Difference between revisions of "Talk:Question evolution! campaign"

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search
(Undo revision 908129 by DerekE (talk) Why is a new user giving instructions to an experienced sysop?)
(Punctuation of the article title)
Line 73: Line 73:
 
::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 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 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)

Revision as of 13:54, 31 August 2011

archive 1

One Question for Creationists

How did God create DNA?

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? --QPR 18:07, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

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 you repent and become a Christian first (if you have not done so already), before you issue your petition. Conservative 18:12, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
Conservative, instead of avoiding the question entirely, we should at least point him the right direction.
God has woven each of us together, individually, since the time of conception. (Psalms 139) ~ 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 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. 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. --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. ~ 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?--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?--QPR 18:40, 7 August 2011 (EDT)

First sox, then shoes. I would make sure that 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.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. MaxFletcher 19:57, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
Faux answers do not count. See: Evolution and Atheism and deception.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. MaxFletcher 20:16, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
Proverbs 26:5 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. --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? MaxFletcher 21:33, 7
Faux answers still do not count. See: Evolution Conservative 21:37, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
What is faux about them? 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! 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. 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. Nate 21:59, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
I have written to CMI before to and received a very courteous reply. 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. --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. Nate 22:19, 7 August 2011 (EDT)
Seems to me that 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. --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. Conservative 13:49, 8 August 2011 (EDT)
Sorry, I don't get the analogy.--QPR 15:40, 8 August 2011 (EDT)

UK Contact details

How do I contact the UK Question evolution! campaign? AlycaZ 17:42, 16 August 2011 (EDT)

What's wrong with public education?

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 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? DerekE 15:57, 20 August 2011 (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. FCapra 18:07, 20 August 2011 (EDT)
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.
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:
[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 UW's mandated 20 megabytes on the Internet can be found 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 Conservapedias InTheNews linked to, regarding Rick Perry's evolution question in The Right Answer section it states:
...[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. 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. 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. ;) 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. --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. 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. --Ed Poor Talk 16:55, 25 August 2011 (EDT)

I agree with you Ed, the grammar looks rather strange. Who has "move page" powers? 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. --Ed Poor Talk 17:12, 25 August 2011 (EDT)
I defer to you, Ed! 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. Conservative 14:54, 31 August 2011 (EDT)