|
|
| (250 intermediate revisions by 35 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | [[Talk Question evolution1 campaign archive 1|archive 1]] | + | [[Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_1|Archive 1]] |
| − | == One Question for Creationists ==
| + | [[Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_2|Archive 2]] |
| | + | [[Talk:Question_evolution!_campaign/Archive_3|Archive 3]] |
| | | | |
| − | How did God create DNA?
| + | ==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) |
| | + | ::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) |
| | | | |
| − | It's not a frivolous question. What were the steps (in whatever level of detail is known) that the Lord went through to plan, design and assemble the DNA that He put into all living things? --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 18:07, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
| + | == Question Evolution! Campaign is achieving its goal - people are questioning evolution! == |
| − | :::Why don't you ask Him? I am sure if He finds your question to be important, He will gladly answer it. :) I would make sure that [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian|you repent and become a Christian first (if you have not done so already),]] before you issue your petition. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
| + | [[File:Increasing.JPG|150px|right]] |
| − | :Conservative, instead of avoiding the question entirely, we should at least point him the right direction.
| + | '''American [[young earth creationism]] increased in the last two years - Gallup survey.''' [http://creation.com/question-evolution Question evolution! campaign] and other efforts of creationists are working!.[http://questionevolution.blogspot.com/2012/06/american-young-earth-creationism.html] |
| − | :God has woven each of us together, individually, since the time of conception. (Psalms 139) [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 18:22, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | :::Clarification: Why don't you ask Him? I am sure if He finds your question to be important, He will gladly answer it. :) I would make sure that [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian|you repent and become a Christian first (if you have not done so already),]] before you issue your petition. With the indwelling of the [[Holy Spirit]] and asking for guidance about your petition, I am sure that you will not ask amiss. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 18:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | @JonG - thanks. That quotation does certainly suggest a Biblical awareness of DNA, but it's still really a restatement of the fact THAT God created DNA, not a description of HOW he created it. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 18:28, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | :Then, frankly, Conservative is correct. The "How" cannot be answered by us (or as far as I know, by The Bible). For that, you will have to ask the Creator himself. Keep your thirst for knowledge. [[User:JonG|~ ]][[User_talk:JonG|JonG]][[Special:Contributions/JonG| ~]] 18:31, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | ::So does that apply to other enquiries? Was Jenner wrong to work out how to vaccinate against smallpox for himself?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 18:37, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | ::And if it is a mistake for me to ask this question, isn't it also a mistake for the Question Evolution campaign to ask precisely the same question?--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 18:40, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | First sox, then shoes. I would make sure that [[Resources for leaving atheism and becoming a Christian|you repent and become a Christian first (if you have not done so already),]] before you issue your petition. With the indwelling of the [[Holy Spirit]] and asking for guidance about your petition, I am sure that you will not ask amiss.[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 19:49, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | :Why have you never addressed the 15 answers to this campaign. 2 people have so far published answers in the talk archive page yet you keep talking as though no one can answer these questions. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 19:57, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | ::Faux answers do not count. See: [[Evolution]] and [[Atheism and deception]].[[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | :::What do you mean "faux answers"? What's faux about them? You haven't countered a single one of them. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 20:16, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | ::::::Proverbs 26:5 [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:23, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | :::::::"Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit." Seems to mean avoid ad hominem attacks and go after the argument itself. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 21:05, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | ::::::::that's not an answer. The way I see it (and I am no atheist) is that the 15 questions can and have been answered. Why not respond and rebut them? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:33, 7
| + | |
| − | ::Faux answers still do not count. See: [[Evolution]] [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 21:37, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | :::What is faux about them? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:39, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | ::::Max, why do you continue trying to engage "Conservative"? It's very clear he has no interest in honestly participating in any discussion. He's right. Everyone else is a fool. You've never gotten anything but deflection or sneering responses! [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 21:51, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | :::::Because I am genuinely interested. I want to know why the answers people have provided are incorrect. I am learning about creationism and i want to know why these answers do not satisfy creationists. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 21:54, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | ::::::Then obviously he's the wrong person to help you. I've learned a lot from Talk Origins, EvoWiki, and Creation Ministries International. You can write to CMI and they have responded to my questions. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 21:59, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | :::::::I have written to CMI before to and received a very courteous reply. [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 22:01, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | ::::::::Because if you could satisfy creationists with correct, logical, scientific answers, then they wouldn't be Creationists. When you reverse the scientific method, no amount of answers derived from the correct order is going to convince them. He's not going to answer us according to our alleged folly, because it isn't folly. --[[User:Chouston|Chouston]] 22:03, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | :::::::::I don't know if that's true or not. I do know that the apologetics that CMI and creationists I have seen use is sometimes presuppositional in nature and strongly influenced by reform epistemology. Without getting into it in any detail, my impression is that presuppositional apologetics answers nothing of interest, just like creationism. It ends up being nothing but argument by assertion and occassional tarring of people who don't believe exactly as the presuppositionalists do, which includes Catholics who get called "liberal" and "un-Biblical". Cornelius Van Til wrote that people who beleive differently are Satanically deceived. That's offensive and it gets repeated at places like CMI as fact. Those who do not hold those beliefs, which creationists describe is "worldviews", live in a material reality that is unintelligible to creationists because they do not accept exactly what creationists are told is a literal reading of the Bible, when in reality many others like certain Catholics (me!) read the Bible literally and come at radically different conclusions about what creationists call "history". I have no idea what "Conservative" believes because he won't tell us. I also don't care at this point since he's shown himself to be incapable of or at least uninterested in learning and teaching about the Bible, science, and creationism. He wants to throw quotes at you and repeat himself. Max, if you'd like to learn about the Catholic Church it may be interesting to you. I can point you toward some good resources for getting back in touch with your faith in Christ if you would like. Please let me know. Peace. [[User:NKeaton|Nate]] 22:19, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | :Seems to me that [[User:Conservative|Conservative]]'s line of reasoning, though it may have its merits, runs counter to the idea behind the Question Evolution! campaign. The fifteen question are intended to engage atheists and evolutionists on their own ground (in that they think their arguments are based on reason/science/logic) and hopefully persuade them that they are wrong. Once that's achieved then their is a chance that they may accept God as the only remaining alternative. But to suggest that such people must accept God first is clearly not going to work - that's not the way they think. Similarly, dismissing answers to the fifteen questions as 'faux' is going to be counter-productive. It may be a good way of reinforcing one's own belief, but it has little chance of persuading anyone else to change theirs. --[[User:QPR|QPR]] 12:37, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | :::You go beyond what I said. I suggested no cookie cutter approach. Jesus and his apostles did not have a cookie cutter approach to dealing with people. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 13:49, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | ::::Sorry, I don't get the analogy.--[[User:QPR|QPR]] 15:40, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
| + | |
| | | | |
| − | == UK Contact details ==
| + | 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) |
| | | | |
| − | How do I contact the UK Question evolution! campaign? [[User:AlycaZ|AlycaZ]] 17:42, 16 August 2011 (EDT)
| + | == "Satisfactorally" section? == |
| | | | |
| − | == What's wrong with public education? ==
| + | 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) |
| | | | |
| − | I just want to say that the Question evolution! campaign has provided me with a lot of new valuable information not readily available in the public school system. Why is it that [http://depts.washington.edu/sswweb/mission.html public universities create entire departments aimed at promoting the liberal agenda], but when it comes to teaching information like this campaign does it is simply out of the question? [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:57, 20 August 2011 (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) |
| − | :I'm pretty sure the "campaign" at this point is just a scheme to sell T-shirts and bumper stickers, not to provoke any meaningful discussion on the validity of evolution. Any Freshman Biology major can easily answer all 15 questions, why would a serious academic institution embarrass themselves by even acknowledging this farce? I have serious reason to believe that this is not actually a serious attempt at promoting scientific integrity, but is an attempt to scam hard-working, god fearing Christians out of their money. Evolution has flaws, but the campaign fails to address any of them in a meaningful way, and even seems to barely understand the actual theory of evolution that scientists promote. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 18:07, 20 August 2011 (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] |
| − | ::Perhaps that's a flaw in the campaign strategy to get their desired message out there? I don't know enough about it to understand all of the information presented in the campaign. What are some of the good points of discussion that should have been used that were not? | + | |
| | | | |
| − | ::Another good point you brought up is on this concern: ''"why would a serious academic institution embarrass themselves by even acknowledging this farce?"'' In the link to a Department of [[Social Justice]] at a university that I consider an extraordinary academic institution, would you consider this -- as an education path at four year university -- to be somewhat embarrassing? I do. | + | ::I hope that helps clarify things. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 20:05, 10 April 2013 (EDT) |
| | | | |
| − | ::It would be much less embarrassing if they accompanied the embarrassing department of Social Justice with a department of Constitutional Studies, or something along those lines. Surely you wouldn't think a Department of Constitutional Studies is an embarrassing idea? The only information the UW offers on the Constitution is what's mandated: | + | :::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) |
| − | {{Cquote|''[e]ach educational institution that receives Federal funds for a fiscal year shall hold an educational program on the United States Constitution on September 17 of such year for the students served by the educational institution.'' - Section 111 of Division J of Pub L. 108-447}}
| + | ::::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) |
| − | ::The UW's mandated 20 megabytes on the Internet can be found [http://depts.washington.edu/constday/ HERE]. Try not to laugh. It is a ''serious academic'' Website.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ::Lastly, FCapra, the response you gave is chilling because, as pointed out in an article ''[[Conservapedia]]s'' ''[[Conservapedia:In_the_News|InTheNews]]'' linked to, regarding [http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2011/08/20/creation/rick-perry-evolution-question/ Rick Perry's evolution question] in '''The Right Answer''' section it states:
| + | |
| − | {{Cquote|...[L]ike the populace in Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Emperor’s New Clothes,” people are afraid to check them out. Afraid because the evolutionists have convinced everyone that anyone who disagrees with them is stupid or unfit for his post. Evolutionism isn’t the only premise that people are afraid to check. Keynesianism, '''or the idea that a society can tax and spend its way to prosperity, is another.'''}}
| + | |
| − | ::The UW's department of Social Justice is probably bias. So, since there are so many highly acclaimed universities that are willing to dabble in Social Justice as an academic study, why not offer an opinion and the freedom of expression from all points of view? Why would a study that questions evolution be any more or less embarrassing than the study of taxing and spending our way into prosperity? That is what confuses me, and should be disturbing most people who consider these facts. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 19:21, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | :::The beauty of science is that it doesn't care about public opinion. Scientists have been trying for years to disprove evolution, because that would lead to tons of new research opportunities, book deals, and almost universal fame. They would be the modern equivalent of Darwin, or Marie Curie. There is no point in an anti evolution campaign directed at the public, because '''it doesn't matter'''. There are only two reasons to direct this towards the public: To reassure one's self of one's own ideals through popular acceptance, and to make some easy money off of trustworthy Christians. If CMI actually cared about refuting evolution, they would hire scientists to preform experiments, not pass around a badly written pamphlet. Science questions evolution all the time, they just always keep getting the same answer.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | :::Just so you're clear, I'm '''not''' against questioning scientific theories. I just feel that the question evolution campaign is a scam, not an actual scientific endeavor. [[User:FCapra|FCapra]] 20:40, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ::::True, science doesn't care about public opinion, as it should be. Your points are well taken. I personally appreciate science because it has helped humanity achieve great advancements in certain types of technology. It's just when politics takes over a type of unproven science to move forward with an agenda that I have problem with. Usually when this happens it's accompanied with increases in taxes, decreases in liberty, and hordes of drive-by mouths telling everyone they are stupid if they don't believe their theory is a fact. Liberals probably lost momentum in their global warming movement due to these silly tactics getting exposed. You can tell the liberals sense this loss too, when all of a sudden MSNBC starts spouting about a crisis of aliens coming to destroy humans because somehow these aliens know that this fake global warming we cause is going to heat up and devour the entire uinverse.
| + | |
| − | ::::Going back to Perry's answer on evolution, I think it was a good answer without getting to into it with someone who clearly wanted to make a scene. I can just see the day when liberals will shout about some sort of crisis where we must stop our evolving or else we will become mutant aliens or something. All it will take to stop this crisis is higher taxes and more unions... So let's get on it!!! Seriously though, your point is well taken. ;) [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:14, 21 August 2011 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | :::::You're far more forgiving than I am, Derek. I think hiding behind a child and attempting to use him as a ventriolquist's dummy as the woman in the video did is worse than cowardly. I don't blame Governor Perry one bit for refusing to be baited. --[[User:Benp|Benp]] 15:39, 21 August 2011 (EDT) | + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ::::::I like to try and view things from both sides while keeping true to my own opinions and values. I am a forgiving person, but I'm not one to forget quickly. As for the woman and her use of a child to make a scene, I agree with you 100%. Similar to the time the SEIU went to the house of a bank CEO and scared the child inside the home, I think tactics like these are despicable and it goes to show what kind of values these thugs have. Their character lacks any sort of moral boundaries or ethics, it's sad really. It's difficult to forgive a woman like that when you know she would gladly exploit children for her own benefit in the future, wihout even thinking twice about it. These are the type of people who end up working for Acorn hiding child prostitution rings because they make a dollar from it and it benefits their selfish desires. [[User:DerekE|DerekE]] 15:06, 22 August 2011 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ==Punctuation of the article title==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Do we need the exclamation mark in the article title? It's like [[Joomla]], which is often advertised as "Joomla!" to draw attention to it. But it makes it hard to link to, when writing encyclopedia articles.
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | I'd like to call it the [[Question Evolution]] campaign, and say that's slogan is, "Question evolution!" Note that I have placed the exclamation point in the slogan, rather than in the name of the campaign. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 16:55, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | :I agree with you Ed, the grammar looks rather strange. Who has "move page" powers? [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 16:59, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | ::I do, but I want to wait a bit in case the move would be too abrupt for others. If no one objects by the end of the month, I'll move it. No hurry. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:12, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | :::I defer to you, Ed! [[User:MaxFletcher|MaxFletcher]] 17:25, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | ::::I think we should let this sleeping dog lie. If we changed it, content would have to change in Conservapedia as a result and the extra work doesn't seem justified. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 14:54, 31 August 2011 (EDT)
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | == Something is Fishy ==
| + | |
| − | | + | |
| − | Is it just me, or does the entire Question Evolution campaign seem like a poorly though-out scam to try to sell T-shirts to people? Rather than try to do any actual scientific research or bring up legitimate gaps in evolution theory, CMI seems to just be repeating poorly researched soundbites that allegedly "disprove" evolution, while refusing to engage in any meaningful debate and relying entirely on grassroots movement to support themselves. I really don't think this campaign is something any halfway reputable website should advertise. It just seems like they are so many more effective, though less profitable way, to bring up legitimate arguments to evolution. CMI seems to have such a tenuous grasp on evolution theory, they don't even understand that some of their question LITERALLY have nothing to do with evolution theory. Evolution may be poorly supported by science, but there is no reason to stoop to their level in an attempt to disproove it.
| + | |
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)
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)
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.
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)
