Difference between revisions of "Talk:Evolution"

Latest revision as of 14:00, August 25, 2025

Strong indicators that 2014 will be a bad year for Darwinism and atheism

Indicators that 2014 will be a bad year for Darwinism and atheism: Surefire signs that 2014 will be the WORST year in the history of Darwinism and atheism Conservative 06:12, 18 December 2013 (EST)

Robert Skildelsky

User:Conservative]: You used a source on these major Portal pages: Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, John Maynard Keynes and Evolution (The costly return of geopolitics, Jun 27, 2023). His latest, Lord Robert Skidelsky: Pax-Americana is Over, seems to directly contradict your Essay: The United States will be the leading power in the world for the foreseeable future, who declares it has ended. To avoid the confusion you have created on the part of our readers between your ideas and Skildelsky, why don't you properly qualify the source by creating the Robert Skildelsky article? RobS^{Zelensky Must Go!} 13:23, April 20, 2025 (EDT)

Alfred Russel Wallace - Co-discoverer of natural selection

Hello, I cannot edit this page, but is there a way to add "Alfred Russel Wallace who was the co-discoverer of natural selection, eventually came to see that nature exhibited design and purpose with evolution." citation: Alfred Russel Wallace. 1911. "The World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose" It summarizes his view of natural history, evolution, natural selection, and their intersection with design. His work shows that nature and design are not mutually exclusive.

I removed the protection from the page. Conservative (talk) 10:00, August 25, 2025 (EDT)

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 | style="text-align: center; padding: 10px 40px 10px 40px;" | [[Talk:Theory_of_evolution/Archive_Set_1|Set 1 of Archives]]
 |}
+<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />
+== Strong indicators that 2014 will be a bad year for  Darwinism and atheism ==
+Indicators that 2014 will be a bad year for Darwinism and atheism: [http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/12/surefire-signs-that-2014-will-be-worst.html Surefire signs that 2014 will be the WORST year in the history of Darwinism and atheism] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 06:12, 18 December 2013 (EST)
+==[[Robert Skildelsky]]==
+[[User:Conservative]]]: You used a source on these major Portal pages: [[Charles Darwin]], [[The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection]], [[John Maynard Keynes]] and [[Evolution]] ([https://www.jordantimes.com/opinion/robert-skidelsky/costly-return-geopolitics The costly return of geopolitics], Jun 27, 2023). His latest, [https://youtu.be/ALnyAWz5l8I Lord Robert Skidelsky: Pax-Americana is Over], seems to directly contradict your [[Essay: The United States will be the leading power in the world for the foreseeable future]], who declares it has ended. To avoid the confusion you have created on the part of our readers between your ideas and Skildelsky, why don't you properly qualify the source by creating the [[Robert Skildelsky]] article? [[User:RobSmith|RobS]]<sup>[[User talk:RobSmith|''Zelensky Must Go!'']]</sup> 13:23, April 20, 2025 (EDT)
-__TOC__
+== Alfred Russel Wallace - Co-discoverer of natural selection ==
+Hello, I cannot edit this page, but is there a way to add "Alfred Russel Wallace who was the co-discoverer of natural selection, eventually came to see that nature exhibited design and purpose with evolution." citation: Alfred Russel Wallace. 1911. "The World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose" It summarizes his view of natural history, evolution, natural selection, and their intersection with design. His work shows that nature and design are not mutually exclusive.
-== Student Panel ==
+:I removed the protection from the page. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] ([[User talk:Conservative|talk]]) 10:00, August 25, 2025 (EDT)
-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)
-:::::::::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, it will be entertaining to see RonLar strap his evolutionism zealot rocket on his back, putting his evolutionism activist roller skates on his feet and be the next evolutionist to hit the brick wall 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)
-== In other news... ==
-Anyone who can read this article in one sitting deserves a medal. It's a masterclass in ponderous verbiage.
-===Bloated and listless===
-<blockquote>
-The theory of evolution is a naturalistic theory of the history of life on earth (this refers to the theory of evolution which employs methodological naturalism and is taught in schools and universities). Merriam-Webster's dictionary gives the following definition of evolution: "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations..." Currently, there are several theories of evolution.<br><br>
-Since World War II a majority of the most prominent and vocal defenders of the evolutionary position which employs methodological naturalism have been atheists. In 2007, "Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture...announced that over 700 scientists from around the world have now signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution."
-</blockquote>
-===It's a miracle! The words just fall off!===
-<blockquote>
-The theory of evolution is a naturalistic theory of the history of life on Earth. It employs methodological naturalism and is widely taught in schools and universities. Merriam-Webster's dictionary defines evolution as "a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations."<br><br>
-Since World War II, the most vocal defenders of this theory have been atheists. In 2007, the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture announced that over 700 scientists had "signed a statement expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution."
-</blockquote>
-It's not particularly scientific, but if we take the first two paragraphs as representative, then this article's at least 20% useless flab. Time to put your baby on a diet, Ken.
---[[User:RichLiebehollenfeuer|RichLiebehollenfeuer]] 21:42, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

Difference between revisions of "Talk:Evolution"

Latest revision as of 14:00, August 25, 2025

Strong indicators that 2014 will be a bad year for Darwinism and atheism

Robert Skildelsky

Alfred Russel Wallace - Co-discoverer of natural selection

Navigation menu

Search