Difference between revisions of "Talk:Question evolution! campaign"
From Conservapedia
Conservative (Talk | contribs) |
VargasMilan (Talk | contribs) (Undo revision 1110150 by TemplarJLS (talk)) |
||
| (21 intermediate revisions by 9 users not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
==Like the campaign!== | ==Like the campaign!== | ||
I like how this is turning out; stumping evolutionists/atheists with fifteen questions based on facts and logic, while helping people to see the truth written in ''Genesis''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:22, 21 May 2012 (EDT) | I like how this is turning out; stumping evolutionists/atheists with fifteen questions based on facts and logic, while helping people to see the truth written in ''Genesis''. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 19:22, 21 May 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | ::Karajou, I am glad you liked the [[Question evolution! campaign]] in 2012. It certainly looks like you are going to LOVE it in 2013![http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/04/2013-joyous-year-for-young-earth.html] :) [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:15, 10 April 2013 (EDT) | ||
== Question Evolution! Campaign is achieving its goal - people are questioning evolution! == | == Question Evolution! Campaign is achieving its goal - people are questioning evolution! == | ||
| Line 11: | Line 12: | ||
It is so good to be a Bible believing creationist! It is so easy to crush the pseudoscience of [[evolution]]ism. It merely takes getting the anti-evolution message out there.[http://creation.com/creation-timely-tool-for-todays-evangelist][http://creation.com/taking-creation-evangelism-to-the-streets] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:34, 2 June 2012 (EDT) | It is so good to be a Bible believing creationist! It is so easy to crush the pseudoscience of [[evolution]]ism. It merely takes getting the anti-evolution message out there.[http://creation.com/creation-timely-tool-for-todays-evangelist][http://creation.com/taking-creation-evangelism-to-the-streets] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 07:34, 2 June 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | == "Satisfactorally" section? == | ||
| + | |||
| + | I think it would be helpful to explain that, to satisfactorally answer the 15 questions, atheists would need to prove that God does not exist. I know that it is kind of implied by the sub-text, but if we're going around saying that someone hasn't satisfied a criteria we should also say what it would take to do that. | ||
| + | ::Can someone make this change? I'm unable to edit this page for some reason. | ||
| + | :::Feel free to make a stronger case for your suggestion. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:44, 2 July 2012 (EDT) | ||
| + | ::::would any answer ever be considered satisfactory? or is it a mythical thing like bigfoot to have an answer for them that would be satisfactory to the askers? --DavidS 12:15, 21 March 2013 (EDT) | ||
| + | :::::If you are an evolutionists, why don't you raise this question in a debate?[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/02/our-question-evolution-group-is.html] Unless of course, you are afraid of losing a debate badly![http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/10/21st-century-atheism-is-well-known-for.html][[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 12:59, 21 March 2013 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | After doing some thinking on the issue, I'd like to add some thoughts to the issue. It seems to me that there must be some criteria to judge the evolutionist answers to these questions, but that whether or not the question satisfies a creationist is not a good one. To maintain the intellectual rigor of the questions, there should be some adjudication of any evolutionist answer to the questions by some independent third party. Who that independent third party should be, though, entirely escapes me.--[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 02:32, 10 April 2013 (EDT) | ||
| + | ::DTSavage: Resolving the [[creation]] vs. [[evolution]] war: Independent third party arbitration or total victory and systematically grinding away at the folly of Darwinism?[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2013/04/resolving-creation-vs-evolution-war.html] | ||
| + | |||
| + | ::I hope that helps clarify things. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:05, 10 April 2013 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | :::Conservative, thanks for the blog post. It was definitely an interesting read! Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the point of the QE campaign, at least as I'm reading the blog post, is to say that evolutionists cannot answer the questions, not to offer up many of the main challenges to evolutionism and give evolutionists a chance to rebut them.--[[User:DTSavage|DTSavage]] 01:02, 11 April 2013 (EDT) | ||
| + | ::::The prominent evolutionists [[PZ Myers]] and Nick Matzke have both admitted that the [[origin of life]] is part of the evolutionary paradigm.[http://creation.com/origin-of-life] Not a single evolutionists has gotten past the first question of the [http://creation.com/15-questions 15 questions] for evolutionists which deals with the origin of life, let alone the remaining 14 questions. It's time evolutionists admitted total defeat! Their Darwinism dog can't hunt! [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:54, 8 December 2013 (EST) | ||
Latest revision as of 00:58, October 7, 2014
Like the campaign!
I like how this is turning out; stumping evolutionists/atheists with fifteen questions based on facts and logic, while helping people to see the truth written in Genesis. Karajou 19:22, 21 May 2012 (EDT)
- Karajou, I am glad you liked the Question evolution! campaign in 2012. It certainly looks like you are going to LOVE it in 2013![1] :) Conservative 20:15, 10 April 2013 (EDT)
Question Evolution! Campaign is achieving its goal - people are questioning evolution!
American young earth creationism increased in the last two years - Gallup survey. Question evolution! campaign and other efforts of creationists are working!.[2]
It is so good to be a Bible believing creationist! It is so easy to crush the pseudoscience of evolutionism. It merely takes getting the anti-evolution message out there.[3][4] Conservative 07:34, 2 June 2012 (EDT)
"Satisfactorally" section?
I think it would be helpful to explain that, to satisfactorally answer the 15 questions, atheists would need to prove that God does not exist. I know that it is kind of implied by the sub-text, but if we're going around saying that someone hasn't satisfied a criteria we should also say what it would take to do that.
- Can someone make this change? I'm unable to edit this page for some reason.
- Feel free to make a stronger case for your suggestion. Conservative 19:44, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
- would any answer ever be considered satisfactory? or is it a mythical thing like bigfoot to have an answer for them that would be satisfactory to the askers? --DavidS 12:15, 21 March 2013 (EDT)
- If you are an evolutionists, why don't you raise this question in a debate?[5] Unless of course, you are afraid of losing a debate badly![6]Conservative 12:59, 21 March 2013 (EDT)
- would any answer ever be considered satisfactory? or is it a mythical thing like bigfoot to have an answer for them that would be satisfactory to the askers? --DavidS 12:15, 21 March 2013 (EDT)
- Feel free to make a stronger case for your suggestion. Conservative 19:44, 2 July 2012 (EDT)
- Can someone make this change? I'm unable to edit this page for some reason.
After doing some thinking on the issue, I'd like to add some thoughts to the issue. It seems to me that there must be some criteria to judge the evolutionist answers to these questions, but that whether or not the question satisfies a creationist is not a good one. To maintain the intellectual rigor of the questions, there should be some adjudication of any evolutionist answer to the questions by some independent third party. Who that independent third party should be, though, entirely escapes me.--DTSavage 02:32, 10 April 2013 (EDT)
- I hope that helps clarify things. Conservative 20:05, 10 April 2013 (EDT)
- Conservative, thanks for the blog post. It was definitely an interesting read! Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the point of the QE campaign, at least as I'm reading the blog post, is to say that evolutionists cannot answer the questions, not to offer up many of the main challenges to evolutionism and give evolutionists a chance to rebut them.--DTSavage 01:02, 11 April 2013 (EDT)
- The prominent evolutionists PZ Myers and Nick Matzke have both admitted that the origin of life is part of the evolutionary paradigm.[8] Not a single evolutionists has gotten past the first question of the 15 questions for evolutionists which deals with the origin of life, let alone the remaining 14 questions. It's time evolutionists admitted total defeat! Their Darwinism dog can't hunt! Conservative 14:54, 8 December 2013 (EST)
- Conservative, thanks for the blog post. It was definitely an interesting read! Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems that the point of the QE campaign, at least as I'm reading the blog post, is to say that evolutionists cannot answer the questions, not to offer up many of the main challenges to evolutionism and give evolutionists a chance to rebut them.--DTSavage 01:02, 11 April 2013 (EDT)
