Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Dinosaur

2007-03-29T01:55:15Z

Prometheus: /* No mention of popular documentary */

'''Note:''' an alternative version of this article is currently being written [[User:Hojimachong/Dinosaur|here]]. This is not an attempt to usurp [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]'s views, but rather add more factual information regarding the evolutionary view. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]

==Modern Day Dinosaurs==

I'd like to point out that some scientists consider [[Alligators]], [[Crocodiles]] and [[Komodo Dragons]] to be modern dinosaurs. If the bulk of dinosaurs were killed by flooding/natural disaster, it is conceivable that since alligators, etc. did roam the earth at the same time as said "dinosaurs" that they are basically dinosaurs themselves and therefore survived the disaster (not surprising since alligators and crocodiles can both survive easily in water, and the komodo dragon is poisonous to touch and therefore not likely to be hunted to extinction).

Ignoring European myths about dragons, loch ness/etc, there is ample evidence in NativeAmerican mythology that some dinosaurs survived the disaster and were later hunted to extinction. Even today people still claim to have seen the legendary Gaasyendietha and Argont.
*[http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/2005/canadian_seaserpents.html Sea Serpents of Canada]

:What scientists consider alligators, corocodiles and Komodo dragons to be dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creation scientists do. Which means that it's appropriate for this article. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 14:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Ah, that explains it. Cos, y'know, crocodillians kind of aren't related to dinosaurs (they're aquatic, dinosaurs were not), nor are Komodo dragons (which are lizards). Calling a Komodo dragon or a crocodillian a type of dinosaur is kind of like calling a bat a type of bird...

::::If you knew your Leviticus like you should you'd know that a bat ''is'' a bird! [http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvLevi.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=11&division=div1| Leviticus 11:13-19] [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Bats aren't birds, they're bugs: [http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/ch/1989/ch891030.gif #1 Bats = Bugs]. Every six year old knows that.--[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 21:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::You ruined my set-up XD. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==No mention of popular documentary==

Recently I have had the good fortune to observe a series of mini-documentaries and docu-dramas related to the topic of dinosaurs. It appears that Men and dinosaurs did coexist, during Biblical times and even well before then. Many people of the time used tame dinosaurs as transportation, as beasts of burden, and even as pets, as well. Shouldn't there be some mention of the well know documentary series ''The Flintstones'' on this page? [[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]]

==How absurd!==

What are "Old-Earth Evolutionists"? Is there another kind of "evolutionist"? Is evolutionist a word?

Why is the word "evolved" in inverted commas in the second sentence?

Why are the creationists referred to as scientists whereas the "Old-Earth Evolutionists" are not?

Why does it say that the "Creation scientists" have beliefs based on evidence when it says no such thing about the "Old-Earth Evolutionists"? (who you might think have a better claim to beliefs based on evidence).

Why doesn't the article tell me anything about dinosaurs?

I will be back to do some editing. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)

:Note Horace's use above of the Britishism "inverted commas" instead of the proper American "quotation marks". This shibboleth makes his contributions look rather suspiciously like the work of a Wikipedia agitator. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:::Please, don't start making anti-British ad hominem attacks… And "proper American"? Are you aware that the English language originated in Britain? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 10:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: As I'm sure you are aware American English is a rationalised improvement on British English and is not influenced by France (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_english).

:::: Is this rationalisation of the English language the reason your representative president cannot pronounce 'nuclear'? Instead he insists on butchering his own language preferring to pronounce it 'newqoolar'. He has learnt this because of the simplification of spelling which you call a rationalisation has meant that American English has forgotten how to pronounce even the most basic vowels. The rest of the world laughs at you, not with you.

:::::Yep, resumé isn't at all French. Anyway, why do people care? I'm sure that if I was a Brit reading Conservapedia, I would think that a "strong anti-British bias" (to make a modified paraphrase of one of Conservapedia's ideas about Wikipedia) was evident. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 19:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Heh this bit made me laugh. All English (Whether proper English or american butchered English) is influenced from the French. There's a reason the rest of the world uses the proper "foreign" spelling of words. Because it's not a dumbed-down version. Oh, and it's ZED, not ZEE. How is that a rationalized "improvement"? Was the alphabet too hard to remember without 'Z' rhyming with some of the other letters? And Linus, I think you're correct, except it's not so much an anti-British bias, as an anti-rest-of-the-world bias.

::You, sir, are a bounder. Oops. Did it again. I would have thought that the substance of my contributions can speak for themselves. I am not any sort of agitator other than perhaps an agitator for accurate articles. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)

There, that's a start. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:49, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Courtesy ==

How about some discussion before editing Rich? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:45, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Anti-Christian Bias ==

Why was all information based on the Creation worldview removed from this article? I thought this was precisely the sort of anti-Christian bias that Conservapedia was created to combat. Are people from Wikipedia trying to undermine this site? Well, nevermind; those interested to hear non-PC discussions of [http://creationwiki.org/Dinosaur dinosaurs] and Origins in general are welcome to come to [http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] instead. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 01:41, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:I removed this information because it does not speak for all Christians, and none of the sources even claimed to speak for most Christians.

::Leaving aside the question of rampant apostasy in the modern Church re: Biblical Creation, I had originally clearly labeled those views as belonging to "Creation Scientists" -- for whom those sources do speak -- not "all Christians" or "most Christians". This was altered to "Creationists" in general (which is vague enough to include any number of errant views, including Hindu creation myths and Raelian extraterrestrial genetic-engineering delusions), and then the entire section was cut, leaving only the views of Darwinists. I do not see how these changes are consonant with the mission statement of Conservapedia (i.e. the elimination of Liberal bias which suppresses the Biblical worldview). Although it pains me to do so, I feel I must question whether those making these suspicious changes are working for the forces of Wikipedia to sneakily impose that project's PC, anti-Christian bias on this project. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 16:56, 23 February 2007 (EST)

::Furthermore, let me note that if this were merely a question of the views being presented in that paragraph only belonging to "some Christians", then why not ''add'' additional paragraphs explaining the views of the other so-called Christians instead of simply silencing the views of the (clearly labeled) subset of Christianity? Nothing is gained by this change except to give the false impression that all Christians agree with Darwinian views on dinosaurs. Was this the intent? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:08, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:::I am a Christian, and I accept evolution as a fact. I think that it is clearly demonstratable in the real-world. I know dozens of other Christians who also accept evolution. I think it is out of place for a website that is supposed to reflect all Christian views to only promote the views of a minority of Christians called "Creation Scientists". They should be relegated to the fringes, as they do not represent most Christians views.

:::Rich, there is a difference between writing from the creationist viewpoint and honesty. An article that claims, for instance, that Helder has documented "fresh" dinosaur remains may or may not be creationist in nature, but one thing it certainly is is dishonest, because no such documentation has stood up to any sort of scrutiny. Anyone can make claims, but if you don't care about the actual validity of those claims, only what views they purport to support, then you are not engaging in true scholarly citation practices.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 13:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Catholic links deleted ==

Very odd, I'd put in some relatively straightforward links to some Catholic views, and it seems to have been deleted by somebody named "Aschlafly" who deleted them with the comment "deleted incorrect Catholic doctrine about evolution" and then added a bunch of stuff from what looks like Southern Baptist websites.
I don't know who this guy Aschlafly is, but I do not accept him as an authority on Catholicism. Is this conservapedia actually a "Southernbaptistapedia"? I would like to point out that not all conservatives are southern Baptists.
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)

: Aschlafly is the creator of this website. [[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]]

==Edit by Sureal==

I made an edit, rewording certain parts to make the article more neutral (and more in line with reality), and adding in a bit. I've also organised it with headings, 'cos it was a real pain to read before. However, it's still seriously lacking any actual information on dinosaurs. Anyone feel up to adding some? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==Birds==

From a cladistic point of view, birds are not merely descended from dinosaurs, they ''are'' dinosaurs.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: I'm not sure that's correct. After all, humans evolved from aquatic creatures, and yet we don't cite humans as marine life. Having said that, I'm certainly not an expert on this, so I may be horribly wrong. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: So, so horribly wrong, Sureal, but don't sweat it. We are descended from amniotes, therefore we are amniotes, we are descended from vertebrates, therefore we are vertebrates, we are descended from mammals, therefore we are mammals, etc. down the classificatory tree for life. [[User:RedDedNedHed|RedDedNedHed]]~~

:::Does that make me a Prokaryote? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 18:25, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==Picture==
I think the picture that JC put up (innocently) is a parody picture that should be taken down. He thinks it's legit. Anyone agree?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:It's ''cute''. But I'd get rid of it. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 15:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I'd say keep it. Given there's a section arguing for dinosaurs existing in biblical times, I think it's good that there's a picture that shows how absurd this would actually be! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::The dino pic bit the dust @23:17 --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Bias in Wikepedia...Really? ==

Conservatives trying to teach about dinosaurs! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikipedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!

== "American English is a rationalised improvement on British English" ==

In English, "practise" is a verb and "practice" is a noun.

In the American dialect "practice" is used for both.

In English, "license" is a verb and "licence" is a noun.

Americans use "license" for both.

So much for "a rationalised improvement on British English".

CAS

I couldn't agree more with your comments. I use this site not as a reference source but rather as a place I go when I need a laugh.

== "I'll take 'Word Origins' for 100, Alex" ==
If one is going to "discuss" dinosaurs, the least one could do is get the origin of the word "dinosaur" right. "Dinos sauros" is GREEK, not Latin.

Edit made.

AQ

== The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because.... ==

The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because I linked to it from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article which was very vandal prone before it was protected. Please be aware of vandalism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:Can we expect this article to be linked to by the liberal blogs as a humour site shortly as well? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well, this page has become a joke. How can you eliminate the K-T paragraph??--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's impossible to take this page seriously. Actually it's impossible to take any page on this site seriously. However, being specific, it is absurd that this page is locked, and that "according to evoutionary scientists" is allowed, but not "according to creatiionists" is not mentioned once.

::The above comment represents exactly what I am talking about - liberalism will 'creep in' to this article if we don't stop it, and soon. Please, Conservative, lock this article after you have finished editing it as you see fit. [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 13:56, 21 March 2007 (PST).

==Protected "Dinosaur": protect to clean up. per Mr schlafly.==

So how much factual information is going to be left here once this "clean up" has been carried out? Are normal editors incapable of writing a neutral article on dinosaurs?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:It will be like Theory of Evolution - lip service paid to non-Creationist viewpoints, and snarkily at that. Massive amounts of pro-Creationist viewpoints, all sourced to the same two or three websites.

:This site is rapidly falling into the same bias trap they claim Wikipedia suffers from.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:22, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Falling? I would say it has long been down the pan! Normal editors are blocked for trying to remove bias, pages are locked for sysop's to put forward their own points of view unchallenged. There are only a handful of people who seem to be opposed to a website of pure Pro-Christian waffle. Oh well, at least I can put forward my PoV on Wikipedia. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I don't even regard it as pro-"Christian", it's theological and scientific nonsense through and through. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yep Conservative has got his claws into this one. Should be exciting soon. Too bad to see my real science got all erased.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, that K-T paragraph must have hit too close to home...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yeah, Dave, see, the K-T Paragraph not only had the backing of basic geology, but also photographic evidence... that's pretty dangerous stuff.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well, to be fair, they do have a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I know, we could create Liberalipedia: The answer to the answer to Wikipedia! I wonder if they'd create a page for us on here... [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Please do. If you do create "liberalpedia" we will probably make a page for you. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 12:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Will you then lock it and wipe out sourced material?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the 'clean-up'. After AmesG made his edits, the article was actually starting to look serious. But oh my god, I can't believe how Conservative has butchered it. He's deleted loads of well sourced, factual information, and I even noticed a complete and utter lie in there (please - point me to this peer-reviewed Creationist literature). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Not to mention he's currently citeing Godzilla as evidence of young earth creationism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Raymond Burr==
I'm very surprise the sentence about the "documentary" with "Raymond Burr" has survived this long, as if no-one remembers or cannot look up on [imbd.com], that the film in question is the original [[Godzilla]] ''. Godzilla, King of the Monsters!'' 1956. I also noticed that in referencing the film the fact that Raymond Burr was gay didn't get mentioned.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 12:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:-smacks head- [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm with Nematocyte with this one. Dare I ask: How has his being gay got anything to do with anything?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Because being gay is teh evil!!11!!1!!1!!!!!! [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Oi Vey==
Someone, PLEASE introduce some factual information into this article. 95% of the article is about Creationism, and the possibility of dinosaurs living with humans. They could not have lived with humans, and the creationist section is biased. Where are the theories about the dinosaurs dying from a meteor and an ice age? Or them dying from lack of food? Oooohhhh riiiight, these are evolutionist ideas. I forgot we can't include those. Seriously, someone fix it. It's ridiculous. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 03:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

(EDIT: Oh...and dinosaurs dying because they weren't on the Ark? Come on. That Noah guy was either mean to not let them on, or lazy to not build a bigger Ark. Obsurd.)

(EDIT2: One more thing, when editing, use SOME other source than biased creationist websites, the bible, and other christian websites attempting to give an explanation why dinosaurs don't fit in logically with christianity.)

:It did have that - there was quite a bit on the scientific view of dinosuars, fully sourced and everything. But Conservative - being the honest fellow he is - deleted it all as 'vandalism' (see above), added in some rubbish about Creationists having peer-reviwed literature, and locked the page to prevent anyone from 'vandalising' the page again. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Needed Corrections==
Line 1 states that dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles. Note that not all dinosaurs were large.

== Are you scared to be wrong? ==

Why can't we edit this page? Are you scared that some actual scientists with doctorates in paleontology might actually change this page so there is some truth in it? Dinosaurs never lived at the same time period as humans. If you claim that explorers saw a dinosaur, why don't you back it up with some citations. I'm surprised you aren't trying to say that the scientists put the dinosaurs in the ground and made the whole thing up. Just ask yourself, how would Nixon write this page.

:No no, you have it all wrong, obviously the dinosaurs have such a superior intelligence that they can evade all detection by every human on earth, and they actually planted fake fossils in the ground to fool us all. Amazing what animals do to survive. On a serious note, yes they are scared to be wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Protection as of 3/19 ==

Conservative: You just deleted '''referenced''' facts. Is National Geographic no longer a reliable source? Should we put that somewhere? And then you "protected" the article. Are you now going to be the sole editor for this article as well? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Dear Conservative, '''please do not use your locking powers over content disputes'''. You removed what looks like TONS of well-sourced material. If you have an issue with the content, go to the Talk page before simply vaping several well-sourced paragraphs. This is NOT how a Wiki works. This is NOT your private playground. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: Eh? They're the ones paying the bills, they're the ones who setup and maintain the servers, they certainly can do whatever they'd like with it. There's an element of community-building to wikis that means they need to use some restraint, but ultimately, it's up to them what kind of community they'd like to build (unless you're willing to start donating lots of bandwidth fees and technical support time). --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 18:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's a fair point, Interiot, but there is nothing in the site guidelines (those seven simple rules which Conservapedia is goverened by) to support the deletion of referenced facts. I have been threatened with being blocked for deleting unreferenced opinion, what is the penalty for deleting referenced facts? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I just pray to God [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] doesn't own any firearms. Given his penchant for mis-using whatever power he has no-one around him would be safe. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::(sigh) Yes, you are right, of course. It's Aschlafly's server, and he could just put Goatse onto every page if he felt like it. But I went with what's in the rules and goals they themselves state. Most community projects are a tad more organized and actually hold people in power a little bit responsible for the actions. I think fewer people would be up-front with the rules of the site instead of having a bunch of unwritten rules, some case-by-case decisions and lots of stubbornness when it comes to ignoring complaints and questions. However, the best I remember him saying was something about temporary protection against vandalism (with "vandalism" having an interesting definition, but that's a different topic). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:33, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Wonder when I'll get banned next. Surprised it didn't happen when I re-added the facts to this article. [[user:Conservative|Conservative]], you still have outstanding questions that curious readers want to know: (1) why are evolution and religion so incompatible in your mind to claim that all evolution-related facts are fraudulent, and (2) what special knowledge do you have to know what is scientifically fraudulent? And in your answer, I don't want the site "Answers In Genesis" to come up once. Not once.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Conservative! You have work to be done here! The Godless are denying You! Edit, then lock! [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 13:58, 21 March 2007 (PST).

== Farce ==
What is a good way to describe this page? Geez, do you want to include some facts about dinosaurs? It's not all about Creationist/Evolutionist arguments. At least put up a picture of a T-Rex chowing down on a Brontosaurus. It'd be wicked cool to see that kind of stuff. Maybe even a Raptor eating a man...

== Experience with Dinosaurs ==

I can verify that Dinosaurs lived alongside men. In 1994, I went with my girlfriend to a remote Island in South America; following an invitation from a high profile business man who I won't name. It turned out that he had set up an amusement park with dinosaurs as the main attraction. When the parks electrical fence system was sabotaged by an IT worker trying to steal eggs to fund his debt problems, we were left at the mercy of various carnivore species including a T-Rex and a pair of Velocaraptors that could open doors. It was a horrible experience, but I did warm to the idea of having kids, and Jeff Goldblum's an idiot anyway so no real harm was done.

==Conservative POV?==

While I don't honestly care in which order the sections are placed, the section "Dinosaurs as viewed through Creationism" is not the conservative POV. It isn't even the creationist POV. It's the YEC POV at best, and should be rewritten to reflect that. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Quote Mining==
Your Mayr quote is a blatant misrepresentation of what he said. The full quote (found here: '''Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (Columbia University Press, New York, 1942), p. 196.
''') reads as such:

"It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations. This is even more true for some of the ecological chain relationships (the famous yucca moth case, and so forth). ''However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence.''"

In other words, this explanation is the best we have so far because people like you, Conservative, have no evidence to the contrary --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:The sad part is, in changing around the cites, Ernst ends up being a '''creationist'''. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Unlocked ==

Unlocked for however long unless persistent vandalism lingers.

I hope users can contribute in a positive manner. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 13:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps you could unlock the Theory of Evolution page now. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 13:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

He locked it again because I deleted the Ernst Mrawyr quote (see debate above) and a citation to CreationWiki :-(--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 13:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::13 minutes '''unlocked'''! A new record! If only [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] didn't have to take potty breaks, he could keep it locked forever. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Pfft, as expected. Someone's on a power-trip once again. Try reverting things you think are wrong rather than closing it up for your own personal discretion. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: Were my edits wrong? I was just correcting what wasn't proven as fact. Isn't it also really bad form to cite to another Wiki??-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think she meant things Conservative regards as "wrong". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, '''she''' :) [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Yup, I checked your user page after writing it and edited out the "(?)" part accordingly (but in such a high-traffic zone, it ran into a few edit conflicts and got delayed XD). :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, it was fun while it lasted (the whole 13 minutes). But thanks for the vote of confidence, Niandra! The gesture is worth a lot, even if your good deed got undone by Conservative again. :)
:In more hilarious news, check out [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&diff=51774&oldid=51772 this diff]. Note the "Violations of conservapedia fact policy" comment in the left version and the "These are not facts! *delete delete delete*" edit on the right side. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I can't believe the user is basically just being a dictator of the article. This is a wiki-oriented site! If users post wrong information, you revert it but rarely use your power to protect so no one else can contribute! [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I am utterly speechless that he removed all of that material. I generally try not to use unparliamentary language but the man is an idiot. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 14:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Agreed. The edits between your unlock and his lock were '''not''' vandalism. They added sourced facts. If he has an issue with "propaganda" or something, he can try to bring things into a more neutral (*snickersnort*) tone. Simply deleting sourced material (repeatedly, I think) is just plain abuse. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:: So what do we do about it?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Stop trying and leave site? Only use Conservapedia in dictionaries as an example of 'hypocrisy'? Laugh at anyone who cites this article? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, I unlocked the article again, and reverted to the AmesG version that includes creationist and "evolutionary" views, but Conservative changed it back to his version within minutes. Tis a shame. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 15:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:The gesture is highly appreciated, though! :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== This article's getting worse ==

All I can say is - wow. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:I thought Conservative's edits were bad...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::So do I. I'm just impressed with the badness. The article made my brain implode - that's never happaned before. :-)

:::Maybe instead of including articles for some topics Conservapedia should just link directly to Answers in Genesis. The current version of this article is beyond ridiculous.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==More quote mining==

The Scientific American quote that you cite is stripped out of an article that overwhelmingly SUPPORTS evolution - the question at hand was when the feather evolved. The surround context looks like this:

"Several lines of research have recently converged on a remarkable conclusion: the feather evolved in dinosaurs before the appearance of birds."

"Conservative's quote-mined paragraph"

"Progress in solving the particularly puzzling origin of feath-ers has also been hampered by what now appear to be false leads, such as the assumption that the primitive feather evolved by elongation and division of the reptilian scale, and speculations that feathers evolved for a specific function, such as flight. A lack of primitive fossil feathers hindered progress as well. For many years the earliest bird fossil has been Archaeopteryx lithographica, which lived in the late Jurassic period (about 148 million years ago). But Archaeopteryx offers no new insights on how feathers evolved, because its own feathers are nearly indistinguishable from those of today’s birds. Very recent contributions from several fields have put these traditional problems to rest. First, biologists have begun to find new evidence for the idea that developmental processes - the complex mechanisms by which an individual organism grows to its full size and form —
can provide a window into the evolution of a species’ anatomy. This idea has been reborn as the field of evolutionary developmental biology, or “evo-devo.” It has given us a powerful tool for '''probing the origin of feathers'''. Second, paleontologists have unearthed a trove of feathered dinosaurs in China. These animals have a diversity of primitive feathers that are not as highly evolved as those of today’s birds or even Archaeopteryx. They give us critical clues about the structure, function and evolution of modern birds’ intricate appendages. Together these advances have produced a highly detailed and revolutionary picture: feathers originated and diversified in carnivorous, bipedal theropod dinosaurs before the origin of birds or the origin of flight."

THAT is the context. Of course, it supports the idea of evolution. Your hack job is simply a deliberate deception.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Gah, I was just writing that. You beat me to it (and said it much better). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Amazing what you find when you Google-search a sentence...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Google search a sentence? I included the link to the full article! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::Look at the bolded portion of the above quote. They are '''"probing". ''' The devil is in the details. Creationism is still the best answer. Plus, there are no transitional fossil to birds as I cited. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Look at what comes before and after the phrase you bolded. You can't just take out one little piece and ignore the rest...well, obviously you can, as you keep doing, but it's misleading at best.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Why do you insist on taking out a single phrase and ignoring the context? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::The Scientific American article clearly states: "Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most '''mysterious'''." Let not pretend they have a good explanation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:37, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::::Yes - their evolution is not fully understood. However, that doesn't give you the right to quote mine articles to imply we know nothing about birds evolving from dinosaurs. Indeed, does not the existance of feathered dinosaurs (which was conviently missed out from Conservative's quote) give weight to the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 16:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Maybe we could add something about..==

Dinosaurs? This is what the article currently says about Dinosaurs - ''"The word dinosaur was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen[1], from the Greek for "terrible lizard" (fututor). Dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles that previously lived in abundance on Earth".'' - That's it! everything else is quoting mining about why evolutionists are wrong!

Sure that needs to be in there on convervapedia but surely an article about dinosaurs needs to spend a little time talking about the your actual dinosaurs! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 16:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: I agree, I have unprotected the page as I protected by-mistake. By all means improve it, just keep your edits '''entirely''' un-biased. Thanks... [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 16:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Question! When you say "keep your edits '''entirely''' un-biased", do you mean as "entirely un-biased" as you were when you asserted that the evolutionary view is "entirely false" or as "entirely un-biased" as Conservative was when he removed several fully sourced paragraphs, but at least admitted that creationists merely reject the evolutionary view and just believe that man and dinosaurs coexisted? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== SYSOPS: The compromise I offered is the only thing that will end ceaseless edit warring and more importantly..... ==

The compromise I offered is the only thing that will end ceaseless edit warring and more importantly you cannot state a "fact" that is not a fact.

Here is portion of what I wrote to user Aschlafly:

I tried to reach a compromise with the evolutionists and reasonably ask that they not have only one disclaimer and then go on stating "fact" after "fact" after "fact". I reasonably said when I composed: "according to creationist scientists". They refuse to do something similar regarding the claims of evolutionary scientists even though I took the time to put in front of their "facts" the phrase "according to evolutionary scientists". I protected the article until they agreed to do that.

'''Now I ask the Sysops to keep the article protected until the evolutionists agree to abide by Conservapedia rules and not state opinions as facts. '''

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Wasn't it, 'what follows is the mainstream scientific opinion' (which appears to have dissapeared) before the scientific side was given? Why do we have to state this more than once? Do you think Conservapedia's readership uniformaly suffers from some form of metal condition, and needs to be constantly reminded that they are reading the scientific/evolutionist side of the debate?

The repetitive sentance structure is disjointing to read, and an ecyclopedia should be as easy to read as possible.

The Creationist side can be the same. At the moment, it's painful to read. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 17:19, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Surely that's sensible - the start of each section just needs the disclaimer once? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:25, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Is the following sentence a fact? "Close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period, and the beginning of what we call the Tertiary period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the K-T Event. This event obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive." Or is it scientists opinion? Before you answers that question please read this article: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2587 The truth is that there have been countless dinosaur extinction explanations given by the evolutionary position. You can't have countless sentences stating "facts" when they are not facts. The compromise is the only solution that will end the countless edit warring. Do the evolutionists, including AmesG, agree to compromise. If they don't I will ask Aschlafly to keep the page locked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
::That section did say at the beginning that this is the current accepted scientific opinion. I see no reason why not to include it. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 17:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Colin, Again, is this sentence a fact: "Close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period, and the beginning of what we call the Tertiary period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the K-T Event. This event obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive." yes? no? Please do not allow Conservapedia rules be broken. One little disclaimer followed by "fact" after "fact" after "fact" after "fact" is totally unacceptable. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::It is a fact that that is what the mainstream scientific consensus is. Just as it is a fact that the Creation science opinion is that that never happened. Both claims ('this is what scientists believe...' and 'this is what creationists believe...') are, therefore, correct. Therefore a compromise has already been agreed upon, and the only person warring is you. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 17:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, to be consistent with other pages, the Theory of Evolution page has no disclaimer and then "fact" after "fact" after "fact". You can't have it both ways Conservative. Which will it be?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 17:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I hope you remember, [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], that your view if Christianity is certainly not the only one. Theistic Evolutionists, Old Earth Evolutionists, etc. would disagree with your edits. Stating your "cited" (sarcastically used due to the fact that half of them are probably unnotable, personal websites which carry no philosophical or scientific merit) material as fact, I would assume, is also not the best idea. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::It is my understanding that Aschlafly wants to have a creationist perspective in the [[Theory of evolution]] article. I would also state that the Theory of evolution article establishes facts and constantly has phrases like "creationist assert" or "Opponents of the evolutionary position assert" etc etc. It also has candid admissions by notable evolutionists. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Regardless, you seem to be forgetting that we are supposed to be writing a biased encyclopedic article. This reads more like a persuasive essay. It doesn't even have a good explanation of what a dinosaur is, it just jumps straight into criticism (without explaining what it is criticizing). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

(unindent a bit)
:What is this encyclopedia's standard for citations? Are blogs okay, or what? I'd like to see something like [[Wikipedia:Attribution]]. Not saying we have the same policy, but we should have some sort of policy. Makes it handy to refer to, when there's a dispute over what "can be in" and what "must go out". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Hojimachong, I would agree with you that info like dinosaur classification should be given. I was going to suggest to Aschlafly that we get an agreement with [[CreationWiki]] to copy material like "classification" for animal/plant articles. We then could cite the material and [[CreationWiki]] would get more traffic. It is a win-win scenario. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::I'm against using anything from CreationWiki outside of referencing articles involving it. Furthermore, wikis are usually not considered reliable sources for citing. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 18:56, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

if this is going to be a creationist encyclopedia should there not be a disclaimer to that affect on the front page. Many of us are conservatives but we are not creationists - the two do not automatically go together - we all believe that biases should be out front where everyone can see them right? there seems to be an assumption that anyone who does not buy creationist must be a liberal but for many of us the two do not go together in that way. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: I hate to nitpick, but to answer [[user:Conservative]]'s earlier question, the statement re: the K-T event '''''is''''' a fact. Facts are provable by evidence. Creationism is an opinion informed by faith. Both are entitled to equal time as long as they are pronounced that way. Anything less is a breach of Cons. Comm'ds 1 & 6. Also, I really think we should either stop citing [[CreationWiki]] - it's not a primary source. Finally, the quote-mined text and the text from the 1942 book that [[user:Conservative]] didn't actually read should go.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
== Loch Ness Monster ==

Wait... really? We're going with the Loch Ness Monster? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, good grief. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::You have a problem with this? I saw an excellent documentary on cable abotu the Loch Ness monster, and it was clear there has been a massive cover-up of this wonderful, Biblical creature's existence. If only we can finally capture enough evidence about it, I'm convinced the LNM could be a missing link that would finally blow the evolutionists arguments out of the water. [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 13:38, 21 March 2007 (PST).

:::If only you could find it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes, but it's had millions of years to practice hiding. Just a minute - should that be thousands?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 17:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::How about an article on how the Loch Ness Monster was domesticated by Piltdown Man? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Suggestion for intro==

May I create a "sandbox" for alternative versions of the intro?

[[/intro]]

This has often worked at Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:You mean like [[Talk:The Theory of Evolution/draft]], which we tried here with not much success? It ''could'' work well. What would be needed is a sysop

::*with a claim, accepted by the community, to be in charge of the article;
::*not personally heavily involved in editing it or otherwise ego-involved in the article;
::*committed to the concept of judging consensus, and updating the protected page in a timely way to reflect consensus wordings as they are are reached. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Compromise dialogue as far as "disqualifiers" like "according to evolutionary scientists" ==

I suggest the two sides work out a compromise here so the page can be unlocked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

I was always under the impression that in any wiki article, the article itself reflected a compromise between various editors. Unless, of course, a renegade with the authority to block a page and a mentality childish enough to do so actually went through with an act so senseless. Guess I'm wrong? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 19:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:A common misconception: it's not automatic. It requires each contributor to be thoughtful and considerate.

:Imagine a classroom where students are free to move their desks around wherever they want, and post anything on the walls. It could be heaven or it could be hell (apologies to [[The Eagles]]). Neither chaos nor harmony is inevitable. It's up to us.

:I made 42,000 edits at Wikipedia since 2001, and I'm here to tell you that compromises are '''hard''' to reach. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

What makes this article inherently different from anything else? Vandals target every entry there is, no matter how benign they may seem. Additionally, even among the conservative base this site attracts, differences of opinion are going to exist across the spectrum of material - from dinosaurs, to physics, to sex. Lastly, your analogy fails. When the classroom turns into a hellish romper room, the kids are not there to learn. By contrast, serious editors want their work to educate. We're all here for the same purpose, and censorship is clearly not part of that vision. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 19:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:What a confused mishmash that comment was. I wonder why you came here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe I should break it down for you. Protecting the dinosaur page doesn't make sense. Here's my reasoning: 1 - the page is no more prone to vandalism than any other page. 2 - the page is just as open to differences of opinion as any other page. 3 - your analogy is garbage, as it ascribes motives to editors which clearly don't exist.

Try to keep up. Slow minds keep right. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 20:10, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Fair enough. Besides, I got a good laugh out of that last.

:I take it, you'd like the Dinosour article to be unprotected. Well, so would I. How do we go about requesting this? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:56, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:: [[Conservapedia:Request Unprotection]] (in general, [[:Category:Conservapedia maintenance]] is a good place to look for things like this). --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 10:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

One of the arguments proponents of teaching ID in schools like is: "Children should be able to hear both sides, and make their own mind up". So why not do the same here? Have the dinosaur article link to two sub articles:
#Dinosaur origins according to Young Earth Creationists.
#Dinosaur origins according to non Young Earth Creationists.
And let each side do what they like with their respective articles. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
: Why only those two? What makes those two so special? Why don't you present the Native American or Ancient Greek or Hindu approaches to the creation of the world and how they each account for dinosaurs. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::I Wouldn't have a problem with that, of course. I only chose those two because this site is biased towards Christian YEC and they were the two "sides" currently in dispute. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Wouldn't that then be a better subject for comparative creation theories? (The different creation theories made up about 4 weeks in the comparative religions class I took in high school). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes it would ideally, but I can't see that happening on this site at the moment. I was just trying to make a suggestion that would break the deadlock in the short term --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:43, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: [[user:Conservative|Cons]], can we get the words "evolutionary" taken out of the science part of the article? It does nothing but make it sound like it was written by a three-year-old. If you want to convey the point, "I don't believe in evolution," please think of a good disclaimer.-
: Also, could this compromise also apply to the [[Theory of evolution|anti-evolution polemic article]] that we also fight about? [[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 21:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Creationist Scientists Perspective" ==

Part of the edit war involved someone removing "Creationist Scientists Perspective" and replacing it with "Creationist Perspect". I see no reason why this should be done. This is part of the conflict that is keeping the page locked although it is a minor one. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:I think it might have something to do with the fact that creationism does not fit with commonly accepted definition of science... namely the natural explanation part of it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Proposed replacement language for Loch Ness monster material==
Pursuant to [[User:Conservative]]'s suggestion [[User_talk:Dpbsmith#Compromise._I_put_a_link_for_you|here]]:

I propose that the paragraph currently reading
:Since 565 A.D. there are reports about the Loch Ness Monster (Nessie by birth), a large Monster living in Loch Ness, near Inverness, Scotland. People who saw Nessie described the Monster as it would look similar to a dinosaur. In the life story of St. Columba, there is an account of him driving off a monster attacking a Pict. Some have taken this to refer to the Loch Ness Monster.
be replaced with this sentence:
:Among those who believe in the existence of the [[Loch Ness Monster]], one popular theory is that it is a living [[plesiosaur]].<ref>"New Quest Is Haunted By 'Nessie'", ''The New York Times,'' July 14, 1992, p. C4: "Believers say it resembles a plesiosaur and was trapped in Loch Ness during the Ice Age 12,000 years ago. The plesiosaurs were marine reptiles who are thought to have lived 65 million to 200 million years ago."</ref>
Any pro-and-con stuff about the existence of Nessie can be worked out in the [[Loch Ness Monster]] article. No more needs to be said in [[Dinosaur]] other than to mention it briefly, if it all.

Mind you, I personally do not think there is any good reason to mention the Loch Ness monster in ''this'' article whatsoever, but ''if'' it were real and ''if'' it were a plesiosaur then, OK, it would be an example of dinosaurs and humans coexisting. (And if Barney were real he, too... oh, never mind...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

== The DNA-argument ==

I just don't get it. After I read the linked article (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp),
i didn't know if the author was serious. He explains correctly that Jurassic Park is just fictional and I think every scientist (pro- or contra-evolution) would agree with that but on the other hand he tries to use the "DNA-aspect" to show that evolutionist are in the minor-evidence-position in the dicussion about the age of dinosaur-fossils. I don't think that there is any evolutionist who ever wanted to publish a theory like "we have some base-pairs of dinosaur-DNA and now we really build a Jurassic Park"!
Additionally I can't accept his statements about the fresh dinosaur bones. If you read his text properly you will see that the unfossilized bones are found in Alaska and Canada. Precisly on the northern slope of Alaska and on Bylot Island in Canada. Uh, wait...what can you find there? Yep, permafrost - which includes the words permanent and frost. So what could keep a good old dinosaurs bones fresh for millions of years? Keeping them frozen for millions of years, perhaps.

P.S.: Oh yeah, the point with these large amount of really reliable dinosaur sightings. Should we discuss the large number of UFO sightings and Elvis sightings in the same sentence?
If I think about it, maybe all these sightings are true and there are lots of elvis-faced-dinosaurs who come in their UFOs to spend the summer holidays near Loch Ness?

:Wow, not going to lie, I thought that article might have been a parody at first. This article tries to associate psuedoscience in a '''fiction''' movie to real science and "evolutionists." The author's arguments are simply ridiculous, and I have a hard time taking this seriously. As much as I disagree with Creationism, seeing the beauty and the awesomeness of nature and life (esp. after my recent afternoon at the aquarium), I can understand the argument that this universe must have a creator. However, articles such as this take every bit of respect I have for Creationism and rip it apart. Please, as a service to yourselves, Creationists, don't cite or refer to such articles. They're not going to help your case in anyone's eyes but your own. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:48, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==To User:Conservative==
I was going to put this on your Talk page, but apparently it is currently protected ??!! I thought you were suggesting that the paragraph in [[Dinosaur]] be replaced with "a link," i.e. a short sentence linking to [[Loch Ness Monster]], and that all of the details on whether it does or does not exist and whether it is or is not a dinosaur could then be presented there. That seemed very sensible to me, and I proposed specific language above. However, you haven't followed through, and based on what you say on my Talk page all I can say is that obviously I misunderstood you and I do not grasp what you want as a replacement for the incoherent paragraph that is there now. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Please add this to the article ==

Please add this material to the article:
----

In the United States during the 1900s, the public imagination was caught by the discoveries of [[Henry Fairfield Osborn]] (1857-1935) and the great competitive dinosaur hunters, [[Edward Drinker Cope]] (1847-1897) and [[Othniel Charles Marsh]] (1831-1899). Exploring in Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, they found numerous fossil dinosaurs. Their museums worked out the techniques for mounting and displaying them.

Osborn was a proponent of ''orthogenesis,'' as were many paleontologists up through the middle of the twentieth century. These paleontologists interpreted the fossil record as showing sustained, continuing, unidirectional trends in evolution, which they felt required some kind of driving principle in addition to natural selection. As the author of an encyclopedia article on variation and selection put it in 1911,
:Selection cannot create the materials on which it is supposed to operate... Both sides concur in the position assumed by Darwin, that the word "chance" in such a phrase as "chance variation" does not mean that the occurrences are independent of natural causation and so far undetermined, but covers in the first place our ignorance of the exact causation.... No doubt a large amount of variation is truly indefinite, so that many meaningless or useless variations arise... But there are several directions in which the field of variation appears to be not only limited but defined in a certain direction.... When beetles, or medusae, or cats vary, the range of possible variation is limited and determined by the beetle, medusa or cat constitution, and any possible further differentiation or specialization must be in a sense at least orthogenetic - that is to say, a continuation of the line along which the ancestors of the individual in question have been forced. Darwin himself showed that different species in a genus, or varieties in a species, tended to show parallel variations.<ref>Mitchell, Peter Chalmers (1911), ''Variation and Selection,'' ''Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th edition,'' volume 27 (TON-VES), p. 906</ref>

[[Roy Chapman Andrews]] (1884–1960), said to be the prototype for the fictional Indiana Jones, is famous for his discovery of fossil dinosaur eggs in Outer Mongolia.

----

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

== It's a lie ==

Dinosaurs are made up! This page should be deleted. The world is only 6000 years old. Scientists planted the bones to make us think that the world is older. Everyone needs to read the Bible. It's the only truth.

:Now, now conservative you didn't need to make a sockpuppet. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 23:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:My God you're right! What were we thinking!? I'd go on a missionary journey tomorrow and tell EVERYBODY on Earth...but then I might fall off of the edge, so I'll just stay home. {{unsigned| Cracker}}

== OK, so what's a dinosaur?==

The entry is titled dinosaur but the vast majority of it is nothing more than theological rambling about when they did in fact exist. By the way, alot of early fossil discoveries WERE put off by the religious as tricks of God to test our faith. One last point: has anyone here heard of the idea of the "God given light of reason"? It's the idea that God gave you a mind capable of understanding the world around you---all knowledge must be found by the individual mind, not regurgitated from one unthinking to mouth to another. You should look into it. Maybe it will change your perspective. --Pollyp

==OH DEAR GOD FACTS MADE IT INTO THIS ARTICLE==

Quick conservative block this page and delete, delete, delete. I have figured out conservatives problem. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome Asperger's Syndrome]. I have to link to wikipedia because this site is spending all its time debating the Flinstones version of paleontology to develop actual articles. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 21:42, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Burn! --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 17:14, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Please refrain from taking the Lord's name in vain. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 01:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Creationist Scientists - Oxymoron ==

"According to creationist scientists" is an oxymoron. Creationism is based on faith, and proof denies faith. So, if a "creationist scientist" was to prove that creationism is fact and not idle speculation based on insecurity, <s>then the world would implode</s> the existence of God would be proven. I could go on to prove that black is white, but then we'd all be in trouble at the next zebra crossing. (Adams, 1986:42)

:Works Cited
:Adams, D. (1986). ''The more than complete hitchhiker's guide.'' New York:Longmeadow Press.
::--[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 00:59, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

You're joking, right? You can't cite Douglas Adams in this article. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:01, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:As opposed to the sources we have now? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:15, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well, If we're considering AiG as a legitimate source to cite nearly every reference from, then Adams should be a fine reference. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:22, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

It's these sorts of ad hominem attacks that encourage the view that anti-creationists are not interested in rational debate. Anti-creationists rarely explain why "creation scientist" is an oxymoron until pressed, and even then it comes down to the following:
# Creation scientist is an oxymoron because creationism is not science.
# Creationism is not science because we've redefined science in such a way as to exclude creationism.
The argument might get a bit more sophisticated than that, but that's what it boils down to in the end.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:33, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:Redefined 'science'? Um, mind giving any sources to demonstrate that? Cos at the moment, it seems as though you've just pulled that one from out of the air. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 06:18, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::"''Many today think that science is anti-God. Atheists encourage this view by claiming that their way of thinking is ‘scientific.’ In claiming this, they are merely redefining science to exclude God. In fact, science began to flourish only when the biblical view of creation took root in Europe as the Reformation spread its influence. The presuppositions that enabled a scientific approach to investigating the world—that the created universe is real, consistent, understandable, and possible to investigate, for example—came from the Bible. Even non-Christian historians of science such as Loren Eiseley have acknowledged this. Consequently, almost every branch of science was either founded, co-founded, or dramatically advanced, by scientists who believed in the Bible’s account of Creation and the Flood. And there are many scientists today who believe the Bible.''"[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3659] [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:02, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:It might be due to the absence of any actual science. Tally up the number of actual scientific experiments and peer reviewed articles on [[Creation science]], and you'll see what I mean. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:20, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::What about the "actual science" and the peer-reviewed articles in the ''CRS Quarterly'' and the ''Journal of Creation''? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:02, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::They are welcome to submit this "actual science" to a real journal, and then we can judge it by its merits. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:01, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::::How do you define a "real" journal? By whether or not it's creationist? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Forgive my dismissive attitude earlier, but I mean one which has gathered scientific respect by rights of their rigorus peer-review. That rigor is notoriously lacking in the YEC journals, so they garner little respect. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:15, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::And yet you still have a dismissive attitude! On what grounds do you say that the rigour is lacking in the YEC journals? And for that matter, why can't they be judged on their merits no matter where they are published? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:18, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Mr. Rayment, rather a lot of scientific article are written daily, most are garbage. We need a system to avoid becoming bogged down, and to weed out those papers which contain follies which are often only apparent to an expert. It is impossible to judge personally on a case by case basis and so the system of authoratative peer review is needed. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::And as I said, those journals are peer-reviewed. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::I acknowledge that they are, but their standards are very poor. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:09, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Do you care to back that slanderous claim up with substance? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::The basic physics errors which [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] is referenceing demonstrates the poor standards. Since this discussion now merges with that one, it would be best to respond only below Tsumetai's responce to avoid duplication. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:41, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::"Journal of Creation" is new to me, so I looked it up, only to find that "[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/38/56/ All our editors adhere to the Creation Ministries International (CMI) Statement of Faith and most papers will be designed to support this.]" And here's [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/43/61/ the statement of faith in question]. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:45, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Ah! "Journal of Creation" is just the old TJ renamed. Which, if memory serves, published a fair bit on Humphreys' execrable attempts at cosmology. Now ''there's'' a reliable source...though to be fair, they also published some sound refutations of the same. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:48, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Ah! So your answer is to mock it! Great argument! No argument! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::I thought the implied argument was fairly obvious. TJ published utter nonsense about basic physics, ergo not a reliable source. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Same for you. Do you care to back that slanderous claim up with substance? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Gladly! Just let me dig out the appropriate articles and re-read them. I'll start a new section for it, so that it doesn't get lost here. Do you think it would be better here or on my Talk page? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:28, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::It wouldn't have anything to do with dinosaurs, so on your talk page would seem the best. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:50, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::I've [[User_talk:Tsumetai/TJ|started a page]] for it here. I'm off out for dinner soon, so I've just linked to the relevant articles so that everyone can get caught up in the meantime. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:02, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::::OK, done. Bit of a rush job, as it's after midnight, but it's a start. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:16, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:'''How do we define "scientist" in a neutral way?''' It's not a degree, it's not a licensed profession... I think we have to fall back on self-description. If a creationist calls himself a scientist, he is... whether anyone likes it or not. But there might be a case for ''qualifying'' the description in the ''least obtrusive possible'' way. For example, if a person is described as a "creation scientist," the phrase should be footnoted with a reference to a biographical profile of the person in which they self-describe or are described as a "scientist."

:Now, if a high-stature organization like the AAAS or the NAS, which can be said to represent "science" in the U. S., has actually made any official statements to the effect that "creationism is not science" then a stronger qualification would be appropriate... like putting "creation scientist" in quotation marks and footnoting that thus-and-such organization says there is no such thing... but I doubt the AAAS or NAS has made any such statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:38, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:Guess what? The AAAS ''has'' said something relevant: [http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory]:
::Whereas, to date, the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution;
::Whereas, the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims;
::Therefore Be It Resolved, that the lack of scientific warrant for so-called "intelligent design theory" makes it improper to include as a part of science education...
: [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:41, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Commonly, a scientist is someone with a Ph.D. in a scientific discipline, but I agree that the term does not have to be used that strictly. If a creationist calling himself a scientist should be qualified, why not the same for an evolutionist?
:::The AAAS rationale is self-serving nonsense. Who defines "credible"? They do. And I believe that ID ''has'' proposed scientific means of testing its claims; certainly creation science has. And how do you scientifically test evolution? Not some details of it, but evolution itself? Or naturalism, on which it is based?
:::So we are really down to "it's not science by decree". Wow. I didn't think that was the way that science was supposed to work.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I agree that a PhD should not be a requirement; I've known several experienced University lecturers with solid research and publication records who simply never got around to it.

::::Every proposed test of ID I've ever seen turns out to be a test of evolution, but perhaps you've seen some I haven't. As to testing evolution in the abstract; computer models would seem to be the obvious approach. Been done already, of course.

::::Evolution is not based on naturalism any more than any other scientific theory. Hence theistic evolution. Science is, of course, based in methodological naturalism, by definition. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:13, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Theistic evolution owes virtually nothing to theism; it's naturalistic evolution with God tacked on. Now ''there's'' an oxymoron for you! Yes, it may be methodological naturalism, but the effect is the same—rule God out from consideration. Where's the scientific test for that? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::You're making my point for me. Evolution is just evolution, regardless of whether or not one believes in God. Just like every other scientific theory. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:28, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::How have I "made the point" that it is scientific; that it is testable (the basic idea, not specific details)? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:50, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Think we're talking at cross purposes. I meant that your comment seems to support my point that evolution is no more based on naturalism than any other scientific theory. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:02, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::If you mean that I'm saying that ''all'' science is based on naturalism, then yes, I guess so, but the real question then is how much do various scientific disciplines really owe to that foundational assumption? I would argue that the ones that are not purely empirical, i.e. the ones that study the past (evolution, geology, etc.), when you don't have the past to measure, etc., owe much to the foundational assumptions, whereas the more empirical ones (e.g. chemistry), owe relatively little. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:40, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::I don't think the distinction is particularly meaningful. There is always distance between observation and inference; always assumptions that need to be made to draw any conclusions. The same set of assumptions underlie all of science, and I don't think we can relax them more for some cases than others. Relax the assumption of naturalism and one has to deal with 'trickster God' scenarios, which bring inference to a grinding halt. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:55, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::Early scientists had no problem with a 'trickster God'; their faith, ''on which they based their science'', not only didn't "bring inference to a grinding halt", ''it was the impetus for their science''[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581].
:::::::::::The problem with naturalism is not that it looks for naturalistic explanations, but that it excludes supernatural explanations ''a priori''. This is akin to trying to determine the origin of an axe-shaped stone "tool" by ruling out human intervention even as a possibility, in the grounds that it is not a "natural" explanation. Surely if the evidence points to a creator, that explanation should not be rejected simply on the basis that it's not a "natural" explanation.
:::::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:55, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::::But that's a problem that applies equally to ''any'' scientific theory. No particle physicist considers supernatural explanation for tracks in cloud chambers, last I heard. I don't think your analogy works, either; human intervention ''is'' a natural explanation.

::::::::::::Perhaps it's worth a digression here to examine exactly what is meant by 'supernatural.' It isn't immediately obvious that the evidence could ''ever'' point to a supernatural explanation.

::::::::::::Incidentally, did you catch the update to my TJ page? It was rather late last night when I added it. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:04, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::::It doesn't apply equally to any theory. It applies to theories that try and explain the ''origin'' of things. We can observe what causes tracks in cloud chambers with repeated experiments, but we can't observe a dinosaur turning into a bird, and we can't rerun it to observe it. Besides, the Christian philosophy that engendered science taught that God made a world capable of being studied, and that God has stopped creating. So God was never invoked to explain current events, but was invoked to explain the origin of things.
:::::::::::::Yes, human intervention can be classified as "natural" in one sense, but in another sense it's not, and either way, it's still analogous to supernatural intervention.
:::::::::::::I did see the page, but I haven't digested it yet.
:::::::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:08, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::I just don't see how you can use the term "scientist" when creationism involves no science and cannot be tested. I would also think that, for all the venom that is slung at science by the supporters of Creationism, that they wouldn't want that label attached to their cause.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 10:58, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Creation science ''does'' involve science, and details of it ''can'' be tested, unsubstantiated assertions notwithstanding. And creationists do ''not'' criticise science—they support it. As for the venom and falsehoods slung at/about creationists... [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Philip, what part of it can be tested? Can be put through the Scientific Method? Seriously, I would like to know. Maybe I haven't heard about it. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:11, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Do a search for "11:56" on [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG/Archive_1 this page] and you will find a post in which I listed a couple of examples of successful creationist predictions; i.e. they were testable. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Philip, I should think this was obvious. A "few" predictions does not a scientist make. To turn one of Conservative's arguments on its head, medieval doctors had a couple of correct predictions, and so did alchemists. That does not justify their entire practice, though. Congratulations on making some actual predictions - though I questioned those same ones on my talk page - but it does nothing to prove the credibility of the entire field.-'''[[user:AmesG|Ames]][[user talk:AmesG|G]]''' 12:19, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:Here we go again! I am asked to answer a particular question ("what part of it can be tested"), and having done that, find my answer disputed because it doesn't prove something else!
:I responded to your previous questioning of those examples, pointing out that, like you have done here, your questioning was actually raising a ''different'' objection, rather than disputing the answers I gave.
:Sure, it doesn't prove an entire field. ''But that was not the issue''. The claim there was that creationism doesn't make (testable) predictions, and the claim here is essentially the same, that it cannot be tested. So '''I have shown both of those claims to be wrong''', yet is there any explicit acknowledgement of that? No, instead different objections are raised as though they dispute those answers.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:40, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Look, the easiest test for creation science is "is it falsifiable?" [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 12:29, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sigh. Read the discussion above. It it's testable then its falsifiable. I often get the impression that you blokes simply keep regurgitating the same old canards then never listen to the answers. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]]

:Well said! Sorry, just wanted to add my support AND try the new signature. Is it annoying?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo] 12:47, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==How about not using the bible as the only source of creationist reference?==

I mean, its bad enough to even have creationism in this "encyclopedia", but if its gonna happen, that means we have to get the views of every major religion

i'm sure this happens in many other articles as well

*I cannot suffer myself to read most of this page, with unattributed posts. It literally makes my head ache, and their is no purpose in reading comments if one doesn't know who is making them. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:49, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Dinosaur

2007-03-29T01:52:53Z

Prometheus: /* Modern Day Dinosaurs */

'''Note:''' an alternative version of this article is currently being written [[User:Hojimachong/Dinosaur|here]]. This is not an attempt to usurp [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]'s views, but rather add more factual information regarding the evolutionary view. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]]

==Modern Day Dinosaurs==

I'd like to point out that some scientists consider [[Alligators]], [[Crocodiles]] and [[Komodo Dragons]] to be modern dinosaurs. If the bulk of dinosaurs were killed by flooding/natural disaster, it is conceivable that since alligators, etc. did roam the earth at the same time as said "dinosaurs" that they are basically dinosaurs themselves and therefore survived the disaster (not surprising since alligators and crocodiles can both survive easily in water, and the komodo dragon is poisonous to touch and therefore not likely to be hunted to extinction).

Ignoring European myths about dragons, loch ness/etc, there is ample evidence in NativeAmerican mythology that some dinosaurs survived the disaster and were later hunted to extinction. Even today people still claim to have seen the legendary Gaasyendietha and Argont.
*[http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/2005/canadian_seaserpents.html Sea Serpents of Canada]

:What scientists consider alligators, corocodiles and Komodo dragons to be dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creation scientists do. Which means that it's appropriate for this article. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 14:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Ah, that explains it. Cos, y'know, crocodillians kind of aren't related to dinosaurs (they're aquatic, dinosaurs were not), nor are Komodo dragons (which are lizards). Calling a Komodo dragon or a crocodillian a type of dinosaur is kind of like calling a bat a type of bird...

::::If you knew your Leviticus like you should you'd know that a bat ''is'' a bird! [http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=KjvLevi.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=11&division=div1| Leviticus 11:13-19] [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:52, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: Bats aren't birds, they're bugs: [http://picayune.uclick.com/comics/ch/1989/ch891030.gif #1 Bats = Bugs]. Every six year old knows that.--[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 21:52, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::You ruined my set-up XD. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:57, 18 March 2007 (EDT)

==No mention of popular documentary==

Recently I have had the good fortune to observe a series of mini-documentaries and docu-dramas related to the topic of dinosaurs. It appears that Men and dinosaurs did coexist, during Biblical times and even well before then. Many people of the time used tame dinosaurs as transportation, as beasts of burden, and even as pets, as well. Shouldn't there be some mention of the well know documentary series ''The Flintstones'' on this page?

==How absurd!==

What are "Old-Earth Evolutionists"? Is there another kind of "evolutionist"? Is evolutionist a word?

Why is the word "evolved" in inverted commas in the second sentence?

Why are the creationists referred to as scientists whereas the "Old-Earth Evolutionists" are not?

Why does it say that the "Creation scientists" have beliefs based on evidence when it says no such thing about the "Old-Earth Evolutionists"? (who you might think have a better claim to beliefs based on evidence).

Why doesn't the article tell me anything about dinosaurs?

I will be back to do some editing. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)

:Note Horace's use above of the Britishism "inverted commas" instead of the proper American "quotation marks". This shibboleth makes his contributions look rather suspiciously like the work of a Wikipedia agitator. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:::Please, don't start making anti-British ad hominem attacks… And "proper American"? Are you aware that the English language originated in Britain? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 10:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: As I'm sure you are aware American English is a rationalised improvement on British English and is not influenced by France (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_english).

:::: Is this rationalisation of the English language the reason your representative president cannot pronounce 'nuclear'? Instead he insists on butchering his own language preferring to pronounce it 'newqoolar'. He has learnt this because of the simplification of spelling which you call a rationalisation has meant that American English has forgotten how to pronounce even the most basic vowels. The rest of the world laughs at you, not with you.

:::::Yep, resumé isn't at all French. Anyway, why do people care? I'm sure that if I was a Brit reading Conservapedia, I would think that a "strong anti-British bias" (to make a modified paraphrase of one of Conservapedia's ideas about Wikipedia) was evident. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 19:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Heh this bit made me laugh. All English (Whether proper English or american butchered English) is influenced from the French. There's a reason the rest of the world uses the proper "foreign" spelling of words. Because it's not a dumbed-down version. Oh, and it's ZED, not ZEE. How is that a rationalized "improvement"? Was the alphabet too hard to remember without 'Z' rhyming with some of the other letters? And Linus, I think you're correct, except it's not so much an anti-British bias, as an anti-rest-of-the-world bias.

::You, sir, are a bounder. Oops. Did it again. I would have thought that the substance of my contributions can speak for themselves. I am not any sort of agitator other than perhaps an agitator for accurate articles. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)

There, that's a start. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:49, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Courtesy ==

How about some discussion before editing Rich? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:45, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Anti-Christian Bias ==

Why was all information based on the Creation worldview removed from this article? I thought this was precisely the sort of anti-Christian bias that Conservapedia was created to combat. Are people from Wikipedia trying to undermine this site? Well, nevermind; those interested to hear non-PC discussions of [http://creationwiki.org/Dinosaur dinosaurs] and Origins in general are welcome to come to [http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] instead. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 01:41, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:I removed this information because it does not speak for all Christians, and none of the sources even claimed to speak for most Christians.

::Leaving aside the question of rampant apostasy in the modern Church re: Biblical Creation, I had originally clearly labeled those views as belonging to "Creation Scientists" -- for whom those sources do speak -- not "all Christians" or "most Christians". This was altered to "Creationists" in general (which is vague enough to include any number of errant views, including Hindu creation myths and Raelian extraterrestrial genetic-engineering delusions), and then the entire section was cut, leaving only the views of Darwinists. I do not see how these changes are consonant with the mission statement of Conservapedia (i.e. the elimination of Liberal bias which suppresses the Biblical worldview). Although it pains me to do so, I feel I must question whether those making these suspicious changes are working for the forces of Wikipedia to sneakily impose that project's PC, anti-Christian bias on this project. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 16:56, 23 February 2007 (EST)

::Furthermore, let me note that if this were merely a question of the views being presented in that paragraph only belonging to "some Christians", then why not ''add'' additional paragraphs explaining the views of the other so-called Christians instead of simply silencing the views of the (clearly labeled) subset of Christianity? Nothing is gained by this change except to give the false impression that all Christians agree with Darwinian views on dinosaurs. Was this the intent? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:08, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:::I am a Christian, and I accept evolution as a fact. I think that it is clearly demonstratable in the real-world. I know dozens of other Christians who also accept evolution. I think it is out of place for a website that is supposed to reflect all Christian views to only promote the views of a minority of Christians called "Creation Scientists". They should be relegated to the fringes, as they do not represent most Christians views.

:::Rich, there is a difference between writing from the creationist viewpoint and honesty. An article that claims, for instance, that Helder has documented "fresh" dinosaur remains may or may not be creationist in nature, but one thing it certainly is is dishonest, because no such documentation has stood up to any sort of scrutiny. Anyone can make claims, but if you don't care about the actual validity of those claims, only what views they purport to support, then you are not engaging in true scholarly citation practices.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 13:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Catholic links deleted ==

Very odd, I'd put in some relatively straightforward links to some Catholic views, and it seems to have been deleted by somebody named "Aschlafly" who deleted them with the comment "deleted incorrect Catholic doctrine about evolution" and then added a bunch of stuff from what looks like Southern Baptist websites.
I don't know who this guy Aschlafly is, but I do not accept him as an authority on Catholicism. Is this conservapedia actually a "Southernbaptistapedia"? I would like to point out that not all conservatives are southern Baptists.
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)

: Aschlafly is the creator of this website. [[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]]

==Edit by Sureal==

I made an edit, rewording certain parts to make the article more neutral (and more in line with reality), and adding in a bit. I've also organised it with headings, 'cos it was a real pain to read before. However, it's still seriously lacking any actual information on dinosaurs. Anyone feel up to adding some? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==Birds==

From a cladistic point of view, birds are not merely descended from dinosaurs, they ''are'' dinosaurs.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: I'm not sure that's correct. After all, humans evolved from aquatic creatures, and yet we don't cite humans as marine life. Having said that, I'm certainly not an expert on this, so I may be horribly wrong. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:: So, so horribly wrong, Sureal, but don't sweat it. We are descended from amniotes, therefore we are amniotes, we are descended from vertebrates, therefore we are vertebrates, we are descended from mammals, therefore we are mammals, etc. down the classificatory tree for life. [[User:RedDedNedHed|RedDedNedHed]]~~

:::Does that make me a Prokaryote? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 18:25, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==Picture==
I think the picture that JC put up (innocently) is a parody picture that should be taken down. He thinks it's legit. Anyone agree?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:It's ''cute''. But I'd get rid of it. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 15:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I'd say keep it. Given there's a section arguing for dinosaurs existing in biblical times, I think it's good that there's a picture that shows how absurd this would actually be! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::The dino pic bit the dust @23:17 --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Bias in Wikepedia...Really? ==

Conservatives trying to teach about dinosaurs! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikipedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!

== "American English is a rationalised improvement on British English" ==

In English, "practise" is a verb and "practice" is a noun.

In the American dialect "practice" is used for both.

In English, "license" is a verb and "licence" is a noun.

Americans use "license" for both.

So much for "a rationalised improvement on British English".

CAS

I couldn't agree more with your comments. I use this site not as a reference source but rather as a place I go when I need a laugh.

== "I'll take 'Word Origins' for 100, Alex" ==
If one is going to "discuss" dinosaurs, the least one could do is get the origin of the word "dinosaur" right. "Dinos sauros" is GREEK, not Latin.

Edit made.

AQ

== The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because.... ==

The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because I linked to it from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article which was very vandal prone before it was protected. Please be aware of vandalism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:Can we expect this article to be linked to by the liberal blogs as a humour site shortly as well? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well, this page has become a joke. How can you eliminate the K-T paragraph??--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::It's impossible to take this page seriously. Actually it's impossible to take any page on this site seriously. However, being specific, it is absurd that this page is locked, and that "according to evoutionary scientists" is allowed, but not "according to creatiionists" is not mentioned once.

::The above comment represents exactly what I am talking about - liberalism will 'creep in' to this article if we don't stop it, and soon. Please, Conservative, lock this article after you have finished editing it as you see fit. [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 13:56, 21 March 2007 (PST).

==Protected "Dinosaur": protect to clean up. per Mr schlafly.==

So how much factual information is going to be left here once this "clean up" has been carried out? Are normal editors incapable of writing a neutral article on dinosaurs?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:It will be like Theory of Evolution - lip service paid to non-Creationist viewpoints, and snarkily at that. Massive amounts of pro-Creationist viewpoints, all sourced to the same two or three websites.

:This site is rapidly falling into the same bias trap they claim Wikipedia suffers from.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:22, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Falling? I would say it has long been down the pan! Normal editors are blocked for trying to remove bias, pages are locked for sysop's to put forward their own points of view unchallenged. There are only a handful of people who seem to be opposed to a website of pure Pro-Christian waffle. Oh well, at least I can put forward my PoV on Wikipedia. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I don't even regard it as pro-"Christian", it's theological and scientific nonsense through and through. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yep Conservative has got his claws into this one. Should be exciting soon. Too bad to see my real science got all erased.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, that K-T paragraph must have hit too close to home...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yeah, Dave, see, the K-T Paragraph not only had the backing of basic geology, but also photographic evidence... that's pretty dangerous stuff.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well, to be fair, they do have a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I know, we could create Liberalipedia: The answer to the answer to Wikipedia! I wonder if they'd create a page for us on here... [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Please do. If you do create "liberalpedia" we will probably make a page for you. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 12:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Will you then lock it and wipe out sourced material?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the 'clean-up'. After AmesG made his edits, the article was actually starting to look serious. But oh my god, I can't believe how Conservative has butchered it. He's deleted loads of well sourced, factual information, and I even noticed a complete and utter lie in there (please - point me to this peer-reviewed Creationist literature). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Not to mention he's currently citeing Godzilla as evidence of young earth creationism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Raymond Burr==
I'm very surprise the sentence about the "documentary" with "Raymond Burr" has survived this long, as if no-one remembers or cannot look up on [imbd.com], that the film in question is the original [[Godzilla]] ''. Godzilla, King of the Monsters!'' 1956. I also noticed that in referencing the film the fact that Raymond Burr was gay didn't get mentioned.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 12:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:-smacks head- [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm with Nematocyte with this one. Dare I ask: How has his being gay got anything to do with anything?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Because being gay is teh evil!!11!!1!!1!!!!!! [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Oi Vey==
Someone, PLEASE introduce some factual information into this article. 95% of the article is about Creationism, and the possibility of dinosaurs living with humans. They could not have lived with humans, and the creationist section is biased. Where are the theories about the dinosaurs dying from a meteor and an ice age? Or them dying from lack of food? Oooohhhh riiiight, these are evolutionist ideas. I forgot we can't include those. Seriously, someone fix it. It's ridiculous. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 03:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

(EDIT: Oh...and dinosaurs dying because they weren't on the Ark? Come on. That Noah guy was either mean to not let them on, or lazy to not build a bigger Ark. Obsurd.)

(EDIT2: One more thing, when editing, use SOME other source than biased creationist websites, the bible, and other christian websites attempting to give an explanation why dinosaurs don't fit in logically with christianity.)

:It did have that - there was quite a bit on the scientific view of dinosuars, fully sourced and everything. But Conservative - being the honest fellow he is - deleted it all as 'vandalism' (see above), added in some rubbish about Creationists having peer-reviwed literature, and locked the page to prevent anyone from 'vandalising' the page again. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Needed Corrections==
Line 1 states that dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles. Note that not all dinosaurs were large.

== Are you scared to be wrong? ==

Why can't we edit this page? Are you scared that some actual scientists with doctorates in paleontology might actually change this page so there is some truth in it? Dinosaurs never lived at the same time period as humans. If you claim that explorers saw a dinosaur, why don't you back it up with some citations. I'm surprised you aren't trying to say that the scientists put the dinosaurs in the ground and made the whole thing up. Just ask yourself, how would Nixon write this page.

:No no, you have it all wrong, obviously the dinosaurs have such a superior intelligence that they can evade all detection by every human on earth, and they actually planted fake fossils in the ground to fool us all. Amazing what animals do to survive. On a serious note, yes they are scared to be wrong. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 16:41, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== Protection as of 3/19 ==

Conservative: You just deleted '''referenced''' facts. Is National Geographic no longer a reliable source? Should we put that somewhere? And then you "protected" the article. Are you now going to be the sole editor for this article as well? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:01, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

Dear Conservative, '''please do not use your locking powers over content disputes'''. You removed what looks like TONS of well-sourced material. If you have an issue with the content, go to the Talk page before simply vaping several well-sourced paragraphs. This is NOT how a Wiki works. This is NOT your private playground. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:05, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

: Eh? They're the ones paying the bills, they're the ones who setup and maintain the servers, they certainly can do whatever they'd like with it. There's an element of community-building to wikis that means they need to use some restraint, but ultimately, it's up to them what kind of community they'd like to build (unless you're willing to start donating lots of bandwidth fees and technical support time). --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 18:11, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::That's a fair point, Interiot, but there is nothing in the site guidelines (those seven simple rules which Conservapedia is goverened by) to support the deletion of referenced facts. I have been threatened with being blocked for deleting unreferenced opinion, what is the penalty for deleting referenced facts? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 18:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I just pray to God [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] doesn't own any firearms. Given his penchant for mis-using whatever power he has no-one around him would be safe. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 18:23, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::(sigh) Yes, you are right, of course. It's Aschlafly's server, and he could just put Goatse onto every page if he felt like it. But I went with what's in the rules and goals they themselves state. Most community projects are a tad more organized and actually hold people in power a little bit responsible for the actions. I think fewer people would be up-front with the rules of the site instead of having a bunch of unwritten rules, some case-by-case decisions and lots of stubbornness when it comes to ignoring complaints and questions. However, the best I remember him saying was something about temporary protection against vandalism (with "vandalism" having an interesting definition, but that's a different topic). --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:33, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Wonder when I'll get banned next. Surprised it didn't happen when I re-added the facts to this article. [[user:Conservative|Conservative]], you still have outstanding questions that curious readers want to know: (1) why are evolution and religion so incompatible in your mind to claim that all evolution-related facts are fraudulent, and (2) what special knowledge do you have to know what is scientifically fraudulent? And in your answer, I don't want the site "Answers In Genesis" to come up once. Not once.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:15, 19 March 2007 (EDT)

::Conservative! You have work to be done here! The Godless are denying You! Edit, then lock! [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 13:58, 21 March 2007 (PST).

== Farce ==
What is a good way to describe this page? Geez, do you want to include some facts about dinosaurs? It's not all about Creationist/Evolutionist arguments. At least put up a picture of a T-Rex chowing down on a Brontosaurus. It'd be wicked cool to see that kind of stuff. Maybe even a Raptor eating a man...

== Experience with Dinosaurs ==

I can verify that Dinosaurs lived alongside men. In 1994, I went with my girlfriend to a remote Island in South America; following an invitation from a high profile business man who I won't name. It turned out that he had set up an amusement park with dinosaurs as the main attraction. When the parks electrical fence system was sabotaged by an IT worker trying to steal eggs to fund his debt problems, we were left at the mercy of various carnivore species including a T-Rex and a pair of Velocaraptors that could open doors. It was a horrible experience, but I did warm to the idea of having kids, and Jeff Goldblum's an idiot anyway so no real harm was done.

==Conservative POV?==

While I don't honestly care in which order the sections are placed, the section "Dinosaurs as viewed through Creationism" is not the conservative POV. It isn't even the creationist POV. It's the YEC POV at best, and should be rewritten to reflect that. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Quote Mining==
Your Mayr quote is a blatant misrepresentation of what he said. The full quote (found here: '''Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species (Columbia University Press, New York, 1942), p. 196.
''') reads as such:

"It must be admitted, however, that it is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations. This is even more true for some of the ecological chain relationships (the famous yucca moth case, and so forth). ''However, the objectors to random mutations have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was supported by substantial evidence.''"

In other words, this explanation is the best we have so far because people like you, Conservative, have no evidence to the contrary --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:The sad part is, in changing around the cites, Ernst ends up being a '''creationist'''. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== Unlocked ==

Unlocked for however long unless persistent vandalism lingers.

I hope users can contribute in a positive manner. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 13:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Perhaps you could unlock the Theory of Evolution page now. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 13:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

He locked it again because I deleted the Ernst Mrawyr quote (see debate above) and a citation to CreationWiki :-(--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 13:57, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::13 minutes '''unlocked'''! A new record! If only [[User:Conservative| Conservative]] didn't have to take potty breaks, he could keep it locked forever. --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 13:59, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Pfft, as expected. Someone's on a power-trip once again. Try reverting things you think are wrong rather than closing it up for your own personal discretion. [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:01, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: Were my edits wrong? I was just correcting what wasn't proven as fact. Isn't it also really bad form to cite to another Wiki??-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:02, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think she meant things Conservative regards as "wrong". --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yes, '''she''' :) [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Yup, I checked your user page after writing it and edited out the "(?)" part accordingly (but in such a high-traffic zone, it ran into a few edit conflicts and got delayed XD). :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, it was fun while it lasted (the whole 13 minutes). But thanks for the vote of confidence, Niandra! The gesture is worth a lot, even if your good deed got undone by Conservative again. :)
:In more hilarious news, check out [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Dinosaur&diff=51774&oldid=51772 this diff]. Note the "Violations of conservapedia fact policy" comment in the left version and the "These are not facts! *delete delete delete*" edit on the right side. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:04, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I can't believe the user is basically just being a dictator of the article. This is a wiki-oriented site! If users post wrong information, you revert it but rarely use your power to protect so no one else can contribute! [[User:Niandra|niandra]] 14:09, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I am utterly speechless that he removed all of that material. I generally try not to use unparliamentary language but the man is an idiot. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 14:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Agreed. The edits between your unlock and his lock were '''not''' vandalism. They added sourced facts. If he has an issue with "propaganda" or something, he can try to bring things into a more neutral (*snickersnort*) tone. Simply deleting sourced material (repeatedly, I think) is just plain abuse. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:15, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:: So what do we do about it?-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 14:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Stop trying and leave site? Only use Conservapedia in dictionaries as an example of 'hypocrisy'? Laugh at anyone who cites this article? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:17, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Well, I unlocked the article again, and reverted to the AmesG version that includes creationist and "evolutionary" views, but Conservative changed it back to his version within minutes. Tis a shame. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 15:54, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:The gesture is highly appreciated, though! :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:00, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== This article's getting worse ==

All I can say is - wow. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:I thought Conservative's edits were bad...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:18, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::So do I. I'm just impressed with the badness. The article made my brain implode - that's never happaned before. :-)

:::Maybe instead of including articles for some topics Conservapedia should just link directly to Answers in Genesis. The current version of this article is beyond ridiculous.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 15:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==More quote mining==

The Scientific American quote that you cite is stripped out of an article that overwhelmingly SUPPORTS evolution - the question at hand was when the feather evolved. The surround context looks like this:

"Several lines of research have recently converged on a remarkable conclusion: the feather evolved in dinosaurs before the appearance of birds."

"Conservative's quote-mined paragraph"

"Progress in solving the particularly puzzling origin of feath-ers has also been hampered by what now appear to be false leads, such as the assumption that the primitive feather evolved by elongation and division of the reptilian scale, and speculations that feathers evolved for a specific function, such as flight. A lack of primitive fossil feathers hindered progress as well. For many years the earliest bird fossil has been Archaeopteryx lithographica, which lived in the late Jurassic period (about 148 million years ago). But Archaeopteryx offers no new insights on how feathers evolved, because its own feathers are nearly indistinguishable from those of today’s birds. Very recent contributions from several fields have put these traditional problems to rest. First, biologists have begun to find new evidence for the idea that developmental processes - the complex mechanisms by which an individual organism grows to its full size and form —
can provide a window into the evolution of a species’ anatomy. This idea has been reborn as the field of evolutionary developmental biology, or “evo-devo.” It has given us a powerful tool for '''probing the origin of feathers'''. Second, paleontologists have unearthed a trove of feathered dinosaurs in China. These animals have a diversity of primitive feathers that are not as highly evolved as those of today’s birds or even Archaeopteryx. They give us critical clues about the structure, function and evolution of modern birds’ intricate appendages. Together these advances have produced a highly detailed and revolutionary picture: feathers originated and diversified in carnivorous, bipedal theropod dinosaurs before the origin of birds or the origin of flight."

THAT is the context. Of course, it supports the idea of evolution. Your hack job is simply a deliberate deception.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Gah, I was just writing that. You beat me to it (and said it much better). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:31, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Amazing what you find when you Google-search a sentence...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 15:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::Google search a sentence? I included the link to the full article! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:35, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::Look at the bolded portion of the above quote. They are '''"probing". ''' The devil is in the details. Creationism is still the best answer. Plus, there are no transitional fossil to birds as I cited. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:51, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Look at what comes before and after the phrase you bolded. You can't just take out one little piece and ignore the rest...well, obviously you can, as you keep doing, but it's misleading at best.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 16:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Why do you insist on taking out a single phrase and ignoring the context? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::The Scientific American article clearly states: "Of all the body coverings nature has designed, feathers are the most various and the most '''mysterious'''." Let not pretend they have a good explanation. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:37, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:::::Yes - their evolution is not fully understood. However, that doesn't give you the right to quote mine articles to imply we know nothing about birds evolving from dinosaurs. Indeed, does not the existance of feathered dinosaurs (which was conviently missed out from Conservative's quote) give weight to the idea that birds evolved from dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 16:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

==Maybe we could add something about..==

Dinosaurs? This is what the article currently says about Dinosaurs - ''"The word dinosaur was coined in 1841 by Richard Owen[1], from the Greek for "terrible lizard" (fututor). Dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles that previously lived in abundance on Earth".'' - That's it! everything else is quoting mining about why evolutionists are wrong!

Sure that needs to be in there on convervapedia but surely an article about dinosaurs needs to spend a little time talking about the your actual dinosaurs! --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 16:26, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: I agree, I have unprotected the page as I protected by-mistake. By all means improve it, just keep your edits '''entirely''' un-biased. Thanks... [[User:Conservapedia Webmaster|Conservapedia Webmaster]] 16:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::Question! When you say "keep your edits '''entirely''' un-biased", do you mean as "entirely un-biased" as you were when you asserted that the evolutionary view is "entirely false" or as "entirely un-biased" as Conservative was when he removed several fully sourced paragraphs, but at least admitted that creationists merely reject the evolutionary view and just believe that man and dinosaurs coexisted? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:38, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== SYSOPS: The compromise I offered is the only thing that will end ceaseless edit warring and more importantly..... ==

The compromise I offered is the only thing that will end ceaseless edit warring and more importantly you cannot state a "fact" that is not a fact.

Here is portion of what I wrote to user Aschlafly:

I tried to reach a compromise with the evolutionists and reasonably ask that they not have only one disclaimer and then go on stating "fact" after "fact" after "fact". I reasonably said when I composed: "according to creationist scientists". They refuse to do something similar regarding the claims of evolutionary scientists even though I took the time to put in front of their "facts" the phrase "according to evolutionary scientists". I protected the article until they agreed to do that.

'''Now I ask the Sysops to keep the article protected until the evolutionists agree to abide by Conservapedia rules and not state opinions as facts. '''

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:03, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:Wasn't it, 'what follows is the mainstream scientific opinion' (which appears to have dissapeared) before the scientific side was given? Why do we have to state this more than once? Do you think Conservapedia's readership uniformaly suffers from some form of metal condition, and needs to be constantly reminded that they are reading the scientific/evolutionist side of the debate?

The repetitive sentance structure is disjointing to read, and an ecyclopedia should be as easy to read as possible.

The Creationist side can be the same. At the moment, it's painful to read. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 17:19, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Surely that's sensible - the start of each section just needs the disclaimer once? --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 17:25, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Is the following sentence a fact? "Close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period, and the beginning of what we call the Tertiary period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the K-T Event. This event obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive." Or is it scientists opinion? Before you answers that question please read this article: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/2587 The truth is that there have been countless dinosaur extinction explanations given by the evolutionary position. You can't have countless sentences stating "facts" when they are not facts. The compromise is the only solution that will end the countless edit warring. Do the evolutionists, including AmesG, agree to compromise. If they don't I will ask Aschlafly to keep the page locked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
::That section did say at the beginning that this is the current accepted scientific opinion. I see no reason why not to include it. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]] 17:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Colin, Again, is this sentence a fact: "Close to 65 million years ago, at the end of the Cretaceous period, and the beginning of what we call the Tertiary period, an event occurred which has come to be known as the K-T Event. This event obliterated most life on Earth, plunging the world into something that would now be likened to global nuclear winter, through which few extant species could survive." yes? no? Please do not allow Conservapedia rules be broken. One little disclaimer followed by "fact" after "fact" after "fact" after "fact" is totally unacceptable. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::It is a fact that that is what the mainstream scientific consensus is. Just as it is a fact that the Creation science opinion is that that never happened. Both claims ('this is what scientists believe...' and 'this is what creationists believe...') are, therefore, correct. Therefore a compromise has already been agreed upon, and the only person warring is you. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 17:45, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Well, to be consistent with other pages, the Theory of Evolution page has no disclaimer and then "fact" after "fact" after "fact". You can't have it both ways Conservative. Which will it be?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 17:47, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::I hope you remember, [[User:Conservative|Conservative]], that your view if Christianity is certainly not the only one. Theistic Evolutionists, Old Earth Evolutionists, etc. would disagree with your edits. Stating your "cited" (sarcastically used due to the fact that half of them are probably unnotable, personal websites which carry no philosophical or scientific merit) material as fact, I would assume, is also not the best idea. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

::::It is my understanding that Aschlafly wants to have a creationist perspective in the [[Theory of evolution]] article. I would also state that the Theory of evolution article establishes facts and constantly has phrases like "creationist assert" or "Opponents of the evolutionary position assert" etc etc. It also has candid admissions by notable evolutionists. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:39, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

:::::Regardless, you seem to be forgetting that we are supposed to be writing a biased encyclopedic article. This reads more like a persuasive essay. It doesn't even have a good explanation of what a dinosaur is, it just jumps straight into criticism (without explaining what it is criticizing). --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 18:42, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

(unindent a bit)
:What is this encyclopedia's standard for citations? Are blogs okay, or what? I'd like to see something like [[Wikipedia:Attribution]]. Not saying we have the same policy, but we should have some sort of policy. Makes it handy to refer to, when there's a dispute over what "can be in" and what "must go out". --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:44, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Hojimachong, I would agree with you that info like dinosaur classification should be given. I was going to suggest to Aschlafly that we get an agreement with [[CreationWiki]] to copy material like "classification" for animal/plant articles. We then could cite the material and [[CreationWiki]] would get more traffic. It is a win-win scenario. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:53, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

::::I'm against using anything from CreationWiki outside of referencing articles involving it. Furthermore, wikis are usually not considered reliable sources for citing. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 18:56, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

if this is going to be a creationist encyclopedia should there not be a disclaimer to that affect on the front page. Many of us are conservatives but we are not creationists - the two do not automatically go together - we all believe that biases should be out front where everyone can see them right? there seems to be an assumption that anyone who does not buy creationist must be a liberal but for many of us the two do not go together in that way. --[[User:Cgday|Cgday]] 18:58, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: I hate to nitpick, but to answer [[user:Conservative]]'s earlier question, the statement re: the K-T event '''''is''''' a fact. Facts are provable by evidence. Creationism is an opinion informed by faith. Both are entitled to equal time as long as they are pronounced that way. Anything less is a breach of Cons. Comm'ds 1 & 6. Also, I really think we should either stop citing [[CreationWiki]] - it's not a primary source. Finally, the quote-mined text and the text from the 1942 book that [[user:Conservative]] didn't actually read should go.-[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 20:12, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
== Loch Ness Monster ==

Wait... really? We're going with the Loch Ness Monster? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, good grief. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

::You have a problem with this? I saw an excellent documentary on cable abotu the Loch Ness monster, and it was clear there has been a massive cover-up of this wonderful, Biblical creature's existence. If only we can finally capture enough evidence about it, I'm convinced the LNM could be a missing link that would finally blow the evolutionists arguments out of the water. [[User:GodisGreat|GodisGreat]] 13:38, 21 March 2007 (PST).

:::If only you could find it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 17:01, 21 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes, but it's had millions of years to practice hiding. Just a minute - should that be thousands?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 17:07, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::How about an article on how the Loch Ness Monster was domesticated by Piltdown Man? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:27, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Suggestion for intro==

May I create a "sandbox" for alternative versions of the intro?

[[/intro]]

This has often worked at Wikipedia. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 18:48, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:You mean like [[Talk:The Theory of Evolution/draft]], which we tried here with not much success? It ''could'' work well. What would be needed is a sysop

::*with a claim, accepted by the community, to be in charge of the article;
::*not personally heavily involved in editing it or otherwise ego-involved in the article;
::*committed to the concept of judging consensus, and updating the protected page in a timely way to reflect consensus wordings as they are are reached. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:57, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

== Compromise dialogue as far as "disqualifiers" like "according to evolutionary scientists" ==

I suggest the two sides work out a compromise here so the page can be unlocked. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:55, 20 March 2007 (EDT)conservative

I was always under the impression that in any wiki article, the article itself reflected a compromise between various editors. Unless, of course, a renegade with the authority to block a page and a mentality childish enough to do so actually went through with an act so senseless. Guess I'm wrong? --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 19:20, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:A common misconception: it's not automatic. It requires each contributor to be thoughtful and considerate.

:Imagine a classroom where students are free to move their desks around wherever they want, and post anything on the walls. It could be heaven or it could be hell (apologies to [[The Eagles]]). Neither chaos nor harmony is inevitable. It's up to us.

:I made 42,000 edits at Wikipedia since 2001, and I'm here to tell you that compromises are '''hard''' to reach. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:27, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

What makes this article inherently different from anything else? Vandals target every entry there is, no matter how benign they may seem. Additionally, even among the conservative base this site attracts, differences of opinion are going to exist across the spectrum of material - from dinosaurs, to physics, to sex. Lastly, your analogy fails. When the classroom turns into a hellish romper room, the kids are not there to learn. By contrast, serious editors want their work to educate. We're all here for the same purpose, and censorship is clearly not part of that vision. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 19:34, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:What a confused mishmash that comment was. I wonder why you came here. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 19:41, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

Maybe I should break it down for you. Protecting the dinosaur page doesn't make sense. Here's my reasoning: 1 - the page is no more prone to vandalism than any other page. 2 - the page is just as open to differences of opinion as any other page. 3 - your analogy is garbage, as it ascribes motives to editors which clearly don't exist.

Try to keep up. Slow minds keep right. --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 20:10, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:Fair enough. Besides, I got a good laugh out of that last.

:I take it, you'd like the Dinosour article to be unprotected. Well, so would I. How do we go about requesting this? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] 20:56, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

:: [[Conservapedia:Request Unprotection]] (in general, [[:Category:Conservapedia maintenance]] is a good place to look for things like this). --[[User:Interiot|Interiot]] 10:30, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

One of the arguments proponents of teaching ID in schools like is: "Children should be able to hear both sides, and make their own mind up". So why not do the same here? Have the dinosaur article link to two sub articles:
#Dinosaur origins according to Young Earth Creationists.
#Dinosaur origins according to non Young Earth Creationists.
And let each side do what they like with their respective articles. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:23, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
: Why only those two? What makes those two so special? Why don't you present the Native American or Ancient Greek or Hindu approaches to the creation of the world and how they each account for dinosaurs. --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:29, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::I Wouldn't have a problem with that, of course. I only chose those two because this site is biased towards Christian YEC and they were the two "sides" currently in dispute. --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:33, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Wouldn't that then be a better subject for comparative creation theories? (The different creation theories made up about 4 weeks in the comparative religions class I took in high school). --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 20:36, 20 March 2007 (EDT)
::::Yes it would ideally, but I can't see that happening on this site at the moment. I was just trying to make a suggestion that would break the deadlock in the short term --[[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 20:43, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

: [[user:Conservative|Cons]], can we get the words "evolutionary" taken out of the science part of the article? It does nothing but make it sound like it was written by a three-year-old. If you want to convey the point, "I don't believe in evolution," please think of a good disclaimer.-
: Also, could this compromise also apply to the [[Theory of evolution|anti-evolution polemic article]] that we also fight about? [[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 21:40, 20 March 2007 (EDT)

== "Creationist Scientists Perspective" ==

Part of the edit war involved someone removing "Creationist Scientists Perspective" and replacing it with "Creationist Perspect". I see no reason why this should be done. This is part of the conflict that is keeping the page locked although it is a minor one. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:54, 21 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:I think it might have something to do with the fact that creationism does not fit with commonly accepted definition of science... namely the natural explanation part of it. [[User:Myk|Myk]] 20:06, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

==Proposed replacement language for Loch Ness monster material==
Pursuant to [[User:Conservative]]'s suggestion [[User_talk:Dpbsmith#Compromise._I_put_a_link_for_you|here]]:

I propose that the paragraph currently reading
:Since 565 A.D. there are reports about the Loch Ness Monster (Nessie by birth), a large Monster living in Loch Ness, near Inverness, Scotland. People who saw Nessie described the Monster as it would look similar to a dinosaur. In the life story of St. Columba, there is an account of him driving off a monster attacking a Pict. Some have taken this to refer to the Loch Ness Monster.
be replaced with this sentence:
:Among those who believe in the existence of the [[Loch Ness Monster]], one popular theory is that it is a living [[plesiosaur]].<ref>"New Quest Is Haunted By 'Nessie'", ''The New York Times,'' July 14, 1992, p. C4: "Believers say it resembles a plesiosaur and was trapped in Loch Ness during the Ice Age 12,000 years ago. The plesiosaurs were marine reptiles who are thought to have lived 65 million to 200 million years ago."</ref>
Any pro-and-con stuff about the existence of Nessie can be worked out in the [[Loch Ness Monster]] article. No more needs to be said in [[Dinosaur]] other than to mention it briefly, if it all.

Mind you, I personally do not think there is any good reason to mention the Loch Ness monster in ''this'' article whatsoever, but ''if'' it were real and ''if'' it were a plesiosaur then, OK, it would be an example of dinosaurs and humans coexisting. (And if Barney were real he, too... oh, never mind...) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 20:55, 21 March 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

== The DNA-argument ==

I just don't get it. After I read the linked article (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i4/dinosaurs.asp),
i didn't know if the author was serious. He explains correctly that Jurassic Park is just fictional and I think every scientist (pro- or contra-evolution) would agree with that but on the other hand he tries to use the "DNA-aspect" to show that evolutionist are in the minor-evidence-position in the dicussion about the age of dinosaur-fossils. I don't think that there is any evolutionist who ever wanted to publish a theory like "we have some base-pairs of dinosaur-DNA and now we really build a Jurassic Park"!
Additionally I can't accept his statements about the fresh dinosaur bones. If you read his text properly you will see that the unfossilized bones are found in Alaska and Canada. Precisly on the northern slope of Alaska and on Bylot Island in Canada. Uh, wait...what can you find there? Yep, permafrost - which includes the words permanent and frost. So what could keep a good old dinosaurs bones fresh for millions of years? Keeping them frozen for millions of years, perhaps.

P.S.: Oh yeah, the point with these large amount of really reliable dinosaur sightings. Should we discuss the large number of UFO sightings and Elvis sightings in the same sentence?
If I think about it, maybe all these sightings are true and there are lots of elvis-faced-dinosaurs who come in their UFOs to spend the summer holidays near Loch Ness?

:Wow, not going to lie, I thought that article might have been a parody at first. This article tries to associate psuedoscience in a '''fiction''' movie to real science and "evolutionists." The author's arguments are simply ridiculous, and I have a hard time taking this seriously. As much as I disagree with Creationism, seeing the beauty and the awesomeness of nature and life (esp. after my recent afternoon at the aquarium), I can understand the argument that this universe must have a creator. However, articles such as this take every bit of respect I have for Creationism and rip it apart. Please, as a service to yourselves, Creationists, don't cite or refer to such articles. They're not going to help your case in anyone's eyes but your own. [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 04:48, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

==To User:Conservative==
I was going to put this on your Talk page, but apparently it is currently protected ??!! I thought you were suggesting that the paragraph in [[Dinosaur]] be replaced with "a link," i.e. a short sentence linking to [[Loch Ness Monster]], and that all of the details on whether it does or does not exist and whether it is or is not a dinosaur could then be presented there. That seemed very sensible to me, and I proposed specific language above. However, you haven't followed through, and based on what you say on my Talk page all I can say is that obviously I misunderstood you and I do not grasp what you want as a replacement for the incoherent paragraph that is there now. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:54, 22 March 2007 (EDT)

== Please add this to the article ==

Please add this material to the article:
----

In the United States during the 1900s, the public imagination was caught by the discoveries of [[Henry Fairfield Osborn]] (1857-1935) and the great competitive dinosaur hunters, [[Edward Drinker Cope]] (1847-1897) and [[Othniel Charles Marsh]] (1831-1899). Exploring in Wyoming, Colorado, and New Mexico, they found numerous fossil dinosaurs. Their museums worked out the techniques for mounting and displaying them.

Osborn was a proponent of ''orthogenesis,'' as were many paleontologists up through the middle of the twentieth century. These paleontologists interpreted the fossil record as showing sustained, continuing, unidirectional trends in evolution, which they felt required some kind of driving principle in addition to natural selection. As the author of an encyclopedia article on variation and selection put it in 1911,
:Selection cannot create the materials on which it is supposed to operate... Both sides concur in the position assumed by Darwin, that the word "chance" in such a phrase as "chance variation" does not mean that the occurrences are independent of natural causation and so far undetermined, but covers in the first place our ignorance of the exact causation.... No doubt a large amount of variation is truly indefinite, so that many meaningless or useless variations arise... But there are several directions in which the field of variation appears to be not only limited but defined in a certain direction.... When beetles, or medusae, or cats vary, the range of possible variation is limited and determined by the beetle, medusa or cat constitution, and any possible further differentiation or specialization must be in a sense at least orthogenetic - that is to say, a continuation of the line along which the ancestors of the individual in question have been forced. Darwin himself showed that different species in a genus, or varieties in a species, tended to show parallel variations.<ref>Mitchell, Peter Chalmers (1911), ''Variation and Selection,'' ''Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th edition,'' volume 27 (TON-VES), p. 906</ref>

[[Roy Chapman Andrews]] (1884–1960), said to be the prototype for the fictional Indiana Jones, is famous for his discovery of fossil dinosaur eggs in Outer Mongolia.

----

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 08:46, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

<references/>

== It's a lie ==

Dinosaurs are made up! This page should be deleted. The world is only 6000 years old. Scientists planted the bones to make us think that the world is older. Everyone needs to read the Bible. It's the only truth.

:Now, now conservative you didn't need to make a sockpuppet. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 23:10, 23 March 2007 (EDT)

:My God you're right! What were we thinking!? I'd go on a missionary journey tomorrow and tell EVERYBODY on Earth...but then I might fall off of the edge, so I'll just stay home. {{unsigned| Cracker}}

== OK, so what's a dinosaur?==

The entry is titled dinosaur but the vast majority of it is nothing more than theological rambling about when they did in fact exist. By the way, alot of early fossil discoveries WERE put off by the religious as tricks of God to test our faith. One last point: has anyone here heard of the idea of the "God given light of reason"? It's the idea that God gave you a mind capable of understanding the world around you---all knowledge must be found by the individual mind, not regurgitated from one unthinking to mouth to another. You should look into it. Maybe it will change your perspective. --Pollyp

==OH DEAR GOD FACTS MADE IT INTO THIS ARTICLE==

Quick conservative block this page and delete, delete, delete. I have figured out conservatives problem. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome Asperger's Syndrome]. I have to link to wikipedia because this site is spending all its time debating the Flinstones version of paleontology to develop actual articles. [[User:Tmtoulouse|Tmtoulouse]] 21:42, 24 March 2007 (EDT)

Burn! --[[User:Huey gunna getcha|Huey gunna getcha]] 17:14, 25 March 2007 (EDT)

:Please refrain from taking the Lord's name in vain. --[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 01:00, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

== Creationist Scientists - Oxymoron ==

"According to creationist scientists" is an oxymoron. Creationism is based on faith, and proof denies faith. So, if a "creationist scientist" was to prove that creationism is fact and not idle speculation based on insecurity, <s>then the world would implode</s> the existence of God would be proven. I could go on to prove that black is white, but then we'd all be in trouble at the next zebra crossing. (Adams, 1986:42)

:Works Cited
:Adams, D. (1986). ''The more than complete hitchhiker's guide.'' New York:Longmeadow Press.
::--[[User:TrueGrit|TrueGrit]] 00:59, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

You're joking, right? You can't cite Douglas Adams in this article. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 01:01, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:As opposed to the sources we have now? [[User:Myk|Myk]] 01:15, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well, If we're considering AiG as a legitimate source to cite nearly every reference from, then Adams should be a fine reference. --[[User:Hojimachong|'''Hojimachong''']][[User_Talk:Hojimachong|talk]] 01:22, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

It's these sorts of ad hominem attacks that encourage the view that anti-creationists are not interested in rational debate. Anti-creationists rarely explain why "creation scientist" is an oxymoron until pressed, and even then it comes down to the following:
# Creation scientist is an oxymoron because creationism is not science.
# Creationism is not science because we've redefined science in such a way as to exclude creationism.
The argument might get a bit more sophisticated than that, but that's what it boils down to in the end.

[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 05:33, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:Redefined 'science'? Um, mind giving any sources to demonstrate that? Cos at the moment, it seems as though you've just pulled that one from out of the air. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 06:18, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::"''Many today think that science is anti-God. Atheists encourage this view by claiming that their way of thinking is ‘scientific.’ In claiming this, they are merely redefining science to exclude God. In fact, science began to flourish only when the biblical view of creation took root in Europe as the Reformation spread its influence. The presuppositions that enabled a scientific approach to investigating the world—that the created universe is real, consistent, understandable, and possible to investigate, for example—came from the Bible. Even non-Christian historians of science such as Loren Eiseley have acknowledged this. Consequently, almost every branch of science was either founded, co-founded, or dramatically advanced, by scientists who believed in the Bible’s account of Creation and the Flood. And there are many scientists today who believe the Bible.''"[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3659] [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:02, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:It might be due to the absence of any actual science. Tally up the number of actual scientific experiments and peer reviewed articles on [[Creation science]], and you'll see what I mean. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 06:20, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::What about the "actual science" and the peer-reviewed articles in the ''CRS Quarterly'' and the ''Journal of Creation''? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:02, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::They are welcome to submit this "actual science" to a real journal, and then we can judge it by its merits. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:01, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::::How do you define a "real" journal? By whether or not it's creationist? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:12, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::Forgive my dismissive attitude earlier, but I mean one which has gathered scientific respect by rights of their rigorus peer-review. That rigor is notoriously lacking in the YEC journals, so they garner little respect. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:15, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::And yet you still have a dismissive attitude! On what grounds do you say that the rigour is lacking in the YEC journals? And for that matter, why can't they be judged on their merits no matter where they are published? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:18, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::Mr. Rayment, rather a lot of scientific article are written daily, most are garbage. We need a system to avoid becoming bogged down, and to weed out those papers which contain follies which are often only apparent to an expert. It is impossible to judge personally on a case by case basis and so the system of authoratative peer review is needed. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::And as I said, those journals are peer-reviewed. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::I acknowledge that they are, but their standards are very poor. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:09, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
::::::::::Do you care to back that slanderous claim up with substance? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::The basic physics errors which [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] is referenceing demonstrates the poor standards. Since this discussion now merges with that one, it would be best to respond only below Tsumetai's responce to avoid duplication. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:41, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::"Journal of Creation" is new to me, so I looked it up, only to find that "[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/38/56/ All our editors adhere to the Creation Ministries International (CMI) Statement of Faith and most papers will be designed to support this.]" And here's [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/43/61/ the statement of faith in question]. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:45, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Ah! "Journal of Creation" is just the old TJ renamed. Which, if memory serves, published a fair bit on Humphreys' execrable attempts at cosmology. Now ''there's'' a reliable source...though to be fair, they also published some sound refutations of the same. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:48, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Ah! So your answer is to mock it! Great argument! No argument! [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::I thought the implied argument was fairly obvious. TJ published utter nonsense about basic physics, ergo not a reliable source. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:06, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::Same for you. Do you care to back that slanderous claim up with substance? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Gladly! Just let me dig out the appropriate articles and re-read them. I'll start a new section for it, so that it doesn't get lost here. Do you think it would be better here or on my Talk page? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:28, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::It wouldn't have anything to do with dinosaurs, so on your talk page would seem the best. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:50, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::I've [[User_talk:Tsumetai/TJ|started a page]] for it here. I'm off out for dinner soon, so I've just linked to the relevant articles so that everyone can get caught up in the meantime. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:02, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::::::::OK, done. Bit of a rush job, as it's after midnight, but it's a start. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 19:16, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:'''How do we define "scientist" in a neutral way?''' It's not a degree, it's not a licensed profession... I think we have to fall back on self-description. If a creationist calls himself a scientist, he is... whether anyone likes it or not. But there might be a case for ''qualifying'' the description in the ''least obtrusive possible'' way. For example, if a person is described as a "creation scientist," the phrase should be footnoted with a reference to a biographical profile of the person in which they self-describe or are described as a "scientist."

:Now, if a high-stature organization like the AAAS or the NAS, which can be said to represent "science" in the U. S., has actually made any official statements to the effect that "creationism is not science" then a stronger qualification would be appropriate... like putting "creation scientist" in quotation marks and footnoting that thus-and-such organization says there is no such thing... but I doubt the AAAS or NAS has made any such statement. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:38, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:Guess what? The AAAS ''has'' said something relevant: [http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2002/1106id2.shtml AAAS Board Resolution on Intelligent Design Theory]:
::Whereas, to date, the ID movement has failed to offer credible scientific evidence to support their claim that ID undermines the current scientifically accepted theory of evolution;
::Whereas, the ID movement has not proposed a scientific means of testing its claims;
::Therefore Be It Resolved, that the lack of scientific warrant for so-called "intelligent design theory" makes it improper to include as a part of science education...
: [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:41, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Commonly, a scientist is someone with a Ph.D. in a scientific discipline, but I agree that the term does not have to be used that strictly. If a creationist calling himself a scientist should be qualified, why not the same for an evolutionist?
:::The AAAS rationale is self-serving nonsense. Who defines "credible"? They do. And I believe that ID ''has'' proposed scientific means of testing its claims; certainly creation science has. And how do you scientifically test evolution? Not some details of it, but evolution itself? Or naturalism, on which it is based?
:::So we are really down to "it's not science by decree". Wow. I didn't think that was the way that science was supposed to work.
:::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::::I agree that a PhD should not be a requirement; I've known several experienced University lecturers with solid research and publication records who simply never got around to it.

::::Every proposed test of ID I've ever seen turns out to be a test of evolution, but perhaps you've seen some I haven't. As to testing evolution in the abstract; computer models would seem to be the obvious approach. Been done already, of course.

::::Evolution is not based on naturalism any more than any other scientific theory. Hence theistic evolution. Science is, of course, based in methodological naturalism, by definition. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:13, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Theistic evolution owes virtually nothing to theism; it's naturalistic evolution with God tacked on. Now ''there's'' an oxymoron for you! Yes, it may be methodological naturalism, but the effect is the same—rule God out from consideration. Where's the scientific test for that? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::You're making my point for me. Evolution is just evolution, regardless of whether or not one believes in God. Just like every other scientific theory. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 11:28, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::How have I "made the point" that it is scientific; that it is testable (the basic idea, not specific details)? [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:50, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::Think we're talking at cross purposes. I meant that your comment seems to support my point that evolution is no more based on naturalism than any other scientific theory. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 12:02, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::If you mean that I'm saying that ''all'' science is based on naturalism, then yes, I guess so, but the real question then is how much do various scientific disciplines really owe to that foundational assumption? I would argue that the ones that are not purely empirical, i.e. the ones that study the past (evolution, geology, etc.), when you don't have the past to measure, etc., owe much to the foundational assumptions, whereas the more empirical ones (e.g. chemistry), owe relatively little. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:40, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::I don't think the distinction is particularly meaningful. There is always distance between observation and inference; always assumptions that need to be made to draw any conclusions. The same set of assumptions underlie all of science, and I don't think we can relax them more for some cases than others. Relax the assumption of naturalism and one has to deal with 'trickster God' scenarios, which bring inference to a grinding halt. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:55, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::Early scientists had no problem with a 'trickster God'; their faith, ''on which they based their science'', not only didn't "bring inference to a grinding halt", ''it was the impetus for their science''[http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1581].
:::::::::::The problem with naturalism is not that it looks for naturalistic explanations, but that it excludes supernatural explanations ''a priori''. This is akin to trying to determine the origin of an axe-shaped stone "tool" by ruling out human intervention even as a possibility, in the grounds that it is not a "natural" explanation. Surely if the evidence points to a creator, that explanation should not be rejected simply on the basis that it's not a "natural" explanation.
:::::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 07:55, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::::::::::::But that's a problem that applies equally to ''any'' scientific theory. No particle physicist considers supernatural explanation for tracks in cloud chambers, last I heard. I don't think your analogy works, either; human intervention ''is'' a natural explanation.

::::::::::::Perhaps it's worth a digression here to examine exactly what is meant by 'supernatural.' It isn't immediately obvious that the evidence could ''ever'' point to a supernatural explanation.

::::::::::::Incidentally, did you catch the update to my TJ page? It was rather late last night when I added it. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:04, 27 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::::::::::It doesn't apply equally to any theory. It applies to theories that try and explain the ''origin'' of things. We can observe what causes tracks in cloud chambers with repeated experiments, but we can't observe a dinosaur turning into a bird, and we can't rerun it to observe it. Besides, the Christian philosophy that engendered science taught that God made a world capable of being studied, and that God has stopped creating. So God was never invoked to explain current events, but was invoked to explain the origin of things.
:::::::::::::Yes, human intervention can be classified as "natural" in one sense, but in another sense it's not, and either way, it's still analogous to supernatural intervention.
:::::::::::::I did see the page, but I haven't digested it yet.
:::::::::::::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 10:08, 27 March 2007 (EDT)

::I just don't see how you can use the term "scientist" when creationism involves no science and cannot be tested. I would also think that, for all the venom that is slung at science by the supporters of Creationism, that they wouldn't want that label attached to their cause.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 10:58, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Creation science ''does'' involve science, and details of it ''can'' be tested, unsubstantiated assertions notwithstanding. And creationists do ''not'' criticise science—they support it. As for the venom and falsehoods slung at/about creationists... [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:03, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Philip, what part of it can be tested? Can be put through the Scientific Method? Seriously, I would like to know. Maybe I haven't heard about it. --[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 11:11, 26 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::Do a search for "11:56" on [http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG/Archive_1 this page] and you will find a post in which I listed a couple of examples of successful creationist predictions; i.e. they were testable. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 11:24, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Philip, I should think this was obvious. A "few" predictions does not a scientist make. To turn one of Conservative's arguments on its head, medieval doctors had a couple of correct predictions, and so did alchemists. That does not justify their entire practice, though. Congratulations on making some actual predictions - though I questioned those same ones on my talk page - but it does nothing to prove the credibility of the entire field.-'''[[user:AmesG|Ames]][[user talk:AmesG|G]]''' 12:19, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

:Here we go again! I am asked to answer a particular question ("what part of it can be tested"), and having done that, find my answer disputed because it doesn't prove something else!
:I responded to your previous questioning of those examples, pointing out that, like you have done here, your questioning was actually raising a ''different'' objection, rather than disputing the answers I gave.
:Sure, it doesn't prove an entire field. ''But that was not the issue''. The claim there was that creationism doesn't make (testable) predictions, and the claim here is essentially the same, that it cannot be tested. So '''I have shown both of those claims to be wrong''', yet is there any explicit acknowledgement of that? No, instead different objections are raised as though they dispute those answers.
:[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:40, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

Look, the easiest test for creation science is "is it falsifiable?" [[User:ColinR|ColinR]][[User_talk:ColinR|talk]] 12:29, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

::Sigh. Read the discussion above. It it's testable then its falsifiable. I often get the impression that you blokes simply keep regurgitating the same old canards then never listen to the answers. [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]]

:Well said! Sorry, just wanted to add my support AND try the new signature. Is it annoying?-'''AmesG'''[http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:AmesG yo] 12:47, 26 March 2007 (EDT)

==How about not using the bible as the only source of creationist reference?==

I mean, its bad enough to even have creationism in this "encyclopedia", but if its gonna happen, that means we have to get the views of every major religion

i'm sure this happens in many other articles as well

*I cannot suffer myself to read most of this page, with unattributed posts. It literally makes my head ache, and their is no purpose in reading comments if one doesn't know who is making them. --~ [[User:TK|TerryK]] [[User_talk:TK|MyTalk]] 21:49, 28 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:CE

2007-03-17T05:32:48Z

Prometheus: /* Christian Era */

Isn't the BCE/CE designed to be more inclusive of other cultures that do not believe in Christianity. For non-Christians, having the birth and death of Christ as starting points to a calendar must seem rather arbitrary. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, on checking, I find that "common era" can be
*a generic term meaning ''any'' standardized system of numbering years based on any epoch, e.g. the Jewish year is in "the common era of the Jews."
*a term used to distinguish the "ordinary" BC/AD epoch ''from others used by Christians.'' E.g. "puts his death in the seventh year of Trajan, i.e. in 104 of the common era."[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC04334900&id=qLfiIApQVDkC&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=%22common+era%22&as_brr=1]

And the phrase has been in use for well over a century.

Thus: "The common era of the Jews places the creation in B. C. 3760" (where B. C. here means "before the common era ''of the Jews.'') [http://books.google.com/books?vid=0HE_WUCP1d5BX8OJ&id=GMfyJ2PeD-cC&pg=RA12-PA207&lpg=RA12-PA207&as_brr=1 1874: The popular encyclopedia, volume V, p. 307]

"It was probably the original intention of Caefar to commence the new year with the fhorteft day, the winter folftice at Rome, in the year 46 B. C. (common era)." [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03079044&id=cS8EAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA2-PA4&lpg=RA2-PA4&&as_brr=1 1889: "Handy-book of Rules and Tables for Verifying Dates with the Christian Era"]

"Prior to the year A. D. 1865, the Jewish style, namely, the year of the world, was observed by Red Men in dating their documents. At the council held in G. S. 1526, this system was discontinued, and G. S. D. or Great Sun of the Discovery was adopted, the year 1492 being considered G. S. D. 1. To find the date of the old style, add to the common era 3760; e.g. 1877 + 3760 = 5637. To find the date by Red Men's style, subtract 1491 from the common era." ("Red Men" here is a reference to a fraternal organization.) [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03825672&id=kZLbGv92SjUC&pg=RA16-PA495&lpg=RA16-PA495&as_brr=1 1893: Official History of the Improved Order of Red Men].

So it's not a ''new'' phrase. In fact, it seems to me that "Christian era" means "the system used by Christians," whereas calling the AD/BC system the "common era" means "this system used by everyone" and thus emphasizes that Christian usage is '''the''' general usage of our society.

The story may be more complicated than that, but that's what I've found so far. Not sure when, how, by whom or for what reason the abbreviations BCE and CE were introduced. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:22, 20 December 2006 (EST)

:That's fascinating material. Thanks. Maybe I'm obsessed with this, but it does seem odd that a phrase recently pushed by schools, Wikipedia writers and tests has unknown origin. It's not even in the 1972 dictionary!!! In a current dictionary, it's defined as a substitute for BC/AD without any reference to Jewish people. My quote from the online rabbi shows Judaism is not the source.
:I'll study your sources further. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 20 December 2006 (EST)

888888888888888888888888888
What do you mean "It's not in the 1972 dictionary"? Is that the Complete Websters, the Oxford or some dog-eared little junior high book? Here's a current definition from a free on-line encyclopedia at http://www.reference.com/search?q=Common%20Era

"The Common era (also known as the Christian era or the Current era, abbreviated to CE) is the period of measured time beginning with the year 1 on the Gregorian calendar. The notations CE and BCE (Before the Common Era) are alternative notations for AD (anno Domini, Latin for "in the year of (Our) Lord") and BC (Before Christ), respectively. The CE/BCE system of notation is chronologically equivalent to dates in the AD/BC system, i.e. no change in numbering is used and neither includes a year zero. The abbreviations may also be written C.E. and B.C.E.

The term common era is preferred by some as an alternative to the more overtly religious AD and BC, since Common Era does not explicitly make use of religious titles for Jesus, such as Christ and Lord, which are used in the AD/BC notation. Some criticize Common Era notation as a euphemism that does not alter the pivotal year one still centering on the life of Jesus. Many others criticize the notation as an unnecessary attempt at political correctness."

This is the sort of clear and simple info, obtainable at the press of a button that the writer of this article has struggled for 25 years (in vain) to determine, receiving no help from a nameless "professor of European history" as quoted here:

"Now, 25 years and a number of common errors later, I assume that Common Era simply means "the date commonly accepted and used." But the truth is that I don't know, so I asked your question to a professor of European history. He didn't know either. (Last two sentences bolded to emphasise the enormous irony of it all)"

We are indeed fortunate that someone so self-confessedly ignorant on a subject should not have been deterred from knocking off a piece on that very matter for a global encyclopedia.

Some brief points:

1. I was taught that the BCE/CE dating convention was adopted primarily for works of an academic nature, typically in the fields of comparative religious studies and the like, where there is a focus on inter-faith dialogue, so as not to appear unnecessarily chauvinistic in asserting the tenets of Christian faith over those of others. In particular the Jews most expressly do NOT believe that Jesus “Was [their] Saviour” as is implied by the words behind the acronyms.

2. Call this a sop, or “caving in to the enemy” or whatever, but it was never intended to indicate that Christians were abandoning their faith, but merely as a gesture of tolerance within fields of study where respect for diversity (and OTHER PEOPLE'S faith) was essential.

3. To foment an acrid dispute over suchlike sounds a lot like the battle of the Big Endians and Little Endians in Swift’s “Gulliver’s Travellers”. Or, more recently and far less fictiously, the kind of throat-cutting vendettas pursued by Balkans over how many fingers you should use when you cross yourself.

4. Personally, if this upsets SOME conservatives so much - those who have divined in this practice a wholesale betrayal of the faith of their fathers - I would quite gladly recommend reversion to the earlier practice. Frankly, wise and well-intentioned man and women of all faiths would understand the nature of the predicament, more than many of you will begin to guess.

5. This controversy, and the even more asinine one on “American spellings”, seems to have provided the requisite steam power for blow-hards to arouse themselves to elevated levels of indignation and over what most other folk would perceive to be trifling matters of custom, protocol and etiquette. Here too, I would recommend adhering to American spelling, which is invariably simpler and more logical. But where would Conservapedia be if the Liberals relented on such epochal issues?
88888888888888888888888888888888

::There's probably an interesting story there. I grant you that the spread of BCE and CE probably ''do'' have ''something'' to do with acknowledging diversity, or political correctness, or liberalism, or something. It's always hard to find out how and why things go in and out of fashion, though. I have a long list of puzzles of that kind. Why did the phrase "to fill the bill" rather suddenly get replaced with "to fit the bill" circa 1990 or so? Why did the phrase "to go missing" or "went missing," which I'd always thought were British, suddenly become ubiquitous in the U. S. starting in, I don't know, the late 1990s? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:46, 21 December 2006 (EST)

== Original Research ==

Should original research be allowed in this article? Also, CE is not some conspiracy that is trying to destroy the foundations of Christianity. There are no citations in this article even attempting to show that this view is held outside of this web page. AD/BC where established by Christian scholars and prevailed because the "western" powers remained solidly Christian and happened to colonize most of the world. Now, the world might be 1/6th Christian, but the other 5/6ths are not. Science is a consensus of scientist from around the world and do not only include the U.S. So it would not be prudent to keep the current age as Anno Domini, since the "Lord" is no longer consisting of the majority of the world. The usage of AD is still valid, but CE is not trying to discredit or undermine in some way the original dating method. So I'm going to try to make this article more neutral in the future, but if a majority of you guys think i'm vandalizing or something like that, I'll move on.
As a side note, the Roman Catholic Church (the universal church of Christ) was responsible for the dark ages.

:So CE isn't trying to destroy the foundations of Christianity, but what it is trying to do is remove the word "Lord" from the vocabulary of the general public. I absolutely love Liberal Logic! --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:29, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: Well if I may, there is a real concern here for Jews and Muslims - saying that is the year of the lord is inaccurate and indeed arguably idol worship to use the term. So for those religions at least use of the term "AD" is very problematic (BC less so for obvious reasons). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:33, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: If the general public doesn't want the the word "LORD" in the vocabulary then it shouldn't be there. Unless Christianity suddenly implodes i don't think just because a shift in the secular world from AD/BC to CE/BCE is going to do anything. My main concern is if we are trying to counter bias with bias? Also, i'm going to get rid of the original research in this article unless someone adds some citations or something cause i'm not sure where that comes from. [[User:Pinion|Pinion]] 00:50, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::: If this was A Jewish or Muslim site, you might have a point. But as this is a Christian/Conservative Site that does not strive to be politically correct, your point is not valid. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::: I wasn't commetning on whether it should be used ''here'' I was commenting on how the general motivations of those who use it are not nearly as nefarious as some editors here seem to think. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)

== Common Sense, ppl ==

I've heard some good evidence and argument in this talk page, but the idea that BCE and CE are a liberal agenda thing or one of "wikipedia's bias" signs is an absolutely baseless and, furthermore, stupid notion. Let me introduce a theory:

We don't know the year of Jesus's birth. We DO know that it is almost absolutely NOT 0 BC/AD. [http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_date.htm#year].

So BCE/CE was created with this date (since people are just used to it, no need to change it. Pretty conservative of them, wouldn't you say?) as the reference. It's just a reference date with no meaning, so we can have an absolute origin point on a timeline. Say it with me. "Its just a reference date." That felt good, huh?

Don't you think it's a positive thing for the Christian religion to remove an obvious error from it? Hell, they do us a favor by just separating the two topics. You should be thankful, not suspicious. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 00:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Rabbi Dialogue ==

This dialogue is pointless and makes this article seem fabricated and arbitrary. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

What is the point of the dialogue between the rabbi and whoever? What purpose does it serve to illuminate people as to what CE means? Furthermore the "reference" doesn't have any other references, nor does it even say who the professor of European history was. It also doesn't have a copy of the transcript between the rabbi and the supposed professor. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 02:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:This section is unecessary and has to much first person. It doesn't sound encyclopaedic. [[User:Bobtexas|Bobtexas]] 02:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Anecdotal evidence is the most wonderfully personal evidence there is. Too bad personal isn't the same as important. Allow me to cite a conversation I heard once between an onion farmer and a prince. It seems there was this onion farmer, you see… --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Christian Era==
Where is the proof that CE stands for Common Era? I thought that it stood for Christian Era. As the article implies, the term CE was not in wide use 35 years ago. It has since caught on, but for what reason?

The term Christian Era appears to be much older, and it is listed in all the major dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster's, American Heritage, and Compact Oxford English Dictionary. It may be true that CE was promoted by people claiming that it was a non-Christian term, but maybe it only was accepted by people who took it to mean Christian Era. Does anyone know?

I think that the article should be revised to say that CE stands for Christian Era. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:40, 9 March 2007 (EST)

: Yeah, then we can refrain from using CE, 'cause ''clearly'' it shows bias. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:32, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

== References ==

There are no references to whatever Common Era means only to some irrelevant site with a quotation explaining about someone not knowing what CE means.

== Lack of dictionary definition ==

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but might the reason for the fact that a 1972 edition of a dictionary might not have the term be that it wasn't in common use in 1972? You might try looking in a more modern dictionary. It doesn't seem like the most credible piece of evidence. [[User:Alethiophile|Alethiophile]] 18:25, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I couldn't agree more. I just finished a History undergraduate degree and we used CE/BCE exclusively. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:CE

2007-03-17T05:31:10Z

Prometheus: /* Rabbi Dialogue */

Isn't the BCE/CE designed to be more inclusive of other cultures that do not believe in Christianity. For non-Christians, having the birth and death of Christ as starting points to a calendar must seem rather arbitrary. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Actually, on checking, I find that "common era" can be
*a generic term meaning ''any'' standardized system of numbering years based on any epoch, e.g. the Jewish year is in "the common era of the Jews."
*a term used to distinguish the "ordinary" BC/AD epoch ''from others used by Christians.'' E.g. "puts his death in the seventh year of Trajan, i.e. in 104 of the common era."[http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC04334900&id=qLfiIApQVDkC&pg=PA33&lpg=PA33&dq=%22common+era%22&as_brr=1]

And the phrase has been in use for well over a century.

Thus: "The common era of the Jews places the creation in B. C. 3760" (where B. C. here means "before the common era ''of the Jews.'') [http://books.google.com/books?vid=0HE_WUCP1d5BX8OJ&id=GMfyJ2PeD-cC&pg=RA12-PA207&lpg=RA12-PA207&as_brr=1 1874: The popular encyclopedia, volume V, p. 307]

"It was probably the original intention of Caefar to commence the new year with the fhorteft day, the winter folftice at Rome, in the year 46 B. C. (common era)." [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03079044&id=cS8EAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA2-PA4&lpg=RA2-PA4&&as_brr=1 1889: "Handy-book of Rules and Tables for Verifying Dates with the Christian Era"]

"Prior to the year A. D. 1865, the Jewish style, namely, the year of the world, was observed by Red Men in dating their documents. At the council held in G. S. 1526, this system was discontinued, and G. S. D. or Great Sun of the Discovery was adopted, the year 1492 being considered G. S. D. 1. To find the date of the old style, add to the common era 3760; e.g. 1877 + 3760 = 5637. To find the date by Red Men's style, subtract 1491 from the common era." ("Red Men" here is a reference to a fraternal organization.) [http://books.google.com/books?vid=OCLC03825672&id=kZLbGv92SjUC&pg=RA16-PA495&lpg=RA16-PA495&as_brr=1 1893: Official History of the Improved Order of Red Men].

So it's not a ''new'' phrase. In fact, it seems to me that "Christian era" means "the system used by Christians," whereas calling the AD/BC system the "common era" means "this system used by everyone" and thus emphasizes that Christian usage is '''the''' general usage of our society.

The story may be more complicated than that, but that's what I've found so far. Not sure when, how, by whom or for what reason the abbreviations BCE and CE were introduced. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 21:22, 20 December 2006 (EST)

:That's fascinating material. Thanks. Maybe I'm obsessed with this, but it does seem odd that a phrase recently pushed by schools, Wikipedia writers and tests has unknown origin. It's not even in the 1972 dictionary!!! In a current dictionary, it's defined as a substitute for BC/AD without any reference to Jewish people. My quote from the online rabbi shows Judaism is not the source.
:I'll study your sources further. --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:22, 20 December 2006 (EST)

888888888888888888888888888
What do you mean "It's not in the 1972 dictionary"? Is that the Complete Websters, the Oxford or some dog-eared little junior high book? Here's a current definition from a free on-line encyclopedia at http://www.reference.com/search?q=Common%20Era

"The Common era (also known as the Christian era or the Current era, abbreviated to CE) is the period of measured time beginning with the year 1 on the Gregorian calendar. The notations CE and BCE (Before the Common Era) are alternative notations for AD (anno Domini, Latin for "in the year of (Our) Lord") and BC (Before Christ), respectively. The CE/BCE system of notation is chronologically equivalent to dates in the AD/BC system, i.e. no change in numbering is used and neither includes a year zero. The abbreviations may also be written C.E. and B.C.E.

The term common era is preferred by some as an alternative to the more overtly religious AD and BC, since Common Era does not explicitly make use of religious titles for Jesus, such as Christ and Lord, which are used in the AD/BC notation. Some criticize Common Era notation as a euphemism that does not alter the pivotal year one still centering on the life of Jesus. Many others criticize the notation as an unnecessary attempt at political correctness."

This is the sort of clear and simple info, obtainable at the press of a button that the writer of this article has struggled for 25 years (in vain) to determine, receiving no help from a nameless "professor of European history" as quoted here:

"Now, 25 years and a number of common errors later, I assume that Common Era simply means "the date commonly accepted and used." But the truth is that I don't know, so I asked your question to a professor of European history. He didn't know either. (Last two sentences bolded to emphasise the enormous irony of it all)"

We are indeed fortunate that someone so self-confessedly ignorant on a subject should not have been deterred from knocking off a piece on that very matter for a global encyclopedia.

Some brief points:

1. I was taught that the BCE/CE dating convention was adopted primarily for works of an academic nature, typically in the fields of comparative religious studies and the like, where there is a focus on inter-faith dialogue, so as not to appear unnecessarily chauvinistic in asserting the tenets of Christian faith over those of others. In particular the Jews most expressly do NOT believe that Jesus “Was [their] Saviour” as is implied by the words behind the acronyms.

2. Call this a sop, or “caving in to the enemy” or whatever, but it was never intended to indicate that Christians were abandoning their faith, but merely as a gesture of tolerance within fields of study where respect for diversity (and OTHER PEOPLE'S faith) was essential.

3. To foment an acrid dispute over suchlike sounds a lot like the battle of the Big Endians and Little Endians in Swift’s “Gulliver’s Travellers”. Or, more recently and far less fictiously, the kind of throat-cutting vendettas pursued by Balkans over how many fingers you should use when you cross yourself.

4. Personally, if this upsets SOME conservatives so much - those who have divined in this practice a wholesale betrayal of the faith of their fathers - I would quite gladly recommend reversion to the earlier practice. Frankly, wise and well-intentioned man and women of all faiths would understand the nature of the predicament, more than many of you will begin to guess.

5. This controversy, and the even more asinine one on “American spellings”, seems to have provided the requisite steam power for blow-hards to arouse themselves to elevated levels of indignation and over what most other folk would perceive to be trifling matters of custom, protocol and etiquette. Here too, I would recommend adhering to American spelling, which is invariably simpler and more logical. But where would Conservapedia be if the Liberals relented on such epochal issues?
88888888888888888888888888888888

::There's probably an interesting story there. I grant you that the spread of BCE and CE probably ''do'' have ''something'' to do with acknowledging diversity, or political correctness, or liberalism, or something. It's always hard to find out how and why things go in and out of fashion, though. I have a long list of puzzles of that kind. Why did the phrase "to fill the bill" rather suddenly get replaced with "to fit the bill" circa 1990 or so? Why did the phrase "to go missing" or "went missing," which I'd always thought were British, suddenly become ubiquitous in the U. S. starting in, I don't know, the late 1990s? [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:46, 21 December 2006 (EST)

== Original Research ==

Should original research be allowed in this article? Also, CE is not some conspiracy that is trying to destroy the foundations of Christianity. There are no citations in this article even attempting to show that this view is held outside of this web page. AD/BC where established by Christian scholars and prevailed because the "western" powers remained solidly Christian and happened to colonize most of the world. Now, the world might be 1/6th Christian, but the other 5/6ths are not. Science is a consensus of scientist from around the world and do not only include the U.S. So it would not be prudent to keep the current age as Anno Domini, since the "Lord" is no longer consisting of the majority of the world. The usage of AD is still valid, but CE is not trying to discredit or undermine in some way the original dating method. So I'm going to try to make this article more neutral in the future, but if a majority of you guys think i'm vandalizing or something like that, I'll move on.
As a side note, the Roman Catholic Church (the universal church of Christ) was responsible for the dark ages.

:So CE isn't trying to destroy the foundations of Christianity, but what it is trying to do is remove the word "Lord" from the vocabulary of the general public. I absolutely love Liberal Logic! --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:29, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: Well if I may, there is a real concern here for Jews and Muslims - saying that is the year of the lord is inaccurate and indeed arguably idol worship to use the term. So for those religions at least use of the term "AD" is very problematic (BC less so for obvious reasons). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:33, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:: If the general public doesn't want the the word "LORD" in the vocabulary then it shouldn't be there. Unless Christianity suddenly implodes i don't think just because a shift in the secular world from AD/BC to CE/BCE is going to do anything. My main concern is if we are trying to counter bias with bias? Also, i'm going to get rid of the original research in this article unless someone adds some citations or something cause i'm not sure where that comes from. [[User:Pinion|Pinion]] 00:50, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::: If this was A Jewish or Muslim site, you might have a point. But as this is a Christian/Conservative Site that does not strive to be politically correct, your point is not valid. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 23:47, 6 March 2007 (EST)
:::: I wasn't commetning on whether it should be used ''here'' I was commenting on how the general motivations of those who use it are not nearly as nefarious as some editors here seem to think. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:55, 6 March 2007 (EST)

== Common Sense, ppl ==

I've heard some good evidence and argument in this talk page, but the idea that BCE and CE are a liberal agenda thing or one of "wikipedia's bias" signs is an absolutely baseless and, furthermore, stupid notion. Let me introduce a theory:

We don't know the year of Jesus's birth. We DO know that it is almost absolutely NOT 0 BC/AD. [http://www.religioustolerance.org/xmas_date.htm#year].

So BCE/CE was created with this date (since people are just used to it, no need to change it. Pretty conservative of them, wouldn't you say?) as the reference. It's just a reference date with no meaning, so we can have an absolute origin point on a timeline. Say it with me. "Its just a reference date." That felt good, huh?

Don't you think it's a positive thing for the Christian religion to remove an obvious error from it? Hell, they do us a favor by just separating the two topics. You should be thankful, not suspicious. [[User:Muchodelcrazy|Muchodelcrazy]] 00:18, 8 March 2007 (EST)

== Rabbi Dialogue ==

This dialogue is pointless and makes this article seem fabricated and arbitrary. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

What is the point of the dialogue between the rabbi and whoever? What purpose does it serve to illuminate people as to what CE means? Furthermore the "reference" doesn't have any other references, nor does it even say who the professor of European history was. It also doesn't have a copy of the transcript between the rabbi and the supposed professor. --[[User:Trekie9001|trekie9001]] 02:36, 9 March 2007 (EST)
:This section is unecessary and has to much first person. It doesn't sound encyclopaedic. [[User:Bobtexas|Bobtexas]] 02:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Anecdotal evidence is the most wonderfully personal evidence there is. Too bad personal isn't the same as important. Allow me to cite a conversation I heard once between an onion farmer and a prince. It seems there was this onion farmer, you see… --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:31, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

==Christian Era==
Where is the proof that CE stands for Common Era? I thought that it stood for Christian Era. As the article implies, the term CE was not in wide use 35 years ago. It has since caught on, but for what reason?

The term Christian Era appears to be much older, and it is listed in all the major dictionaries, including Merriam-Webster's, American Heritage, and Compact Oxford English Dictionary. It may be true that CE was promoted by people claiming that it was a non-Christian term, but maybe it only was accepted by people who took it to mean Christian Era. Does anyone know?

I think that the article should be revised to say that CE stands for Christian Era. [[User:RSchlafly|RSchlafly]] 12:40, 9 March 2007 (EST)

== References ==

There are no references to whatever Common Era means only to some irrelevant site with a quotation explaining about someone not knowing what CE means.

== Lack of dictionary definition ==

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but might the reason for the fact that a 1972 edition of a dictionary might not have the term be that it wasn't in common use in 1972? You might try looking in a more modern dictionary. It doesn't seem like the most credible piece of evidence. [[User:Alethiophile|Alethiophile]] 18:25, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

I couldn't agree more. I just finished a History undergraduate degree and we used CE/BCE exclusively. --[[User:Truth is bipartisan|Truth is bipartisan]] 17:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Socialism

2007-03-17T05:19:14Z

Prometheus:

"This correlates with a rise in atheism," I think it should be noted that correlation does not show causation. What is the correlation coefficient? Is there a positive or a negative correlation?
-Gasmonkey

"Socialism has caused more deaths…" What, really? A reference would go great with that opinion. --[[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]] 01:19, 17 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Dinosaur

2007-03-17T05:10:14Z

Prometheus:

==Modern Day Dinosaurs==

I'd like to point out that some scientists consider [[Alligators]], [[Crocodiles]] and [[Komodo Dragons]] to be modern dinosaurs. If the bulk of dinosaurs were killed by flooding/natural disaster, it is conceivable that since alligators, etc. did roam the earth at the same time as said "dinosaurs" that they are basically dinosaurs themselves and therefore survived the disaster (not surprising since alligators and crocodiles can both survive easily in water, and the komodo dragon is poisonous to touch and therefore not likely to be hunted to extinction).

Ignoring European myths about dragons, loch ness/etc, there is ample evidence in Native American mythology that some dinosaurs survived the disaster and were later hunted to extinction. Even today people still claim to have seen the legendary Gaasyendietha and Argont.

*[http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/2005/canadian_seaserpents.html Sea Serpents of Canada]

:What scientists consider alligators, corocodiles and Komodo dragons to be dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creation scientists do. Which means that it's appropriate for this article. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 14:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Ah, that explains it. Cos, y'know, crocodillians kind of aren't related to dinosaurs (they're aquatic, dinosaurs were not), nor are Komodo dragons (which are lizards). Calling a Komodo dragon or a crocodillian a type of dinosaur is kind of like calling a bat a type of bird...

==No mention of popular documentary==

Recently I have had the good fortune to observe a series of mini-documentaries and docu-dramas related to the topic of dinosaurs. It appears that Men and dinosaurs did coexist, during Biblical times and even well before then. Many people of the time used tame dinosaurs as transportation, as beasts of burden, and even as pets, as well. Shouldn't there be some mention of the well know documentary series ''The Flintstones'' on this page?

==How absurd!==

What are "Old-Earth Evolutionists"? Is there another kind of "evolutionist"? Is evolutionist a word?

Why is the word "evolved" in inverted commas in the second sentence?

Why are the creationists referred to as scientists whereas the "Old-Earth Evolutionists" are not?

Why does it say that the "Creation scientists" have beliefs based on evidence when it says no such thing about the "Old-Earth Evolutionists"? (who you might think have a better claim to beliefs based on evidence).

Why doesn't the article tell me anything about dinosaurs?

I will be back to do some editing. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)

:Note Horace's use above of the Britishism "inverted commas" instead of the proper American "quotation marks". This shibboleth makes his contributions look rather suspiciously like the work of a Wikipedia agitator. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:::Please, don't start making anti-British ad hominem attacks… And "proper American"? Are you aware that the English language originated in Britain? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 10:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: As I'm sure you are aware American English is a rationalised improvement on British English and is not influenced by France (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_english).

:::: Is this rationalisation of the English language the reason your representative president cannot pronounce 'nuclear'? Instead he insists on butchering his own language preferring to pronounce it 'newqoolar'. He has learnt this because of the simplification of spelling which you call a rationalisation has meant that American English has forgotten how to pronounce even the most basic vowels. The rest of the world laughs at you, not with you.

:::::Yep, resumé isn't at all French. Anyway, why do people care? I'm sure that if I was a Brit reading Conservapedia, I would think that a "strong anti-British bias" (to make a modified paraphrase of one of Conservapedia's ideas about Wikipedia) was evident. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 19:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::You, sir, are a bounder. Oops. Did it again. I would have thought that the substance of my contributions can speak for themselves. I am not any sort of agitator other than perhaps an agitator for accurate articles. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)

There, that's a start. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:49, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Courtesy ==

How about some discussion before editing Rich? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:45, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Anti-Christian Bias ==

Why was all information based on the Creation worldview removed from this article? I thought this was precisely the sort of anti-Christian bias that Conservapedia was created to combat. Are people from Wikipedia trying to undermine this site? Well, nevermind; those interested to hear non-PC discussions of [http://creationwiki.org/Dinosaur dinosaurs] and Origins in general are welcome to come to [http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] instead. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 01:41, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:I removed this information because it does not speak for all Christians, and none of the sources even claimed to speak for most Christians.

::Leaving aside the question of rampant apostasy in the modern Church re: Biblical Creation, I had originally clearly labeled those views as belonging to "Creation Scientists" -- for whom those sources do speak -- not "all Christians" or "most Christians". This was altered to "Creationists" in general (which is vague enough to include any number of errant views, including Hindu creation myths and Raelian extraterrestrial genetic-engineering delusions), and then the entire section was cut, leaving only the views of Darwinists. I do not see how these changes are consonant with the mission statement of Conservapedia (i.e. the elimination of Liberal bias which suppresses the Biblical worldview). Although it pains me to do so, I feel I must question whether those making these suspicious changes are working for the forces of Wikipedia to sneakily impose that project's PC, anti-Christian bias on this project. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 16:56, 23 February 2007 (EST)

::Furthermore, let me note that if this were merely a question of the views being presented in that paragraph only belonging to "some Christians", then why not ''add'' additional paragraphs explaining the views of the other so-called Christians instead of simply silencing the views of the (clearly labeled) subset of Christianity? Nothing is gained by this change except to give the false impression that all Christians agree with Darwinian views on dinosaurs. Was this the intent? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:08, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:::I am a Christian, and I accept evolution as a fact. I think that it is clearly demonstratable in the real-world. I know dozens of other Christians who also accept evolution. I think it is out of place for a website that is supposed to reflect all Christian views to only promote the views of a minority of Christians called "Creation Scientists". They should be relegated to the fringes, as they do not represent most Christians views.

:::Rich, there is a difference between writing from the creationist viewpoint and honesty. An article that claims, for instance, that Helder has documented "fresh" dinosaur remains may or may not be creationist in nature, but one thing it certainly is is dishonest, because no such documentation has stood up to any sort of scrutiny. Anyone can make claims, but if you don't care about the actual validity of those claims, only what views they purport to support, then you are not engaging in true scholarly citation practices.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 13:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Catholic links deleted ==

Very odd, I'd put in some relatively straightforward links to some Catholic views, and it seems to have been deleted by somebody named "Aschlafly" who deleted them with the comment "deleted incorrect Catholic doctrine about evolution" and then added a bunch of stuff from what looks like Southern Baptist websites.
I don't know who this guy Aschlafly is, but I do not accept him as an authority on Catholicism. Is this conservapedia actually a "Southernbaptistapedia"? I would like to point out that not all conservatives are southern Baptists.
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)

: Aschlafly is the creator of this website. [[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]]

==Edit by Sureal==

I made an edit, rewording certain parts to make the article more neutral (and more in line with reality), and adding in a bit. I've also organised it with headings, 'cos it was a real pain to read before. However, it's still seriously lacking any actual information on dinosaurs. Anyone feel up to adding some? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==Birds==

From a cladistic point of view, birds are not merely descended from dinosaurs, they ''are'' dinosaurs.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: I'm not sure that's correct. After all, humans evolved from aquatic creatures, and yet we don't cite humans as marine life. Having said that, I'm certainly not an expert on this, so I may be horribly wrong. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Picture==
I think the picture that JC put up (innocently) is a parody picture that should be taken down. He thinks it's legit. Anyone agree?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:It's ''cute''. But I'd get rid of it. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 15:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I'd say keep it. Given there's a section arguing for dinosaurs existing in biblical times, I think it's good that there's a picture that shows how absurd this would actually be! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::The dino pic bit the dust @23:17 --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Bias in Wikepedia...Really? ==

Conservatives trying to teach about dinosaurs! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikipedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!

== "American English is a rationalised improvement on British English" ==

In English, "practise" is a verb and "practice" is a noun.

In the American dialect "practice" is used for both.

In English, "license" is a verb and "licence" is a noun.

Americans use "license" for both.

So much for "a rationalised improvement on British English".

CAS

I couldn't agree more with your comments. I use this site not as a reference source but rather as a place I go when I need a laugh.

== "I'll take 'Word Origins' for 100, Alex" ==
If one is going to "discuss" dinosaurs, the least one could do is get the origin of the word "dinosaur" right. "Dinos sauros" is GREEK, not Latin.

Edit made.

AQ

== The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because.... ==

The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because I linked to it from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article which was very vandal prone before it was protected. Please be aware of vandalism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:Can we expect this article to be linked to by the liberal blogs as a humour site shortly as well? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well, this page has become a joke. How can you eliminate the K-T paragraph??--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Protected "Dinosaur": protect to clean up. per Mr schlafly.==

So how much factual information is going to be left here once this "clean up" has been carried out? Are normal editors incapable of writing a neutral article on dinosaurs?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:It will be like Theory of Evolution - lip service paid to non-Creationist viewpoints, and snarkily at that. Massive amounts of pro-Creationist viewpoints, all sourced to the same two or three websites.

:This site is rapidly falling into the same bias trap they claim Wikipedia suffers from.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:22, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Falling? I would say it has long been down the pan! Normal editors are blocked for trying to remove bias, pages are locked for sysop's to put forward their own points of view unchallenged. There are only a handful of people who seem to be opposed to a website of pure Pro-Christian waffle. Oh well, at least I can put forward my PoV on Wikipedia. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I don't even regard it as pro-"Christian", it's theological and scientific nonsense through and through. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yep Conservative has got his claws into this one. Should be exciting soon. Too bad to see my real science got all erased.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, that K-T paragraph must have hit too close to home...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yeah, Dave, see, the K-T Paragraph not only had the backing of basic geology, but also photographic evidence... that's pretty dangerous stuff.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well, to be fair, they do have a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I know, we could create Liberalipedia: The answer to the answer to Wikipedia! I wonder if they'd create a page for us on here... [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Please do. If you do create "liberalpedia" we will probably make a page for you. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 12:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Will you then lock it and wipe out sourced material?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the 'clean-up'. After AmesG made his edits, the article was actually starting to look serious. But oh my god, I can't believe how Conservative has butchered it. He's deleted loads of well sourced, factual information, and I even noticed a complete and utter lie in there (please - point me to this peer-reviewed Creationist literature). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Not to mention he's currently citeing Godzilla as evidence of young earth creationism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Raymond Burr==
I'm very surprise the sentence about the "documentary" with "Raymond Burr" has survived this long, as if no-one remembers or cannot look up on [imbd.com], that the film in question is the original [[Godzilla]] ''. Godzilla, King of the Monsters!'' 1956. I also noticed that in referencing the film the fact that Raymond Burr was gay didn't get mentioned.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 12:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:-smacks head- [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm with Nematocyte with this one. Dare I ask: How has his being gay got anything to do with anything?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Because being gay is teh evil!!11!!1!!1!!!!!! [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Oi Vey==
Someone, PLEASE introduce some factual information into this article. 95% of the article is about Creationism, and the possibility of dinosaurs living with humans. They could not have lived with humans, and the creationist section is biased. Where are the theories about the dinosaurs dying from a meteor and an ice age? Or them dying from lack of food? Oooohhhh riiiight, these are evolutionist ideas. I forgot we can't include those. Seriously, someone fix it. It's ridiculous. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 03:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

(EDIT: Oh...and dinosaurs dying because they weren't on the Ark? Come on. That Noah guy was either mean to not let them on, or lazy to not build a bigger Ark. Obsurd.)

(EDIT2: One more thing, when editing, use SOME other source than biased creationist websites, the bible, and other christian websites attempting to give an explanation why dinosaurs don't fit in logically with christianity.)

:It did have that - there was quite a bit on the scientific view of dinosuars, fully sourced and everything. But Conservative - being the honest fellow he is - deleted it all as 'vandalism' (see above), added in some rubbish about Creationists having peer-reviwed literature, and locked the page to prevent anyone from 'vandalising' the page again. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Needed Corrections==
Line 1 states that dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles. Note that not all dinosaurs were large.

Talk:Dinosaur

2007-03-17T04:59:53Z

Prometheus: /* Catholic links deleted */

==Modern Day Dinosaurs==

I'd like to point out that some scientists consider [[Alligators]], [[Crocodiles]] and [[Komodo Dragons]] to be modern dinosaurs. If the bulk of dinosaurs were killed by flooding/natural disaster, it is conceivable that since alligators, etc. did roam the earth at the same time as said "dinosaurs" that they are basically dinosaurs themselves and therefore survived the disaster (not surprising since alligators and crocodiles can both survive easily in water, and the komodo dragon is poisonous to touch and therefore not likely to be hunted to extinction).

Ignoring European myths about dragons, loch ness/etc, there is ample evidence in Native American mythology that some dinosaurs survived the disaster and were later hunted to extinction. Even today people still claim to have seen the legendary Gaasyendietha and Argont.

*[http://www.lilith-ezine.com/articles/2005/canadian_seaserpents.html Sea Serpents of Canada]

:What scientists consider alligators, corocodiles and Komodo dragons to be dinosaurs? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Creation scientists do. Which means that it's appropriate for this article. --[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 14:04, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Ah, that explains it. Cos, y'know, crocodillians kind of aren't related to dinosaurs (they're aquatic, dinosaurs were not), nor are Komodo dragons (which are lizards). Calling a Komodo dragon or a crocodillian a type of dinosaur is kind of like calling a bat a type of bird...

==How absurd!==

What are "Old-Earth Evolutionists"? Is there another kind of "evolutionist"? Is evolutionist a word?

Why is the word "evolved" in inverted commas in the second sentence?

Why are the creationists referred to as scientists whereas the "Old-Earth Evolutionists" are not?

Why does it say that the "Creation scientists" have beliefs based on evidence when it says no such thing about the "Old-Earth Evolutionists"? (who you might think have a better claim to beliefs based on evidence).

Why doesn't the article tell me anything about dinosaurs?

I will be back to do some editing. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:27, 22 February 2007 (EST)

:Note Horace's use above of the Britishism "inverted commas" instead of the proper American "quotation marks". This shibboleth makes his contributions look rather suspiciously like the work of a Wikipedia agitator. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:21, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:::Please, don't start making anti-British ad hominem attacks… And "proper American"? Are you aware that the English language originated in Britain? [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 10:55, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::: As I'm sure you are aware American English is a rationalised improvement on British English and is not influenced by France (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_english).

:::: Is this rationalisation of the English language the reason your representative president cannot pronounce 'nuclear'? Instead he insists on butchering his own language preferring to pronounce it 'newqoolar'. He has learnt this because of the simplification of spelling which you call a rationalisation has meant that American English has forgotten how to pronounce even the most basic vowels. The rest of the world laughs at you, not with you.

:::::Yep, resumé isn't at all French. Anyway, why do people care? I'm sure that if I was a Brit reading Conservapedia, I would think that a "strong anti-British bias" (to make a modified paraphrase of one of Conservapedia's ideas about Wikipedia) was evident. [[User:Linus M.|Geekman314]]([[User talk:Linus M.|contact me]]) 19:10, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::You, sir, are a bounder. Oops. Did it again. I would have thought that the substance of my contributions can speak for themselves. I am not any sort of agitator other than perhaps an agitator for accurate articles. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)

There, that's a start. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 20:49, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Courtesy ==

How about some discussion before editing Rich? --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 21:45, 22 February 2007 (EST)

== Anti-Christian Bias ==

Why was all information based on the Creation worldview removed from this article? I thought this was precisely the sort of anti-Christian bias that Conservapedia was created to combat. Are people from Wikipedia trying to undermine this site? Well, nevermind; those interested to hear non-PC discussions of [http://creationwiki.org/Dinosaur dinosaurs] and Origins in general are welcome to come to [http://creationwiki.org/Main_Page CreationWiki] instead. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 01:41, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:I removed this information because it does not speak for all Christians, and none of the sources even claimed to speak for most Christians.

::Leaving aside the question of rampant apostasy in the modern Church re: Biblical Creation, I had originally clearly labeled those views as belonging to "Creation Scientists" -- for whom those sources do speak -- not "all Christians" or "most Christians". This was altered to "Creationists" in general (which is vague enough to include any number of errant views, including Hindu creation myths and Raelian extraterrestrial genetic-engineering delusions), and then the entire section was cut, leaving only the views of Darwinists. I do not see how these changes are consonant with the mission statement of Conservapedia (i.e. the elimination of Liberal bias which suppresses the Biblical worldview). Although it pains me to do so, I feel I must question whether those making these suspicious changes are working for the forces of Wikipedia to sneakily impose that project's PC, anti-Christian bias on this project. [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 16:56, 23 February 2007 (EST)

::Furthermore, let me note that if this were merely a question of the views being presented in that paragraph only belonging to "some Christians", then why not ''add'' additional paragraphs explaining the views of the other so-called Christians instead of simply silencing the views of the (clearly labeled) subset of Christianity? Nothing is gained by this change except to give the false impression that all Christians agree with Darwinian views on dinosaurs. Was this the intent? [[User:Rich P|Dr. Richard Paley]] 17:08, 23 February 2007 (EST)

:::I am a Christian, and I accept evolution as a fact. I think that it is clearly demonstratable in the real-world. I know dozens of other Christians who also accept evolution. I think it is out of place for a website that is supposed to reflect all Christian views to only promote the views of a minority of Christians called "Creation Scientists". They should be relegated to the fringes, as they do not represent most Christians views.

:::Rich, there is a difference between writing from the creationist viewpoint and honesty. An article that claims, for instance, that Helder has documented "fresh" dinosaur remains may or may not be creationist in nature, but one thing it certainly is is dishonest, because no such documentation has stood up to any sort of scrutiny. Anyone can make claims, but if you don't care about the actual validity of those claims, only what views they purport to support, then you are not engaging in true scholarly citation practices.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 13:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Catholic links deleted ==

Very odd, I'd put in some relatively straightforward links to some Catholic views, and it seems to have been deleted by somebody named "Aschlafly" who deleted them with the comment "deleted incorrect Catholic doctrine about evolution" and then added a bunch of stuff from what looks like Southern Baptist websites.
I don't know who this guy Aschlafly is, but I do not accept him as an authority on Catholicism. Is this conservapedia actually a "Southernbaptistapedia"? I would like to point out that not all conservatives are southern Baptists.
[[User:Franklin.jefferson|Franklin.jefferson]] 17:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)

: Aschlafly is the creator of this website. [[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]]

==Edit by Sureal==

I made an edit, rewording certain parts to make the article more neutral (and more in line with reality), and adding in a bit. I've also organised it with headings, 'cos it was a real pain to read before. However, it's still seriously lacking any actual information on dinosaurs. Anyone feel up to adding some? [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==Birds==

From a cladistic point of view, birds are not merely descended from dinosaurs, they ''are'' dinosaurs.[[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 10:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: I'm not sure that's correct. After all, humans evolved from aquatic creatures, and yet we don't cite humans as marine life. Having said that, I'm certainly not an expert on this, so I may be horribly wrong. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 15:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Picture==
I think the picture that JC put up (innocently) is a parody picture that should be taken down. He thinks it's legit. Anyone agree?--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 15:24, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:It's ''cute''. But I'd get rid of it. [[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 15:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:I'd say keep it. Given there's a section arguing for dinosaurs existing in biblical times, I think it's good that there's a picture that shows how absurd this would actually be! [[User:JamesK|JamesK]] 15:39, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::The dino pic bit the dust @23:17 --[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 23:47, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Liberal Bias in Wikepedia...Really? ==

Conservatives trying to teach about dinosaurs! This is like a construction company trying to build a modern building with a primitive hammer and wooden rivets, consulting from architectural plans interpreted through Aramaic, Greek, Latin and then English of whose origins you do not know and whose different pages contradict themselves. Personally I would much rather trust information that was obtained using only the soundest of scientific methods that was many times over peer reviewed and tested many times over accounting for as many variables as possible. Don't trust this method? You already do when you fly in a plane or drive your car (thermodynamics, aerodynamics, chemistry, metallurgy, physics, etc.) For peer reviewed information go back to school or consult wikipedia. For amusement, browse your heart away here!

== "American English is a rationalised improvement on British English" ==

In English, "practise" is a verb and "practice" is a noun.

In the American dialect "practice" is used for both.

In English, "license" is a verb and "licence" is a noun.

Americans use "license" for both.

So much for "a rationalised improvement on British English".

CAS

I couldn't agree more with your comments. I use this site not as a reference source but rather as a place I go when I need a laugh.

== "I'll take 'Word Origins' for 100, Alex" ==
If one is going to "discuss" dinosaurs, the least one could do is get the origin of the word "dinosaur" right. "Dinos sauros" is GREEK, not Latin.

Edit made.

AQ

== The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because.... ==

The vandalism is coming to this article I predict because I linked to it from the [[Theory of Evolution]] article which was very vandal prone before it was protected. Please be aware of vandalism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:52, 15 March 2007 (EDT)conservative
:Can we expect this article to be linked to by the liberal blogs as a humour site shortly as well? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:17, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well, this page has become a joke. How can you eliminate the K-T paragraph??--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:18, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Protected "Dinosaur": protect to clean up. per Mr schlafly.==

So how much factual information is going to be left here once this "clean up" has been carried out? Are normal editors incapable of writing a neutral article on dinosaurs?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:20, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:It will be like Theory of Evolution - lip service paid to non-Creationist viewpoints, and snarkily at that. Massive amounts of pro-Creationist viewpoints, all sourced to the same two or three websites.

:This site is rapidly falling into the same bias trap they claim Wikipedia suffers from.--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:22, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Falling? I would say it has long been down the pan! Normal editors are blocked for trying to remove bias, pages are locked for sysop's to put forward their own points of view unchallenged. There are only a handful of people who seem to be opposed to a website of pure Pro-Christian waffle. Oh well, at least I can put forward my PoV on Wikipedia. [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:27, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::::I don't even regard it as pro-"Christian", it's theological and scientific nonsense through and through. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:29, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Yep Conservative has got his claws into this one. Should be exciting soon. Too bad to see my real science got all erased.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:28, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Yes, that K-T paragraph must have hit too close to home...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:30, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Yeah, Dave, see, the K-T Paragraph not only had the backing of basic geology, but also photographic evidence... that's pretty dangerous stuff.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 12:32, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Well, to be fair, they do have a picture of Jesus riding a dinosaur...--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 12:33, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

I know, we could create Liberalipedia: The answer to the answer to Wikipedia! I wonder if they'd create a page for us on here... [[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:31, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

Please do. If you do create "liberalpedia" we will probably make a page for you. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 12:59, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:Will you then lock it and wipe out sourced material?--[[User:Dave3172|Dave3172]] 13:40, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

:I couldn't believe my eyes when I saw the 'clean-up'. After AmesG made his edits, the article was actually starting to look serious. But oh my god, I can't believe how Conservative has butchered it. He's deleted loads of well sourced, factual information, and I even noticed a complete and utter lie in there (please - point me to this peer-reviewed Creationist literature). [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

::Not to mention he's currently citeing Godzilla as evidence of young earth creationism. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 13:44, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Raymond Burr==
I'm very surprise the sentence about the "documentary" with "Raymond Burr" has survived this long, as if no-one remembers or cannot look up on [imbd.com], that the film in question is the original [[Godzilla]] ''. Godzilla, King of the Monsters!'' 1956. I also noticed that in referencing the film the fact that Raymond Burr was gay didn't get mentioned.--[[User:Cracker|Cracker]][[User_Talk:Cracker|talk]] 12:43, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:-smacks head- [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 12:45, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'm with Nematocyte with this one. Dare I ask: How has his being gay got anything to do with anything?[[User:MatteeNeutra|MatteeNeutra]] 12:48, 15 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Because being gay is teh evil!!11!!1!!1!!!!!! [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:25, 15 March 2007 (EDT)

==Oi Vey==
Someone, PLEASE introduce some factual information into this article. 95% of the article is about Creationism, and the possibility of dinosaurs living with humans. They could not have lived with humans, and the creationist section is biased. Where are the theories about the dinosaurs dying from a meteor and an ice age? Or them dying from lack of food? Oooohhhh riiiight, these are evolutionist ideas. I forgot we can't include those. Seriously, someone fix it. It's ridiculous. --[[User:ALFa|ALFa]] 03:54, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

(EDIT: Oh...and dinosaurs dying because they weren't on the Ark? Come on. That Noah guy was either mean to not let them on, or lazy to not build a bigger Ark. Obsurd.)

(EDIT2: One more thing, when editing, use SOME other source than biased creationist websites, the bible, and other christian websites attempting to give an explanation why dinosaurs don't fit in logically with christianity.)

:It did have that - there was quite a bit on the scientific view of dinosuars, fully sourced and everything. But Conservative - being the honest fellow he is - deleted it all as 'vandalism' (see above), added in some rubbish about Creationists having peer-reviwed literature, and locked the page to prevent anyone from 'vandalising' the page again. [[User:Sureal|Sureal]] 13:01, 16 March 2007 (EDT)

==Needed Corrections==
Line 1 states that dinosaurs were a group of large reptiles. Note that not all dinosaurs were large.

Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 1

2007-03-17T04:51:29Z

Prometheus: /* Article violates the site's own "commandments" */

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution|current talk page]].

== Seriously flawed. ==

I'm not going to touch this article for now because I don't want to start issues but to put it mildly- this article is junk as it stands. Darwin's original ideas are not what the modern theory. The modern theory of evolution does not make a large deal about distinguishing between micro and macro evolution. and that's just for starters.

This article also gives definitions of micro and macroevolution which aren't fully consistent with the (bad) defintions given on the pages for those articles and conflates gaining information with speciation. These have little to do with each other by any reasonable defintion of information. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:43, 15 February 2007 (EST)

:Pay no attention to JoshuaZ. JoshuaZ is a fanatical bully boy evolutionist admin at Wikipedia and one of the many reasons why conservapedia.com was created. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:44, 22 February 2007 (EST)conservative

:: Wow, I haven't seen such charming ad hominem attacks in some time. You are aware that ad hominem attacks aren't logically valid, yes? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:38, 22 February 2007 (EST)
:::I wasn't in a debate with you. I was merely calling a spade a spade and warning readers about you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:35, 22 February 2007 (EST)conservative

:::: Warning them about what exactly? Even if your accusations that I was a "fanatical bully boy evolutionist admin at Wikipedia " I fail to see its relevancy. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:44, 22 February 2007 (EST)

:::: Just my two cents, but I have had some serious concerns with quality of some admins here at conservapedia, but Joshuaz is one of the best. He is not a "fanatical bully evolutionist." If you took 5 mins to participate in this site before you start throwing mud, you would know this. Josh seams to be the best hope for bringing credibility and actual value to conservapedia. Joshuaz's concerns about the article were entirely appropriate, but remember that we are here to build, not tear down.--[[User:Whatter|Whatter]] 01:41, 24 February 2007 (EST)
:::::Whatter, I base my comments on JoshuaZ based on my experiences of him at Wikipedia. I also think you mistakenly believe that JoshuaZ is an admin here at conservapedia. Lastly, I would ask JoshuaZ the following questions: Is Wikipedia biased in favor of the macroevolutionary position? Have you ever edited out material against the macroevolutionary position at Wikipedia? '''By the way, here is what JoshuaZ says about Conservapedia at his Wikipedia userpage discussion page''': "Yeah, a lot of the scienceblog people had a lot of fun tearing it into tiny pieces. I've almost given up myself. The only good that I can see coming of it is that we can maybe direct annoying people here over to there." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JoshuaZ] It seems as if JoshuaZ wants to direct those annoying creationist who point out flaws of the macroevolutionary position to Conservapedia so he spends less time removing their material from Wikipedia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:18, 24 February 2007 (EST)conservative

Forget the content will someone please fix the incorrectly placed commas!

== Seriously flawed, part 2. ==
This is the first entry I checked out to see what Conservapedia was like, and to see if it's really the quality source it claims to be. Sadly, it is not. What a terrible, unscientific, irrational, and ideological understanding of the Theory of Evolution. Conservatives should be ashamed to have this be a representation of Conservative understanding of scientific issues. Thoughtful conservatives who want the straight science of evolution need to look elsewhere. I won't be back.

There's too much information to counter in this entry, but let me just leave you with this: Dogs can't turn into cats? No, and modern squids won't turn into people, either. But we can look back at the evolutionary history and see where different species branched off from a common ancestor. Cats and dogs are closer to a common ancestor than people and squids are. That is, unless someone produces evidence that overturns our understanding. That would be pretty powerful evidence. Kind of like if someone discovered that there's really no gravity.

Just to clarify, although I'm adding to the Seriously Flawed entry, I'm a different person.

Counter:

It's the purpose of Conservapedia to be a pro-Christian version of Wikipedia. You call Conservapedia all sorts of insulting things, but the bottom line is, if you don't like it, don't use it. Your "too much information" quip is precisely the reason that Wikipedia is so biased.
[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 14:02 22 February 2007 (EST)

: That doesn't respond to a single part of the above complain. Many Christians accept evolution. Having factually incorrect information doesn't make this article pro-Christian. It makes it wrong. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:17, 22 February 2007 (EST)

:: "Many" Christians accept a lot of things, that doesn't make their position Biblical. Only God is incapable of error, and that's why this website follows God instead of the fallible beliefs of Men. You claim that this information is "factually incorrect" but you don't prove it. Besides, the founder of this website has proven, in no uncertain terms, that macroevolution (what most atheists mean when they say "evolution") is impossible. There's simply not enough time and even if there was, all mutations are harmful. The end. [[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 14:23 22 Februrary 2007 (EST)

::: Ok, so many problems with the above comment I'm not even sure where to start, so I'll just go through sentence by sentence. First, regarding your statement that "Only God is incapable of error, and that's why this website follows God instead of the fallible beliefs of Men" - don't confuse what God said with your interpretation of what God said. Your interpretations are still failible. Second, your claim that "the founder of this website has proven, in no uncertain terms, that macroevolution (what most atheists mean when they say "evolution") is impossible" - first, note that in science nothing is very proven - at best one has overwhelming evidence for a claim. Second, no I'm afraid that the "founder"(I presume you mean Andrew) did no such thing. Your claims that " There's simply not enough time and even if there was, all mutations are harmful" is such a bundle of contradictions and attempts to ignore reality it isn't funny. To point out only three of the problems- the majority of mutations are in fact not harmful nor beneficial but neutral (you would know this if you took a basic genetics course). Second there are many examples of beneficial mutations in the scientific literature, in fact examples have been around for over 50 years. See for See for example Lederberg and Lederberg, ''Replica plating and indirect selection of bacterial mutants''. Journal of Bacteriology 63: 399-406 (1952). More recently, bacteria have gained mutations allowing them to digest nylon: Negoro, et al. "The nylon oligomer biodegradation system of Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas" Biodegradation 5: 185-194. Third, a simple thought problem will show you that not all mutations are harmful- all point mutations are essentially reversible mutations. So if a given point mutation is harmful then the reverse mutation is beneficial. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:11, 22 February 2007 (EST)

::: Ah-ha, but Ashens has forgotten! Since God is infallible, and, by definition, ineffable, anything He does is to great to be understood by the minds of Men. So although God may indeed be "incapable of error" (but being omnipotent, He is capable of anything), only a faded, skewed version of His Plans can be perceived by our mortal minds (as JoshuaZ said). Therefore a website that follows God must be creating its own distorted image of the true, divine Facts.
::: ''There's simply not enough time to observe all of His Plans unfold and even if there was, He may well be enjoying a Joke at our expense.'' [[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]]

::::(I wrote the second "Seriously Flawed" entry.) It's not my intention to be insulting. Forgive me for not reading everything about the site ahead of time. I didn't realize it was specifically Christian. I thought it was about Conservatism, which most certainly extends beyond Christianity. I understand your "if you don't like it, don't use it" comment. If you want to avoid more negative comments, perhaps you should make the site more obviously fundamentalist Christian. Just a suggestion, since plenty of conservatives are concerned with scientific truth over Biblical Truth.

:::It's interesting that God is infallible. Because, personally I mean, I would say he probably made a mistake in the Old Testament when he told Christians to murder anyone who works on Sunday, or when he told Christians to murder all gay people, or when he told Christians to murder anyone who 'spoke of other religions.' I was under the impression that most Christians think that's why he sent down a slightly less flawed little addendum called the New Testament- to fix all the mistakes he made. Thanks for clearing that up though- God did not make any mistakes in the Old Testament. He was just a complete douchebag.

== Article violates the site's own "commandments" ==

This article is a prime example of the sort of nonsense that gives conservatism a bad name. It's too silly to deserve any kind of discussion, but I would just point out that it is in contradiction with the site's own "commandments". Number 1 is that everything posted here should be true and verifiable. This article is very obviously neither.

:This comment was obviously posted awhile ago, but I'll reply anyway. First of all, Mr. Anonymous, I wish you would sign your comments. Second, you are in no way proving or backing up what you say. You just make these silly remarks and criticisms without even giving an example. This article looks good to me. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 10:12, 7 March 2007 (EST)

:::Some examples of ''why'' the article looks good, please? [[User: Prometheus |Prometheus]]

::I seriously hope you weren't serious there. Your first sentence acknowledges that this was posted a long time ago... and then you go on about how TODAY's article looks good to you. For what it's worth, the initial post came from [[User:Alfonz|Alfonz]], dated Feb 22. This can EASILY be checked. It most likely took me far less time to check that than it took you to write your reply. The actual article at that time had been [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&oldid=15585 this version]. At the time of that posting, the context had been extremely obvious (complete lack of sourcing, pure opinions), so stop belittling people just because you're too lazy to do basic background checks. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:23, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Y'kmow, when I think of the best of Conservative writing I think of Bill Safire, Bill Buckley and George Will, folks who do their homework and are articulate intellectuals. Here, I see a lot of Rush Limbaugh wannabes. Muy triste. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==Current outstanding issues==

I was told by a mod not to correct inaccuracies without discussion, so I'm going to list the issues outstanding. Most importantly, I hope the creationists here realize that there is a difference between disagreeing that evolution is good, well demonstrated science, and simply misrepresenting what evolution says and is. You don't have to agree that evolution is real, but you do need to at least get the CLAIMS correct.

*Darwin (and Wallace, actually) was historically the guy who first described evolution as a coherent theory in the modern sense, but this is relevant to an article on evolution ''only'' in the historical sense. Any article bearing the name "The Theory of Evolution" needs to discuss the actual, modern one, not focus almost exclusively on Darwin, much less only on natural selection. Common descent isn't even mentioned despite it begin a core idea even for Darwin's time.

*The section on dog evolution says that dogs have "many regressive traits," but this statement is vague and potentially meaningless. Dog populations have many different traits, and many new traits are added an extended over time via mutation.

*Many examples of reproductive speciation have been observed in a human timeframe.

*The evidence of science is not limited to eyewitness observation. Physical evidence can be just as strong, if not stronger, as directly observational evidence. Thus, the claim that this or that has not been directly observed happening in a lab is irrelevant. What ultimately matters is the evidence that confirms or disconfirms a given claim.

*The idea that mutations cannot add information is both ill-defined and incoherent for any definition. The fact of the matter is that anything a mutation can do, it can undo. By definition, if mutation can lose information it can also gain it, and being random, mutation cannot be said to prefer one to the other.

*As has been pointed out countless times, the claimed distinction between macroevolution and microevolution is simply phony, and claiming that it is a basic division in evolution is nonsense. While those terms are used in biology, they are not used in the way creationists claim. They are relevant primarily because different sorts of forces act on the direction of populations that can interbreed and those that cannot. What creationists really object to is not macroevolution, but rather common descent (which is the idea that all life speciated in a branching matter from a common ancestor or set of early ancestors).

I couldn't agree more. The sooner these changes are made the sooner this article will
become credible. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:53, 22 February 2007 (EST)

stubbstarbuck -- This article makes a specious argument at best (it's a straw man argument against natural selection), and at its Iworst makes conservatives look thouroughly uneducated. This response is not about defending the theory of evolution; there are countless resources that do this better than I can. What makes this article so insidious is its blatant propaganda motive. If Conservapedia is looking to provide a balance to Wikipedia, then its users should spend more time researching the issue. I'm not even sure the writer of the evolution article understands evolution, which, you would imagine, should be a prerequisite for authoritatively writing on the subject, or anything for that matter.

I laughed out loud when I read it - it could have been about anything I know a lot about, and I still would have laughed. It looks like it was written in about 15 minutes. I also enjoyed the hilarious inline edits, though I don't think that really makes things better - it only makes evolution naysayers less likely to learn the truth.

==2nd Law Problems==
This article is still making the second law violation claims. Credible citations are a MUST for a controversial entry like this, and I challange editors who put the 2LOT claims in to PLEASE cite appropriately.--[[User:Whatter|Whatter]] 01:41, 24 February 2007 (EST)
:One thing that people definitely need to understand is that the 2nd law is either a law or it isn't (it is, of course). And if it is, then it makes no sense to assert that natural evolution somehow violates it but design does not. Human beings obey the laws of thermodynamics just the same as everything else, for instance: when we design things, add information to things, its all in keeping with the laws of thermodynamics. I think once you realize that, the idea that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics becomes more obviously silly. If complexity couldn't increase naturally, all sorts of very common things would be impossible. Entropy means that things are always ''overly wasteful'' not that any given event is thermodynamically impossible or that order always decreases even locally.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 04:01, 24 February 2007 (EST)

From the article:

:"Evolution does in fact lower the entropy of the sum of the living DNA on this planet"

I'd ''love'' to see the calculation demonstrating this. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:31, 25 February 2007 (EST)

<s>Obviousman points out:</s>(Not so obvious, it would seem) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:12, 25 February 2007 (EST)

The second law only applies to a closed system. The earth plus the sun might constitute an approximation to a closed system. The earth considered by itself most definitely does not. Any decrease in entropy occurring on the earth is just a drop in the bucket compared to the huge increase in entropy that is occurring within the sun.

In other words, the gradual running-down of the sun not only provides enough energy, but enough entropy increase to "fuel" evolution, civilization, learning in human brains, the assemblage of spots on paper into the score for Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, and all that. You could tidy up everything on earth into an obsessive-compulsive's dream without decreasing its entropy enough to matter when you take the earth-sun system into account.

And, yes, without the sun's energy (and, equally important, the ''difference in temperature'' between the surface of the sun and the blackness of the outer space surrounding it), you could not have evolution... or stable, creationist life. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:45, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:Second law applies to all systems, open or closed. It's just that one statement of the second law, namely that entropy cannot decrease in a closed system, isn't particularly ''useful'' in open systems.

:Incidentally, tidying isn't going to decrease the Earth's entropy at all. If anything, the work done in the process will increase it. But the ordering of macroscopic bodies doesn't affect their thermodynamic entropy; one can't decrease the entropy of a deck of cards by laying it out in order, for example. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:52, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::"If anything, the work done in the process will increase it." Well, that's sort of my point. I thought the second law allowed things to get tidier in one place as long as something else gets untidier... ''more'' untidier... as a result. But clearly I don't really know what I'm talking about, so maybe just for once I'll shut up... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:15, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::Only for a sufficiently esoteric definition of 'tidy'; one which will generally not match our intuitive understanding of the term. This is why when talking about thermodynamics I find it better to avoid terms like order, which carry with them a lot of baggage, and just stick with entropy. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)

The point is that the article would be much better off if the 2nd law nonsense was just removed. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:55, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:Quite. Perhaps someone who disagrees would care to defend its inclusion? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:22, 27 February 2007 (EST)

::I'll take that as a 'no,' then. Since no one seems willing or able to defend this arrant nonsense, perhaps an admin could remove it. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:30, 2 March 2007 (EST)

== conservatives, where is the extensive criticism of the evolutionary position? ==

In the conservapedia article which is prominently placed on the main page of this site and is entitled [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] the following is written:

"Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored....For example, even though most Americans reject the theory of [[evolution]]..., Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.... The Wikipedia entry for the [[Piltdown Man]] omits many key facts, such as how it was taught in schools for an entire generation and how the dating methodology used by evolutionists is fraudulent."

Currently the article [[The Theory of Evolution]] is locked from further editing. I believe the article needs to be edited further in order to add more criticism of the macoevolutionary position.

For example, macroevolutionist have no real evidence that macroevolution occurs and there is no consensus on how it exactly occurs as can be seen below:

"When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd." - Simon Conway Morris (palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK), "Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11

"If it is true that an influx of doubt and uncertainty actually marks periods of healthy growth in a science, then evolutionary biology is flourishing today as it seldom has flourished in the past. For biologists collectively are less agreed upon the details of evolutionary mechanics than they were a scant decade ago. Superficially, it seems as if we know less about evolution than we did in 1959, the centennial year of Darwin's on the Origin of Species." (Niles Eldredge, "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p14).

In addition, creationist can cite material showing that there is no real fossil evidence for the macroevolutionary position:

"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831

"...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation." - E.J.H. Corner, Prof of Botany, Cambridge University, England. E.J. H. Corner, “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97

"We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time." Lord Solly Zuckerman (paleonthropologist of Birmingham University in England), Beyond the Ivory Tower, New York: Taplinger Publishing Company, 1970, p. 19.

"Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee (evolutionist), “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.

For more quotes regarding the fossil record please see: [http://creationwiki.org/Fossil_record_quotes Fossil record quotes]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:11, 24 February 2007 (EST)conservative

:Just so you now, conservative or not, science is not done via quoting people, even if the quotes were relevant or correctly contexted. It's done by looking at evidence. That creationists continually assume otherwise is a real embarrassment, particularly given how outright deceptive many of these quotes are (and I'm not talking mere mistakes either).

:Furthermore, talking about the "macroevolution" position is just a telling reveal of a lack of knowledge about what evolutionary theory claims. Macroevolution concerns things like genetc drift, mass extinctions, and so forth. What you really mean to criticize is the idea of common descent, not macroevolution.

:'''There is no unified conservative position on evolution, or even conservative Christian position.''' If this is a creationist site, then so be it, but that at that point it ceases to be a conservative, or even a christian conservative, site. [[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 11:08, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:: I am in complete agreement with Plunge. Furthermore note that all the quotes are classic quote mines, all either out of context or out of date and in many cases, both. For example, the quote from New Scientist about the fossil record in fact comes from a piece making the point that one doesn't need to use fossil evidence since there are many other forms of evidence which are even more persuasive. The very next sentence is "The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven" and the article then later goes on to say that "So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy." Science doesn't work off of quotes and proof-texts, and especially not quotes that are out of context and distorted. If you are going to even attempt to engage in the fallacy of quotes being somehow evidence, please at least read the original items where the quotes come from and not just repeat them from nth hand creationist sources. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:37, 25 February 2007 (EST)

== This article is becoming an embarrassment ==

This article is supposed to be on evolution. Unfortunately it contains very little on evolution and a great deal on (pretty medicore) criticisms of evolution including the laughable entries on the "doubting ranks" of the world's scientists and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If this site seeks to retain any credibility it just has to do better. This article makes a mockery of Conservapedia's criticism of Wikipedia's bias. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:48, 25 February 2007 (EST)

==Conservative Please Stop==
I second Horace's concern above. There is plenty of room for criticism of Darwinism, but to be taken seriously it must be presented seriously. This article is just asking for a flood of internet mockery.

Is it possible to unlock this article? I understand that it is a top target for vandalism, but vandals wouldn't be much worse than what it is right now. Lets unlock it and see how the community can make this better. As it is, it's just [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] making silly changes. The article isn't even about evolution.--[[User:Whatter|Whatter]] 19:59, 25 February 2007 (EST)
::Whatter, I was made a sysop at Conservapedia so I could make the changes I proposed in the talk page of this article. I am guessing the article will not be unlocked given that it is a lightning rod for liberals wanting to vandalize or liberals wanting to change the article in order to give it a liberal point of view. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:38, 25 February 2007 (EST)conservative

::: That doesn't change the fact that you are making a travesty of an article. You added in a series of quotemines, even after it was already explained to you why the quotes weren't that relevant. Your added in quotemines included one where I specifically explained to you how it was out of context. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:14, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::: The article will be improved over time. This is what is great about Wiki software. However, even though the article would be "improved" much faster, we cannot (for obvious reasons) "open the floodgates" and un-protect the article. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 22:33, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::: That doesn't mean an editor should be making controversial edits. On most other Wikis I've worked on (such as Wikipedia, the English language Wikipedia, and a variety of others), admins do not make controversial edits when the article is protected. Admin tools should not be used to make gains in content disputes. Furthermore, there is a solution to this sort of thing(which I presumse we have here if we are using an at all recent version of the Wikimedia software) - semiprotection. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:42, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::::: 1) I don't know whether policy has been defined here, and I asked on PhilipB's talk page for clarification, but, yes, Conservative was given sysop status by PhilipB for the specific purpose of editing this article. I consider that the local authorities here have effectively decided to control some articles by protecting them and effectively making them editable only by sysops. Effectively, my understanding is that Conservative and the other sysops have been granted sole authorship of this article. In my opinion, that's a bad idea, but... not my site, not my rules.

:::::: 2) For the record, I think Conservative and others should understand that on Wikipedia, sysops are supposed to keep their sysop actions and their actions as editors completely separate. Sysops are not supposed to perform any sysop actions on an article on which they are an active editor, and, conversely, are not supposed to edit articles in which they have an administrative involvement. That's considered a pretty serious breach of the rules. Certainly on Wikipedia an sysop who unprotected an article, edited it for content, and then protected it again would be in immediate trouble unless the change was so uncontroversial that nobody complained, or unless he could show that the action has been authorized.

:::::: 3) (For example, ''if'' user Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington or whatever his name was, the admin who ultimately performed the deletion of the Conservapedia article, had been involved as an editor of that article, or had been involved in the deletion discussion of that article, the deletion action would probably have been taken straight to deletion review and the outcome would probably have been "undelete and relist"). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:57, 26 February 2007 (EST)
:::::::JoshuaZ, I have never heard the word "quote mine" used in scholarly discourse. The phrase "quote mine" seems to be largely used by evolutionists who are extremely desperate to claim individuals are quoting out of context when expert testimony via quotes is damaging to the macroevolutionary position. I don't see proponents of other positions crying "quote mine" when expert testimony is not favorable to their position and I think the cries of "quote mine" reflect very badly on the macroevolutionary community. Secondly, you wrote at Wikipedia regarding Conservapedia the following: "The only good that I can see coming of it is that we can maybe direct annoying people here over to there." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JoshuaZ] I would ask you if you think Conservapedia is a very pointless enterprise and merely is good for directing people away from Wikipedia to Conservapedia then why do you insist on continually posting at Conservapedia? I ask this because you have yet to retract this statement regarding Conservapedia at Conservapedia and at Wikipedia where you originally made the statement. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:38, 26 February 2007 (EST)conservative
:::::::: To answer your various comments, I would agree that the term "quote mine" is not often used in scholarly discourse and that yes it does have negative connotations, and it is meant to. It is used not by "desperate" "evolutionists" but various annoyed and frustrated individuals at this sort of blatant out of context quoting. Simply making claims that the use of the term "reflect(s) badly on the macroevolutionary community" does not answer any of the above concerns. It does not address my point where I pointed out the original context of the New Scientist quote, nor did you adress any of Plunge's concerns. As to your repeated quote of the comment on my user page, I already addressed that [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=16598 here]. In any event, my personal attitude towards this project has nothing to do with whether your quotes are out of context or whether claims about the 2nd law of thermodynamics are wrong. I hope that in the future, you will refrain from ad hominem remarks and address the conerns raised. I would be particularly interested in an explanation for how the New Scienstist is not out of context. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:37, 26 February 2007 (EST)
:::::::::JoshuaZ, I understand why you don't like Mark Ridley's candid admission regarding the fossil record in regards to it being used to defend the evolutionary position, however, I see no reason to delete this testimony in regards to the fossil record. I am referring to this quote: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831 [http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/orb-fossil-ref.html] You can continue to cry "quote mine", but please do not be surprised if am unconcerned. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:26, 26 February 2007 (EST)conservative
::::::::: Conservative, I don't mind "Ridley's candid admission" because it is no such thing. I strongly suggest you actually read the article. Do you not see how his saying "So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy." is at all relevant? And I note that you also ignored issues about the 2nd law that were also brought up. Now, instead of attempting to figure out what I like or don't likem you could actually respond to the matter at hand, and ''explain'' why the quote in question isn't out of context given the additional sentences I have provided to you. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:39, 26 February 2007 (EST)
:::::::::Conservative, if you read the article, it's quite clear that the characterization of Ridley's view (and citing him as evidence that common descent is unsupported) is a dishonest one. The reason you don't hear "quote mine" that much in academia is that it is something Ph'Ds scrupulously try to avoid, because they know people will check their work, and they can lose their careers over this sort of misrepresentation. The problem I see for this wiki is that it will fast become just a set of articles written by a closed group of people with specially approved opinions, rather than the best facts winning out based on accurate evidence. The whole point of a wiki is that it's decentralized, like capitalism, and the BEST EVIDENCE wins out, not the person who happens to control the website.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 12:26, 27 February 2007 (EST)

I can confirm from conversation with the man that Simon Morris's comments have been taken out of context, "quote-mined" if you will. It is my opinion as a biologist that this page bears little to no resemblence to what is understood in mordern science. Much of it seems to have been drawn from religious literature rather than mainstream scientific sources, as would be prefered. Additionally, a number of liberal blogs are linking to this site as an example of conservative dishonesty and foolishness. User:conservative, you do this site a great disservice. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 05:51, 27 February 2007 (EST)
::Nematocyte, if you insist on making a claim of "quote mining" I believe you did not meet the burden of proof that it is incumbant upon you too demonstrate. Please show how the following Simon Morris quote was clearly out of context using the article in question: "When discussing organic evolution '''the only point of agreement seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus''', which at first sight must seem rather odd." - Simon Conway Morris (palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK), "Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11" I would be especially interested in why the bolded portion of the quote was somehow misrepresented since it is quite embarrassing to the macroevolutionary position. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:06, 27 February 2007 (EST)conservative
::: Um, may I ask why it would make sense for Nemat to give more data on the original context? Especially since I gave you the original context of one of your quotes and you ignored it? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:29, 27 February 2007 (EST)

:::Why do you need to ask someone else to provide the context for your quotes? Don't you know it? Haven't you ''read'' the original sources? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:17, 28 February 2007 (EST)

::::It's pretty clear at this point that he has not, which is the virtual definition of quote mining. The claimed point of those quotes is to try and show that the people in question, at least, think that common descent isn't supported by the fossil evidence. Take the Ridley quote. It's plainly obvious from reading the article the quote is taken from that this reading is patently ridiculous. So the usage is prima facie dishonest, and trying to pass it off as a "candid admission" doesn't even make logical sense. But the whole approach is ridiculous regardless. Science does not work on citing the authority of "proof texts." It's based off of the citing of evidence. Even if most of the quotes WEREN'T nonsense, simply compiling a list of quotations from papers you've never even read just isn't how science is done. [[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 04:15, 1 March 2007 (EST)
:::::[[CreationWiki]] now has a link to the original Simon Morris article which can be read in its entirety by clicking the CreationWiki footnotes for the quote.[http://creationwiki.org/Biology_quotes]
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)conservative
::::::That still doesn't excuse mischaracterizing it as saying that all the major elements of evolutionary theory are just up in the air. That's not what it is saying at all. And that's hardly an adequate answer to all the other objections given. For the last time: SCIENCE IS NOT DONE BY QUOTING SINGLE LINE DECLARATIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL SCIENTISTS. It doesn't make a lick of difference if there are biologists here and ther who, for instance, deny the germ theory of disease. That doesn't make all the evidence for it magically go away. You need to deal with the evidence, not try to take shortcuts by treating the opinions of some scientists as holy writ and then ignoring everything else they've ever written or anyone else has ever written or, more importantly, published. Are you deliberately avoiding debate on these issues? You've been near totally non-responsive to criticism. [[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 11:22, 3 March 2007 (EST)
: Ok, having read the article, that quote is out of context. Morris seems to be saying that there is not consensus about when evolution occurs, how precisely it occurs on the genetic level and how the genotype and phenotype interact in this context. That's not at all what the quote seems to be saying when you take it out of context. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:47, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Guys my view is don't try and argue science with a creationist, they already assume that science is incorrect and they have absolute blind faith in their quest to annoy everyone with they're psuedoscientific attempts at proving their position (I just watched some guy talk about noah's ark and obviously had no understanding of gene pool at all [i'm sorry but no matter how hard you tried two dogs would not turn into 100's of breeds]...but that doesn't matter because the bible said it happened so therefore it did....). Seriously it's like punching a brickwall i've found. While I view myself as conservative after going through this site I perhaps am mistaken, either that or this site is not appropriately named. [[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

==Develop and ongoing in an unprotected location, periodically copy to the protected location==
If [[The Theory of Evolution]] is going to remain protected indefinitely, I think it would be a really good idea to create an unprotected page, perhaps [[The Theory of Evolution/draft]] in which interested editors could work collaboratively develop a version that represents more than the ex cathedra pronouncements of a single contributor.

Vandalism on the this page would be largely hidden from casual users and the liberal blog. At intervals, sysops could copy its contents into the main article.

This would ensure that everything appearing in the article would be filtered by sysops, who presumably have internalized Conservapedia's policies and point of view, while allowing some reasonable intellectual give-and-take in the development of the article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:32, 27 February 2007 (EST)
::Your comment regarding the "ex cathedra pronouncements of a single editor" is mistaken for several reasons. First, I vetted my material in the talk page and was made a SYSOP (administrator) for this website so I could incorporate the material I wrote in the talk page to the actual [[The Theory of Evolution]] article. Secondly, I wrote two out three sections in [[Theory of Evolution]] that were critical of the macroevolutionary position (I did not write the thermodynamics section). Third, I edited my material that I added to the article based on the recommendation of the Conservapedian Aschafly. Fourth, the position of Conservapedia relative to the macroevolutionary position is made clear in the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] article. Conservapedia is clearly a website which is not favorable to the macroevolutionary position. Lastly, I think it is a poor idea to create a second article via a draft article since it duplicates the function of a talk page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:06, 27 February 2007 (EST)conservative
::: Um, you didn't vet your material on the talk page. You put it on the talk page, and then ignored all criticism of that material. That's not vetting by any strecth of the imagincation. Second of all, using the fact that you are an admin as justification for including them is precisely what Dpb means by such an ex cathedra pronounciation- a pronounciation based on authority, not dialogue and discussion. Who wrote the section on thermodynamics isn't relevant- if you agree with it, please explain why on the talk page, if you disagree, please remove the section. Your claim that "the position of Conservapedia relative to the macroevolutionary position is made clear in the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] article" is not at all accurate. Even if Conservapedia thinks that Wikipedia is somehow biased in favor of "macroevolution" it in no way implies that Conservapedia rejects macroevolution (to use an example, if a page said "X is an idiot" I can agree that this is not an unbiased description of X, even if I think it is accurate). Furthermore, even if Conservapedia is "not favorable to the macroevolutionary position" this is not an argument for having out of context quotes, poor argumentation, and flammable stawmen. Finally, drafts are very useful - they allow users to make other versions and see what the proposed changes would look like before being implemented. In many wikis it is common to have a separate draft space and only move approved changes to the main page. If this page is going to be protected for an extended period of time(as has been suggested by a few editors) then a draft page makes a great deal of sense. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:23, 27 February 2007 (EST)
::::Joshua, the conservapedian in question wrote "develop a version that represents more than the ex cathedra pronouncements of a single contributor". I am not going to wrangle with you and I am going to immediately get to the central issue. Please show that the article was one man's work and the result of one man's decision making process. So far you haven't done that. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:41, 27 February 2007 (EST)

::::: Conservative, you seem to have a problem with focusing on less than relevant details and ignoring most other points that people make. In this case, you insist that I show something that neither I, nor Dpb claimed was true, you ignored my comment about the lack of vetting, and ignored my explanation of what I thought Dpb meant when he said it was ex cathedra. You've also ignored my point about how the Bias page doesn't show that Conservapedia intrisically disfavors "macroevolution." Finally, you ignored my explanation of why in general draft space is useful which is true independent of any claims of how this article in particular has been editing. Now, I'd appreciate if you would actually try to respond to points and engage in constructive diaologue. Thanks, [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:40, 27 February 2007 (EST)

==New page for working on a draft of the article==
User:Conservative sees an issue with having an unprotected working area as a subpage of the article, so, accordingly, I've created a new one that is Talk space rather than article space. The new working page is:

[[Talk:The Theory of Evolution/draft]].

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:13, 28 February 2007 (EST)

== Dinosaurs and man coexisting ==

The Conservapedia article [[dinosaur]] has assembled quite a bit of information that points to dinosaurs and man coexisting. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Dinosaur] Should [[The Theory of Evolution]] article briefly make reference to this information? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:23, 1 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:Perhaps you should deal with the issues of the existing page before trying to add new controversial matieral? I note that many of the cites involved in that discussion fail to mention all sort of key elements that undermine. For instance, the citation about supposed "recent" dinosaur bones fail entirely to mention that they were in fact, mineralized, and not in fact bone as the article implies. And so on. Just because someone is capable of making outrageous claims about modern dinosaurs doesn't mean they hold up to scrutiny. None of these have. [[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 13:23, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:That "information" - is it any more trustworthy than the forgeries held up as evidence so far (such as the chisel taken to the paluxy trackway to make the dino prints look human)?

== From Scientific American ==

[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2 This article] from Scientific American explains why '''creationism is right''' and '''evolution is wrong'''. Silly Darwinists.
[[User:Mike Newsworth|Mike Newsworth]] 22:04, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: Here is a creationist response to the Scientific American article: [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2088] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:55, 4 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::I've read two of the responces, the origins of life and 2nd law. The origins of life repeats the fallacy that the abiotic origin of life is a neccasery part of evolution, which is false (after all, if life had been created by a god 3.5 billion years ago life would still have evolved. The 2nd law aguement rests on the premise that since regulatory mechanisms are required to harness the energy the fact that earth's an open system can be ignored. But such mechanisms clearly do exist (photosynthesisand chemosynthesis for example), since we are able to continue living. Where they came from is another matter, but since they do exist the argument is incorrect. I urge members to correct the clear scientific inaccuracise in this entry, as we are being shown up as scientifically ignorant. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:02, 5 March 2007 (EST)

*As Answers In Genesis says, that article is nothing more than materialist bigotry. It does show that creationism is right, by proving how desperate the Darwinists are. That article presents strawman after strawman in an attempt to avoid the hard questions that Darwinism faces. Scientific American is an extremely anti-Christian publication. [[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 22:12 1 March 2007

: I'd be curious to hear what strawmen there are. While it is true that some of the arguments are not used by some of the more sophisticated creationists (For example, "If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" is one of the 15 and AIG lists it on their list of arguments creationists should not use) none of them seem to be very flammable. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:37, 1 March 2007 (EST)

::Indeed. Not only have I heard every single one of those arguments, I hear them considerably more often than the more sophisticated versions. Of course, my experience may not be representative. Still, several of those arguments can be found right here at Conservapedia. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:27, 2 March 2007 (EST)

Number 5 directly addresses the Simon Morris quote mine I drew attention to earlier, and number 9 succiently points out the flaws in the second law objections. If these are strawmen then why are they being made here? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 05:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:Because creationists are all scared, desperate individuals who are trying feverishly to discredit the true evolution. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 10:30, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:: Instead of sarcasm, you could try to actually answer the question. It is hard to see how they can both be strawmen and be employed here. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:39, 7 March 2007 (EST)

==Second law of thermodynamics==

Oh come off it, the argument here is utter nonsense. Evolution does indeed decrease the entropy *on the planet*. That isn't a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy *of the universe* is increasing. Pro-creationist bias is one thing, being utterly clueless is another. --[[User:John Galt|John Galt]] 13:32, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:It's not even clear that evolution ''does'' decrease the entropy on the planet. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:59, 2 March 2007 (EST)
::Oops, you're right. It's life itself that increases the entropy on this planet. If the creationists are right, we're all dead! --[[User:John Galt|John Galt]] 16:56, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:Your very comments discredit you. No one said anything about life increasing the entropy on the planet. Evolution doesn't decrease entropy; nothing can. It's inevitable. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 10:16, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Parson Weems, Washington, and "design" ==

Sorta off-topic for the article, but too good to omit... Parson Weems' hagiographic "biography" of Washington is best known for giving us the tale of George Washington and the cherry tree, but Weems tells another story of the youthful Washington[http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/gw/chap2.html online here]. Whether it is accurate biography or theology, you must judge for yourself:

It was in this way by interesting at once both his heart and head, that Mr. Wlashington conducted George with great ease and pleasure along the happy paths of virtue. But well knowing that his beloved charge, soon to be a man, would be left exposed to numberless temptations, both from himself and from others, his heart throbbed with the tenderest anxiety to make him acquainted with that great being, whom to know and love, is to possess the surest defence against vice, and the best of all motives to virtue and happiness. To startle George into a lively sense of his Maker, he fell
upon the following very curious but impressive
expedient:

One day he went into the garden, and prepared a
little bed of finely pulverized earth, on which he wrote
George's name at full, in large letters--then strewing
in plenty of cabbage seed, he covered them up, and
smoothed all over nicely with the roller.--This bed
he purposely prepared close along side of a gooseberry
walk, which happening at this time to be well hung
with ripe fruit, he knew would be honoured with
George's visits pretty regularly every day. Not many
mornings had passed away before in came George,
with eyes wild rolling, and his little cheeks ready to
burst with great news.

"O Pa! come here! come here!" 
"What's the matter, my son ? what's the matter ?" 
"O come here, I tell you, Pa: come here! and I'll
shew you such a sight as you never saw in all your
life time."

The old gentleman suspecting what George would
be at, gave him his hand, which he seized with great
eagerness, and tugging him along through the garden,
led him point blank to the bed whereon was inscribed,
in large letters, and in all the freshness of newly sprung
plants, the full name of

GEORGE WASHINGTON.

"There Pa?"said George, quite in an ecstacy of
astonishment,"did you ever see such a sight in all
your life time?"

"Why it seems like a curious affair, sure enough,
George !"

"But, Pa, who did make it there ? who did make it
there ?"

"It grew there by chance, I suppose, my son."

"By chance, Pa! O no! no! it never did grow
there by chance, Pa. Indeed that it never did!"

"High! why not, my son?"

"Why, Pa, did you ever see anybody's name in a
plant bed before?"

"Well, but George, such a thing might happen,
though you never saw it before."

"Yes, Pa; but I did never see the little plants grow
up so as to make one single letter of my name before.
Now, how could they grow up so as to make all the
letters of my name! and then standing; one after
another, to spell my name so exactly!--and all so neat
and even too, at top and bottom! ! O Pa, you must
not say chance did all this. Indeed somebody did it;
and I dare say now, Pa, you did it just to scare me,
because I am your little boy."

His father smiled; and said,"Well George, you
have guessed right. I indeed did it; but not to scare
you, my son; but to learn you a great thing which I
wish you to understand. I want, my son, to introduce you to your true Father."

"High, Pa, an't you my true father, that has loved
me, and been so good to me always?"

"Yes George, I am your father, as the world calls
it: and I love you very dearly too. But yet with all
my love for you, George, I am but a poor good-for-
nothing sort of a father in comparison of one you
have."

"Aye ! I know, well enough whom you mean, Pa.
You mean God Almighty; don't you?"

"Yes, my son, I mean him indeed. He is your
true Father, George."

"But, Pa, where is God Almighty ! I did never
see him yet."

"True my son; but though you never saw him,
yet he is always with you. You did not see me when
ten days ago I made this little plant bed, where you see
your name in such beautiful green letters: but though
you did not see me here, yet you know I was here!"

"Yes, Pa, that I do. I know you was here."

"Well then, and as my son could not believe that
chance had made and put together so exactly the letters
of his name (though only sixteen) then how can he
believe, that chance could have made and put together
all those millions and millions of things that are now
so exactly fitted to his good! That my son may look at
everything around him, see ! what fine eyes he has got!
and a little pug nose to smell the sweet flowers I and
pretty ears to hear sweet sounds! and a lovely mouth
for his bread and butter! and 0, the little ivory teeth
to cut it for him! and the dear lithe tongue to prattle
with his father! and precious little hands and fingers
to hold his play-things ! and beautiful little feet for him
to run about upon! and when my little rogue of a son
is tired with running about, then the still night comes
for him to lie down: and his mother sings, and the
little crickets chirp him to sleep! and as soon as he has
slept enough, and jumps up fresh and strong as a little
buck, there the sweet golden light is ready for him!
When he looks down into the water, there he sees the
beautiful silver fishes for him! and up in the trees there
are the apples, and peaches, and thousands of sweet
fruits for him! and all, all around him, wherever my
dear boy looks, he sees everything just to his wants and
wishes;--the bubbling springs with cool sweet water
for him to drink ! and the wood to make him sparkling
fires when he is cold! and beautiful horses for him to
ride ! and strong oxen to work for him! and the good
cow to give him milk ! and bees to make sweet honey
for his sweeter mouth! and the little lambs, with snowy
wool, for beautiful clothes for him! Now, these and
all the ten thousand thousand other good things more
than my son can ever think of, and all so exactly fitted
to his use and delight--Now how could chance ever
have done all this for my little son? Oh George!--

He would have gone on: but George, who had hung
upon his father's words with looks and eyes of all-
devouring attention, here broke out--

"Oh, Pa, that's enough! that's enough! It can't
be chance, indeed--it can't be chance, that made and
gave me all these things."

"What was it then, do you think, my son?"

"Indeed, Pa, I don't know unless it was God
Almighty !"

"Yes, George, he it was, my son, and nobody else."

::Well, I'm not sure about good biography, but that's fine theology. Mighty fine. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 17:20, 7 March 2007 (EST)

----

==Problems==

The article is way off the mark. Its title "Theory of Evolution" and the content do not match.

The theory of evolution is the theory of how evolutionists claim the alleged process occurs (natural selection).

Darwin and Wallace should be addressed; their proposal and how it was presented as a double paper in 1858 and the fact that NS was rejected by Science after Darwin died; and how NS was resurrected during the neo-Darwinian biological synthesis of the 1930s and 40s and how the synthesis defines NS; and then how modern Darwinists define NS and their claims that NS has produced the panoply of life as we see it today.

The article should begin by telling the world that the Theory of Evolution is an atheist interpretation of scientific evidence which attempts to explain how nature may have produced it self without any assistance from a supernatural Being.

[[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 22:29, 7 March 2007 (EST)

The portion below I did not write except the title and description - Ray

:Ray, click the first footnote to the article which is here also: [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/brainchild.asp] The Wallace issue is raised there. I realize that this is not a perfect solution but I wanted to work on more important matters concerning the article first. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:03, 7 March 2007 (EST)conservative

Am I the ony one who noticed that source 18 links to a survey that replied on participants volenteraly returning written surveys, 40% did not reply, thats horrible!
----

==Troll Alert==

BEGIN SECULAR SERMON AND DISCUSSION DERAILMENT

Just a rebuttal of this entire website, especially the Evolution article:

Do you understand that science is in fact NOT the devil? Your religion teaches love and understanding, yet every time I read or listen to a conservative/Christian based piece of literature/radio/internet site, all I seem to get from the gist of it is this: Liberals are evil, science is wrong, and any moment now Christ will come and we can use all of the natural resources we want because Armageddon will bring us all to the Promised Land, where we will have no further need of material objects.

I have some faults to shed light on

-science is what brought you into this world. I'm just assuming (just assuming) that everybody who is alive somehow came out of their mother, either by Caesarean Section or by a normal birth in a HOSPITAL, probably not the all natural way in a barn or potato field with no medicine, no doctors, and no nurses to clean you and cut your umbilical chord. Ergo, science=not evil
p.s.= science is based on observation and logic. If you willingly choose to believe that scientists are making up things as they go and have no standards, logic, or any mental thought process behind what they think, you're very close minded.

-evolution is '''not''' the devil. It has been studied, restudied, discussed, debated, analyzed, observed, doubted, believed, disputed, argued, questioned, pondered, rejected, accepted, considered, contemplated, picked apart, and speculated. It is a
'''== theory =='''. A THEORY. Not the law, and not some liberals trying to compromise your beliefs for the hell of it. You do not have to accept it, but because the scientific community accepts it as a viable THEORY, then it should be taught in school. If you believe creationism should be taught in school, I would also like to point out that that is also a THEORY. It might have evidence, but the only evidence is in a text. Darwinism is also in a text, has been tested in labs, observed in nature, and recorded in millions of different ways. It is also a THEORY. Because YOU say that is untrue makes it untrue, Darwinism is wrong because YOU say it is? What if I believe that once you die you become a giant worm in the Arctic Circle? Because I believe it, does that make it a fact? If you say no, then you are hypocritical because that's the exact logic you are using. If we teach the THEORY of creationism, then we should teach the THEORY of evolution, the Hindu THEORY of creationism, Muslim THEORY of creationism, the Native American THEORY of creationism, etcetera etcetera.

-if you do not agree with scientific finds and research, stop using all that science has provided. stop using this web site. stop using the computer that you use to add onto this website. don't read your bible because it was printed by a machine created by science. don't believe in the laws of physics and gravity because they are summed up with scientific equations. don't drive your car, use natural gas to fuel your home, and just forget about electricity altogether. You cannot use a bicycle, you cannot listen to music unless it is in your head because all sound is made up of vibrations and vibrations are physics, once again, science. all music takes science to create the exact pitch needed on instruments. don't go to your church, because it was designed, planned, and created using laws of science and scientific method. if you do not like science, stop using what it has so graciously provided for.

-next time you come down with a nasty case of pneumonia or tuberculosis, don't go to a hospital because they believe that those viruses and bacteria have mutated, one of the principles making up the THEORY of evolution. they can treat you for what it was before it mutated, but it's always fun to be treated for something you don't have.

Please, I am proving a point using logic. When you do not use logic when discussing topics and choose to believe that anything you say is true, how can you change and grow as an individual?

No offense meant, just a new angle to look at life from.

:You're digging up dead arguments. Cut it out. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 21:06, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:You yourself have just dug your own grave. You said "planned, designed, created" referring to a church. As you can see, that church did not create itself. No accident, no matter how grand or large a scale, could have produced a building like that. Just look at some churches and cathedrals and you can easily see just how much planning, designing and work it took. They didn't come about by themselves. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 18:21, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::Please dont allude that building a church is comparable to the complicated systems that organisms use. Its a horrible analogy that compares something that is documented and well understood with something that is somewhat known, but still has many questions still open. Such statements only serve to undermine your position and make you appear uneducated. Just leave the troll alone.

==Bible==
Could we have more emphasis on the truth of the Bible please. This is meant to be a Christian site. I feel that there is already a pernicious liberal influence moderating some articles.

:This is a conservative site, not neccaserily a Christian one. People of all religious denominations can be conservative, and I would argue that Biblical literalism is NOT a conservative value. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:52, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Which parts do you feel exhibit liberal influence? On this and many other key issues, Conservapedia tries to address all sides of the topic, while still holding a conservative and Christian viewpoint. Perhaps the content you saw as liberal was simply part of a section on a different viewpoint. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 11:26, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:::Perhaps, although as can be seen from this discussion there are a number of users who are rather vocal in their contempt for Biblical truth. I don't want to criticise other articles in the talk page for this article. I will raise issues as I see them in the appropriate talk page.

::This is a Christian site according to the homepage. All Christians follow the teachings of Christ as laid out in the Bible. You cannot be a Christian and not believe in the Bible just as you cannot be a Christian and not believe in Jesus.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:07, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::Many Christians do not believe in Biblical literalism. I personally regard it as a form of paganism, replacing the worship of God with the worship of a book. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:10, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::The book is the word of God. Would you describe yourself as a Christian?

::::That book was transcribed through many different incarnations and translations by various scribes, losing integrity at each step (remember information theory?). Many of the sections within have exceedingly dubious origins, such as Deuteronomy, which is widely regarded as having been fabricated to support certain theological opinions. Only two of the books of the new testimant and though to have any objective weight, the rest being based on paganist myths about Jesus and here-say. I can't see how anyone regarding it as the literal word of God can be considered a Christian as they believe so many pagan inspired myths. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:31, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:::: One doesn't need to reject the text's validity as a divinely inspired document to not take it literally, I doubt for example that our friend is a flat-earther or a geocentrist even though a literal reading of many Biblical passages would support those viewpoints. Furthermore, note that many Christian theologians have argued that what is assured to be correct in the text is the fundamental salvational messgae and that anything else is unimportant. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:36, 8 March 2007 (EST)
::Give an example, JoshuaZ. What biblical passages say that the earth is flat or that the earth is at the center of the universe? Stop making these irritating blanket statements and dig up some evidence (if you can find any) for your claims. And as for the Bible being inspired by paganist myths, this is absurd! You have no evidence for this claim. Many of the pagan myths are, in fact, inspired by the Bible. You also are not giving any evidence for your claims. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 13:20, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::: Murray has done a decent list of basic examples below so I will only briefly note thatI didn't make any assertion about paganism, that was Nematocyte. Please keep track of who says what. Users who disagree with you do not form a monolythic hivemind. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:24, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
There certainly are biblical passages that suggest the authors believed the earth to be flat. Job 38:12-14 refers to the earth being taken by the edges and shaken, and also to it being stamped into the same shape as clay under a seal. Matthew 4:1-12 talks of all the kingdoms of the world being visible from the top of a mountain, and in Daniel 4:10-11 a tree so tall it is "visible to the end of the whole earth" is described.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:49, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:The passage in Job can be taken as figurative; you can usually tell if a passage is literal or figurative, especially if it's poetry. There's no mountain on earth tall enough for what Jesus saw, unless, of course, he was just seeing something of a vision of all the kingdoms of Earth. Then in Daniel 4 the tree was in a dream, but of course the earth would have "edges" when compared to the tree; the edges being the point from which you would go over the curve and not see it anymore. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 18:16, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::Is Genesis chapter 1 written in a poetic style? Who is it up to to decide if something is literal or figurative? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:28, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::It's up to logic, that's what. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 18:04, 10 March 2007 (EST)
::: Scorpion a few points: first of all, note that many people have in fact used those and other passages to either support a flat-earth or a geocentrism. Indeed, even in modern times there have been people inspired by the Biblical passages to defend a geocentric universe. See for example- www.geocentricity.com. Such views are so common among creationists that CMI and AIG, two of the world's largest creationist ministries has had to write multiple articles against creationists who are geocentrists. (an example would be [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1814/]). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:24, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The right is an extremely biased end of the political spectrum.

Most republicans once you have met them suffer fromn delusions and a general lack of common sense. Whether this is because of their undying worship of Jesus, the brain drain machines used on new Right Wing Cultists, or because their parents were brother and sister we shall never know.

Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 1

2007-03-17T04:48:08Z

Prometheus: /* Seriously flawed, part 2. */

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution|current talk page]].

== Seriously flawed. ==

I'm not going to touch this article for now because I don't want to start issues but to put it mildly- this article is junk as it stands. Darwin's original ideas are not what the modern theory. The modern theory of evolution does not make a large deal about distinguishing between micro and macro evolution. and that's just for starters.

This article also gives definitions of micro and macroevolution which aren't fully consistent with the (bad) defintions given on the pages for those articles and conflates gaining information with speciation. These have little to do with each other by any reasonable defintion of information. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:43, 15 February 2007 (EST)

:Pay no attention to JoshuaZ. JoshuaZ is a fanatical bully boy evolutionist admin at Wikipedia and one of the many reasons why conservapedia.com was created. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:44, 22 February 2007 (EST)conservative

:: Wow, I haven't seen such charming ad hominem attacks in some time. You are aware that ad hominem attacks aren't logically valid, yes? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:38, 22 February 2007 (EST)
:::I wasn't in a debate with you. I was merely calling a spade a spade and warning readers about you. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:35, 22 February 2007 (EST)conservative

:::: Warning them about what exactly? Even if your accusations that I was a "fanatical bully boy evolutionist admin at Wikipedia " I fail to see its relevancy. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:44, 22 February 2007 (EST)

:::: Just my two cents, but I have had some serious concerns with quality of some admins here at conservapedia, but Joshuaz is one of the best. He is not a "fanatical bully evolutionist." If you took 5 mins to participate in this site before you start throwing mud, you would know this. Josh seams to be the best hope for bringing credibility and actual value to conservapedia. Joshuaz's concerns about the article were entirely appropriate, but remember that we are here to build, not tear down.--[[User:Whatter|Whatter]] 01:41, 24 February 2007 (EST)
:::::Whatter, I base my comments on JoshuaZ based on my experiences of him at Wikipedia. I also think you mistakenly believe that JoshuaZ is an admin here at conservapedia. Lastly, I would ask JoshuaZ the following questions: Is Wikipedia biased in favor of the macroevolutionary position? Have you ever edited out material against the macroevolutionary position at Wikipedia? '''By the way, here is what JoshuaZ says about Conservapedia at his Wikipedia userpage discussion page''': "Yeah, a lot of the scienceblog people had a lot of fun tearing it into tiny pieces. I've almost given up myself. The only good that I can see coming of it is that we can maybe direct annoying people here over to there." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JoshuaZ] It seems as if JoshuaZ wants to direct those annoying creationist who point out flaws of the macroevolutionary position to Conservapedia so he spends less time removing their material from Wikipedia. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:18, 24 February 2007 (EST)conservative

Forget the content will someone please fix the incorrectly placed commas!

== Seriously flawed, part 2. ==
This is the first entry I checked out to see what Conservapedia was like, and to see if it's really the quality source it claims to be. Sadly, it is not. What a terrible, unscientific, irrational, and ideological understanding of the Theory of Evolution. Conservatives should be ashamed to have this be a representation of Conservative understanding of scientific issues. Thoughtful conservatives who want the straight science of evolution need to look elsewhere. I won't be back.

There's too much information to counter in this entry, but let me just leave you with this: Dogs can't turn into cats? No, and modern squids won't turn into people, either. But we can look back at the evolutionary history and see where different species branched off from a common ancestor. Cats and dogs are closer to a common ancestor than people and squids are. That is, unless someone produces evidence that overturns our understanding. That would be pretty powerful evidence. Kind of like if someone discovered that there's really no gravity.

Just to clarify, although I'm adding to the Seriously Flawed entry, I'm a different person.

Counter:

It's the purpose of Conservapedia to be a pro-Christian version of Wikipedia. You call Conservapedia all sorts of insulting things, but the bottom line is, if you don't like it, don't use it. Your "too much information" quip is precisely the reason that Wikipedia is so biased.
[[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 14:02 22 February 2007 (EST)

: That doesn't respond to a single part of the above complain. Many Christians accept evolution. Having factually incorrect information doesn't make this article pro-Christian. It makes it wrong. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:17, 22 February 2007 (EST)

:: "Many" Christians accept a lot of things, that doesn't make their position Biblical. Only God is incapable of error, and that's why this website follows God instead of the fallible beliefs of Men. You claim that this information is "factually incorrect" but you don't prove it. Besides, the founder of this website has proven, in no uncertain terms, that macroevolution (what most atheists mean when they say "evolution") is impossible. There's simply not enough time and even if there was, all mutations are harmful. The end. [[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 14:23 22 Februrary 2007 (EST)

::: Ok, so many problems with the above comment I'm not even sure where to start, so I'll just go through sentence by sentence. First, regarding your statement that "Only God is incapable of error, and that's why this website follows God instead of the fallible beliefs of Men" - don't confuse what God said with your interpretation of what God said. Your interpretations are still failible. Second, your claim that "the founder of this website has proven, in no uncertain terms, that macroevolution (what most atheists mean when they say "evolution") is impossible" - first, note that in science nothing is very proven - at best one has overwhelming evidence for a claim. Second, no I'm afraid that the "founder"(I presume you mean Andrew) did no such thing. Your claims that " There's simply not enough time and even if there was, all mutations are harmful" is such a bundle of contradictions and attempts to ignore reality it isn't funny. To point out only three of the problems- the majority of mutations are in fact not harmful nor beneficial but neutral (you would know this if you took a basic genetics course). Second there are many examples of beneficial mutations in the scientific literature, in fact examples have been around for over 50 years. See for See for example Lederberg and Lederberg, ''Replica plating and indirect selection of bacterial mutants''. Journal of Bacteriology 63: 399-406 (1952). More recently, bacteria have gained mutations allowing them to digest nylon: Negoro, et al. "The nylon oligomer biodegradation system of Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas" Biodegradation 5: 185-194. Third, a simple thought problem will show you that not all mutations are harmful- all point mutations are essentially reversible mutations. So if a given point mutation is harmful then the reverse mutation is beneficial. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:11, 22 February 2007 (EST)

::: Ah-ha, but Ashens has forgotten! Since God is infallible, and, by definition, ineffable, anything He does is to great to be understood by the minds of Men. So although God may indeed be "incapable of error" (but being omnipotent, He is capable of anything), only a faded, skewed version of His Plans can be perceived by our mortal minds (as JoshuaZ said). Therefore a website that follows God must be creating its own distorted image of the true, divine Facts.
::: ''There's simply not enough time to observe all of His Plans unfold and even if there was, He may well be enjoying a Joke at our expense.'' [[User:Prometheus|Prometheus]]

::::(I wrote the second "Seriously Flawed" entry.) It's not my intention to be insulting. Forgive me for not reading everything about the site ahead of time. I didn't realize it was specifically Christian. I thought it was about Conservatism, which most certainly extends beyond Christianity. I understand your "if you don't like it, don't use it" comment. If you want to avoid more negative comments, perhaps you should make the site more obviously fundamentalist Christian. Just a suggestion, since plenty of conservatives are concerned with scientific truth over Biblical Truth.

:::It's interesting that God is infallible. Because, personally I mean, I would say he probably made a mistake in the Old Testament when he told Christians to murder anyone who works on Sunday, or when he told Christians to murder all gay people, or when he told Christians to murder anyone who 'spoke of other religions.' I was under the impression that most Christians think that's why he sent down a slightly less flawed little addendum called the New Testament- to fix all the mistakes he made. Thanks for clearing that up though- God did not make any mistakes in the Old Testament. He was just a complete douchebag.

== Article violates the site's own "commandments" ==

This article is a prime example of the sort of nonsense that gives conservatism a bad name. It's too silly to deserve any kind of discussion, but I would just point out that it is in contradiction with the site's own "commandments". Number 1 is that everything posted here should be true and verifiable. This article is very obviously neither.

:This comment was obviously posted awhile ago, but I'll reply anyway. First of all, Mr. Anonymous, I wish you would sign your comments. Second, you are in no way proving or backing up what you say. You just make these silly remarks and criticisms without even giving an example. This article looks good to me. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 10:12, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::I seriously hope you weren't serious there. Your first sentence acknowledges that this was posted a long time ago... and then you go on about how TODAY's article looks good to you. For what it's worth, the initial post came from [[User:Alfonz|Alfonz]], dated Feb 22. This can EASILY be checked. It most likely took me far less time to check that than it took you to write your reply. The actual article at that time had been [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&oldid=15585 this version]. At the time of that posting, the context had been extremely obvious (complete lack of sourcing, pure opinions), so stop belittling people just because you're too lazy to do basic background checks. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 12:23, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Y'kmow, when I think of the best of Conservative writing I think of Bill Safire, Bill Buckley and George Will, folks who do their homework and are articulate intellectuals. Here, I see a lot of Rush Limbaugh wannabes. Muy triste. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==Current outstanding issues==

I was told by a mod not to correct inaccuracies without discussion, so I'm going to list the issues outstanding. Most importantly, I hope the creationists here realize that there is a difference between disagreeing that evolution is good, well demonstrated science, and simply misrepresenting what evolution says and is. You don't have to agree that evolution is real, but you do need to at least get the CLAIMS correct.

*Darwin (and Wallace, actually) was historically the guy who first described evolution as a coherent theory in the modern sense, but this is relevant to an article on evolution ''only'' in the historical sense. Any article bearing the name "The Theory of Evolution" needs to discuss the actual, modern one, not focus almost exclusively on Darwin, much less only on natural selection. Common descent isn't even mentioned despite it begin a core idea even for Darwin's time.

*The section on dog evolution says that dogs have "many regressive traits," but this statement is vague and potentially meaningless. Dog populations have many different traits, and many new traits are added an extended over time via mutation.

*Many examples of reproductive speciation have been observed in a human timeframe.

*The evidence of science is not limited to eyewitness observation. Physical evidence can be just as strong, if not stronger, as directly observational evidence. Thus, the claim that this or that has not been directly observed happening in a lab is irrelevant. What ultimately matters is the evidence that confirms or disconfirms a given claim.

*The idea that mutations cannot add information is both ill-defined and incoherent for any definition. The fact of the matter is that anything a mutation can do, it can undo. By definition, if mutation can lose information it can also gain it, and being random, mutation cannot be said to prefer one to the other.

*As has been pointed out countless times, the claimed distinction between macroevolution and microevolution is simply phony, and claiming that it is a basic division in evolution is nonsense. While those terms are used in biology, they are not used in the way creationists claim. They are relevant primarily because different sorts of forces act on the direction of populations that can interbreed and those that cannot. What creationists really object to is not macroevolution, but rather common descent (which is the idea that all life speciated in a branching matter from a common ancestor or set of early ancestors).

I couldn't agree more. The sooner these changes are made the sooner this article will
become credible. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:53, 22 February 2007 (EST)

stubbstarbuck -- This article makes a specious argument at best (it's a straw man argument against natural selection), and at its Iworst makes conservatives look thouroughly uneducated. This response is not about defending the theory of evolution; there are countless resources that do this better than I can. What makes this article so insidious is its blatant propaganda motive. If Conservapedia is looking to provide a balance to Wikipedia, then its users should spend more time researching the issue. I'm not even sure the writer of the evolution article understands evolution, which, you would imagine, should be a prerequisite for authoritatively writing on the subject, or anything for that matter.

I laughed out loud when I read it - it could have been about anything I know a lot about, and I still would have laughed. It looks like it was written in about 15 minutes. I also enjoyed the hilarious inline edits, though I don't think that really makes things better - it only makes evolution naysayers less likely to learn the truth.

==2nd Law Problems==
This article is still making the second law violation claims. Credible citations are a MUST for a controversial entry like this, and I challange editors who put the 2LOT claims in to PLEASE cite appropriately.--[[User:Whatter|Whatter]] 01:41, 24 February 2007 (EST)
:One thing that people definitely need to understand is that the 2nd law is either a law or it isn't (it is, of course). And if it is, then it makes no sense to assert that natural evolution somehow violates it but design does not. Human beings obey the laws of thermodynamics just the same as everything else, for instance: when we design things, add information to things, its all in keeping with the laws of thermodynamics. I think once you realize that, the idea that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics becomes more obviously silly. If complexity couldn't increase naturally, all sorts of very common things would be impossible. Entropy means that things are always ''overly wasteful'' not that any given event is thermodynamically impossible or that order always decreases even locally.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 04:01, 24 February 2007 (EST)

From the article:

:"Evolution does in fact lower the entropy of the sum of the living DNA on this planet"

I'd ''love'' to see the calculation demonstrating this. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:31, 25 February 2007 (EST)

<s>Obviousman points out:</s>(Not so obvious, it would seem) [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:12, 25 February 2007 (EST)

The second law only applies to a closed system. The earth plus the sun might constitute an approximation to a closed system. The earth considered by itself most definitely does not. Any decrease in entropy occurring on the earth is just a drop in the bucket compared to the huge increase in entropy that is occurring within the sun.

In other words, the gradual running-down of the sun not only provides enough energy, but enough entropy increase to "fuel" evolution, civilization, learning in human brains, the assemblage of spots on paper into the score for Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, and all that. You could tidy up everything on earth into an obsessive-compulsive's dream without decreasing its entropy enough to matter when you take the earth-sun system into account.

And, yes, without the sun's energy (and, equally important, the ''difference in temperature'' between the surface of the sun and the blackness of the outer space surrounding it), you could not have evolution... or stable, creationist life. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 15:45, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:Second law applies to all systems, open or closed. It's just that one statement of the second law, namely that entropy cannot decrease in a closed system, isn't particularly ''useful'' in open systems.

:Incidentally, tidying isn't going to decrease the Earth's entropy at all. If anything, the work done in the process will increase it. But the ordering of macroscopic bodies doesn't affect their thermodynamic entropy; one can't decrease the entropy of a deck of cards by laying it out in order, for example. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 15:52, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::"If anything, the work done in the process will increase it." Well, that's sort of my point. I thought the second law allowed things to get tidier in one place as long as something else gets untidier... ''more'' untidier... as a result. But clearly I don't really know what I'm talking about, so maybe just for once I'll shut up... [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 17:15, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::Only for a sufficiently esoteric definition of 'tidy'; one which will generally not match our intuitive understanding of the term. This is why when talking about thermodynamics I find it better to avoid terms like order, which carry with them a lot of baggage, and just stick with entropy. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 17:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)

The point is that the article would be much better off if the 2nd law nonsense was just removed. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 18:55, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:Quite. Perhaps someone who disagrees would care to defend its inclusion? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 06:22, 27 February 2007 (EST)

::I'll take that as a 'no,' then. Since no one seems willing or able to defend this arrant nonsense, perhaps an admin could remove it. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:30, 2 March 2007 (EST)

== conservatives, where is the extensive criticism of the evolutionary position? ==

In the conservapedia article which is prominently placed on the main page of this site and is entitled [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] the following is written:

"Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored....For example, even though most Americans reject the theory of [[evolution]]..., Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.... The Wikipedia entry for the [[Piltdown Man]] omits many key facts, such as how it was taught in schools for an entire generation and how the dating methodology used by evolutionists is fraudulent."

Currently the article [[The Theory of Evolution]] is locked from further editing. I believe the article needs to be edited further in order to add more criticism of the macoevolutionary position.

For example, macroevolutionist have no real evidence that macroevolution occurs and there is no consensus on how it exactly occurs as can be seen below:

"When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd." - Simon Conway Morris (palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK), "Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11

"If it is true that an influx of doubt and uncertainty actually marks periods of healthy growth in a science, then evolutionary biology is flourishing today as it seldom has flourished in the past. For biologists collectively are less agreed upon the details of evolutionary mechanics than they were a scant decade ago. Superficially, it seems as if we know less about evolution than we did in 1959, the centennial year of Darwin's on the Origin of Species." (Niles Eldredge, "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p14).

In addition, creationist can cite material showing that there is no real fossil evidence for the macroevolutionary position:

"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831

"...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation." - E.J.H. Corner, Prof of Botany, Cambridge University, England. E.J. H. Corner, “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97

"We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time." Lord Solly Zuckerman (paleonthropologist of Birmingham University in England), Beyond the Ivory Tower, New York: Taplinger Publishing Company, 1970, p. 19.

"Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee (evolutionist), “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.

For more quotes regarding the fossil record please see: [http://creationwiki.org/Fossil_record_quotes Fossil record quotes]

[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:11, 24 February 2007 (EST)conservative

:Just so you now, conservative or not, science is not done via quoting people, even if the quotes were relevant or correctly contexted. It's done by looking at evidence. That creationists continually assume otherwise is a real embarrassment, particularly given how outright deceptive many of these quotes are (and I'm not talking mere mistakes either).

:Furthermore, talking about the "macroevolution" position is just a telling reveal of a lack of knowledge about what evolutionary theory claims. Macroevolution concerns things like genetc drift, mass extinctions, and so forth. What you really mean to criticize is the idea of common descent, not macroevolution.

:'''There is no unified conservative position on evolution, or even conservative Christian position.''' If this is a creationist site, then so be it, but that at that point it ceases to be a conservative, or even a christian conservative, site. [[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 11:08, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:: I am in complete agreement with Plunge. Furthermore note that all the quotes are classic quote mines, all either out of context or out of date and in many cases, both. For example, the quote from New Scientist about the fossil record in fact comes from a piece making the point that one doesn't need to use fossil evidence since there are many other forms of evidence which are even more persuasive. The very next sentence is "The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven" and the article then later goes on to say that "So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy." Science doesn't work off of quotes and proof-texts, and especially not quotes that are out of context and distorted. If you are going to even attempt to engage in the fallacy of quotes being somehow evidence, please at least read the original items where the quotes come from and not just repeat them from nth hand creationist sources. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 15:37, 25 February 2007 (EST)

== This article is becoming an embarrassment ==

This article is supposed to be on evolution. Unfortunately it contains very little on evolution and a great deal on (pretty medicore) criticisms of evolution including the laughable entries on the "doubting ranks" of the world's scientists and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If this site seeks to retain any credibility it just has to do better. This article makes a mockery of Conservapedia's criticism of Wikipedia's bias. --[[User:Horace|Horace]] 19:48, 25 February 2007 (EST)

==Conservative Please Stop==
I second Horace's concern above. There is plenty of room for criticism of Darwinism, but to be taken seriously it must be presented seriously. This article is just asking for a flood of internet mockery.

Is it possible to unlock this article? I understand that it is a top target for vandalism, but vandals wouldn't be much worse than what it is right now. Lets unlock it and see how the community can make this better. As it is, it's just [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] making silly changes. The article isn't even about evolution.--[[User:Whatter|Whatter]] 19:59, 25 February 2007 (EST)
::Whatter, I was made a sysop at Conservapedia so I could make the changes I proposed in the talk page of this article. I am guessing the article will not be unlocked given that it is a lightning rod for liberals wanting to vandalize or liberals wanting to change the article in order to give it a liberal point of view. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:38, 25 February 2007 (EST)conservative

::: That doesn't change the fact that you are making a travesty of an article. You added in a series of quotemines, even after it was already explained to you why the quotes weren't that relevant. Your added in quotemines included one where I specifically explained to you how it was out of context. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:14, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::: The article will be improved over time. This is what is great about Wiki software. However, even though the article would be "improved" much faster, we cannot (for obvious reasons) "open the floodgates" and un-protect the article. [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 22:33, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::::: That doesn't mean an editor should be making controversial edits. On most other Wikis I've worked on (such as Wikipedia, the English language Wikipedia, and a variety of others), admins do not make controversial edits when the article is protected. Admin tools should not be used to make gains in content disputes. Furthermore, there is a solution to this sort of thing(which I presumse we have here if we are using an at all recent version of the Wikimedia software) - semiprotection. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:42, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::::: 1) I don't know whether policy has been defined here, and I asked on PhilipB's talk page for clarification, but, yes, Conservative was given sysop status by PhilipB for the specific purpose of editing this article. I consider that the local authorities here have effectively decided to control some articles by protecting them and effectively making them editable only by sysops. Effectively, my understanding is that Conservative and the other sysops have been granted sole authorship of this article. In my opinion, that's a bad idea, but... not my site, not my rules.

:::::: 2) For the record, I think Conservative and others should understand that on Wikipedia, sysops are supposed to keep their sysop actions and their actions as editors completely separate. Sysops are not supposed to perform any sysop actions on an article on which they are an active editor, and, conversely, are not supposed to edit articles in which they have an administrative involvement. That's considered a pretty serious breach of the rules. Certainly on Wikipedia an sysop who unprotected an article, edited it for content, and then protected it again would be in immediate trouble unless the change was so uncontroversial that nobody complained, or unless he could show that the action has been authorized.

:::::: 3) (For example, ''if'' user Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington or whatever his name was, the admin who ultimately performed the deletion of the Conservapedia article, had been involved as an editor of that article, or had been involved in the deletion discussion of that article, the deletion action would probably have been taken straight to deletion review and the outcome would probably have been "undelete and relist"). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:57, 26 February 2007 (EST)
:::::::JoshuaZ, I have never heard the word "quote mine" used in scholarly discourse. The phrase "quote mine" seems to be largely used by evolutionists who are extremely desperate to claim individuals are quoting out of context when expert testimony via quotes is damaging to the macroevolutionary position. I don't see proponents of other positions crying "quote mine" when expert testimony is not favorable to their position and I think the cries of "quote mine" reflect very badly on the macroevolutionary community. Secondly, you wrote at Wikipedia regarding Conservapedia the following: "The only good that I can see coming of it is that we can maybe direct annoying people here over to there." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JoshuaZ] I would ask you if you think Conservapedia is a very pointless enterprise and merely is good for directing people away from Wikipedia to Conservapedia then why do you insist on continually posting at Conservapedia? I ask this because you have yet to retract this statement regarding Conservapedia at Conservapedia and at Wikipedia where you originally made the statement. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:38, 26 February 2007 (EST)conservative
:::::::: To answer your various comments, I would agree that the term "quote mine" is not often used in scholarly discourse and that yes it does have negative connotations, and it is meant to. It is used not by "desperate" "evolutionists" but various annoyed and frustrated individuals at this sort of blatant out of context quoting. Simply making claims that the use of the term "reflect(s) badly on the macroevolutionary community" does not answer any of the above concerns. It does not address my point where I pointed out the original context of the New Scientist quote, nor did you adress any of Plunge's concerns. As to your repeated quote of the comment on my user page, I already addressed that [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Main_Page&diff=prev&oldid=16598 here]. In any event, my personal attitude towards this project has nothing to do with whether your quotes are out of context or whether claims about the 2nd law of thermodynamics are wrong. I hope that in the future, you will refrain from ad hominem remarks and address the conerns raised. I would be particularly interested in an explanation for how the New Scienstist is not out of context. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:37, 26 February 2007 (EST)
:::::::::JoshuaZ, I understand why you don't like Mark Ridley's candid admission regarding the fossil record in regards to it being used to defend the evolutionary position, however, I see no reason to delete this testimony in regards to the fossil record. I am referring to this quote: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831 [http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/orb-fossil-ref.html] You can continue to cry "quote mine", but please do not be surprised if am unconcerned. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:26, 26 February 2007 (EST)conservative
::::::::: Conservative, I don't mind "Ridley's candid admission" because it is no such thing. I strongly suggest you actually read the article. Do you not see how his saying "So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy." is at all relevant? And I note that you also ignored issues about the 2nd law that were also brought up. Now, instead of attempting to figure out what I like or don't likem you could actually respond to the matter at hand, and ''explain'' why the quote in question isn't out of context given the additional sentences I have provided to you. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:39, 26 February 2007 (EST)
:::::::::Conservative, if you read the article, it's quite clear that the characterization of Ridley's view (and citing him as evidence that common descent is unsupported) is a dishonest one. The reason you don't hear "quote mine" that much in academia is that it is something Ph'Ds scrupulously try to avoid, because they know people will check their work, and they can lose their careers over this sort of misrepresentation. The problem I see for this wiki is that it will fast become just a set of articles written by a closed group of people with specially approved opinions, rather than the best facts winning out based on accurate evidence. The whole point of a wiki is that it's decentralized, like capitalism, and the BEST EVIDENCE wins out, not the person who happens to control the website.[[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 12:26, 27 February 2007 (EST)

I can confirm from conversation with the man that Simon Morris's comments have been taken out of context, "quote-mined" if you will. It is my opinion as a biologist that this page bears little to no resemblence to what is understood in mordern science. Much of it seems to have been drawn from religious literature rather than mainstream scientific sources, as would be prefered. Additionally, a number of liberal blogs are linking to this site as an example of conservative dishonesty and foolishness. User:conservative, you do this site a great disservice. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 05:51, 27 February 2007 (EST)
::Nematocyte, if you insist on making a claim of "quote mining" I believe you did not meet the burden of proof that it is incumbant upon you too demonstrate. Please show how the following Simon Morris quote was clearly out of context using the article in question: "When discussing organic evolution '''the only point of agreement seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus''', which at first sight must seem rather odd." - Simon Conway Morris (palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK), "Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11" I would be especially interested in why the bolded portion of the quote was somehow misrepresented since it is quite embarrassing to the macroevolutionary position. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:06, 27 February 2007 (EST)conservative
::: Um, may I ask why it would make sense for Nemat to give more data on the original context? Especially since I gave you the original context of one of your quotes and you ignored it? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:29, 27 February 2007 (EST)

:::Why do you need to ask someone else to provide the context for your quotes? Don't you know it? Haven't you ''read'' the original sources? [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 04:17, 28 February 2007 (EST)

::::It's pretty clear at this point that he has not, which is the virtual definition of quote mining. The claimed point of those quotes is to try and show that the people in question, at least, think that common descent isn't supported by the fossil evidence. Take the Ridley quote. It's plainly obvious from reading the article the quote is taken from that this reading is patently ridiculous. So the usage is prima facie dishonest, and trying to pass it off as a "candid admission" doesn't even make logical sense. But the whole approach is ridiculous regardless. Science does not work on citing the authority of "proof texts." It's based off of the citing of evidence. Even if most of the quotes WEREN'T nonsense, simply compiling a list of quotations from papers you've never even read just isn't how science is done. [[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 04:15, 1 March 2007 (EST)
:::::[[CreationWiki]] now has a link to the original Simon Morris article which can be read in its entirety by clicking the CreationWiki footnotes for the quote.[http://creationwiki.org/Biology_quotes]
[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)conservative
::::::That still doesn't excuse mischaracterizing it as saying that all the major elements of evolutionary theory are just up in the air. That's not what it is saying at all. And that's hardly an adequate answer to all the other objections given. For the last time: SCIENCE IS NOT DONE BY QUOTING SINGLE LINE DECLARATIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL SCIENTISTS. It doesn't make a lick of difference if there are biologists here and ther who, for instance, deny the germ theory of disease. That doesn't make all the evidence for it magically go away. You need to deal with the evidence, not try to take shortcuts by treating the opinions of some scientists as holy writ and then ignoring everything else they've ever written or anyone else has ever written or, more importantly, published. Are you deliberately avoiding debate on these issues? You've been near totally non-responsive to criticism. [[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 11:22, 3 March 2007 (EST)
: Ok, having read the article, that quote is out of context. Morris seems to be saying that there is not consensus about when evolution occurs, how precisely it occurs on the genetic level and how the genotype and phenotype interact in this context. That's not at all what the quote seems to be saying when you take it out of context. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 17:47, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Guys my view is don't try and argue science with a creationist, they already assume that science is incorrect and they have absolute blind faith in their quest to annoy everyone with they're psuedoscientific attempts at proving their position (I just watched some guy talk about noah's ark and obviously had no understanding of gene pool at all [i'm sorry but no matter how hard you tried two dogs would not turn into 100's of breeds]...but that doesn't matter because the bible said it happened so therefore it did....). Seriously it's like punching a brickwall i've found. While I view myself as conservative after going through this site I perhaps am mistaken, either that or this site is not appropriately named. [[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]

==Develop and ongoing in an unprotected location, periodically copy to the protected location==
If [[The Theory of Evolution]] is going to remain protected indefinitely, I think it would be a really good idea to create an unprotected page, perhaps [[The Theory of Evolution/draft]] in which interested editors could work collaboratively develop a version that represents more than the ex cathedra pronouncements of a single contributor.

Vandalism on the this page would be largely hidden from casual users and the liberal blog. At intervals, sysops could copy its contents into the main article.

This would ensure that everything appearing in the article would be filtered by sysops, who presumably have internalized Conservapedia's policies and point of view, while allowing some reasonable intellectual give-and-take in the development of the article. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 10:32, 27 February 2007 (EST)
::Your comment regarding the "ex cathedra pronouncements of a single editor" is mistaken for several reasons. First, I vetted my material in the talk page and was made a SYSOP (administrator) for this website so I could incorporate the material I wrote in the talk page to the actual [[The Theory of Evolution]] article. Secondly, I wrote two out three sections in [[Theory of Evolution]] that were critical of the macroevolutionary position (I did not write the thermodynamics section). Third, I edited my material that I added to the article based on the recommendation of the Conservapedian Aschafly. Fourth, the position of Conservapedia relative to the macroevolutionary position is made clear in the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] article. Conservapedia is clearly a website which is not favorable to the macroevolutionary position. Lastly, I think it is a poor idea to create a second article via a draft article since it duplicates the function of a talk page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:06, 27 February 2007 (EST)conservative
::: Um, you didn't vet your material on the talk page. You put it on the talk page, and then ignored all criticism of that material. That's not vetting by any strecth of the imagincation. Second of all, using the fact that you are an admin as justification for including them is precisely what Dpb means by such an ex cathedra pronounciation- a pronounciation based on authority, not dialogue and discussion. Who wrote the section on thermodynamics isn't relevant- if you agree with it, please explain why on the talk page, if you disagree, please remove the section. Your claim that "the position of Conservapedia relative to the macroevolutionary position is made clear in the [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] article" is not at all accurate. Even if Conservapedia thinks that Wikipedia is somehow biased in favor of "macroevolution" it in no way implies that Conservapedia rejects macroevolution (to use an example, if a page said "X is an idiot" I can agree that this is not an unbiased description of X, even if I think it is accurate). Furthermore, even if Conservapedia is "not favorable to the macroevolutionary position" this is not an argument for having out of context quotes, poor argumentation, and flammable stawmen. Finally, drafts are very useful - they allow users to make other versions and see what the proposed changes would look like before being implemented. In many wikis it is common to have a separate draft space and only move approved changes to the main page. If this page is going to be protected for an extended period of time(as has been suggested by a few editors) then a draft page makes a great deal of sense. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:23, 27 February 2007 (EST)
::::Joshua, the conservapedian in question wrote "develop a version that represents more than the ex cathedra pronouncements of a single contributor". I am not going to wrangle with you and I am going to immediately get to the central issue. Please show that the article was one man's work and the result of one man's decision making process. So far you haven't done that. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:41, 27 February 2007 (EST)

::::: Conservative, you seem to have a problem with focusing on less than relevant details and ignoring most other points that people make. In this case, you insist that I show something that neither I, nor Dpb claimed was true, you ignored my comment about the lack of vetting, and ignored my explanation of what I thought Dpb meant when he said it was ex cathedra. You've also ignored my point about how the Bias page doesn't show that Conservapedia intrisically disfavors "macroevolution." Finally, you ignored my explanation of why in general draft space is useful which is true independent of any claims of how this article in particular has been editing. Now, I'd appreciate if you would actually try to respond to points and engage in constructive diaologue. Thanks, [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:40, 27 February 2007 (EST)

==New page for working on a draft of the article==
User:Conservative sees an issue with having an unprotected working area as a subpage of the article, so, accordingly, I've created a new one that is Talk space rather than article space. The new working page is:

[[Talk:The Theory of Evolution/draft]].

[[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 19:13, 28 February 2007 (EST)

== Dinosaurs and man coexisting ==

The Conservapedia article [[dinosaur]] has assembled quite a bit of information that points to dinosaurs and man coexisting. [http://www.conservapedia.com/Dinosaur] Should [[The Theory of Evolution]] article briefly make reference to this information? [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:23, 1 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:Perhaps you should deal with the issues of the existing page before trying to add new controversial matieral? I note that many of the cites involved in that discussion fail to mention all sort of key elements that undermine. For instance, the citation about supposed "recent" dinosaur bones fail entirely to mention that they were in fact, mineralized, and not in fact bone as the article implies. And so on. Just because someone is capable of making outrageous claims about modern dinosaurs doesn't mean they hold up to scrutiny. None of these have. [[User:Plunge|Plunge]] 13:23, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:That "information" - is it any more trustworthy than the forgeries held up as evidence so far (such as the chisel taken to the paluxy trackway to make the dino prints look human)?

== From Scientific American ==

[http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000D4FEC-7D5B-1D07-8E49809EC588EEDF&pageNumber=1&catID=2 This article] from Scientific American explains why '''creationism is right''' and '''evolution is wrong'''. Silly Darwinists.
[[User:Mike Newsworth|Mike Newsworth]] 22:04, 1 March 2007 (EST)

: Here is a creationist response to the Scientific American article: [http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2088] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:55, 4 March 2007 (EST)conservative

::I've read two of the responces, the origins of life and 2nd law. The origins of life repeats the fallacy that the abiotic origin of life is a neccasery part of evolution, which is false (after all, if life had been created by a god 3.5 billion years ago life would still have evolved. The 2nd law aguement rests on the premise that since regulatory mechanisms are required to harness the energy the fact that earth's an open system can be ignored. But such mechanisms clearly do exist (photosynthesisand chemosynthesis for example), since we are able to continue living. Where they came from is another matter, but since they do exist the argument is incorrect. I urge members to correct the clear scientific inaccuracise in this entry, as we are being shown up as scientifically ignorant. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 08:02, 5 March 2007 (EST)

*As Answers In Genesis says, that article is nothing more than materialist bigotry. It does show that creationism is right, by proving how desperate the Darwinists are. That article presents strawman after strawman in an attempt to avoid the hard questions that Darwinism faces. Scientific American is an extremely anti-Christian publication. [[User:Ashens|Ashens]] 22:12 1 March 2007

: I'd be curious to hear what strawmen there are. While it is true that some of the arguments are not used by some of the more sophisticated creationists (For example, "If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" is one of the 15 and AIG lists it on their list of arguments creationists should not use) none of them seem to be very flammable. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:37, 1 March 2007 (EST)

::Indeed. Not only have I heard every single one of those arguments, I hear them considerably more often than the more sophisticated versions. Of course, my experience may not be representative. Still, several of those arguments can be found right here at Conservapedia. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 05:27, 2 March 2007 (EST)

Number 5 directly addresses the Simon Morris quote mine I drew attention to earlier, and number 9 succiently points out the flaws in the second law objections. If these are strawmen then why are they being made here? [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 05:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:Because creationists are all scared, desperate individuals who are trying feverishly to discredit the true evolution. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 10:30, 7 March 2007 (EST)
:: Instead of sarcasm, you could try to actually answer the question. It is hard to see how they can both be strawmen and be employed here. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:39, 7 March 2007 (EST)

==Second law of thermodynamics==

Oh come off it, the argument here is utter nonsense. Evolution does indeed decrease the entropy *on the planet*. That isn't a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy *of the universe* is increasing. Pro-creationist bias is one thing, being utterly clueless is another. --[[User:John Galt|John Galt]] 13:32, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:It's not even clear that evolution ''does'' decrease the entropy on the planet. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 13:59, 2 March 2007 (EST)
::Oops, you're right. It's life itself that increases the entropy on this planet. If the creationists are right, we're all dead! --[[User:John Galt|John Galt]] 16:56, 2 March 2007 (EST)

:Your very comments discredit you. No one said anything about life increasing the entropy on the planet. Evolution doesn't decrease entropy; nothing can. It's inevitable. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 10:16, 7 March 2007 (EST)

== Parson Weems, Washington, and "design" ==

Sorta off-topic for the article, but too good to omit... Parson Weems' hagiographic "biography" of Washington is best known for giving us the tale of George Washington and the cherry tree, but Weems tells another story of the youthful Washington[http://xroads.virginia.edu/~CAP/gw/chap2.html online here]. Whether it is accurate biography or theology, you must judge for yourself:

It was in this way by interesting at once both his heart and head, that Mr. Wlashington conducted George with great ease and pleasure along the happy paths of virtue. But well knowing that his beloved charge, soon to be a man, would be left exposed to numberless temptations, both from himself and from others, his heart throbbed with the tenderest anxiety to make him acquainted with that great being, whom to know and love, is to possess the surest defence against vice, and the best of all motives to virtue and happiness. To startle George into a lively sense of his Maker, he fell
upon the following very curious but impressive
expedient:

One day he went into the garden, and prepared a
little bed of finely pulverized earth, on which he wrote
George's name at full, in large letters--then strewing
in plenty of cabbage seed, he covered them up, and
smoothed all over nicely with the roller.--This bed
he purposely prepared close along side of a gooseberry
walk, which happening at this time to be well hung
with ripe fruit, he knew would be honoured with
George's visits pretty regularly every day. Not many
mornings had passed away before in came George,
with eyes wild rolling, and his little cheeks ready to
burst with great news.

"O Pa! come here! come here!" 
"What's the matter, my son ? what's the matter ?" 
"O come here, I tell you, Pa: come here! and I'll
shew you such a sight as you never saw in all your
life time."

The old gentleman suspecting what George would
be at, gave him his hand, which he seized with great
eagerness, and tugging him along through the garden,
led him point blank to the bed whereon was inscribed,
in large letters, and in all the freshness of newly sprung
plants, the full name of

GEORGE WASHINGTON.

"There Pa?"said George, quite in an ecstacy of
astonishment,"did you ever see such a sight in all
your life time?"

"Why it seems like a curious affair, sure enough,
George !"

"But, Pa, who did make it there ? who did make it
there ?"

"It grew there by chance, I suppose, my son."

"By chance, Pa! O no! no! it never did grow
there by chance, Pa. Indeed that it never did!"

"High! why not, my son?"

"Why, Pa, did you ever see anybody's name in a
plant bed before?"

"Well, but George, such a thing might happen,
though you never saw it before."

"Yes, Pa; but I did never see the little plants grow
up so as to make one single letter of my name before.
Now, how could they grow up so as to make all the
letters of my name! and then standing; one after
another, to spell my name so exactly!--and all so neat
and even too, at top and bottom! ! O Pa, you must
not say chance did all this. Indeed somebody did it;
and I dare say now, Pa, you did it just to scare me,
because I am your little boy."

His father smiled; and said,"Well George, you
have guessed right. I indeed did it; but not to scare
you, my son; but to learn you a great thing which I
wish you to understand. I want, my son, to introduce you to your true Father."

"High, Pa, an't you my true father, that has loved
me, and been so good to me always?"

"Yes George, I am your father, as the world calls
it: and I love you very dearly too. But yet with all
my love for you, George, I am but a poor good-for-
nothing sort of a father in comparison of one you
have."

"Aye ! I know, well enough whom you mean, Pa.
You mean God Almighty; don't you?"

"Yes, my son, I mean him indeed. He is your
true Father, George."

"But, Pa, where is God Almighty ! I did never
see him yet."

"True my son; but though you never saw him,
yet he is always with you. You did not see me when
ten days ago I made this little plant bed, where you see
your name in such beautiful green letters: but though
you did not see me here, yet you know I was here!"

"Yes, Pa, that I do. I know you was here."

"Well then, and as my son could not believe that
chance had made and put together so exactly the letters
of his name (though only sixteen) then how can he
believe, that chance could have made and put together
all those millions and millions of things that are now
so exactly fitted to his good! That my son may look at
everything around him, see ! what fine eyes he has got!
and a little pug nose to smell the sweet flowers I and
pretty ears to hear sweet sounds! and a lovely mouth
for his bread and butter! and 0, the little ivory teeth
to cut it for him! and the dear lithe tongue to prattle
with his father! and precious little hands and fingers
to hold his play-things ! and beautiful little feet for him
to run about upon! and when my little rogue of a son
is tired with running about, then the still night comes
for him to lie down: and his mother sings, and the
little crickets chirp him to sleep! and as soon as he has
slept enough, and jumps up fresh and strong as a little
buck, there the sweet golden light is ready for him!
When he looks down into the water, there he sees the
beautiful silver fishes for him! and up in the trees there
are the apples, and peaches, and thousands of sweet
fruits for him! and all, all around him, wherever my
dear boy looks, he sees everything just to his wants and
wishes;--the bubbling springs with cool sweet water
for him to drink ! and the wood to make him sparkling
fires when he is cold! and beautiful horses for him to
ride ! and strong oxen to work for him! and the good
cow to give him milk ! and bees to make sweet honey
for his sweeter mouth! and the little lambs, with snowy
wool, for beautiful clothes for him! Now, these and
all the ten thousand thousand other good things more
than my son can ever think of, and all so exactly fitted
to his use and delight--Now how could chance ever
have done all this for my little son? Oh George!--

He would have gone on: but George, who had hung
upon his father's words with looks and eyes of all-
devouring attention, here broke out--

"Oh, Pa, that's enough! that's enough! It can't
be chance, indeed--it can't be chance, that made and
gave me all these things."

"What was it then, do you think, my son?"

"Indeed, Pa, I don't know unless it was God
Almighty !"

"Yes, George, he it was, my son, and nobody else."

::Well, I'm not sure about good biography, but that's fine theology. Mighty fine. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 17:20, 7 March 2007 (EST)

----

==Problems==

The article is way off the mark. Its title "Theory of Evolution" and the content do not match.

The theory of evolution is the theory of how evolutionists claim the alleged process occurs (natural selection).

Darwin and Wallace should be addressed; their proposal and how it was presented as a double paper in 1858 and the fact that NS was rejected by Science after Darwin died; and how NS was resurrected during the neo-Darwinian biological synthesis of the 1930s and 40s and how the synthesis defines NS; and then how modern Darwinists define NS and their claims that NS has produced the panoply of life as we see it today.

The article should begin by telling the world that the Theory of Evolution is an atheist interpretation of scientific evidence which attempts to explain how nature may have produced it self without any assistance from a supernatural Being.

[[User:Ray Martinez|Ray Martinez]] 22:29, 7 March 2007 (EST)

The portion below I did not write except the title and description - Ray

:Ray, click the first footnote to the article which is here also: [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i2/brainchild.asp] The Wallace issue is raised there. I realize that this is not a perfect solution but I wanted to work on more important matters concerning the article first. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 23:03, 7 March 2007 (EST)conservative

Am I the ony one who noticed that source 18 links to a survey that replied on participants volenteraly returning written surveys, 40% did not reply, thats horrible!
----

==Troll Alert==

BEGIN SECULAR SERMON AND DISCUSSION DERAILMENT

Just a rebuttal of this entire website, especially the Evolution article:

Do you understand that science is in fact NOT the devil? Your religion teaches love and understanding, yet every time I read or listen to a conservative/Christian based piece of literature/radio/internet site, all I seem to get from the gist of it is this: Liberals are evil, science is wrong, and any moment now Christ will come and we can use all of the natural resources we want because Armageddon will bring us all to the Promised Land, where we will have no further need of material objects.

I have some faults to shed light on

-science is what brought you into this world. I'm just assuming (just assuming) that everybody who is alive somehow came out of their mother, either by Caesarean Section or by a normal birth in a HOSPITAL, probably not the all natural way in a barn or potato field with no medicine, no doctors, and no nurses to clean you and cut your umbilical chord. Ergo, science=not evil
p.s.= science is based on observation and logic. If you willingly choose to believe that scientists are making up things as they go and have no standards, logic, or any mental thought process behind what they think, you're very close minded.

-evolution is '''not''' the devil. It has been studied, restudied, discussed, debated, analyzed, observed, doubted, believed, disputed, argued, questioned, pondered, rejected, accepted, considered, contemplated, picked apart, and speculated. It is a
'''== theory =='''. A THEORY. Not the law, and not some liberals trying to compromise your beliefs for the hell of it. You do not have to accept it, but because the scientific community accepts it as a viable THEORY, then it should be taught in school. If you believe creationism should be taught in school, I would also like to point out that that is also a THEORY. It might have evidence, but the only evidence is in a text. Darwinism is also in a text, has been tested in labs, observed in nature, and recorded in millions of different ways. It is also a THEORY. Because YOU say that is untrue makes it untrue, Darwinism is wrong because YOU say it is? What if I believe that once you die you become a giant worm in the Arctic Circle? Because I believe it, does that make it a fact? If you say no, then you are hypocritical because that's the exact logic you are using. If we teach the THEORY of creationism, then we should teach the THEORY of evolution, the Hindu THEORY of creationism, Muslim THEORY of creationism, the Native American THEORY of creationism, etcetera etcetera.

-if you do not agree with scientific finds and research, stop using all that science has provided. stop using this web site. stop using the computer that you use to add onto this website. don't read your bible because it was printed by a machine created by science. don't believe in the laws of physics and gravity because they are summed up with scientific equations. don't drive your car, use natural gas to fuel your home, and just forget about electricity altogether. You cannot use a bicycle, you cannot listen to music unless it is in your head because all sound is made up of vibrations and vibrations are physics, once again, science. all music takes science to create the exact pitch needed on instruments. don't go to your church, because it was designed, planned, and created using laws of science and scientific method. if you do not like science, stop using what it has so graciously provided for.

-next time you come down with a nasty case of pneumonia or tuberculosis, don't go to a hospital because they believe that those viruses and bacteria have mutated, one of the principles making up the THEORY of evolution. they can treat you for what it was before it mutated, but it's always fun to be treated for something you don't have.

Please, I am proving a point using logic. When you do not use logic when discussing topics and choose to believe that anything you say is true, how can you change and grow as an individual?

No offense meant, just a new angle to look at life from.

:You're digging up dead arguments. Cut it out. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 21:06, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:You yourself have just dug your own grave. You said "planned, designed, created" referring to a church. As you can see, that church did not create itself. No accident, no matter how grand or large a scale, could have produced a building like that. Just look at some churches and cathedrals and you can easily see just how much planning, designing and work it took. They didn't come about by themselves. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 18:21, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::Please dont allude that building a church is comparable to the complicated systems that organisms use. Its a horrible analogy that compares something that is documented and well understood with something that is somewhat known, but still has many questions still open. Such statements only serve to undermine your position and make you appear uneducated. Just leave the troll alone.

==Bible==
Could we have more emphasis on the truth of the Bible please. This is meant to be a Christian site. I feel that there is already a pernicious liberal influence moderating some articles.

:This is a conservative site, not neccaserily a Christian one. People of all religious denominations can be conservative, and I would argue that Biblical literalism is NOT a conservative value. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 10:52, 8 March 2007 (EST)

::Which parts do you feel exhibit liberal influence? On this and many other key issues, Conservapedia tries to address all sides of the topic, while still holding a conservative and Christian viewpoint. Perhaps the content you saw as liberal was simply part of a section on a different viewpoint. ~ [[User:SharonS|SharonS]] 11:26, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:::Perhaps, although as can be seen from this discussion there are a number of users who are rather vocal in their contempt for Biblical truth. I don't want to criticise other articles in the talk page for this article. I will raise issues as I see them in the appropriate talk page.

::This is a Christian site according to the homepage. All Christians follow the teachings of Christ as laid out in the Bible. You cannot be a Christian and not believe in the Bible just as you cannot be a Christian and not believe in Jesus.--[[User:AustinM|AustinM]] 11:07, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::Many Christians do not believe in Biblical literalism. I personally regard it as a form of paganism, replacing the worship of God with the worship of a book. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:10, 8 March 2007 (EST)

:::The book is the word of God. Would you describe yourself as a Christian?

::::That book was transcribed through many different incarnations and translations by various scribes, losing integrity at each step (remember information theory?). Many of the sections within have exceedingly dubious origins, such as Deuteronomy, which is widely regarded as having been fabricated to support certain theological opinions. Only two of the books of the new testimant and though to have any objective weight, the rest being based on paganist myths about Jesus and here-say. I can't see how anyone regarding it as the literal word of God can be considered a Christian as they believe so many pagan inspired myths. [[User:Nematocyte|Nematocyte]] 11:31, 8 March 2007 (EST)
:::: One doesn't need to reject the text's validity as a divinely inspired document to not take it literally, I doubt for example that our friend is a flat-earther or a geocentrist even though a literal reading of many Biblical passages would support those viewpoints. Furthermore, note that many Christian theologians have argued that what is assured to be correct in the text is the fundamental salvational messgae and that anything else is unimportant. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 11:36, 8 March 2007 (EST)
::Give an example, JoshuaZ. What biblical passages say that the earth is flat or that the earth is at the center of the universe? Stop making these irritating blanket statements and dig up some evidence (if you can find any) for your claims. And as for the Bible being inspired by paganist myths, this is absurd! You have no evidence for this claim. Many of the pagan myths are, in fact, inspired by the Bible. You also are not giving any evidence for your claims. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 13:20, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::: Murray has done a decent list of basic examples below so I will only briefly note thatI didn't make any assertion about paganism, that was Nematocyte. Please keep track of who says what. Users who disagree with you do not form a monolythic hivemind. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:24, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
There certainly are biblical passages that suggest the authors believed the earth to be flat. Job 38:12-14 refers to the earth being taken by the edges and shaken, and also to it being stamped into the same shape as clay under a seal. Matthew 4:1-12 talks of all the kingdoms of the world being visible from the top of a mountain, and in Daniel 4:10-11 a tree so tall it is "visible to the end of the whole earth" is described.--[[User:Murray|Murray]] 13:49, 9 March 2007 (EST)

:The passage in Job can be taken as figurative; you can usually tell if a passage is literal or figurative, especially if it's poetry. There's no mountain on earth tall enough for what Jesus saw, unless, of course, he was just seeing something of a vision of all the kingdoms of Earth. Then in Daniel 4 the tree was in a dream, but of course the earth would have "edges" when compared to the tree; the edges being the point from which you would go over the curve and not see it anymore. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 18:16, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::Is Genesis chapter 1 written in a poetic style? Who is it up to to decide if something is literal or figurative? --[[User:Mtur|Mtur]] 18:28, 9 March 2007 (EST)
::It's up to logic, that's what. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 18:04, 10 March 2007 (EST)
::: Scorpion a few points: first of all, note that many people have in fact used those and other passages to either support a flat-earth or a geocentrism. Indeed, even in modern times there have been people inspired by the Biblical passages to defend a geocentric universe. See for example- www.geocentricity.com. Such views are so common among creationists that CMI and AIG, two of the world's largest creationist ministries has had to write multiple articles against creationists who are geocentrists. (an example would be [http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/1814/]). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:24, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

The right is an extremely biased end of the political spectrum.

Most republicans once you have met them suffer fromn delusions and a general lack of common sense. Whether this is because of their undying worship of Jesus, the brain drain machines used on new Right Wing Cultists, or because their parents were brother and sister we shall never know.