Difference between revisions of "Talk:Evolution"

Revision as of 15:49, August 8, 2011

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 Now, before everybody is rushing to the Rollback and Ban buttons, allow me to explain why the text was utterly outdated and pretty much useless: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. --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 (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 (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 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!

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. 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. 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.

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. 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.

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. Rob Smith 18:27, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

Two Conservapedia creation vs. evolution battle scenarios - Conservapedia evolution article: Conservapedia Evolution article battle: RonLar vs. Andy and his Christian homeschoolers part 1 and CP Conservapedia Evolution article battle: RonLar vs. Andy and his Christian homeschoolers part 2 :) If RonLar persists, it should provide some humorous entertainment. :) 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. 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

Aschlafly and his home-schoolers endorse Conservative's ownership of this article

RonLar 18:50, 5 August 2011 (EDT)

It is very sad to see someone with 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. 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)

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. 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.

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.[1] 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. 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.[2]

The American Spectator declared:

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. 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?

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. 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?

RonLar

Why was this talk page deleted and the edit history erased...

... by User:Conservative at 18:37, 6 August 2011? 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." 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... RonLar 19:05, 6 August 2011 (EDT)

And frankly, I'm the last person to blame for material going missing! 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. 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.[4] :) The campaign is already in a hall of academia. :) 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 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.

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. :) 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. 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 full throttle mode. :) Conservative 16:13, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

So until the end of September we have to cope with bogus stories? 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).