::::*Oh, I had not noticed that the previous version had been deleted... I believe this is the consequence of an edit war with a senior admin !--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 15:54, 12 January 2012 (EST)
VPropp, Western Roman Catholicism which has many members which have embraced liberalism and evolutionism (particularly starting in the 1950's and accelerating post 1960's), is not flourishing and is: bleeding members, plagued with scandals and experiencing a shortage of priests. It is not uncommon for Jesuits in academia to claim the Bible is riddled with historical error, etc. etc. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 17:11, 12 January 2012 (EST)
89 percent of children from evangelical families leave the church before they get to college. [http://www.christianpost.com/news/survey-churches-losing-youths-long-before-college-39433 Source: Christian Post] And guess what, Conservative, its because those children are not willing to throw away the last 150 years of scientific and social progress in favor of your idiosyncratic and inconsistent interpretation of the Bible. The fact is, it really isn't necessary for evolutionists to convince you of evolution's truth. Nobody here believes that you, or CMI, is debating in good faith anyway, so its no skin off my nose if you keep ranting and raving until the cows come home. All we have to do is wait for your lazy, backwards, lunatic fringe of Christianity to die out; at this point, the only people who believe that evolution and belief in God are incompatible are fundamentalist religious wingnuts and obnoxious militant atheists, both of whom have serious financial incentives to keep this "debate" going on indefinitely.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 15:25, 13 January 2012 (EST)
== Heresy hunting ==
::::NekD, I would suggest using Firefox as it finds typos and misspellings. You misspelled the word definition. Second, please demonstrate I have defined Christianity in the exact manner you have claimed (for example, I personally believe in a republic with a representative government rather than a democracy plus capitalism. Plus, where have I said that biblical Christianity precisely prescribes a certain form of government or economics?). Third, you seem to be quite angry and have a penchant for armchair internet pop psychological diagnosis. I think I struck a nerve and pointed out some unpleasant truths for you. Often, the bitten dog yelps the loudest! Lastly, consider reading [[Essay: Counseling psychology and Dumbo's feather|this essay]]. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:10, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::::Really? Are you that stupid not to recognize trolling? Have you so gotten used to being called insane that it doesn't even jump out at you?
:::::Most people will believe the exact opposite of what you tell them, Ken DeMyerKenny, that it because you are so often wrong people have stopped counting the times you are wrong and started counting the times you are right. --[[User:NekD|NekD]] 18:22, 12 January 2012 (EST)
[[User:Conservative]], you should follow your own advice. Then you wouldn't have to erase [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Debate:_15_questions_for_evolutionists&curid=118883&diff=953459&oldid=953458 revisions] to cover up your mistakes while lecturing others on theirs! [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 18:20, 12 January 2012 (EST)
:::::NekD, I see you are unable to back your claim that I have defined Christianity in the precise manner that you claimed I did - very telling. :) Second, I am used to armchair internet psychological diagnosises by some very angry and frustrated members of a certain website who have many members afflicted with [[Essay: Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder|Severe Conservapedia obsessive compulsive disorder]]. :) However, I don't give credence to the obsessive ruminations of [[Essay: Atheism is a clown and it did not know it|atheist clowns]]. By the way, no true skeptic claims to know my/our name. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:35, 12 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Ha, ha, '''diagnosises'''. Obviously Ken's Firefox dictionary needs an update. [[User:Gerrard|Gerrard]] 16:50, 13 January 2012 (EST)
::::::Hi Conservative, I've seen you say "no true skeptic claims to know my/our name" a couple of time and I was wondering, what do you mean by that ?--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 19:07, 12 January 2012 (EST)
[[User:Conservative]], have you read the material of the [[Question Evolution! Campaign]]? It's about the theory of evolution, not the catechism of the EKKW. [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 20:29, 12 January 2012
::Thank you Conservative, I needed a summary of this day long non sequitur you've managed to build up. Making fun of AugustO's church gave you an excuse to dodge the real debate, but that's okay because nobody expected your input to be anything but a demonstration of the Dunning-Kruger effect. If you want to talk turkey, take your best shot ON THE DEBATE PAGE. Otherwise, go write another "essay" about atheism and _______<s> </s>. [[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 21:02, 12 January 2012 (EST)
==Open memo to User:Conservative==
::It does seem a little ungracious to take someone's admission that they may have overstated the case on a peripheral point, and beat them over the head with it and call them a fraud and a liar. I should say that allowing people to qualify, explain and refine what they say is fairly essential to a constructive dialogue. Otherwise, you are just going to encourage pig-headedness and heel-digging.--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 11:51, 13 January 2012 (EST)
:::Darwinists have had over 150 years to provide sufficient evidence, yet they are still dogged by legitimate charges of engaging in deceit (see: [[Atheism and deception]]), suppressing evidence, using strong arm tactics and being chicken to debate and losing 300 debates to Dr. Duane Gish. Instead of having shifty people posting some lame material at CP, why don't you ask the evos Shermer, PZ Myers, and Dawkins debate the 15 questions with CMI? Are you afraid they will chicken out like atheists Penn Jillette and Don Exodus2 or like the 2010 Global Atheist Conference? :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 11:55, 13 January 2012 (EST)
Obviously it doesn't take ''Shermer, PZ Myers, and Dawkins'' to address the 15 questions satisfactorily. So why bother them? Just because you want to get their attention for your ''campaign''? [[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 11:59, 13 January 2012 (EST)
:On the subject of creationist/evolutionist debates, I do find the idea quite amusing since they inevitably involve and attract people who are so firmly entrenched in their position that to acknowledge the other side may have made a good point, however small, would be impossible for them. I do wonder whether there has ever been a debate on this subject that has actually been anything other than a waste of time. Whether the questions here can ever be satisfactorily addressed is a similar issue. [[User:Adambro|Adambro]] 12:08, 13 January 2012 (EST)
::::::AugustO, Darwinists are struggling to gain wide acceptance in the USA even though Darwinism has been around for 150 years plus anti-Darwinist conservative Christianity is exploding in the world. The situation is not good for Darwinism and the cloud of being disingenuous hangs over Darwinism. For example, Stephen Gould talked about the dearth of supposed transitional fossils being a "trade secret". Does real science have "trade secrets"? I realize that you don't like me pointing out the licentious and fraudulent behavior of Darwinists, but Jesus said that bad fruit does not come from a good tree and it certainly right to point out egregious behavior by shysters. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:13, 13 January 2012 (EST)
CPalmer, the shyster RudrichBoucher did not say he may have overstated his resume. He said he said he was a "bit pretentious".[http://conservapedia.com/Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_2] He admitted to engaging in pretentiousness. Please do not unnecessarily cloud the issue. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:20, 13 January 2012 (EST)
::What's the difference? I have an interest in politics and often discuss them online, but hold no formal position. So, what if I described myself as "a political commentator"? That would be an overstatement, and/or, it would be pretentious. Either would be an apt description. I am not clouding the issue at all.
::Also, I see from one of your user subpages that you enjoy the work of Orson Welles. If you don't like pretentiousness, perhaps you should rethink this!!!--[[User:CPalmer|CPalmer]] 12:51, 13 January 2012 (EST)
{|
|style="background-color: lightgrey;"|
:Stephen Jay Gould, a well-known evolutionist and professor of geology and paleontology at Harvard University, has stated, "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of the branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."
"But paleontologists have discovered several superb examples of intermediary forms and sequences, more than enough to convince any fair-minded skeptic about the reality of life's physical genealogy."
Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, May 1994
"Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups."
Stephen Jay Gould, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, p.261
|}
Hmmm, it would appear that you "snipped" a few words from something Gould said, interpreted it in a way that suited you and only you, and then posted it like we're all twelve year olds who will shut up if you quote someone smart. Since apparently you don't understand why quote mining is wrong, or why an appeal to authority is not logical or convincing, I'm going to explain it to you again.
*Just because a famous scientist had an opinion doesn't mean it is true.
*Just because a scientist doesn't subscribe to evolution does not negate the fact that 99% of scientists do.
*Just because you can find a quote in a famous scientist's book that expresses some reservations about some aspect of evolution does not mean that the whole theory is in doubt.
*Just because you found fault in something a poster said does not mean you can ignore everything they say afterwards.
Since apparently [[User: Conservative]] is a group of immature people, and not just one extremely inconsiderate individual, I would appreciate it if whoever is controlling Conservative at the moment could let the rest of the posse know that they actually have to have EVIDENCE to win a debate. Insulting someone so much that they leave in disgust is not a victory.[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 12:46, 13 January 2012 (EST)
:''Instead of having shifty people posting some lame material at CP, why don't you ask the evos Shermer, PZ Myers, and Dawkins debate the 15 questions with CMI?''
:*Conservapedia is the natural place to comment on the [[Question Evolution! Campaign]], as so much is written here about it already.
:*Why do you betray the trust of the pupils who think that you provide them with magical bullets in their discussions on evolution? It doesn't take Shermer, PZ Myers or Dawkins to answer these ''unanswerable'' question. And even ''incorrect'' answers will shake the faith of the persons who can't rebut these answers on the spot.
:*You are encouraging ill prepared young men and women to engage atheists in discussions on evolution. Most times these debates won't follow the script you dreamed of in your tree house!
:*And when those boys and girls come here for more ammunition, you fail to provide it. Instead you are playing word games and engage in senseless ridicule.
:[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 15:49, 13 January 2012 (EST)
::::I see that you could not come up with bona fide fields of science that have uncomfortable "trade secrets" that they hide from the public. I find that very telling. "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persist as the trade secret of paleontology." - Stephen Jay Gould, Harvard paleontologist. The reason why Darwinism has such a bad reputation in the world is that the field is infested with shysters promoting it. That reputation is not going away and shysters like RudrichBoucher and Darwinist women "pastors" who "bless" homosexual "marrriages" endorsing Darwinism exacerbates this significant problem. Plus, the [[Question evolution! campaign]] will sully this horrid reputation further as Darwinists cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:49, 13 January 2012 (EST)
I've blocked Conservative for violations of naming policy. He blocked RudrickBoucher for 90/10, so I figured he should follow the rules too. Anybody interested in having an actual debate, now?[[User:TonyPark|TonyPark]] 20:10, 13 January 2012 (EST)
:There are evolutionist responses to each of the 15 questions. One creationist rebuttal has been given, and a calm discussion followed without accusations and name-calling. I like that format, and wish to continue with such discussion. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 01:16, 14 January 2012 (GMT)
::''The reason why Darwinism has such a bad reputation in the world is that the field is infested with shysters promoting it. That reputation is not going away and shysters like RudrichBoucher and Darwinist women "pastors" who "bless" homosexual "marrriages" endorsing Darwinism exacerbates this significant problem.''
::Then you should perhaps not try to counter ''Darwinism'' on scientific reasons, but start a smear campaign to sully its reputation (a tactic often used by liberals). Oh wait, that's exactly what you are doing.
::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 03:25, 14 January 2012 (EST)
::::Once again you distort matters. It is already sullied. And if evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions and sully evolution's reputation further that's certainly not the fault of creationists. By the way, it is appears as if the [[Question evolution! campaign]] is picking up speed in January and February.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/01/speed-is-of-essence-in-creation-vs.html]. :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 03:42, 14 January 2012 (EST)
:::''And if evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer the 15 questions and sully evolution's reputation further that's certainly not the fault of creationists. '' To write this sentence on the talk-page of an article in which the 15 questions '''''are''''' answered reminds me of the announcement of [[Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf]] (a.k.a. '''Baghdad Bob''', '''Comical Ali''') who claimed that there were no U.S. troops in Baghdad, and that the Americans were committing suicide by the hundreds at the city's gates while American soldiers were already all over the city. If you fail to understand the reference, I'll spell it out for you: your statement is highly ironic.
:::And for this fatal impression it doesn't matter how often you repeat that the answers are not satisfactory or even false. They are not refuted - that is all what matters.
:::[[User:AugustO|AugustO]] 07:55, 14 January 2012 (EST)
:::Conservative, could you please post on the debate page and tell the evolutionists why each of the answers they have given are wrong? --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 14:29, 14 January 2012 (GMT)
::::::After almost ten days, I think it's safe to interpret his failure to submit scientific evidence in support his position as an admission of defeat. --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 00:46, 23 January 2012 (EST)
::::::I wouldn't say he's failed. User:Conservative has linked to sites giving answers to each of these questions. I would suggest to him though, to put links to specific answers under each question, so that users can get creationist responses to any specific question easily. --[[User:RedGoliath|RedGoliath]] 01:14, 24 January 2012 (GMT)
::::::::The trouble with the "rebuttals" to the "answers" given at the links which User:Conservative posted are that the answers are not reflective of the answers given here, nor the answers which are commonly given by experts in evolutionary biology. The "answers" rebutted at the linked pages are aimed at commonly-encountered creationist talking points (implying that they were authored with the intention of providing "straw men"). --[[User:JHunter|JHunter]] 21:02, 23 January 2012 (EST)
==A few more questions for evolutionists==
As requested by [[User:RudrickBoucher]] (who has been blocked), I provide a few more questions for evolutionists here: [[User:PhilipN/Essay:Questions to evolutionists]]. Feel free to post answers on this page.--[[User:PhilipN|PhilipN]] 23:17, 29 January 2012 (EST)
== Removed ==
I would like to point out that User:Conservative removed this debate from the debate topics page. I think that deserves an explanation. [[User:Ayzmo|Ayzmo :)]] 20:12, 29 February 2012 (EST)