Talk:Kangaroo

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

The evolutionist perspective on kangaroo origins is speculative at best. A Google.com search for "kangaroo evolution" only shows up 221 results, most of which are people selling kangaroo meat! If you think you can explain just what their views are, you're welcome to try. Dr. Richard Paley 02:28, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Well there might be slim pickings on the 221 google hits you ran....we might have better luck looking at the roughly 4,000 peer review journal articles on kangaroo and marsupial evolution from http://scholar.google.com Tmtoulouse 02:34, 8 March 2007 (EST)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=kangaroo+evolution+-rat&btnG=Search so we are on the same page. Tmtoulouse 02:35, 8 March 2007 (EST)

If the scientific perspective on kangaroo origins is "speculative", what does that make the religious perspective? Nematocyte 05:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

The Truth, perhaps? Dr. Richard Paley 06:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Well, you are welcome to read through those to tease out the evolutionist perspective on kangaroo origins. Personally, I'd rather read through the 7790 peer-reviewed articles on Intelligent Design (which surely puts the lie to the claim of liberals that ID is not science) Dr. Richard Paley 06:45, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Bah! There is a MUCH easier way of settling this: [1] ........hmmmm okay I guess I do loose. Tmtoulouse 11:37, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Most of those are books, not peer reviewed papers.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

While some ID proponents may have old-earth leanings, Intelligent Design Theory itself is neutral to the age of the earth and merely proposes to detect evidences of intelligent design in life, not the history of the earth and creation. Dr. Richard Paley 07:16, 8 March 2007 (EST)

So you concede that "7790 peer-reviewed articles on intelligent design" is not an accurate statement? Nematocyte 08:26, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Tmtoulouse's link above to kangaroo evolution was claimed to be "roughly 4,000 peer review journal articles" but that number includes books and articles not actually about kangaroo evolution. I made my point clearly with the link to search results using an even more stringent criteria of putting quotes around the term. Nematocyte, if you are going to be so knee-jerk hostile to anyone who isn't an evolutionist, perhaps you should go back to Wikipedia. Also, I'm glad you concede your incorrectness about Intelligent Design Theory's earth-age relevance. Dr. Richard Paley 11:27, 8 March 2007 (EST)

I'll presume that you are by this response agreeing that 7790 number is inaccurate. As to the kangaroo number, if you look through the actual citations in that google scholar search on the first page one has easily 3 or four relevant hits that are not books and a slightly larger number on the second page. If that continues one has presumably easily 300 peer reviewed sources. JoshuaZ 11:33, 8 March 2007 (EST)

In fact I do not contest that ID is age-neutral. My claim was that proponents were old-earth creationist, and by "proponents" I mean those who seriously attempt to forward the theory in at least a superficially scientific manner, such as Behe and Dembski, both of whom are old-earthers. Nematocyte 11:39, 8 March 2007 (EST)

What in the world does that have to do with anything I said above or the topic of kangaroo origins? Again, I think your anti-creation hostility is getting the best of your reason. Dr. Richard Paley 11:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Dear Doctor, it related to your claim of the "7790" ID papers (which I take it you have retracted), and my assertation that those who did forward intelligent design would agree with me anyway. It appears you have no scientific base to speak of for your model of kangaroo origins.

Using the exact number 7790 was obviously in jest to point out the over-zealousness of the 4000 number. Were you not reading the light-hearted exchange between Tmtoulouse and myself above or were you just looking to pick nits (or a fight)? As to whether some ID proponents share with you errant views on the age of the earth and might speak outside of their specialty vis-à-vis kangaroo origins, that has nothing to do with anything preceding your assertion. Notice I referred to articles on "Intelligent Design", not "Intelligent Design proponents talking about something that isn't Intelligent Design". Dr. Richard Paley 12:54, 8 March 2007 (EST)

Incidently, are you the same Dr. Richard Paley I seem to recall reading an infamous article by extolling the evils of the Mac OS and Pokemon [[2]]? I thought that was satire. Nematocyte 12:22, 8 March 2007 (EST)

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

Dr. Richard Paley is not a Doctor, and certainly not trustworthy if we're basing everything on Google searches: http://www.lies.com/wp/2002/04/22/dr-richard-paley-on-evolutionist-propaganda/ As a matter of fact he's a hoax, which sadly is very realistic on this site: http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/forum/forum_comments/1720/item.name

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

"religious theories"

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

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

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

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

Space Ship Theory

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