclusion: YEC makes more sense. Okay, so my God isn't your god. Who is your god? Nature? Natural Selection? Random Chance? Yourself? What? ScorpionStep on me and get stung 23:16, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Anticreationist talk

All right, I've finally gotten it together here. In this section I'm going to pose some questions for the numerous users on here who are dissatisfied with the article, and you can tell me what exactly you are dissatisfied about.

  • I keep hearing that this article's a joke. What makes it a joke?
  • Response: There are a few things that make it a joke to others. First is the very idea of real, practicing scientists take creationism seriously. IMHO this does not mean it should not be discussed though. The biggest problem is that it does not contain a clear, concise, accurate description of evolution...It keeps getting mixed up with the creationist stuff. See Hojimachong's ideas for this.PalMD 08:30, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
The fact that the primary authors have zero scientific reading or education, leading to an absence of factual information and the frequent use of logical fallacies, such as quote mining. Nematocyte 08:33, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
  • I keep hearing that the article is absolute nonsense. Why do you think this? I'll need a specific example from the text.
  • Response:I have left many edits and responses to this on the page. For instance, natural selection keeps getting misunderstood in the article. Evolution acts on populations not individuals. The vast majority of scientists subscribe to this view. The CBS poll does not say that people do not believe in evolution, just that they are deists/theists. You keep changing and misrepresenting facts to show your own bias. You should save it for a separate section.PalMD 08:35, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
  • You also keep claiming that AiG as well as various other organizations has "zero scientific credibility". Please tell me why you think this. AiG even has a list of creationist scientists.
  • Response: I've read a bit of AiG's stuff, and while it is interesting and illuminates the thinking of creationists, it has nothing to do with science; it is simply faith stated in quasi-scientific terms, and therefore will not be taken seriously by scientists, whether or not they are theists. See my little blurb on your nylon eating beetle.PalMD 08:45, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
I already responded above. Their articles contain basic errors, they are respected by none in the scientific community, the bulk of their articles are not writen by the members with phd's, and when they do write it is often outside of their speciality and/or containing said error. Nematocyte 08:33, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

(more soon)

Putting responses down here for ease of use:
The article's a joke because it's entitled 'theory of evolution,' but spectacularly fails to describe the theory of evolution.
Good example of nonsense would be the claim that there are no transitional fossils. Of particular interest is the use of Alan Feduccia to supposedly refute the transitional status of Archaeopteryx. Here's what Feduccia has to say to that:
Creationists are going to distort whatever arguments come up, and they've put me in company with luminaries like Stephen Jay Gould, so it doesn't bother me a bit. Archaeopteryx is half reptile and half bird any way you cut the deck, and so it is a Rosetta stone for evolution, whether it is related to dinosaurs or not. These creationists are confusing an argument about minor details of evolution with the indisputable fact of evolution: Animals and plants have been changing
It's worth reading the entire interview, since it gives the lie to the notion that dissent is not tolerated within 'evolutionist' circles.
Finally, on AiG, I point you once more to their statement of faith. Tsumetai 08:34, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
You know, getting caught in edit conflicts really, REALLY pisses me off. It makes me have to rewrite everything I wrote before, but naturally the other guy doesn't have to. If you want to see my response, check the history. I'm not writing it again. And may the head of the next person who conflicts with my edits EXPLODE! ScorpionStep on me and get stung 11:52, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
Sorry, that would be me, I guess. I will be more careful in the future. --Ed Poor 12:02, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
I'm no expert on the bible, but I'm pretty sure Jesus didn't wish for any persons head to explode! There is such a reference in the Satanic Bible but there you go; coincidence I'm sure! MatteeNeutra 12:22, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Im not sure which edit of yours was undone, and if it was in an area of your expertise, im sorry, thats wrong, but what exactly is your area of expertise? We know it's not astronomy.PalMD 12:01, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Scorpion, I fear that Ed has been stung. That said, you know, good practice is to copy your text before you click "submit" so you can "paste" it in if a conflict occurs. Just my $2. That's right: my advice is that much more valuable. -AmesGyo! 12:33, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
And if you don't copy it you can just hit the back button on your browser.Murray 12:44, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
I don't believe it was Ed Poor; it could really be anyone. The problem is that so many people are editing the article at once that edit conflicts are bound to happen frequently. I could copy, but if I have several lines that are spread out throughout the text it's extremely difficult, and it would be impossible to copy them without copying everyone else's text too. I guess next time I'll have to copy them to a separate document until I can get this one to save. No offense, Ed; the part about the head exploding was a Joke. ScorpionStep on me and get stung 14:40, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

Related issues

I have briefly skimmed the discussion above. Several related issues have come up. Here is one of them:

What is the proper scope of science? Must it limit itself to examining the physical, natural world. Is this what "empirical observation" means (see Empiricism)?

I would be interested to see articles on philosophers of science who suggest extending the sphere of science to the non-physical. Can science study human thoughts, emotions and desires? How would it do this? Does the supernatural exist? Can it be detected? Is there life after death? Is there a taboo against examining "occult" phenomena like ghosts, "voices from heaven", and so on?

  • Lev. 19:31 says (what version?): Do not resort to ghosts and spirits, nor make yourselves unclean by seeking them out.

Is there a precedent in Catholicism to pray to saints? What do other Christians say about this? --Ed Poor 11:03, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

To answer your question, yes science can study human thoughts, emotions and desires. The science would involve chemical pathways in the brain. This is not new. Point is that for it to be science and not philosophy evidence has to be provided to support the hypothesis. It is almost impossible for you to present evidence of the supernatural (one reason it is supernatural).--TimS 11:39, 27 March 2007 (EDT)