Siteadmin, Check users, oversight, Administrators
350,907
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 266:
Line 266: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive Set 2 (view source)
Revision as of 11:51, October 23, 2010
, 11:51, October 23, 2010→Lysenkoism
There should be a link to [[Lysenkoism]] when the article mentions that pseudo-science. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 16:13, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
There should be a link to [[Lysenkoism]] when the article mentions that pseudo-science. [[User:Sunda62|Sunda62]] 16:13, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
:There already is. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 16:42, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
:There already is. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 16:42, 28 May 2010 (EDT)
----
I would like to edit the quote of Dawnin in a letter to Gray [2]. It is wrongly quoted and is a fragmented sentence. The whole sentence is "It is extremely kind of you to say that my letters have not bored you very much, & it is almost incredible to me, for I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."
::::::Please elaborate on why you allege that it is wrongly quoted. By the way, are you an [[atheism|atheist]]? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:54, 7 July 2010 (EDT)
:::::::Conservative, whether this user is atheist or not has nothing to do with the question. He's calling you out for quote-mining Darwin.
:::::::Oh, and user who left no signature—I wouldn't expect this article to be unlocked ever. --<sub>[[Special:Contributions/AutoFire|<font color= 'black' face= 'OCR A Extended'>trans</font>]]</sub>[[User:AutoFire|<font color= 'red' face= 'OCR A Extended'>Resident Transfan</font>]]<sup>[[User Talk:AutoFire|<font color= 'black' face= 'OCR A Extended'>form!</font>]]</sup> 13:03, 8 July 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::No real evidence was given for the quote mining allegation which I thought was quite unreasonable. I have found that atheists and evolutionists often engage in bluffing as far as their allegations and when you call their bluff no evidence is given by them for their allegations. Please read this article: http://www.examiner.com/x-19682-Atlanta-Church--Culture-Examiner~y2009m8d10-Atheisms-house-of-cards-Part-3 Resident Transfan, are you an atheist? If you are an atheists, here is my question for you: Do you have any proof and evidence that atheism is true? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 09:22, 12 July 2010 (EDT)
== Why liberals cannot point out factual errors ==
This article is almost entirely constructed of quotes. The only thing that the article says for the most part is that Person A said "B" and person C said "D" and the rest is made up of broad generalizations that aren't directly reliant on facts. A challenge could be raised that Person A knows nothing about subject B or that source D is biased in such a way as to compromise reliability but those wouldn't be direct challenges to the factual accuracy of the article. --[[User:AbbieM|AbbieM]] 18:31, 16 July 2010 (EDT)
::::Could you please do us a favor and give us a close percentage of content that is quotes and break it down by quotes from evolutionists and quotes from creation scientists. Also, how many of the footnoted sources did you read? Lastly, can you definitively show that the quotes were factually incorrect in terms of what they asserted (because I can see you did not do that)? By the way Abbie, are you an atheist? If you are an atheist, here is my question for you: Do you have any proof and evidence that atheism is true? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 19:52, 25 July 2010 (EDT)
:::::It should be 'an atheist', not 'an atheists'. I appreciate the copy-and-paste message, however, and will be posting an essay on this in the near future.[[User:JacobP|JacobP]] 15:27, 31 July 2010 (EDT)
:::::Alright, I've gone through the article and looked at quotes, dividing them into three categories. There are quotes from an Evolutionary point of view, quotes from a Creationist point of view, and quotes that are neutral - a news corporation reporting statistics, for example, would fall under this category. I determined the following percentages by the total number of words.
:::::Here's what I found: Approximately 45% of the article is comprised of quotes. The article itself contains just under 14,000 words, and of those just over 6,000 are quotes. 2400 words are from Evolution supporters, 3150 words are from Creationists, and 650 are from neutral sources (approximately). This means that approximately 17% of the article is comprised of quotes from Evolutionists, 23% from Creationists, and nearly 5% from neutral sources. That means 39% of the actual quotes are from Evolutionists, 51% from Creationists, and about 10% from neutral sources. This was all done by the number of words, not characters. Frankly, I find this percentage to be drastically high. For one thing, should Evolution not be better represented in its own article than Creationism? That is to say, should intellectually honest writers include more quotes from Creationists than Evolutionists in an Evolution article? Furthermore, the Evolution quotes that are included are, practically without exception, cherry-picked and taken out of context. Even in the sources from which they derive, they are rarely given appropriate context. This is a degree of laziness that should only be associated with liberals. We conservatives ought to be more up-to-point.
:::::Also, this entire article reeks of liberal wordiness. Does the article truly need to be this long? Perhaps a single, shorter page should be present to define Evolution, then we could have one page for those who support evolution, and another page for quotes/articles/criticisms of Evolution. That seems the best way to chop this article down to size.[[User:JacobP|JacobP]] 16:46, 31 July 2010 (EDT)
::::::::: Jacob, are you an atheist? If you are an atheist, here is my question for you: Do you have any proof and evidence that atheism is true? Secondly, please put your quote claim statistics in a Excel or Open Office spreadsheet and post it somewhere for verification purposes. Then, please provide proof and evidence concerning each quote you allege to be in error. Lastly, evolutionism is so flagrantly in error that the article is concise. If we were to put the myriad of ways that evolutionism is errant, illogical, wicked and foolish; it would take many sets of CDs to do it justice. We just did our small part to offer something more concise. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:46, 4 August 2010 (EDT)
:::::::::So, JacobP, the article is completely and totally wrong, and that is based solely on the ''number of words'' in the article? Golly gee...maybe the Bible is wrong because there's too many books in it; maybe the Declaration of Independence is wrong because Jefferson didn't format it properly; maybe the Constitution is wrong because a spell-check wasn't done on it; maybe ''Huckleberry Finn'' is wrong because Twain didn't check with the local school board first. Or maybe, JacobP, it is ''your logic that is wrong''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 09:45, 4 August 2010 (EDT)
::::::::::I was told that my "JacobP" username was too similar to another users', so this is "JacobP" under a new username, "JacobPope14", the number being chosen at random. Now, to answer your question, I am not an atheist nor, if I were an atheist, would I claim to have 'proof' of atheism. As a Christian, I do not claim to have proof of Christianity either. My beliefs are not based on rational thought, but on faith, as is the intention of religion.
::::::::::However, regarding the verification of my study, where would you like me to post this information? Can you not merely read through the article, highlight all material that is a quotation, and compare the number of words to verify what the user above was stating? The article is very heavily comprised of quoted material. As a tabloid, perhaps, this would be appropriate, but I think more time ought to be dedicated to rewriting this article with factual information regarding the criticisms of Atheistic Evolutionary Thought, or AET, as I call it. While I do not doubt the credentials of the many people quoted, I highly doubt that any of them share completely identical views on the subject matter, so it may not be appropriate to compose an article that is very near to being more quotes than information itself.
:::::::::::Also, regarding Karajou, I never made a claim that the article was factually errant. I merely stated that it was wordy, taking up a large amount of space to convey a very small amount of actual information. My reference to 'number of words' was an admission to the fact that when I took a comparison of the article - breaking it down into quotes from Evolutionists, Creationists, and neutral sources - I used 'words' as opposed to 'number of quotes' or perhaps 'letters' when I ran the numbers. I find it rather odd that you would so readily attack another Conservative for what I can only guess is an assumption that I have liberal ideas, which I assure you is not the case. I merely want this article to be as factually accurate, concise, and accessible as possible to readers. Are those not admirable goals? [[User:JacobPope14|JacobPope14]] 22:39, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
::::Jacob, I am sorry to hear that your beliefs do not have any basis in rational thought. Are you sure you are not an atheist? The apostles certainly appealed to being eyewitnesses and the Bible in Romans rightly declares that the creation testifies to the existence of God (Rom 1:20). Lastly, as far as your alleged study, there are plenty of free places to post material on the internet.(blogspot, etc. ). [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 04:56, 23 October 2010 (EDT)
== Why is user [[User:Conservative|conservative]] the only person allowed to edit this article? ==
I assume a few other admins are also allowed to but this article is pretty much completely written by [[User:Conservative|conservative]]. That doesn't seem fair at all. Isn't the whole point of a wiki to allow lots of other people to pitch in on it? How do we know who this [[User:Conservative|conservative]] person is, and how do we know they have the credentials to write an entire article on evolution accurately? It seems completely ridiculous to me that you guys block out everyone except for this one person on the subject of evolution. [[User:GeorgeCS|GeorgeCS]] 19:45, 29 July (CST)
:And you are...? [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 21:49, 29 July 2010 (EDT)
::Someone who reads this from time to time. But my point still stands. How is it fair to let only one person contribute to this article? Considering how much of this article focuses on creationists being silenced and censored in much of the media, you would think that this place, of all places, would welcome the input of others. [[User:GeorgeCS|GeorgeCS]] 20:36, 29 July (CST)
:::If the input is concerned with a theory, then I would welcome it; but if the input pushes evolution as "fact" then we won't allow it. We've had several members who tried ''forcing'' that viewpoint on us, ''forcing'' the "Bible-is-a-fairy-tale" opinion, ''forcing'' their own religious beliefs on this site. Didn't work. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:50, 29 July 2010 (EDT)
::::I'm not saying you should allow the "Bible-is-a-fairy-tale" opinion at all. What I'm concerned about is that even if someone wants to add their own creationist/ID material to this article, they can't. The very most I'm guessing they could do is add it to the talk page and let conservative approve it. I don't mean to say anything bad about conservative but why should we leave those decisions SOLELY up to him/her for this one article? If you only let one person write an article on the entire subject of evolution it's bound to have some pretty major flaws. I'm sorry but I just think it's ridiculous how restricted this article is. [[User:GeorgeCS|GeorgeCS]] 11:18, 30 July (CST)
::::: A tiny percentage of articles on this site are locked (and later unlocked) due to vandalism. No locking is permanent, and any editor can earn administrative privileges through merit, which gives that editor the power to edit any page. Also, as you suggest, suggested edits to a locked page can always be posted on the talk page. So there are several ways that any editor can contribute to any page here.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 12:31, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
[[File:Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates.jpg|thumbnail|right|275px|'''<big>[[Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates|Creation scientists tend to win the creation vs. evolution debates]]</big>''' ]]
::::::::Karajou, thanks for the laugh. :) [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:26, 4 August 2010 (EDT)
Has any one here even read any of Charles Darwin's books? Or do you just google, cut and paste?
[[User:Tbunton|Tbunton]] 08:26, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
:Yes, I have Darwin's ''Origin of Species'' and ''Decent of Man'' in my house, part of Britannica's ''Great Books of the Western World'', published in 1991, etc etc. And if you look at many college essays or websites devoted to the ''support'' of evolution, you will find evidence of people who "just google, cut and paste." Like those above, you're playing the "evo-is-fact" game without bothering to even creak open your mind just for a little bit to see that what we present are the real facts of the matter. You learn more if you open your mind. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 10:24, 6 August 2010 (EDT)
:::Late in Charles Darwin's life, Darwin told the Duke of Argyll that he frequently had overwhelming thoughts that the natural world was the result of design.[1] In a letter to Asa Gray, Darwin confided: "...I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science."[2][[User:Conservative|conservative]] 05:15, 8 August 2010 (EDT)
== Why do we have three statistics about medical doctors in the opening section? ==
Medical doctors are not taught anything about evolution in school, nor are they required to know anything about it to practice. They are not experts in the field any more than computer scientists or waitresses. The three different statistics about medical doctors in the article just make it look bad, sort of... desperate. Maybe some statistics about biologists would be good instead? At least some kind of scientist.
:::Are you claiming that [http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/physician-resources/medical-science.shtml medical science] is not a science? And are you claiming that medical science does not utilize biology? If so, why? Lastly, you have not shown that macroevolution has existed or does exist. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:23, 31 August 2010 (EDT)
::::Evolutionists often claim that the applied science of medicine depends on evolution because it is derived from biology. Therefore, the explicit beliefs of medical doctors is certainly relevant.--[[User:NateSmall|NateSmall]] 15:35, 31 August 2010 (EDT)
== Poe's Law Talk Page ==
When I clicked on the Talk page for [[Poe's Law]], I was redirected to the page on Evolution. Why is that?
Also, in regards to the Poe's Law page itself, why is it filled with material regarding Creationism, even though Poe's Law is not about Creationism? --[[User:JohnLee|JohnLee]] 17:19, 1 October 2010 (EDT)
:::JohnLee, please provide evidence and further explanation concerning your contentions about Poe's Law and creationism. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 07:40, 16 October 2010 (EDT)
== genome and the evolutionary paradigm ==
Excellent research re: genome and the evolutionary paradigm: http://creation.com/genome-mania [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 07:41, 16 October 2010 (EDT)