Difference between revisions of "Talk:Evolution"

Revision as of 12:22, October 20, 2011

Set 2 of Archives

Set 1 of Archives

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 __TOC__
-== Student Panel ==
-I have been bold and removed the Student Panel Decision. Now, before everybody is rushing to the Rollback and Ban buttons, allow me to explain why the text was utterly outdated and pretty much useless:
-*"the article will remain protected indefinitely" - Yes, just like tons and tons of other articles. Big whoop. (This is a problem by itself, but one I won't tackle right here, right now.)
-*"to protect it from inevitable vandalism" - .................right.
-*"We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way." - Aaaaand this is the main reason why I removed the decision:
-**The Panel made the decision in April 2007. Right now, the earliest revision of the Evolution article is dated February 9, 2011. Without knowing what the April 2007 version looked like, what counts as a major change?
-**Between the first and last visible revisions alone, the article gained ~10k - not a major change? To put the number into perspective, [[Date of the Exodus]] is smaller than the amount this article has grown.
-**Those who have been around since back then know exactly that the article ''has'' changed in major ways since then.
-*"Those who wish to assist in improving this article should submit proposed changes to the panel for review." - Too many issues to list here. I honestly don't think this applies (or ''should'' apply) anymore.
-I hope there can be some discussion before I'm just bluntly reverted. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:44, 18 July 2011 (EDT)
-== We have decided that the article will not be changed in any major way. ==
-Since the Student Panel decreed this in April 2007, [[User:Conservative]] has edited this article over 1000 times ([http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&limit=500&type=patrol&user=Conservative&page=Evolution&month=&year= see here]). The original version as approved by the panel can't be seen here at Conservapedia, as the article was deleted & recreated without edit-history a couple of times afterwards ([http://conservapedia.com/index.php?&title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Conservative&page=Evolution&year=&month=-1 see here]). This is quite surprising, as the article is protected: why should authorized personal edit the article in a way that these edits have to be hidden?
-Fortunately, the version from Mai 1, 2007 can be seen [http://web.archive.org/web/20070514234722/http://www.conservapedia.com/Evolution here] - courtesy to the wayback machine.
-The differences are stunning: Not only is this approved version much shorter (roughly a third of the current article), all the parts linking evolution with Atheism, liberalism, etc., are missing!
-These parts seem to change the article ''in a major way''. And they are definitely not helpful when formulating ''an adequate, concise explanation of the Theory of Evolution.''
-So it seems that the Student Panel should review this article again!
-[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:18, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
-:::The article still reflects that macroevolution is pseudoscience so no real sweeping changes were made - just enhancements. Given that Andy's first homeschooler group liked my work, I think we all know that all I have to do is make a call to Andy explaining things and Andy and his Christian homeschoolers will endorse my efforts. In short, this is an evolutionist Pickett's charge. I have talked to Bible believing Christians and they like this article. I hope this clears things up for the evolutionists and atheists. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:21, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
-::Thank you. Then let's not do anymore reversions of these polite editors comments on this discussion page, please. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 16:23, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
-:::Conservative, the disclaimer indicates that the ''student panel'' decides about the editing of this article, not Aschlafly. You position seems to be that you follow their ''wishes'' while ignoring what they are ''saying''.
-:::We other don't have this luxury: we have to follow what is written. For the sake of clarity something has to be changed:
-:::*either your way of editing
-:::*or the disclaimer.
-:::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 16:58, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
-::::RonLar, why are you so interested in this disclaimer? I doubt most CP editors - and virtually no readers - knew it existed before you started talking about it. Why does it matter so much? If it were me, I'd just leave it. [[User:Jcw|Jcw]] 17:04, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
-:::::Anyone who reads the article and tries to change something will find the disclaimer: it's often the only thing which is there on the talk-page.
-:::::And then you see that despite this disclaimer the article is edited over and over again...
-:::::These are things which irk me: I ask myself - how can it be? How many changes were there?
-:::::And then I get miffed, as it gets difficult to answer these question, as the article was deleted over and over again.
-:::::And so, I look deeper into, just to see that the dichotomy can't be explained.
-:::::So, there is an objective contradiction between the disclaimer and the edit history. Ignoring such a thing is just not my way.
-:::::Hope that helps.
-:::::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 17:13, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
-::::::These are valid questions and justifiable points. I can't guarantee you'll get an answer to your questions, but nonetheless, it is very appropriate that this talk page is where they should be raised, and an accurate record of the user comments be maintained here.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:27, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
-:::::::Two Conservapedia creation vs. evolution battle scenarios - Conservapedia evolution article: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u99n-F1QP7E Conservapedia Evolution article battle: RonLar vs.  Andy and his Christian homeschoolers part 1] and [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Lces8YVhI4 CP Conservapedia Evolution article battle: RonLar vs.  Andy and his Christian homeschoolers part 2] :) If RonLar persists, it should provide some humorous entertainment. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:36, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
-::::::::::I'm not sure how that answer follows the question or comment. Where did such terms as "battle" enter into this user's question? No one has been confrontational here. They're asking simple, legitimate questions, which warrant a simple, respectful response.  [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 18:32, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
-:::::::::Another example of what you think as being debating skills? ''ceterum censeo'': ''Could you give us an example where you, Conservative, debated successfully someone about Atheism, Evolution, etc.?''
-:::::::::Could you, Conservative, updated the disclaimer? Something like
-:::::::::{|class="wikitable"
-|-
-|style="background: grey"|Aschlafly and his home-schoolers endorse Conservative's ownership of this article
-|-
-|}
-:::::::::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 18:50, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
-It is very sad to see someone with [[Essay: Acute Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Acute Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]] make an attempt to water down Conservapedia's evolution article. On a lighter note, {{personal remark removed}} of denied requests to make this article more palatable to evolutionists.  The popular Christian YouTube video creator [[Shockofgod]] coined the phrase "Atheism is the Wile E. Coyote of worldviews" and it certainly applies to atheism and evolutionism. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:08, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
-:Again, you had the opportunity to score a few points in a discussion with someone whom you regard as an evolutionist and atheist. Again, you wasted this opportunity:
-:*you didn't address the discrepancy of the text of the disclaimer and your behavior as detailed in the beginning of this section. The casual observer of our discussion gets the impression that you don't have a valid explanation
-:*this impression will be assured by your meandering answers which are ripe of non-sequiturs and unsubstantiated statements:
-:**'' Acute Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder'' again, an ad-hominem. Doesn't invalidate any point I make
-:**''On a lighter note... '' This whole section doesn't make sense for any onlooker, maybe it is clear to you...
-:So: How many valid points have you made? (The answer is '''none''')
-:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 19:25, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
-:::You might not acknowledge that you are engaging in a evolutionist Pickett's charge, but of course we both know you are. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:32, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
-::::And again: ''ad hominem''. What does this matter in this context? What will it matter in an actual debate that your interlocutor is pure as lilies or an evil villain?
-::::The audience generally can't judge the character, it has to judge the arguments.
-::::And ''in this regard'' you obviously can't stand your ground.
-::::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 19:43, 5 August 2011 (EDT)
-== The effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism  ==
-The effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism.[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/08/intelligent-design-leader-john-calvert.html] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:55, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
-*The campaign runs since May
-*The main announcements of success were:
-**the greeting of a ''single'' new volunteer
-**the conversion of a ''single'' atheist
-*Color me unimpressed. [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 18:01, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
-I am sure people said the same things about Christianity in its very beginnings. But look at it now:
-In 2011, the ''[[American Spectator]]'' citing research published in the ''International Bulletin of Missionary Research'' reported that atheism is on the decline as a whole in terms of adherents.[http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/28/thriving-christianity]
-The ''American Spectator'' declared:
-{{cquote|The report estimates about 80,000 new [[Christianity|Christians]] every day, 79,000 new [[Islam|Muslims]] every day, and 300 fewer atheists every day. These atheists are presumably disproportionately represented in the [[Western World|West]], while religion is thriving in the Global South, where [[Charismatic movement|charismatic Christianity]] is exploding."[http://spectator.org/archives/2011/02/28/thriving-christianity]}}
-Atheism is based on nothing and it is easy to cut down and the explosion of Christianity in China is proof of this. A grassroots effort and not a top down strategy will be effective against evolutionism and atheism since many courts are currently populated with pro-evolutionist judges. Atheism doesn't have a prayer against the [[Question evolution! campaign]].  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:21, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
-:Is the Question Evolution! campaign situated in the ''Global South'' or in the ''West''? Your study therefore doesn't corroborate your claim that ''effects of the Question Evolution! Campaign will be devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism.''
-:BTW: as a means of debate prognoses are only working if their effect can be seen during the course of the debate. When will the ''Question Evolution! campaign'' show the first signs of being ''devastating to evolutionary belief and atheism''?
-:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 18:37, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
-::::It seems as though someone is determined to edit out various comments to you so my desire to communicate with you has greatly waned. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:51, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
-::For me, it seems that you deleted this talk page at 18.37 today. It was restored, deleted, and again restored. What went missing during this process?
-::But of course, I appreciate your concern about missing comments and edit histories! No one should suffer from wanton deletions of material - as you so rightly state, this dampens the desire to communicate and to contribute to the project.
-::Is this another dialogue which your are just abandoning?
-::[[User:RonLar|RonLar]]
-Just unlock this article and please stop embarrasing yourselves? Simple request guys. {user JPL}
-== Why was this talk page deleted and the edit history erased... ==
-... by User:Conservative  at 18:37, 6 August 2011? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 18:46, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
-::::See my previous post here. Namely, "It seems as though someone is determined to edit out various comments to you so my desire to communicate with you has greatly waned." [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:52, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
-:Which comments went missing? ''You'' can undelete them! And you should! See my edit in the previous section... [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 19:05, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
-:And frankly, I'm the last person to blame for material going missing! [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 19:06, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
-::I was going to comment in the previous section, but my whole train of thought was derailed by this deletion of my comments after I requested ''twice'' they not be tampered with. [[User:RobSmith|Rob Smith]] 19:13, 6 August 2011 (EDT)
-== Evolutionist science professors are cryin' to their mamas about the Question Evolution! Campaign  ==
-Evolutionist science professors are cryin' to their mamas about the [[Question Evolution! Campaign]].[http://shockawenow.blogspot.com/2011/08/evolutionist-science-professors-are.html] :)  The campaign is already in a hall of academia. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:11, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
-:As I said at [[Talk:Main  Page]]:
-:The statement ''A South African university science lecturer is posting the 15 questions of the Question evolution! campaign on his office door which is right by the break room.'' is based only on an anonymous comment to an [http://creation.com/question-evolution article] at creation.com
-:I don't doubt that such a thing could have happened. But I don't think that the main page should feature probably bogus stories only because they have some plausibility.
-:Your ''source'' just repeats this uncredited blog entry. Please remember: '''Everything you post must be true and verifiable''' . So, this story ''may'' be true, but it is certainly not verifiable.
-:[[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:29, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
-::::I suggest you fly to South Africa and tour the halls of university Physics departments near their breakrooms. :)  [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 15:45, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
-::Is this a humorous attempt to deflect  the fact that the story is virtually unsourced? Then it has failed. [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 15:52, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
-::::Many creationists are no doubt enjoying their summer and school has not begun yet. Wait until the campaign goes into [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbmAn3M8r0I full throttle mode.] :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 16:13, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
-:::So until the end of September we have to cope with bogus stories? [[User:RonLar|RonLar]] 16:15, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
-==Obvious intentions of bias in the article==
-"announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution."
-:They fail to point out that they represent probably less than 0.1% of all scientists, and that a single scientific forum could have more members..? So why are they using this in the article?
-Rather than provide actual data, this article quotes a few scientists who have made points which support the views of the article.
-There is no cited information which shows the opinions expressed are universally correct;
-more of the article is spent disproving evolution than explaining it (which is barely done at all).
-:::Given discrimination, how many are eager to answer surveys or go public?  Second, science is not a voting booth. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:43, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
-::::Science is an open forum. Despite the fact that this article states several legislations have been made to enforce Creationism in schools, they have been overturned by the Supreme Court.
-::::Proponents of creationism in these cases stated that
-:::::Creationism is not science, and
-:::::failed to produce any articles which supported creationism in any peer-review forum. [[User:Valuables|Valuables]] 17:42, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
-Listing fraudulent evidence offers only to attempt to discredit a theory. There's as much to talk about for Creationism, and it doesn't have any real effect on educating people about the theory or its evidence or lack-there-of, as this article doesn't address any evidence of evolution. [[User:Valuables|Valuables]] 17:42, 11 August 2011 (EDT)
-:::I see you still have no supported your claim that science is an open forum. By the way, how much history of science material have you read? For example, are you familiar with historical figure Ignaz Semmelweis?[http://creation.com/but-if-creation-is-true-why-dont-all-scientists-believe-it][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 02:00, 27 August 2011 (EDT)
-== changes to the evolution article ==
-Although the Conservapedia evolution article is a thorn in the side of many internet atheists/evolutionists (as it cites evolutionists candidly admitting the many fatal and serious weaknesses of the evolutionary paradigm) and continues to be a well trafficked article at Conservapedia, Conservapedia is considering making some changes to the CP evolution article.  Of course, evolutionism devotees and other cranks will play no part in the revisions. There is no pressing need to do this, however, given that the [[Question evolution! campaign]] will grind away at evolutionary nonsense with great alacrity as [[Shockofgod]] will be promoting the campaign "full throttle". :) [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbmAn3M8r0I] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:45, 9 August 2011 (EDT)

Difference between revisions of "Talk:Evolution"

Revision as of 12:22, October 20, 2011

Navigation menu

Search