Talk:Question evolution! campaign

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Conservative (Talk | contribs) at 01:35, 2 December 2011. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search

Archive 1 Archive 2

This article seems like it is trying to endorse Youtube user ShockofGod more than explain anything or offer any useful information. USer:Gelatin

You are not being very specific when it comes to supporting your contention. It seems like you are just spoiling for a pointless internet argument. Conservative 22:00, 13 October 2011 (EDT)
Well in six of the sections on the article it makes a direct reference to the youtube user ShockofGod which makes it seem like more of an endorsement to him than to the actual campaign, in addition it puts too much priority on him as opposed to other evangelicals with the same message. Gelatin

Enthusiastic Student Response

Why does this section exist? The only examples included are two youtube comments, and a photograph of a model wearing a QE t-shirt. This is not remotely illustrative of an "Enthusiastic" student response, or any kind of response at all. In point of fact, youtube is so well-known for the poor quality of its comment threads that citing it may be actively harmful to the credibility of the article. I've looked for more substantive examples of students reacting to the QE campaign, but have found none. Calling students' response "Enthusiastic" is, frankly, misleading when there's no actual evidence that it has been anything of the sort... furthermore, there's no reason whatsoever to have a separate article for "Enthusiastic Student Response" when it has no more information than is included in the section on the main QE page. If nobody provides additional evidence, I will take the liberty of editing out the "Enthusiastic" part of the title, and strongly urge that the section be deleted in general. DGalore

If YouTube is so well known for the poor quality of its comment threads, then why didn't you cite supporting articles mentioning this from reputable sources? Consider working on your research skills. Conservative 11:24, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
By the way, you just gave me an idea for another article on the Question evolution! campaign. Thanks. 11:35, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
Like I said, sir, I tried to find more reputable sources, and was unable to do so. Since I can't find anything, I can't in good faith claim the response has been "enthusiastic." As far as my research is concerned: I have searched Google, Yahoo et. al with variations on the searchstring "College Student response to Question Evolution!", and have checked through the archives of my own college newspaper and various other major college publications, and found no significant references. The article cannot stand as-is - we either need to find better sources, or change it to reflect the lack of them. Citing nothing but youtube comments is, frankly, embarrassing and discredits the article. DGalore
At the very least, it should not read "Enthusiastic" in any case. The section should be titled just "Student Response to the QE! Campaign." Given the liberal bias on college campuses, it is inconceivable that student response will be universally enthusiastic. Pretending that the only response has been rapturous enthusiasm is neither encyclopedic nor informative. DGalore
DGalore, setting aside the fact that no true skeptic claims to know my gender, you haven't shown you have done your due diligence. I suggest not giving up you day job and if you have any life long dream of becoming a reporter. Conservative 11:59, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
Sorry - I was only trying to be respectful, since you're a senior member of the site and I'm very new! I don't use wikis much, so I'm not well-versed in internet etiquette... Anyway, to the point: Do you have any evidence for the Student Response page? Because if I don't, and you don't... who does? DGalore
I suggest getting a book on investigative reporting. I am sure your local library can help you. Thanks once again. I just created Enthusiastic responses to the Question evolution! campaign. You input was very helpful. Conservative 14:04, 17 October 2011 (EDT)
I'm glad to see my suggestion proved helpful, at least. You did a great job, I think it looks a lot better now! If I run across anything to add to the new page, I'll be sure to do so.DGalore

Question evolution! campaign axman cometh

An advocate of the Question evolution! campaign wrote:

"We have some great news to report! A person who loves the Question evolution! campaign has made the commitment to intensely promote the campaign. Hundreds of hours are going to be added to promote the campaign in the short term. He is going to relentlessly swing his Question evolution! axe at the rotten tree of evolutionism and nothing is going to distract him.

We already know that the evolutionists are impotent against the 15 questions that evolutionists cannot satisfactorily answer so the widespread distribution of these questions is going to be very demoralizing to evolution supporters. Questioning, critical reasoning and open inquiry are toxic to evolutionary belief so we are very much looking forward to the widespread dissemination of the Question evolution! campaign."[1]

See: Responses to the Question evolution! campaign Conservative 08:19, 20 October 2011 (EDT)

"Question Evolution" Link

Under the "Notes" section, the first link is supposed to bring the user to the Question Evolution! page on the Creation Ministries website, correct? Currently, the link is broken. It should say, "," whereas right now it says ""

Note the "I" between "v" and "o" in "evolution." I cannot fix this link, so someone with that power may wish to do so. JHunt1487 14:51, 23 November 2011 (EST)

Fixed thinks.Conservative 02:35, 2 December 2011 (EST)

Seven Questions Creationists Can't Answer!

The Bible has quite a few dates and talks about lots of old men who supposedly lived for 900 years. Using these dates and records, Christian apologist Bishop Ussher created the most commonly accepted chronology that claims that the Earth was created in 4004 BC. Most Christian Fundamentalists still accept this date or at least a very similar one. Here are seven reasons that they are wrong!

  1. The Pyramids Everyone knows that they are there. Even Southern Baptist apologists can't deny their existence. So how does their very existence destroy Biblical inerrantism? Because every single one of them was built hundreds of years before the Bible says that the Flood supposedly wiped out humanity. The Great Pyramid of Khufu in Giza was built around 2550 BC according to Egyptian records. That is 200 years before the flood. Embarrassingly, God's miles high flood made no mark on the pyramids or their contents. The mummies and artifacts inside are still dry and in great shape. If there really had been enough water to cover the Earth, it would have exerted a force of at least 1.8 million pounds per square foot on the Pyramids (assuming that the water was high enough to cover the entire Earth and all the mountains as the Bible says). This amount of pressure would have completely destroyed the antiquated architecture and mummies.
Where did you come up with your Flood date?
  1. Tree Rings Dendrochronology, the study of tree rings, is an interesting and informative science that can tell us much about history. Every year, each tree creates a new growth ring. The size of this ring depends on the conditions of that year. Scientists can take cores of these trees and count the number of tree rings in order to give the age of the tree. Each year has a distinctive pattern depending on the local conditions. Amazingly, we have a species of tree, known as Bristlecone Pines, that provide a record of tree rings that extends back 11,000 years to 9,000 BC. This is an obvious problem for those that believe that the Earth was still "matter unorganized" back then. We even have a tree, known as Methuselah, that has now been alive for 4,842 years and counting as shown by its rings. That means that the tree was born in 2831 BC. This tree (and many others) kept living right on through the Flood that supposedly killed everything in 2350. The lowly Bristlecone Pine has toppled the Holy Bible simply by living when it should have died.
5,000 years ago is when the Flood happened, and bristlecone pines have been shown to be younger than that. Where is this 11,000 year tree-ring record you speak of?
  1. Carbon Dating Radiometric dating is one of the strongest killers of Biblical literacy and one that creationists love to hate. Basically, radiometric dating measures the amount of an isotope and its decayed products are present in a given sample. It is based on the universally admitted fact that radioactive things decay at a certain rate. Through simple math, one can figure out the age of the sample. Radiometric dating is important because it proves that fossils are much older than a few thousand years old. This data shows that the Earth has been around for 4.5 billion years which obviously destroys the Ussher Chronology. Creationists often claim that "decay rates may have changed" or "I carbon dated my dead cat and the answer was off, so..." I have heard all kinds of silly attempts to discredit radiometric dating. The fact remains that we have used this method with not only carbon-14, but with more than 50 other isotopes to confirm the dates. Each of these 50 isotopes decays at a different rate. Yet, they all agree that the Earth is more than 4.5 billion years old. This is important. The half-lives for isotopes range from 70*10-18 seconds for Be-8 to 2.28*1024 years for Te-128. This is a huge range of time. That means that God would have had to speed up each of the 50 isotope's half-lives by vastly different factors in order to fool us into thinking that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old. How ridiculous. My question is: why do creationists make insane claims about basic laws of physics in order to defend a Bronze Age myth?
You can believe what you want to believe, but there are major flaws based around the word "assumption" in regards to radiometric dating; too many people have too many problems with it to be reliable. [2]
  1. Egyptian Hieroglyphs and Sumerian Before 2250 BC and the Tower of Babel, according to Biblical mythology, the only language on the planet was Adamic. All of the other languages, including Egyptian and Sumerian, were created by the confusion of tongues. Therefore, it is devastating that we have found hundreds of examples of writing that date to a thousand years before the Tower of Babel. Egyptian writings are also powerful evidence against Biblical literalism. The first known Egyptian hieroglyphic inscription was the Narmer Palette which is a collection of writing that dates to 3200 BC. This writing existed 1,000 years before the Tower of Babel when the Egyptian language was supposedly created. The first examples of Sumerian Cuneiform date to 3300 BC. Obviously, two completely different languages existed long before the Tower of Babel "created" them all and neither of them was Adamic.
For years scholars have been stating that written language is no older than 5,000 years (the Flood date again!), and recently things began to change. Could this change have been connected with militant atheism and a hostility towards the Bible?
  1. Egyptian Dynastic Records Thanks to a well-developed system of record keeping and well-preserved papyri (which oddly enough, survived the Flood), we know an amazing amount about the Egyptian dynasties of the Old Kingdom. We know the exact years that each pharoah rose to power and then was replaced beginning with the Pharoah Zanakht, who rose to power in 2649. This line continues unbroken until the Pharoah Unas (2356-2323 BC) who obviously survived the "Global Flood" in 2349. This line continues until Nemtyenmzaf (2255-2246 BC) who reigned while God was changing everyone's language. Luckily, God forgot Egypt existed and no major disruptive linguistic change occurred during those few centuries when the Tower of Babel suppposedly happened.
Are you stating here that Pharoah Zanakht is the first Egyptian king? And are you sure about those dates? David Rohl did some checking and found out the scholars were wrong by about 350 years.'
  1. Kangaroos, Lemurs, Frogs, and Emus Besides the obvious absurdity that Noah crammed 2 of each of the more than 5,000 mammal species, 10,000 bird species, 1,000,000 insect species, and 9,000 reptile species in a 450 foot long boat, there are other biological problems with the Bible. Leaving aside all the evidence for evolution, we can look at current animal distribution to see that Noah's Ark is bunk. Supposedly, Noah collected 2 of each animal into his boat and rode the Flood out for a year until he disembarked and released all of these animals from one point on Earth (legend says in Turkey). They then reproduced and spread out to where they are now. If this were true, animals would be present wherever they could have migrated since the Flood. Animals go where they can survive. That would mean that there would not be the kind of differences that we see in the world. Why are most Marsupials in Australia? Are we really expected to believe that all the Kangaroos got off the Ark and made a beeline for Australia without leaving one behind on the mainland? Why did all the Lemurs head for Madagascar? Why are the platyrrhines only found in the Western Hemisphere and catarrhines only in the Old World? How did all those animals get to Australia or any other island at all? Frogs cannot survive in salt water, so how did they get to Australia? I could list such problems in animal distribution forever. These questions are all easily answered by evolution, but they really make no sense if we accept Genesis.
Those questions are easily answered by Genesis, and an order by God that they go to their appointed places after the Flood. After all, how did people migrate out from the Old World to the New? Did they cross land bridges? And did they take several thousand years to do it...or did they actually do it in a few months? Wasn't the island of Krakatoa repopulated with animal and plant life within a couple years after an 1883 eruption which killed off everything, including bacteria?
  1. Oil and Coal Every time a creationist drives he is benefitting from the fact that he is wrong. Petroleum only exists because the Earth is billions of years old. As most know, it is formed when the remains of phytoplankton and zooplankton settle to the bottom of the sea and are compressed and decomposed in anaerobic conditions. There is no other way to make petroleum. Enormous amounts of heat, pressure, and time are require to create petroleum. Only geologic time could do it. The gas in your car is great proof that Christian Fundamentalists are wrong when they said that the Earth was 6,000 years old.
What exactly do you mean by "as most know?" When phytoplankton and zooplankton settle on the bottom of the sea they are disposed of by scavengers before any sort of burial takes place, and this little fact is observable. And it isn't just dead animal and plant life that is being consumed; try looking at the remains of an iron-hulled ship that used to be called "Titanic". Courtesy of the recent oil well blow out in the Gulf of Mexico, we have the news from several sources that there are biological critters which eat oil. So, where is the oil coming from if it's being eaten away every time an animal dies?

Unless all 7 of these questions can be answered, Creationism must be dismissed as pseudoscience. FRodgers 23:20, 1 December 2011 (EST)

Basically, FRodgers, all those questions were answered, and they were answered too many times by too many people with a lot of evidence to back it all up. The first thing you had better do is to disprove the existence of God beyond all doubt; then you can talk about why we should not believe in what you call "pseudoscience". Karajou 02:09, 2 December 2011 (EST)
FRodgers, I see the evolutionists are getting desperate because they still can't the 15 questions. Second, the fluff you put forth certainly should not be taken seriously. For example, "Peter Clayton remarked that “it may come as a surprise to realize that it is extremely difficult to fix true or absolute dates in Egyptian chronology” (1994, p. 12, emp. added). Sir Alan Gardiner, the foremost Egyptologist of the twentieth century, spoke of “lamentable gaps” and “many a doubtful attribution,” finally exclaiming: “What is proudly advertised as Egyptian history is merely a collection of rags and tatters” (1961, p. 48, emp. added). Noting that our present knowledge of Egyptian chronology is “far from satisfactory,” Olaf Toffteen, curator of the Hibbard Egyptian Library in Chicago, explained that the deficiency can be attributed “not to the scarcity of material, but rather to its abundance. This material...exhibits so many contradictions that Egyptologists and historians differ radically in their theories on Egyptian chronology” (1907, 1:149). This indefiniteness does not remove all validity from the chronology, but it must be recognized that the ancient chronology of Egypt, though well established, is far from infallible."[3] Conservative 23:38, 1 December 2011 (EST)

Here is some addition information: "The uncertainty to which these scholars refer, results from the shaky foundation upon which Egyptian chronology is built. Manetho, the source of “the basic structure or skeleton of Egyptian chronology that we use today” (Clayton, p. 9), is unreliable and inaccurate. In the introduction to his translation of that historian, W.G. Waddell suggested “there were many errors in Manetho’s work from the very beginning” (1997, p. xxv). Further indicting this ancient source, Breasted confessed: “Wherever he can be controlled, Manetho is generally wrong in his figures, and any chronology based on his data is hopelessly astray” (1927, 1:32). Whatever the reason for Manetho’s untrustworthiness, one immediately sees the unreliability of a system whose “basic structure” is “hopelessly astray.”"[4] Conservative 23:44, 1 December 2011 (EST)

And the Question Evolution! campaign relies entirely on quote mining, misrepresentation of science, extremely flawed assumption, critical misinterpretation of evolutionary theory, and outright lies. I don't see your point. While there is some dissent about dates regarding Egypt, the consensus is that Egypt formed pre-flood and survived until the Greeks moved in. You can't explain that. FRodgers 00:25, 2 December 2011 (EST)
Don't you have any recent references? You can find some good stuff at my YouTube video, "More analysis of the Flood myth" or on my channel, voiceoftruth2006. I'm happy to debate you, by the way. --VOT2011 23:48, 1 December 2011 (EST)

Evolutionists, all your evolutionist jargon, evolutionist whining/kvetching and evolutionist consensus doesn't amount to a hill of beans. This campaign will throw creationist sabots into the machinery of evolutionary indoctrination. Get used to the Question evolution! campaign because you are not going to stop it. Conservative 01:17, 2 December 2011 (EST)