Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 1

From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Seriously flawed.

I'm not going to touch this article for now because I don't want to start issues but to put it mildly- this article is junk as it stands. Darwin's original ideas are not what the modern theory. The modern theory of evolution does not make a large deal about distinguishing between micro and macro evolution. and that's just for starters.

This article also gives definitions of micro and macroevolution which aren't fully consistent with the (bad) defintions given on the pages for those articles and conflates gaining information with speciation. These have little to do with each other by any reasonable defintion of information. JoshuaZ 15:43, 15 February 2007 (EST)

Pay no attention to JoshuaZ. JoshuaZ is a fanatical bully boy evolutionist admin at Wikipedia and one of the many reasons why conservapedia.com was created. Conservative 19:44, 22 February 2007 (EST)conservative
Wow, I haven't seen such charming ad hominem attacks in some time. You are aware that ad hominem attacks aren't logically valid, yes? JoshuaZ 21:38, 22 February 2007 (EST)
I wasn't in a debate with you. I was merely calling a spade a spade and warning readers about you. Conservative 23:35, 22 February 2007 (EST)conservative
Warning them about what exactly? Even if your accusations that I was a "fanatical bully boy evolutionist admin at Wikipedia " I fail to see its relevancy. JoshuaZ 23:44, 22 February 2007 (EST)
Just my two cents, but I have had some serious concerns with quality of some admins here at conservapedia, but Joshuaz is one of the best. He is not a "fanatical bully evolutionist." If you took 5 mins to participate in this site before you start throwing mud, you would know this. Josh seams to be the best hope for bringing credibility and actual value to conservapedia. Joshuaz's concerns about the article were entirely appropriate, but remember that we are here to build, not tear down.--Whatter 01:41, 24 February 2007 (EST)
Whatter, I base my comments on JoshuaZ based on my experiences of him at Wikipedia. I also think you mistakenly believe that JoshuaZ is an admin here at conservapedia. Lastly, I would ask JoshuaZ the following questions: Is Wikipedia biased in favor of the macroevolutionary position? Have you ever edited out material against the macroevolutionary position at Wikipedia? By the way, here is what JoshuaZ says about Conservapedia at his Wikipedia userpage discussion page: "Yeah, a lot of the scienceblog people had a lot of fun tearing it into tiny pieces. I've almost given up myself. The only good that I can see coming of it is that we can maybe direct annoying people here over to there." [1] It seems as if JoshuaZ wants to direct those annoying creationist who point out flaws of the macroevolutionary position to Conservapedia so he spends less time removing their material from Wikipedia. Conservative 21:18, 24 February 2007 (EST)conservative

Forget the content will someone please fix the incorrectly placed commas!

Seriously flawed, part 2.

This is the first entry I checked out to see what Conservapedia was like, and to see if it's really the quality source it claims to be. Sadly, it is not. What a terrible, unscientific, irrational, and ideological understanding of the Theory of Evolution. Conservatives should be ashamed to have this be a representation of Conservative understanding of scientific issues. Thoughtful conservatives who want the straight science of evolution need to look elsewhere. I won't be back.

There's too much information to counter in this entry, but let me just leave you with this: Dogs can't turn into cats? No, and modern squids won't turn into people, either. But we can look back at the evolutionary history and see where different species branched off from a common ancestor. Cats and dogs are closer to a common ancestor than people and squids are. That is, unless someone produces evidence that overturns our understanding. That would be pretty powerful evidence. Kind of like if someone discovered that there's really no gravity.

Just to clarify, although I'm adding to the Seriously Flawed entry, I'm a different person.

Counter:

It's the purpose of Conservapedia to be a pro-Christian version of Wikipedia. You call Conservapedia all sorts of insulting things, but the bottom line is, if you don't like it, don't use it. Your "too much information" quip is precisely the reason that Wikipedia is so biased. Ashens 14:02 22 February 2007 (EST)

That doesn't respond to a single part of the above complain. Many Christians accept evolution. Having factually incorrect information doesn't make this article pro-Christian. It makes it wrong. JoshuaZ 14:17, 22 February 2007 (EST)
"Many" Christians accept a lot of things, that doesn't make their position Biblical. Only God is incapable of error, and that's why this website follows God instead of the fallible beliefs of Men. You claim that this information is "factually incorrect" but you don't prove it. Besides, the founder of this website has proven, in no uncertain terms, that macroevolution (what most atheists mean when they say "evolution") is impossible. There's simply not enough time and even if there was, all mutations are harmful. The end. Ashens 14:23 22 Februrary 2007 (EST)
Ok, so many problems with the above comment I'm not even sure where to start, so I'll just go through sentence by sentence. First, regarding your statement that "Only God is incapable of error, and that's why this website follows God instead of the fallible beliefs of Men" - don't confuse what God said with your interpretation of what God said. Your interpretations are still failible. Second, your claim that "the founder of this website has proven, in no uncertain terms, that macroevolution (what most atheists mean when they say "evolution") is impossible" - first, note that in science nothing is very proven - at best one has overwhelming evidence for a claim. Second, no I'm afraid that the "founder"(I presume you mean Andrew) did no such thing. Your claims that " There's simply not enough time and even if there was, all mutations are harmful" is such a bundle of contradictions and attempts to ignore reality it isn't funny. To point out only three of the problems- the majority of mutations are in fact not harmful nor beneficial but neutral (you would know this if you took a basic genetics course). Second there are many examples of beneficial mutations in the scientific literature, in fact examples have been around for over 50 years. See for See for example Lederberg and Lederberg, Replica plating and indirect selection of bacterial mutants. Journal of Bacteriology 63: 399-406 (1952). More recently, bacteria have gained mutations allowing them to digest nylon: Negoro, et al. "The nylon oligomer biodegradation system of Flavobacterium and Pseudomonas" Biodegradation 5: 185-194. Third, a simple thought problem will show you that not all mutations are harmful- all point mutations are essentially reversible mutations. So if a given point mutation is harmful then the reverse mutation is beneficial. JoshuaZ 15:11, 22 February 2007 (EST)
Ah-ha, but Ashens has forgotten! Since God is infallible, and, by definition, ineffable, anything He does is to great to be understood by the minds of Men. So although God may indeed be "incapable of error" (but being omnipotent, He is capable of anything), only a faded, skewed version of His Plans can be perceived by our mortal minds (as JoshuaZ said). Therefore a website that follows God must be creating its own distorted image of the true, divine Facts.
There's simply not enough time to observe all of His Plans unfold and even if there was, He may well be enjoying a Joke at our expense. Prometheus
(I wrote the second "Seriously Flawed" entry.) It's not my intention to be insulting. Forgive me for not reading everything about the site ahead of time. I didn't realize it was specifically Christian. I thought it was about Conservatism, which most certainly extends beyond Christianity. I understand your "if you don't like it, don't use it" comment. If you want to avoid more negative comments, perhaps you should make the site more obviously fundamentalist Christian. Just a suggestion, since plenty of conservatives are concerned with scientific truth over Biblical Truth.
It's interesting that God is infallible. Because, personally I mean, I would say he probably made a mistake in the Old Testament when he told Christians to murder anyone who works on Sunday, or when he told Christians to murder all gay people, or when he told Christians to murder anyone who 'spoke of other religions.' I was under the impression that most Christians think that's why he sent down a slightly less flawed little addendum called the New Testament- to fix all the mistakes he made. Thanks for clearing that up though- God did not make any mistakes in the Old Testament. He was just a complete douchebag.

Article violates the site's own "commandments"

This article is a prime example of the sort of nonsense that gives conservatism a bad name. It's too silly to deserve any kind of discussion, but I would just point out that it is in contradiction with the site's own "commandments". Number 1 is that everything posted here should be true and verifiable. This article is very obviously neither.

This comment was obviously posted awhile ago, but I'll reply anyway. First of all, Mr. Anonymous, I wish you would sign your comments. Second, you are in no way proving or backing up what you say. You just make these silly remarks and criticisms without even giving an example. This article looks good to me. Scorpionman 10:12, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Some examples of why the article looks good, please? Prometheus
I seriously hope you weren't serious there. Your first sentence acknowledges that this was posted a long time ago... and then you go on about how TODAY's article looks good to you. For what it's worth, the initial post came from Alfonz, dated Feb 22. This can EASILY be checked. It most likely took me far less time to check that than it took you to write your reply. The actual article at that time had been this version. At the time of that posting, the context had been extremely obvious (complete lack of sourcing, pure opinions), so stop belittling people just because you're too lazy to do basic background checks. --Sid 3050 12:23, 11 March 2007 (EDT)
Y'kmow, when I think of the best of Conservative writing I think of Bill Safire, Bill Buckley and George Will, folks who do their homework and are articulate intellectuals. Here, I see a lot of Rush Limbaugh wannabes. Muy triste. NousEpirrhytos 18:33, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

Current outstanding issues

I was told by a mod not to correct inaccuracies without discussion, so I'm going to list the issues outstanding. Most importantly, I hope the creationists here realize that there is a difference between disagreeing that evolution is good, well demonstrated science, and simply misrepresenting what evolution says and is. You don't have to agree that evolution is real, but you do need to at least get the CLAIMS correct.

  • Darwin (and Wallace, actually) was historically the guy who first described evolution as a coherent theory in the modern sense, but this is relevant to an article on evolution only in the historical sense. Any article bearing the name "The Theory of Evolution" needs to discuss the actual, modern one, not focus almost exclusively on Darwin, much less only on natural selection. Common descent isn't even mentioned despite it begin a core idea even for Darwin's time.
  • The section on dog evolution says that dogs have "many regressive traits," but this statement is vague and potentially meaningless. Dog populations have many different traits, and many new traits are added an extended over time via mutation.
  • Many examples of reproductive speciation have been observed in a human timeframe.
  • The evidence of science is not limited to eyewitness observation. Physical evidence can be just as strong, if not stronger, as directly observational evidence. Thus, the claim that this or that has not been directly observed happening in a lab is irrelevant. What ultimately matters is the evidence that confirms or disconfirms a given claim.
  • The idea that mutations cannot add information is both ill-defined and incoherent for any definition. The fact of the matter is that anything a mutation can do, it can undo. By definition, if mutation can lose information it can also gain it, and being random, mutation cannot be said to prefer one to the other.
  • As has been pointed out countless times, the claimed distinction between macroevolution and microevolution is simply phony, and claiming that it is a basic division in evolution is nonsense. While those terms are used in biology, they are not used in the way creationists claim. They are relevant primarily because different sorts of forces act on the direction of populations that can interbreed and those that cannot. What creationists really object to is not macroevolution, but rather common descent (which is the idea that all life speciated in a branching matter from a common ancestor or set of early ancestors).
  I couldn't agree more.  The sooner these changes are made the sooner this article will 
  become credible. --Horace 19:53, 22 February 2007 (EST)

stubbstarbuck -- This article makes a specious argument at best (it's a straw man argument against natural selection), and at its Iworst makes conservatives look thouroughly uneducated. This response is not about defending the theory of evolution; there are countless resources that do this better than I can. What makes this article so insidious is its blatant propaganda motive. If Conservapedia is looking to provide a balance to Wikipedia, then its users should spend more time researching the issue. I'm not even sure the writer of the evolution article understands evolution, which, you would imagine, should be a prerequisite for authoritatively writing on the subject, or anything for that matter.

I laughed out loud when I read it - it could have been about anything I know a lot about, and I still would have laughed. It looks like it was written in about 15 minutes. I also enjoyed the hilarious inline edits, though I don't think that really makes things better - it only makes evolution naysayers less likely to learn the truth.

2nd Law Problems

This article is still making the second law violation claims. Credible citations are a MUST for a controversial entry like this, and I challange editors who put the 2LOT claims in to PLEASE cite appropriately.--Whatter 01:41, 24 February 2007 (EST)

One thing that people definitely need to understand is that the 2nd law is either a law or it isn't (it is, of course). And if it is, then it makes no sense to assert that natural evolution somehow violates it but design does not. Human beings obey the laws of thermodynamics just the same as everything else, for instance: when we design things, add information to things, its all in keeping with the laws of thermodynamics. I think once you realize that, the idea that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics becomes more obviously silly. If complexity couldn't increase naturally, all sorts of very common things would be impossible. Entropy means that things are always overly wasteful not that any given event is thermodynamically impossible or that order always decreases even locally.Plunge 04:01, 24 February 2007 (EST)

From the article:

"Evolution does in fact lower the entropy of the sum of the living DNA on this planet"

I'd love to see the calculation demonstrating this. Tsumetai 15:31, 25 February 2007 (EST)

Obviousman points out:(Not so obvious, it would seem) Dpbsmith 17:12, 25 February 2007 (EST)

The second law only applies to a closed system. The earth plus the sun might constitute an approximation to a closed system. The earth considered by itself most definitely does not. Any decrease in entropy occurring on the earth is just a drop in the bucket compared to the huge increase in entropy that is occurring within the sun.

In other words, the gradual running-down of the sun not only provides enough energy, but enough entropy increase to "fuel" evolution, civilization, learning in human brains, the assemblage of spots on paper into the score for Beethoven's Fifth Symphony, and all that. You could tidy up everything on earth into an obsessive-compulsive's dream without decreasing its entropy enough to matter when you take the earth-sun system into account.

And, yes, without the sun's energy (and, equally important, the difference in temperature between the surface of the sun and the blackness of the outer space surrounding it), you could not have evolution... or stable, creationist life. Dpbsmith 15:45, 25 February 2007 (EST)

Second law applies to all systems, open or closed. It's just that one statement of the second law, namely that entropy cannot decrease in a closed system, isn't particularly useful in open systems.
Incidentally, tidying isn't going to decrease the Earth's entropy at all. If anything, the work done in the process will increase it. But the ordering of macroscopic bodies doesn't affect their thermodynamic entropy; one can't decrease the entropy of a deck of cards by laying it out in order, for example. Tsumetai 15:52, 25 February 2007 (EST)
"If anything, the work done in the process will increase it." Well, that's sort of my point. I thought the second law allowed things to get tidier in one place as long as something else gets untidier... more untidier... as a result. But clearly I don't really know what I'm talking about, so maybe just for once I'll shut up... Dpbsmith 17:15, 25 February 2007 (EST)
Only for a sufficiently esoteric definition of 'tidy'; one which will generally not match our intuitive understanding of the term. This is why when talking about thermodynamics I find it better to avoid terms like order, which carry with them a lot of baggage, and just stick with entropy. Tsumetai 17:25, 25 February 2007 (EST)

The point is that the article would be much better off if the 2nd law nonsense was just removed. --Horace 18:55, 25 February 2007 (EST)

Quite. Perhaps someone who disagrees would care to defend its inclusion? Tsumetai 06:22, 27 February 2007 (EST)
I'll take that as a 'no,' then. Since no one seems willing or able to defend this arrant nonsense, perhaps an admin could remove it. Tsumetai 05:30, 2 March 2007 (EST)

conservatives, where is the extensive criticism of the evolutionary position?

In the conservapedia article which is prominently placed on the main page of this site and is entitled Examples of Bias in Wikipedia the following is written:

"Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored....For example, even though most Americans reject the theory of evolution..., Wikipedia editors commenting on the topic are nearly 100% pro-evolution.... The Wikipedia entry for the Piltdown Man omits many key facts, such as how it was taught in schools for an entire generation and how the dating methodology used by evolutionists is fraudulent."

Currently the article The Theory of Evolution is locked from further editing. I believe the article needs to be edited further in order to add more criticism of the macoevolutionary position.

For example, macroevolutionist have no real evidence that macroevolution occurs and there is no consensus on how it exactly occurs as can be seen below:

"When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd." - Simon Conway Morris (palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK), "Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11

"If it is true that an influx of doubt and uncertainty actually marks periods of healthy growth in a science, then evolutionary biology is flourishing today as it seldom has flourished in the past. For biologists collectively are less agreed upon the details of evolutionary mechanics than they were a scant decade ago. Superficially, it seems as if we know less about evolution than we did in 1959, the centennial year of Darwin's on the Origin of Species." (Niles Eldredge, "Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria," Simon & Schuster: New York NY, 1985, p14).

In addition, creationist can cite material showing that there is no real fossil evidence for the macroevolutionary position:

"In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831

"...I still think that to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation." - E.J.H. Corner, Prof of Botany, Cambridge University, England. E.J. H. Corner, “Evolution” in Anna M. MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (eds.), Contemporary Botanical Thought (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97

"We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time." Lord Solly Zuckerman (paleonthropologist of Birmingham University in England), Beyond the Ivory Tower, New York: Taplinger Publishing Company, 1970, p. 19.

"Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether". Henry Gee (evolutionist), “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.

For more quotes regarding the fossil record please see: Fossil record quotes

Conservative 21:11, 24 February 2007 (EST)conservative

Just so you now, conservative or not, science is not done via quoting people, even if the quotes were relevant or correctly contexted. It's done by looking at evidence. That creationists continually assume otherwise is a real embarrassment, particularly given how outright deceptive many of these quotes are (and I'm not talking mere mistakes either).
Furthermore, talking about the "macroevolution" position is just a telling reveal of a lack of knowledge about what evolutionary theory claims. Macroevolution concerns things like genetc drift, mass extinctions, and so forth. What you really mean to criticize is the idea of common descent, not macroevolution.
There is no unified conservative position on evolution, or even conservative Christian position. If this is a creationist site, then so be it, but that at that point it ceases to be a conservative, or even a christian conservative, site. Plunge 11:08, 25 February 2007 (EST)
I am in complete agreement with Plunge. Furthermore note that all the quotes are classic quote mines, all either out of context or out of date and in many cases, both. For example, the quote from New Scientist about the fossil record in fact comes from a piece making the point that one doesn't need to use fossil evidence since there are many other forms of evidence which are even more persuasive. The very next sentence is "The does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven" and the article then later goes on to say that "So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy." Science doesn't work off of quotes and proof-texts, and especially not quotes that are out of context and distorted. If you are going to even attempt to engage in the fallacy of quotes being somehow evidence, please at least read the original items where the quotes come from and not just repeat them from nth hand creationist sources. JoshuaZ 15:37, 25 February 2007 (EST)

This article is becoming an embarrassment

This article is supposed to be on evolution. Unfortunately it contains very little on evolution and a great deal on (pretty medicore) criticisms of evolution including the laughable entries on the "doubting ranks" of the world's scientists and the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If this site seeks to retain any credibility it just has to do better. This article makes a mockery of Conservapedia's criticism of Wikipedia's bias. --Horace 19:48, 25 February 2007 (EST)

Conservative Please Stop

I second Horace's concern above. There is plenty of room for criticism of Darwinism, but to be taken seriously it must be presented seriously. This article is just asking for a flood of internet mockery.

Is it possible to unlock this article? I understand that it is a top target for vandalism, but vandals wouldn't be much worse than what it is right now. Lets unlock it and see how the community can make this better. As it is, it's just Conservative making silly changes. The article isn't even about evolution.--Whatter 19:59, 25 February 2007 (EST)

Whatter, I was made a sysop at Conservapedia so I could make the changes I proposed in the talk page of this article. I am guessing the article will not be unlocked given that it is a lightning rod for liberals wanting to vandalize or liberals wanting to change the article in order to give it a liberal point of view. Conservative 20:38, 25 February 2007 (EST)conservative
That doesn't change the fact that you are making a travesty of an article. You added in a series of quotemines, even after it was already explained to you why the quotes weren't that relevant. Your added in quotemines included one where I specifically explained to you how it was out of context. JoshuaZ 22:14, 25 February 2007 (EST)
The article will be improved over time. This is what is great about Wiki software. However, even though the article would be "improved" much faster, we cannot (for obvious reasons) "open the floodgates" and un-protect the article. PhilipB 22:33, 25 February 2007 (EST)
That doesn't mean an editor should be making controversial edits. On most other Wikis I've worked on (such as Wikipedia, the English language Wikipedia, and a variety of others), admins do not make controversial edits when the article is protected. Admin tools should not be used to make gains in content disputes. Furthermore, there is a solution to this sort of thing(which I presumse we have here if we are using an at all recent version of the Wikimedia software) - semiprotection. JoshuaZ 22:42, 25 February 2007 (EST)
1) I don't know whether policy has been defined here, and I asked on PhilipB's talk page for clarification, but, yes, Conservative was given sysop status by PhilipB for the specific purpose of editing this article. I consider that the local authorities here have effectively decided to control some articles by protecting them and effectively making them editable only by sysops. Effectively, my understanding is that Conservative and the other sysops have been granted sole authorship of this article. In my opinion, that's a bad idea, but... not my site, not my rules.
2) For the record, I think Conservative and others should understand that on Wikipedia, sysops are supposed to keep their sysop actions and their actions as editors completely separate. Sysops are not supposed to perform any sysop actions on an article on which they are an active editor, and, conversely, are not supposed to edit articles in which they have an administrative involvement. That's considered a pretty serious breach of the rules. Certainly on Wikipedia an sysop who unprotected an article, edited it for content, and then protected it again would be in immediate trouble unless the change was so uncontroversial that nobody complained, or unless he could show that the action has been authorized.
3) (For example, if user Sir Nicholas de Mimsy-Porpington or whatever his name was, the admin who ultimately performed the deletion of the Conservapedia article, had been involved as an editor of that article, or had been involved in the deletion discussion of that article, the deletion action would probably have been taken straight to deletion review and the outcome would probably have been "undelete and relist"). Dpbsmith 05:57, 26 February 2007 (EST)
JoshuaZ, I have never heard the word "quote mine" used in scholarly discourse. The phrase "quote mine" seems to be largely used by evolutionists who are extremely desperate to claim individuals are quoting out of context when expert testimony via quotes is damaging to the macroevolutionary position. I don't see proponents of other positions crying "quote mine" when expert testimony is not favorable to their position and I think the cries of "quote mine" reflect very badly on the macroevolutionary community. Secondly, you wrote at Wikipedia regarding Conservapedia the following: "The only good that I can see coming of it is that we can maybe direct annoying people here over to there." [2] I would ask you if you think Conservapedia is a very pointless enterprise and merely is good for directing people away from Wikipedia to Conservapedia then why do you insist on continually posting at Conservapedia? I ask this because you have yet to retract this statement regarding Conservapedia at Conservapedia and at Wikipedia where you originally made the statement. Conservative 21:38, 26 February 2007 (EST)conservative
To answer your various comments, I would agree that the term "quote mine" is not often used in scholarly discourse and that yes it does have negative connotations, and it is meant to. It is used not by "desperate" "evolutionists" but various annoyed and frustrated individuals at this sort of blatant out of context quoting. Simply making claims that the use of the term "reflect(s) badly on the macroevolutionary community" does not answer any of the above concerns. It does not address my point where I pointed out the original context of the New Scientist quote, nor did you adress any of Plunge's concerns. As to your repeated quote of the comment on my user page, I already addressed that here. In any event, my personal attitude towards this project has nothing to do with whether your quotes are out of context or whether claims about the 2nd law of thermodynamics are wrong. I hope that in the future, you will refrain from ad hominem remarks and address the conerns raised. I would be particularly interested in an explanation for how the New Scienstist is not out of context. JoshuaZ 22:37, 26 February 2007 (EST)
JoshuaZ, I understand why you don't like Mark Ridley's candid admission regarding the fossil record in regards to it being used to defend the evolutionary position, however, I see no reason to delete this testimony in regards to the fossil record. I am referring to this quote: "In any case, no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation." Mark Ridley, 'Who doubts evolution?', New Scientist, vol. 90, 25 June 1981, p. 831 [3] You can continue to cry "quote mine", but please do not be surprised if am unconcerned. Conservative 23:26, 26 February 2007 (EST)conservative
Conservative, I don't mind "Ridley's candid admission" because it is no such thing. I strongly suggest you actually read the article. Do you not see how his saying "So what is the evidence that species have evolved? There have traditionally been three kinds of evidence, and it is these, not the "fossil evidence", that the critics should be thinking about. The three arguments are from the observed evolution of species, from biogeography, and from the hierarchical structure of taxonomy." is at all relevant? And I note that you also ignored issues about the 2nd law that were also brought up. Now, instead of attempting to figure out what I like or don't likem you could actually respond to the matter at hand, and explain why the quote in question isn't out of context given the additional sentences I have provided to you. JoshuaZ 23:39, 26 February 2007 (EST)
Conservative, if you read the article, it's quite clear that the characterization of Ridley's view (and citing him as evidence that common descent is unsupported) is a dishonest one. The reason you don't hear "quote mine" that much in academia is that it is something Ph'Ds scrupulously try to avoid, because they know people will check their work, and they can lose their careers over this sort of misrepresentation. The problem I see for this wiki is that it will fast become just a set of articles written by a closed group of people with specially approved opinions, rather than the best facts winning out based on accurate evidence. The whole point of a wiki is that it's decentralized, like capitalism, and the BEST EVIDENCE wins out, not the person who happens to control the website.Plunge 12:26, 27 February 2007 (EST)

I can confirm from conversation with the man that Simon Morris's comments have been taken out of context, "quote-mined" if you will. It is my opinion as a biologist that this page bears little to no resemblence to what is understood in mordern science. Much of it seems to have been drawn from religious literature rather than mainstream scientific sources, as would be prefered. Additionally, a number of liberal blogs are linking to this site as an example of conservative dishonesty and foolishness. User:conservative, you do this site a great disservice. Nematocyte 05:51, 27 February 2007 (EST)

Nematocyte, if you insist on making a claim of "quote mining" I believe you did not meet the burden of proof that it is incumbant upon you too demonstrate. Please show how the following Simon Morris quote was clearly out of context using the article in question: "When discussing organic evolution the only point of agreement seems to be: "It happened." Thereafter, there is little consensus, which at first sight must seem rather odd." - Simon Conway Morris (palaeontologist, Department of Earth Sciences, Cambridge University, UK), "Evolution: Bringing Molecules into the Fold," Cell, Vol. 100, pp.1-11, January 7, 2000, p.11" I would be especially interested in why the bolded portion of the quote was somehow misrepresented since it is quite embarrassing to the macroevolutionary position. Conservative 20:06, 27 February 2007 (EST)conservative
Um, may I ask why it would make sense for Nemat to give more data on the original context? Especially since I gave you the original context of one of your quotes and you ignored it? JoshuaZ 21:29, 27 February 2007 (EST)
Why do you need to ask someone else to provide the context for your quotes? Don't you know it? Haven't you read the original sources? Tsumetai 04:17, 28 February 2007 (EST)
It's pretty clear at this point that he has not, which is the virtual definition of quote mining. The claimed point of those quotes is to try and show that the people in question, at least, think that common descent isn't supported by the fossil evidence. Take the Ridley quote. It's plainly obvious from reading the article the quote is taken from that this reading is patently ridiculous. So the usage is prima facie dishonest, and trying to pass it off as a "candid admission" doesn't even make logical sense. But the whole approach is ridiculous regardless. Science does not work on citing the authority of "proof texts." It's based off of the citing of evidence. Even if most of the quotes WEREN'T nonsense, simply compiling a list of quotations from papers you've never even read just isn't how science is done. Plunge 04:15, 1 March 2007 (EST)
CreationWiki now has a link to the original Simon Morris article which can be read in its entirety by clicking the CreationWiki footnotes for the quote.[4]

Conservative 17:36, 1 March 2007 (EST)conservative

That still doesn't excuse mischaracterizing it as saying that all the major elements of evolutionary theory are just up in the air. That's not what it is saying at all. And that's hardly an adequate answer to all the other objections given. For the last time: SCIENCE IS NOT DONE BY QUOTING SINGLE LINE DECLARATIONS FROM INDIVIDUAL SCIENTISTS. It doesn't make a lick of difference if there are biologists here and ther who, for instance, deny the germ theory of disease. That doesn't make all the evidence for it magically go away. You need to deal with the evidence, not try to take shortcuts by treating the opinions of some scientists as holy writ and then ignoring everything else they've ever written or anyone else has ever written or, more importantly, published. Are you deliberately avoiding debate on these issues? You've been near totally non-responsive to criticism. Plunge 11:22, 3 March 2007 (EST)
Ok, having read the article, that quote is out of context. Morris seems to be saying that there is not consensus about when evolution occurs, how precisely it occurs on the genetic level and how the genotype and phenotype interact in this context. That's not at all what the quote seems to be saying when you take it out of context. JoshuaZ 17:47, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Guys my view is don't try and argue science with a creationist, they already assume that science is incorrect and they have absolute blind faith in their quest to annoy everyone with they're psuedoscientific attempts at proving their position (I just watched some guy talk about noah's ark and obviously had no understanding of gene pool at all [i'm sorry but no matter how hard you tried two dogs would not turn into 100's of breeds]...but that doesn't matter because the bible said it happened so therefore it did....). Seriously it's like punching a brickwall i've found. While I view myself as conservative after going through this site I perhaps am mistaken, either that or this site is not appropriately named. ChrisF

Develop and ongoing in an unprotected location, periodically copy to the protected location

If The Theory of Evolution is going to remain protected indefinitely, I think it would be a really good idea to create an unprotected page, perhaps The Theory of Evolution/draft in which interested editors could work collaboratively develop a version that represents more than the ex cathedra pronouncements of a single contributor.

Vandalism on the this page would be largely hidden from casual users and the liberal blog. At intervals, sysops could copy its contents into the main article.

This would ensure that everything appearing in the article would be filtered by sysops, who presumably have internalized Conservapedia's policies and point of view, while allowing some reasonable intellectual give-and-take in the development of the article. Dpbsmith 10:32, 27 February 2007 (EST)

Your comment regarding the "ex cathedra pronouncements of a single editor" is mistaken for several reasons. First, I vetted my material in the talk page and was made a SYSOP (administrator) for this website so I could incorporate the material I wrote in the talk page to the actual The Theory of Evolution article. Secondly, I wrote two out three sections in Theory of Evolution that were critical of the macroevolutionary position (I did not write the thermodynamics section). Third, I edited my material that I added to the article based on the recommendation of the Conservapedian Aschafly. Fourth, the position of Conservapedia relative to the macroevolutionary position is made clear in the Examples of Bias in Wikipedia article. Conservapedia is clearly a website which is not favorable to the macroevolutionary position. Lastly, I think it is a poor idea to create a second article via a draft article since it duplicates the function of a talk page. Conservative 20:06, 27 February 2007 (EST)conservative
Um, you didn't vet your material on the talk page. You put it on the talk page, and then ignored all criticism of that material. That's not vetting by any strecth of the imagincation. Second of all, using the fact that you are an admin as justification for including them is precisely what Dpb means by such an ex cathedra pronounciation- a pronounciation based on authority, not dialogue and discussion. Who wrote the section on thermodynamics isn't relevant- if you agree with it, please explain why on the talk page, if you disagree, please remove the section. Your claim that "the position of Conservapedia relative to the macroevolutionary position is made clear in the Examples of Bias in Wikipedia article" is not at all accurate. Even if Conservapedia thinks that Wikipedia is somehow biased in favor of "macroevolution" it in no way implies that Conservapedia rejects macroevolution (to use an example, if a page said "X is an idiot" I can agree that this is not an unbiased description of X, even if I think it is accurate). Furthermore, even if Conservapedia is "not favorable to the macroevolutionary position" this is not an argument for having out of context quotes, poor argumentation, and flammable stawmen. Finally, drafts are very useful - they allow users to make other versions and see what the proposed changes would look like before being implemented. In many wikis it is common to have a separate draft space and only move approved changes to the main page. If this page is going to be protected for an extended period of time(as has been suggested by a few editors) then a draft page makes a great deal of sense. JoshuaZ 21:23, 27 February 2007 (EST)
Joshua, the conservapedian in question wrote "develop a version that represents more than the ex cathedra pronouncements of a single contributor". I am not going to wrangle with you and I am going to immediately get to the central issue. Please show that the article was one man's work and the result of one man's decision making process. So far you haven't done that. Conservative 21:41, 27 February 2007 (EST)
Conservative, you seem to have a problem with focusing on less than relevant details and ignoring most other points that people make. In this case, you insist that I show something that neither I, nor Dpb claimed was true, you ignored my comment about the lack of vetting, and ignored my explanation of what I thought Dpb meant when he said it was ex cathedra. You've also ignored my point about how the Bias page doesn't show that Conservapedia intrisically disfavors "macroevolution." Finally, you ignored my explanation of why in general draft space is useful which is true independent of any claims of how this article in particular has been editing. Now, I'd appreciate if you would actually try to respond to points and engage in constructive diaologue. Thanks, JoshuaZ 22:40, 27 February 2007 (EST)

New page for working on a draft of the article

User:Conservative sees an issue with having an unprotected working area as a subpage of the article, so, accordingly, I've created a new one that is Talk space rather than article space. The new working page is:

Talk:The Theory of Evolution/draft.

Dpbsmith 19:13, 28 February 2007 (EST)

Dinosaurs and man coexisting

The Conservapedia article dinosaur has assembled quite a bit of information that points to dinosaurs and man coexisting. [5] Should The Theory of Evolution article briefly make reference to this information? Conservative 12:23, 1 March 2007 (EST)conservative

Perhaps you should deal with the issues of the existing page before trying to add new controversial matieral? I note that many of the cites involved in that discussion fail to mention all sort of key elements that undermine. For instance, the citation about supposed "recent" dinosaur bones fail entirely to mention that they were in fact, mineralized, and not in fact bone as the article implies. And so on. Just because someone is capable of making outrageous claims about modern dinosaurs doesn't mean they hold up to scrutiny. None of these have. Plunge 13:23, 1 March 2007 (EST)
That "information" - is it any more trustworthy than the forgeries held up as evidence so far (such as the chisel taken to the paluxy trackway to make the dino prints look human)?

From Scientific American

This article from Scientific American explains why creationism is right and evolution is wrong. Silly Darwinists. Mike Newsworth 22:04, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Here is a creationist response to the Scientific American article: [6] Conservative 23:55, 4 March 2007 (EST)conservative
I've read two of the responces, the origins of life and 2nd law. The origins of life repeats the fallacy that the abiotic origin of life is a neccasery part of evolution, which is false (after all, if life had been created by a god 3.5 billion years ago life would still have evolved. The 2nd law aguement rests on the premise that since regulatory mechanisms are required to harness the energy the fact that earth's an open system can be ignored. But such mechanisms clearly do exist (photosynthesisand chemosynthesis for example), since we are able to continue living. Where they came from is another matter, but since they do exist the argument is incorrect. I urge members to correct the clear scientific inaccuracise in this entry, as we are being shown up as scientifically ignorant. Nematocyte 08:02, 5 March 2007 (EST)
  • As Answers In Genesis says, that article is nothing more than materialist bigotry. It does show that creationism is right, by proving how desperate the Darwinists are. That article presents strawman after strawman in an attempt to avoid the hard questions that Darwinism faces. Scientific American is an extremely anti-Christian publication. Ashens 22:12 1 March 2007
I'd be curious to hear what strawmen there are. While it is true that some of the arguments are not used by some of the more sophisticated creationists (For example, "If humans descended from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" is one of the 15 and AIG lists it on their list of arguments creationists should not use) none of them seem to be very flammable. JoshuaZ 22:37, 1 March 2007 (EST)
Indeed. Not only have I heard every single one of those arguments, I hear them considerably more often than the more sophisticated versions. Of course, my experience may not be representative. Still, several of those arguments can be found right here at Conservapedia. Tsumetai 05:27, 2 March 2007 (EST)

Number 5 directly addresses the Simon Morris quote mine I drew attention to earlier, and number 9 succiently points out the flaws in the second law objections. If these are strawmen then why are they being made here? Nematocyte 05:46, 2 March 2007 (EST)

Because creationists are all scared, desperate individuals who are trying feverishly to discredit the true evolution. Scorpionman 10:30, 7 March 2007 (EST)
Instead of sarcasm, you could try to actually answer the question. It is hard to see how they can both be strawmen and be employed here. JoshuaZ 14:39, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Second law of thermodynamics

Oh come off it, the argument here is utter nonsense. Evolution does indeed decrease the entropy *on the planet*. That isn't a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the entropy *of the universe* is increasing. Pro-creationist bias is one thing, being utterly clueless is another. --John Galt 13:32, 2 March 2007 (EST)

It's not even clear that evolution does decrease the entropy on the planet. Tsumetai 13:59, 2 March 2007 (EST)
Oops, you're right. It's life itself that increases the entropy on this planet. If the creationists are right, we're all dead! --John Galt 16:56, 2 March 2007 (EST)
Your very comments discredit you. No one said anything about life increasing the entropy on the planet. Evolution doesn't decrease entropy; nothing can. It's inevitable. Scorpionman 10:16, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Parson Weems, Washington, and "design"

Sorta off-topic for the article, but too good to omit... Parson Weems' hagiographic "biography" of Washington is best known for giving us the tale of George Washington and the cherry tree, but Weems tells another story of the youthful Washingtononline here. Whether it is accurate biography or theology, you must judge for yourself:

It was in this way by interesting at once both his heart and head, that Mr. Wlashington conducted George with great ease and pleasure along the happy paths of virtue. But well knowing that his beloved charge, soon to be a man, would be left exposed to numberless temptations, both from himself and from others, his heart throbbed with the tenderest anxiety to make him acquainted with that great being, whom to know and love, is to possess the surest defence against vice, and the best of all motives to virtue and happiness. To startle George into a lively sense of his Maker, he fell upon the following very curious but impressive expedient:

One day he went into the garden, and prepared a little bed of finely pulverized earth, on which he wrote George's name at full, in large letters--then strewing in plenty of cabbage seed, he covered them up, and smoothed all over nicely with the roller.--This bed he purposely prepared close along side of a gooseberry walk, which happening at this time to be well hung with ripe fruit, he knew would be honoured with George's visits pretty regularly every day. Not many mornings had passed away before in came George, with eyes wild rolling, and his little cheeks ready to burst with great news.

"O Pa! come here! come here!"
"What's the matter, my son ? what's the matter ?"
"O come here, I tell you, Pa: come here! and I'll shew you such a sight as you never saw in all your life time."

The old gentleman suspecting what George would be at, gave him his hand, which he seized with great eagerness, and tugging him along through the garden, led him point blank to the bed whereon was inscribed, in large letters, and in all the freshness of newly sprung plants, the full name of

GEORGE WASHINGTON.

"There Pa?"said George, quite in an ecstacy of astonishment,"did you ever see such a sight in all your life time?"

"Why it seems like a curious affair, sure enough, George !"

"But, Pa, who did make it there ? who did make it there ?"

"It grew there by chance, I suppose, my son."

"By chance, Pa! O no! no! it never did grow there by chance, Pa. Indeed that it never did!"

"High! why not, my son?"

"Why, Pa, did you ever see anybody's name in a plant bed before?"

"Well, but George, such a thing might happen, though you never saw it before."

"Yes, Pa; but I did never see the little plants grow up so as to make one single letter of my name before. Now, how could they grow up so as to make all the letters of my name! and then standing; one after another, to spell my name so exactly!--and all so neat and even too, at top and bottom! ! O Pa, you must not say chance did all this. Indeed somebody did it; and I dare say now, Pa, you did it just to scare me, because I am your little boy."

His father smiled; and said,"Well George, you have guessed right. I indeed did it; but not to scare you, my son; but to learn you a great thing which I wish you to understand. I want, my son, to introduce you to your true Father."

"High, Pa, an't you my true father, that has loved me, and been so good to me always?"

"Yes George, I am your father, as the world calls it: and I love you very dearly too. But yet with all my love for you, George, I am but a poor good-for- nothing sort of a father in comparison of one you have."

"Aye ! I know, well enough whom you mean, Pa. You mean God Almighty; don't you?"

"Yes, my son, I mean him indeed. He is your true Father, George."

"But, Pa, where is God Almighty ! I did never see him yet."

"True my son; but though you never saw him, yet he is always with you. You did not see me when ten days ago I made this little plant bed, where you see your name in such beautiful green letters: but though you did not see me here, yet you know I was here!"

"Yes, Pa, that I do. I know you was here."

"Well then, and as my son could not believe that chance had made and put together so exactly the letters of his name (though only sixteen) then how can he believe, that chance could have made and put together all those millions and millions of things that are now so exactly fitted to his good! That my son may look at everything around him, see ! what fine eyes he has got! and a little pug nose to smell the sweet flowers I and pretty ears to hear sweet sounds! and a lovely mouth for his bread and butter! and 0, the little ivory teeth to cut it for him! and the dear lithe tongue to prattle with his father! and precious little hands and fingers to hold his play-things ! and beautiful little feet for him to run about upon! and when my little rogue of a son is tired with running about, then the still night comes for him to lie down: and his mother sings, and the little crickets chirp him to sleep! and as soon as he has slept enough, and jumps up fresh and strong as a little buck, there the sweet golden light is ready for him! When he looks down into the water, there he sees the beautiful silver fishes for him! and up in the trees there are the apples, and peaches, and thousands of sweet fruits for him! and all, all around him, wherever my dear boy looks, he sees everything just to his wants and wishes;--the bubbling springs with cool sweet water for him to drink ! and the wood to make him sparkling fires when he is cold! and beautiful horses for him to ride ! and strong oxen to work for him! and the good cow to give him milk ! and bees to make sweet honey for his sweeter mouth! and the little lambs, with snowy wool, for beautiful clothes for him! Now, these and all the ten thousand thousand other good things more than my son can ever think of, and all so exactly fitted to his use and delight--Now how could chance ever have done all this for my little son? Oh George!--

He would have gone on: but George, who had hung upon his father's words with looks and eyes of all- devouring attention, here broke out--

"Oh, Pa, that's enough! that's enough! It can't be chance, indeed--it can't be chance, that made and gave me all these things."

"What was it then, do you think, my son?"

"Indeed, Pa, I don't know unless it was God Almighty !"

"Yes, George, he it was, my son, and nobody else."


Well, I'm not sure about good biography, but that's fine theology. Mighty fine. Scorpionman 17:20, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Problems

The article is way off the mark. Its title "Theory of Evolution" and the content do not match.

The theory of evolution is the theory of how evolutionists claim the alleged process occurs (natural selection).

Darwin and Wallace should be addressed; their proposal and how it was presented as a double paper in 1858 and the fact that NS was rejected by Science after Darwin died; and how NS was resurrected during the neo-Darwinian biological synthesis of the 1930s and 40s and how the synthesis defines NS; and then how modern Darwinists define NS and their claims that NS has produced the panoply of life as we see it today.

The article should begin by telling the world that the Theory of Evolution is an atheist interpretation of scientific evidence which attempts to explain how nature may have produced it self without any assistance from a supernatural Being.

Ray Martinez 22:29, 7 March 2007 (EST)

The portion below I did not write except the title and description - Ray

Ray, click the first footnote to the article which is here also: [7] The Wallace issue is raised there. I realize that this is not a perfect solution but I wanted to work on more important matters concerning the article first. Conservative 23:03, 7 March 2007 (EST)conservative

Am I the ony one who noticed that source 18 links to a survey that replied on participants volenteraly returning written surveys, 40% did not reply, thats horrible!


Troll Alert

BEGIN SECULAR SERMON AND DISCUSSION DERAILMENT

Just a rebuttal of this entire website, especially the Evolution article:

Do you understand that science is in fact NOT the devil? Your religion teaches love and understanding, yet every time I read or listen to a conservative/Christian based piece of literature/radio/internet site, all I seem to get from the gist of it is this: Liberals are evil, science is wrong, and any moment now Christ will come and we can use all of the natural resources we want because Armageddon will bring us all to the Promised Land, where we will have no further need of material objects.

I have some faults to shed light on

-science is what brought you into this world. I'm just assuming (just assuming) that everybody who is alive somehow came out of their mother, either by Caesarean Section or by a normal birth in a HOSPITAL, probably not the all natural way in a barn or potato field with no medicine, no doctors, and no nurses to clean you and cut your umbilical chord. Ergo, science=not evil p.s.= science is based on observation and logic. If you willingly choose to believe that scientists are making up things as they go and have no standards, logic, or any mental thought process behind what they think, you're very close minded.

-evolution is not the devil. It has been studied, restudied, discussed, debated, analyzed, observed, doubted, believed, disputed, argued, questioned, pondered, rejected, accepted, considered, contemplated, picked apart, and speculated. It is a == theory ==. A THEORY. Not the law, and not some liberals trying to compromise your beliefs for the hell of it. You do not have to accept it, but because the scientific community accepts it as a viable THEORY, then it should be taught in school. If you believe creationism should be taught in school, I would also like to point out that that is also a THEORY. It might have evidence, but the only evidence is in a text. Darwinism is also in a text, has been tested in labs, observed in nature, and recorded in millions of different ways. It is also a THEORY. Because YOU say that is untrue makes it untrue, Darwinism is wrong because YOU say it is? What if I believe that once you die you become a giant worm in the Arctic Circle? Because I believe it, does that make it a fact? If you say no, then you are hypocritical because that's the exact logic you are using. If we teach the THEORY of creationism, then we should teach the THEORY of evolution, the Hindu THEORY of creationism, Muslim THEORY of creationism, the Native American THEORY of creationism, etcetera etcetera.

-if you do not agree with scientific finds and research, stop using all that science has provided. stop using this web site. stop using the computer that you use to add onto this website. don't read your bible because it was printed by a machine created by science. don't believe in the laws of physics and gravity because they are summed up with scientific equations. don't drive your car, use natural gas to fuel your home, and just forget about electricity altogether. You cannot use a bicycle, you cannot listen to music unless it is in your head because all sound is made up of vibrations and vibrations are physics, once again, science. all music takes science to create the exact pitch needed on instruments. don't go to your church, because it was designed, planned, and created using laws of science and scientific method. if you do not like science, stop using what it has so graciously provided for.

-next time you come down with a nasty case of pneumonia or tuberculosis, don't go to a hospital because they believe that those viruses and bacteria have mutated, one of the principles making up the THEORY of evolution. they can treat you for what it was before it mutated, but it's always fun to be treated for something you don't have.

Please, I am proving a point using logic. When you do not use logic when discussing topics and choose to believe that anything you say is true, how can you change and grow as an individual?

No offense meant, just a new angle to look at life from.

You're digging up dead arguments. Cut it out. Scorpionman 21:06, 8 March 2007 (EST)
You yourself have just dug your own grave. You said "planned, designed, created" referring to a church. As you can see, that church did not create itself. No accident, no matter how grand or large a scale, could have produced a building like that. Just look at some churches and cathedrals and you can easily see just how much planning, designing and work it took. They didn't come about by themselves. Scorpionman 18:21, 9 March 2007 (EST)
Please dont allude that building a church is comparable to the complicated systems that organisms use. Its a horrible analogy that compares something that is documented and well understood with something that is somewhat known, but still has many questions still open. Such statements only serve to undermine your position and make you appear uneducated. Just leave the troll alone.

Bible

Could we have more emphasis on the truth of the Bible please. This is meant to be a Christian site. I feel that there is already a pernicious liberal influence moderating some articles.

This is a conservative site, not neccaserily a Christian one. People of all religious denominations can be conservative, and I would argue that Biblical literalism is NOT a conservative value. Nematocyte 10:52, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Which parts do you feel exhibit liberal influence? On this and many other key issues, Conservapedia tries to address all sides of the topic, while still holding a conservative and Christian viewpoint. Perhaps the content you saw as liberal was simply part of a section on a different viewpoint. ~ SharonS 11:26, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Perhaps, although as can be seen from this discussion there are a number of users who are rather vocal in their contempt for Biblical truth. I don't want to criticise other articles in the talk page for this article. I will raise issues as I see them in the appropriate talk page.
This is a Christian site according to the homepage. All Christians follow the teachings of Christ as laid out in the Bible. You cannot be a Christian and not believe in the Bible just as you cannot be a Christian and not believe in Jesus.--AustinM 11:07, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Many Christians do not believe in Biblical literalism. I personally regard it as a form of paganism, replacing the worship of God with the worship of a book. Nematocyte 11:10, 8 March 2007 (EST)
The book is the word of God. Would you describe yourself as a Christian?
That book was transcribed through many different incarnations and translations by various scribes, losing integrity at each step (remember information theory?). Many of the sections within have exceedingly dubious origins, such as Deuteronomy, which is widely regarded as having been fabricated to support certain theological opinions. Only two of the books of the new testimant and though to have any objective weight, the rest being based on paganist myths about Jesus and here-say. I can't see how anyone regarding it as the literal word of God can be considered a Christian as they believe so many pagan inspired myths. Nematocyte 11:31, 8 March 2007 (EST)
One doesn't need to reject the text's validity as a divinely inspired document to not take it literally, I doubt for example that our friend is a flat-earther or a geocentrist even though a literal reading of many Biblical passages would support those viewpoints. Furthermore, note that many Christian theologians have argued that what is assured to be correct in the text is the fundamental salvational messgae and that anything else is unimportant. JoshuaZ 11:36, 8 March 2007 (EST)
Give an example, JoshuaZ. What biblical passages say that the earth is flat or that the earth is at the center of the universe? Stop making these irritating blanket statements and dig up some evidence (if you can find any) for your claims. And as for the Bible being inspired by paganist myths, this is absurd! You have no evidence for this claim. Many of the pagan myths are, in fact, inspired by the Bible. You also are not giving any evidence for your claims. Scorpionman 13:20, 9 March 2007 (EST)
Murray has done a decent list of basic examples below so I will only briefly note thatI didn't make any assertion about paganism, that was Nematocyte. Please keep track of who says what. Users who disagree with you do not form a monolythic hivemind. JoshuaZ 14:24, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

There certainly are biblical passages that suggest the authors believed the earth to be flat. Job 38:12-14 refers to the earth being taken by the edges and shaken, and also to it being stamped into the same shape as clay under a seal. Matthew 4:1-12 talks of all the kingdoms of the world being visible from the top of a mountain, and in Daniel 4:10-11 a tree so tall it is "visible to the end of the whole earth" is described.--Murray 13:49, 9 March 2007 (EST)

The passage in Job can be taken as figurative; you can usually tell if a passage is literal or figurative, especially if it's poetry. There's no mountain on earth tall enough for what Jesus saw, unless, of course, he was just seeing something of a vision of all the kingdoms of Earth. Then in Daniel 4 the tree was in a dream, but of course the earth would have "edges" when compared to the tree; the edges being the point from which you would go over the curve and not see it anymore. Scorpionman 18:16, 9 March 2007 (EST)
Is Genesis chapter 1 written in a poetic style? Who is it up to to decide if something is literal or figurative? --Mtur 18:28, 9 March 2007 (EST)
It's up to logic, that's what. Scorpionman 18:04, 10 March 2007 (EST)
Scorpion a few points: first of all, note that many people have in fact used those and other passages to either support a flat-earth or a geocentrism. Indeed, even in modern times there have been people inspired by the Biblical passages to defend a geocentric universe. See for example- www.geocentricity.com. Such views are so common among creationists that CMI and AIG, two of the world's largest creationist ministries has had to write multiple articles against creationists who are geocentrists. (an example would be [8]). JoshuaZ 14:24, 11 March 2007 (EDT)


The right is an extremely biased end of the political spectrum.

Most republicans once you have met them suffer fromn delusions and a general lack of common sense. Whether this is because of their undying worship of Jesus, the brain drain machines used on new Right Wing Cultists, or because their parents were brother and sister we shall never know.