Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 2

2007-03-15T01:57:54Z

CroMagnonMan: /* Creationism popular among the less intelligent */

==Why has 'this page ... been locked to prevent editing'?==

Why has 'this page ... been locked to prevent editing'? Are those who locked it afraid to debate the points at issue (such as the very title's assumption that evolution is just a theory rather than an observable fact), or are they pretending that there are ''no'' points at issue (almost as if the Bible said so, when in fact it has nothing whatsoever to say on the subject, apart from suggesting some Divine input)? If the first, then they are admitting to the weakness of their position. If the second, then they are frankly misrepresenting the truth. Which, when you think about it, is a bit ironic, to say the least! If knowledge of the truth is supposed to set you free, what is suppression of it supposed to do? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:08, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:There is simply no valid reason for this page to be locked. If one is to present a fair and balanced article on a controversial subject, one cannot close off the avenues leading to knowledge (in its true sense). Censorship is simply unconscionable. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:30, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Give me a break! We're not censoring anything. We're just writing this article with a conservative perspective. That's not censorship and you ought to be ashamed to write such preposterous claims. And, of course, your absurd comment that we close off "avenues leading to truth". That's what ''Wikipedia'' does. We are opening the avenues of truth, but you don't want to see it. All you want to see is the filthy lies that come out of your mouth. That's not knowledge; that's foolishness. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 07:43, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Methinks describing NousEpyrrhytos's comment as 'filthy lies' reveals (a) abuse, (b) contempt, (c) bigotry and (d) extreme lack of perspective. Still, at least we shall all know in future how seriously to take Scorpionman's contributions. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 08:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::What, the same as you take Conservative's contributions? [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 13:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It's locked to prevent vandalism and inappropriate edits. Wikipedia also locks many of its pages. We have unlocked pages too when the inappropriate edits decline.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:34, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Define "inappropriate". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:21, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::He just told you! Stop asking dumb questions. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 07:35, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

He did nothing of the kind. Stop ignoring what the texts actually say, whether biblical or otherwise. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 07:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, he did. That's a really stupid question. What texts? [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 07:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

(a) No he didn't: if so, quote the above definition. (b) It wasn't a question at all. (c) What NousEpyrrhytos wrote. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 08:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, the last part is an extreme euphemism. The [[Special:Log/protect|protection log]] shows which pages were ''ever'' unprotected:
:::*[[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] on March 11 (or 10, in some US time zones), re-protected within seconds.
:::*[[Theistic evolution]] on March 9 (or 8), had been protected while draft had been created.
:::*[[ACLU]] on March 8, re-protected half a day later because you didn't want an unsourced and possibly out-of-context quote to be removed.
:::*[[Earth]] on March 1, with the reasoning that the protection had been unnecessary.
:::*[[Dinosaur]] on March 1, with the same reasoning.
:::*[[Template:AboutC]] on January 19, because the admin didn't mean to protect it.
:::*[[The Theory of Evolution]] on December 18, re-protected since February 24 (or 23) to give [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] control over it. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=next&oldid=16283 This diff] (right after re-protection) nicely shows what counts as "inappropriate edits" on Conservaedia.
:::*[[User talk:BenjaminS]] on December 4, by BenjaminS (apparently an error or a test - protection lasted less than one minute)
:::*[[Main Page]] on December 1, November 30 and November 22, re-protected since December 19 to prevent vandalism.
:::*[[How To Create a Conservapedia Account]] on December 1, with the reasoning that protection had been unnecessary.
:::10 cases, including the one which had been unprotected for less than a minute. 4 cases have been re-protected (and still are protected). Out of the 6 still unprotected cases, 5 had been protected unnecessarily. These numbers count the Main Page as one case (one of the 4 protected cases). If you count it as three cases, the Main Page breaks down into: 1 re-protected case, 3 protection/unprotection cycles happened without any vandalism causing them.
:::So I think you might want to rephrase your statement a bit. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:39, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Hey Squid (oops, Sid), I looked at the diff that you claim shows "inappropriate edits". I'll tell you what was inappropriate: the trash that was rightfully removed. None of the "misconceptions" that were previously listed are valid. Microevolution and macroevolution are ''not'' used to describe two different fields of research, they're quite different in process too. Microevolution doesn't turn chimps into people, and speciation is not macroevolution. The only real misconception about evolution is by evolutionists: that it is a fact. It is a theory, and I'm not confused about that term. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 07:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Wow, coming up with silly names. What is this? Elementary school? After seeing how you basically taunt everybody who argues for more balance and a dose of reality in some articles, I kinda hope that you're just a clever vandal. However, I fear that you really believe that the current excuse for an article about the "Theory of Evolution" is great. The majority editor is a guy whose sole goal is to prove it wrong, no matter what. That's like asking a radical atheist to write an article about God. Yes, Conservapedia is proud to have its bias (even though it never openly admits that on the more prominent pages - for a site that accuses Wikipedia of concealing, distorting, and omitting things, Conservapedia seems awfully eager to hide its own blatant bias and the fact that tons of articles are stubs), so the few pro-balance people are of course fighting a lost battle. This article will probably NEVER be unlocked (the same goes for ACLU, Faith, Second Law of Thermodynamics, YEC, and others), and the "good conservatives" will tell themselves that they finally managed to tell The Truth.
:::But you know what amuses me to no end? This section from [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]: "Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored." How fitting, considering that this article here ONLY has "facts" against it and got protected to prevent it from ever being exposed to pro-evolution material. I said it before, I'll say it again: Conservapedia replaces Wikipedia's alleged bias with full, 100% ultra-pro-Christian and radically pro-conservative bias. It has become different than Wikipedia, but not better. And people like you make me doubt that that will ever change. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Why should it change? Look, the point is that Conservapedia is going to be conservative, not "radical" just conservative, and Wikipedia is going to be liberal. Now if you don't like this then just stick to Wikipedia or EvoWiki (talk about a biased site!) [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 14:20, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::this page is ridiculous, it is give no scientific evidence for the creationism theory. please, this is meant to be an unbiased site not a christian rave page
::It's amazing, actually. Anywhere else, you'd just be a sad little troll, but here, you're quite likely on your way to become a good role model. I have better things to do than "discussing" with somebody who I could automate with a Greasemonkey script. Just push the button and insert a generic "Conservapedia is good because it's so biased, but Wikipedia is bad because it's so biased! Because our bias is in line with God and The Truth!" speech into the current textbox. Push another button, and it dishes out a taunt. How does it feel to know that your entire existence could be replaced with a few lines of code without anybody noticing the difference? :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It is amazing how many pages are protected against free speech on this website. I just was pressing "Random page" for some times. And many pages were protected. In wikipedia only some pages are protected against IP's. Here EVERY page is protected against IP and many pages are protected even agains logged-in members. I do not get it. What are you afraid so much about here? That people help articles to improve? That people share their knowledge?
::Or is it just that you are afraid that some people might correct some wrong things that you wish to have true? The censorship on this webpage reminds me to the worst dictatorships in the world. Hitler burned books and people, who were against the regime were killed. When Eastern Europe was communistic - people were not allowed to say anything against the leaders or the political system. Especialy Scorpionman reminds me to the communists from the German Democratic Republic. They were building the wall through Berlin to imprison their own people in their state. But they told to the imprisioned that the walls are for keeping out the bad capitalists.
:: Scorpionman tells: "It's locked to prevent vandalism and inappropriate edits. " - Why is the "wall" around the article? To prevent vandalism? Or is the truth - to keep bias? HE also writes: "We're not censoring anything. We're just writing this article with a conservative perspective. That's not censorship " - That is how the comunists were arguing. Even when they were starting to build the wall, they said "Nobody wants to build a wall". Sonds quite similar to "We're not censoring anything." --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:10, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Ha ha, what you said is pretty amusing. Serious, but amusing nonetheless. I assume you've been reading Chris Hedges' new book on Christian m? He asserts that we're dangerous terrorists who are trying to take over the country and kill anyone who holds views contrary to their own. We must stop them!" Sounds like paranoia. That's what liberalism has degraded to: paranoia. You know, ironically, this is exactly what happened in ancient Rome! Christians were viewed as a threat, and consequently were treated horribly. They were burned, thrown to the lions and other horrible things I won't say. I'd say we're coming very close to that in America: "Christians are a threat and we need to remove them." And as for the other stuff, no we're not afraid of your beliefs, heck you can belive anything you want! We're not afraid to debate you either, but frankly it's not really edifying or constructive. It doesn't do anything either, especially these silly internet arguments that culminate in nothing more than name-calling and childish insults. Now unless you have something useful to post, don't bother posting, like I've said before. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Since this conservative view of evolution doesn't please you, I don't expect any will but why don't you try reading [http://www.creationwiki.org/Evolution CreationWiki's article on evolution?] Perhaps you may find it at least a little more satisfactory. Cheers. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Hate to disappoint you and all, but 9 out of 10 people in America actually believe in a supreme being. You have references to God in your pledge of allegiance. Now, please tell me how Christians are percieved as a threat. As for the 'stop with the insults' line, you were the one who used Squid. I mean, thats not even a decent and/or witty insult. It reads like its written by a 16 year old who's voice hasnt broken yet and who gets beaten up at school. And about the paranoia, its always the conservative parties that use fear and paranoia as a tactic to get themselves elected. Examples of this include the use of the percieved threat of communism, terrorism...whats next? atheism? sounds like it from what you're saying...sure, Christians were burnt at the stake...so were a lot of other people. It was a tragedy, but so were the Crusades. If you're not afraid of debating then allow other users to edit this site. ---[[User:Dezza91|Dezza91]] 03:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I have no power of the locking or unlocking of this page, so stop complaining to me about it and complain to Conservative or Aschlafly. I don't get beaten up at school, I was homeschooled and my voice ''has'' broken. But that's enough information; it's not safe to give out too many facts about yourself over the internet these days. Christians ''are'' percieved as a threat; you've obviously never heard of Chris Hedges or his book on the Christian Right and how we're ts and trying to take over the country. If you haven't, read it. It's ridiculous, but it will show you that I'm right in what I "claimed". I even found an article on the internet the other day (some obscure site and I forgot the address, it wasn't even worth remembering) that talked about how dangerous Christians and creationists are. Make sure you do the homework before immediately denying what I said. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 14:54, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't believe scorpionman is for real. He (she?) is a provocateur.

:If there's a provocator here, it's you, Juglander. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 14:54, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: One thing I think scorpionman is forgetting that being conservative and christian are not necessarily the same thing. Also, there are many christians who believe evolution happened (I myself happen to be one). And it helps to be open minded, I have my opinions, but if you can make valid arguements to one point my opinion can change, but attacking my beliefs without backing it up does a greater mis-service to you. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 12:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Archive ==

This talk page should be archived, as it's getting too long and my browser always takes a long time to open it. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:03, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

You could even say it's evolved to a more advanced state! [[User:BaggerOfWolves|BaggerOfWolves]] 08:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ha ha, clever! [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 13:23, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Done. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Seems to me ==

that this is a very radical site. I think it might be appropriate to notify the FBI and have the terror alert raised... I sense a Christian Jihad.
: Did you allready inform FBI?

:No doubt you've been reading Chris Hedges' new book about Christian m, no? [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Creationist Lies, and Hoaxes ==

"In fact, one consistency among the Dover school Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories, and outright lies under oath..."
- ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District'' 400 F. Supp.2d 707, n.7 at 727.

: dude i saw that too...scary. i don't htink god wants us to lie to force his Word on others. --[[User:Ilovecoulter|Ilovecoulter]] 23:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: That quote reminds me of [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2013:7-9;&version=46; Job 13:7-9 (CEV)]<blockquote>"''Are you telling lies for God and not telling the whole truth when you argue his case? If he took you to court, could you fool him, just as you fool others?''"<blockquote>

== Bah ==

I have serious problems with this article. It provides a plethora of evidence against evolution, but it does not list any of the pro-evolution facts, of which there is an equal if not greater number. We are striving for the truth, what is best for Christian doctrine, is that correct? [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 21:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Once again, voicing your own opinion. Like the Proverbs say, a foolish man refuses to listen to instruction, but prefers to err his own opinion. I'm not trying to offend anyone, if anyone did any offending it was the Bible, and the Bible has every right to. Since you claim that the evidence for evolution "is equal to if not greater in number", then give us a few examples! The only ones you'll be able to give is speciation, which is not evidence for macroevolution, and no doubt fossils such as archaeopteryx and tiktaalik, each of which are full-one or full the other. Now stop with this nonsense. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In all fairness, evidence for micro evolution is evidence for macroevolution. It shows that it can happen, and theoretically if it were to happen when an entire population was located in one spot, it wouldn't be too far off. --[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 22:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:No, you're wrong. Evidence for microevolution is ''not'' evidence for macroevolution. Do these little mutations cause the organism to change to a totally different animal? Do random mutations happening all the time cause evolution toward the more complex? No! Mutations are either neutral (which certainly wouldn't advance evolution) or they're harmful. In rare cases are they beneficial, and these rare beneficial ones are hardly anything to talk about. You know I still can't see why you're taking this here instead of your precious "Talk.Origins" website [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:47, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: of course evolution isn't random, did you ever pay attention in biology? Evolution happens to give an aid or advantage to a species, and generally it stays the same species but is a little varient. Mutations are sudden major changes in a species, by the way, often due to a major change in typically environment or diet. Mutation is different from evolution. I don't see why you have to be so bitter, you act like evolution proves God doesn't exists.--[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 22:55, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Evolution proves ''nothing'', on account of the fact that it isn't even proven. I'm referring to macroevolution by the way. Microevolution has been observed and proven, but it doesn't support the Theory of Evolution. You got a wrong definition of mutations; they are any change in the gene code. You should be well aware that the most famous effect of mutations is cancer, which is not beneficial but can cause death. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 23:03, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: So cancer would be a mutation, but not an evolution. We're talking about the specific of evolution. Even if my definition of mutation is wrong, you're arguing something that doesn't actually have to do with evolution. --[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 21:34, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== What Evolution is and Is Not ==

Evolution is genetic change over time; any evolutionary biologist - the only person qualified to make this judgement - will tell you this. It simply deals with change in genes. There is overwhelming evidence for this, including that DNA replication is not perfect, small changes in an amino acid chain produce profound effects, and not all organisms within a species are exactly the same. Over extended periods of time, these differences add up to large changes within a species.

Evolution is not an explanation for the origin of life. Before the origin of life, there were no genetic mutations, so it would be wrong to apply evolution to the origin of life. That is a question that must be taken up with chemists and geologists, not evolutionary biologists. It is unfair to point out flaws in evolution's explanations on the origin of life if it makes no attempt to do so.

Evolution also does not explain the origin of the universe. These seems obvious, but people still point out flaws the theory's attempt to explain the origin of the universe, even though it only describes changes in genes over time. Astronomers and physicists describe the origin of the universe, not evolutionary biologists.

Finally, evolution is one of the major unifying themes of biology. Organisms would not exist today if they did not change over time. The earth changes, and organisms change with it.--[[User:Venfayth|Venfayth]] 22:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Stop digging up dead arguments. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:: And these are "dead arguments" exactly how? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:53, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Just how many times have they been used and not proved a thing? [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 14:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Hmm? An argument not convincing someone doesn't make it a bad argument. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:The burden of proof is on you, Scorpionman. For over a hundred years, the theory of evolution has been tested to try to prove it wrong. As of yet, nobody has succeeded. What is your scientific proof that genes do not change over time?--[[User:Venfayth|Venfayth]] 23:01, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::No, the burden is on you. You don't have proof that they ''do'' change over time. And the theory of evolution has been disproved, though evolutionists will not admit it. And the Bible has been around a lot longer than your theory and it has never been disproven, so you've got nothing to brag about. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::Did you honestly just say the Bible has never been disproven? When it comes to scientific matters, the Bible has constantly been disproven. "The sun stood still and the moon stayed — and hasted not to go down about a whole day!" (Joshua 10:12-13) This seems to conflict with the heliocentric theory of our solar system. We now know that the sun does not revolve around the earth, and that is fairly clear. I noticed that you are a young-earth creationist and believe that the earth is 6,000 years old or so. However, the grand canyon is six million years old, according to all modern geologists. Are you telling me that you know more than scientific proof? Don't give me any crap about a flood forming it; it still takes millions of years to carve that out of the ground. People have spent years objectively studying rock formations around the world, and they have concluded that the earth is billions of years old. You have one poetic book to support your case. I have more than a hundred years of scientific evidence, experiment after experiment, all proving my case. How does creationism explain poodles? Those dogs obviously were not around at the beginning of the world, and in just a few thousand years, they have truly changed from their original form: wolves. You claim that fossil evidence fails to support evolution, but try to find a fossil of a poodle that was alive at the same time as the dinosaurs. Plus, whale fossils have consistently supported the theory of evolution.--[[User:Venfayth|Venfayth]] 17:21, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

If that be so, perhaps you might feel inclined to list some of the undeniable evidence proving that evolution is erroneos in all aspects it claims to explain. Regardless of your own personal feeling on the accuracy of either opinion, codes of conduct for debating scenarios place the burden of proof upon yourself at the present time.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 09:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Self-discrediting of Conservapedia==

Well, at least the obvious tic tendencies of the Christian Right, as demonstrated by Conservapedia's paranoid locking out of anything that does not reflect its articles of faith, should put sensible, adult readers on their guard and warn them not to take anything it says too seriously! Thanks to this, I'm afraid, it is already pretty much self-discrediting - and is rapidly becoming a veritable conspiracy of ignorance into the bargain. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:So you believe that creationists are dangerous terrorists who are trying to take over the country by terror and force? Like I said before, Nero thought the same thing, and so he put many Christians to death. However, none of his assumptions were correct, Christians were not trying to take over Rome and they're not trying to subdue America either. Obviously you've been reading Chris Hedges new book on Christian m. Where is the evidence behind his claims? Hmmm? Where are our nuclear weapons, weather control devices, bombs, guns and so on? [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 14:34, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:And your nonsense about an "ignorance conspiracy" self-discredits you. Maybe Conservapedia does need more content, and perhaps it should show both sides of the issues, but what good do you think you're going to do by making all these absurd claims? If you talked reasonably with Aschlafly (and by reasonably I don't mean going "This whole website is nonsense. None of it is true. You're all a bunch of idiots."), maybe he might change his mind and semi-protect it. So why don't you post your comments on his talkpage. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 14:37, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'll briefly point out that Petrus made no claim that "creationists are dangerous terrorists who are trying to take over the country by terror and force". It isn't very civil or productive to associate with people extremist statements that they did not make. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

That is what can be interpreted. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

All i have to say about this argument is thank goodness for evolution. If not for this natural phenomenon we would all be identical in genotype to Noah and his wife (did she have a name?... I mean, she did all the work, right? Cooking up the dinosaurs and dodo birds for food.). If not for evolution we would all be condemned to a long and slow-living existence with life spans far too long to remain interesting.

:I have no idea what on earth you're talking about. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

yes, this is obvious.

:No it isn't. Nothing is obvious anymore. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 14:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== transitional states ==

lots of folks i talk to seem to misnderstand what it means to have a fossil of a "transitional state"; the current (rather short) section on transitional states also reflects this misunderstanding.

i'd suggest modifying or appending the "transitional states" stub to reflect the idea that we DO have fossil evidence of things that can be considered transitional states, depending on your definition, and the problem is that most people tend to have an uninformed definition.

not that this proves evolution or anything, but this section of the current article is a misrepresentation/misunderstanding.

here's the research: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/evolution/PSCF12-97Miller.html

== Lack of 'Credible Transitional Forms'? ==

ever heard of Archaeopteryx? or Ambulocetus?

He's got you there, Scorpianman--[[User:Dezza91|Dezza91]] 03:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:No, he doesn't. Achaeopteryx was a bird. Ambulocetus seems to share a lot more in common with crocodiles than either of the others. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

This page (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html) lists all transitional fossils known through 1997 (they gotta update!), which is already quite a long list. The last thing on their list is their references (direct link to it: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html#refs), which you can see cites sources such as "Science", "Nature", publications of the Smithsonian, Harvard University Press, various textbooks, other scholarly journals, and conference proceedings...clearly a wide array of support for the existence of MANY credible transitional fossils. Given this, I don't see how one can legitimately claim that there is a lack of credible evidence.

: They can't credibly claim a lack of evidence, but they CAN protect the article, and then fail to answer your replies about how there is evidence.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::'''AUGH!''' (Fixed the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=34928 overly long word]. If possible, avoid adding horizontal scroll bars to pages. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:51, 14 March 2007 (EDT)) [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 13:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Scorpionman, I do not understand why you choose to engage these mindless users, when they cannot respond in any form of intelligent conversation. It is a lose-lose situation when you are dealing with close-minded people such as them. As for a response to such "questions" they raise: We had to prevent vandalism and non-factual material from being posted on this page. There is no supported evidence that supports any of the proposed material. The article is protected; it will remain protected. Period. Deal with it. How's that for a response? --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 13:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:Oh, sorry I didn't see your comment. I just wanted to make it clear to them why the page was protected and that it's not for censorship reasons, but nothing can really be made clear to them. I don't believe I saw Aschlafly's comment asking me to move to a different subject but I'll try to avoid this if I can. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 17:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Tell me about it! Where are all your little friends, huh, Scorpionman? None of them here! They're afraid of the truth! Look, evolution is proven, duh! Why can't you get that through your thick skull? C'mon, just look at that list and see! There's no evidence for creation! A bunch of right-wing conspirators get together and start trying to abolish the truth here! It's ridiculous! And they keep on blocking the page so the truth can't be put there! Idiots! Why don't you just give up and conform to the truth? You'll be happier, healthier, and wiser. Come with us and find TRUE knowledge! [[User:Caveman|Caveman]] 13:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::There is no objective proof of evolution. Just the fitting of facts to the theory. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 13:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think I've heard that one before, and I seem to recognize it as an evolutionary argument, but I won't make that assumption yet. And once again, may I please direct you all who are unsatisfied with this article to the [http://www.creationwiki.org/General_theory_of_evolution one at CreationWiki]? [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 13:17, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== There's so much more that could be here. ==

Looking over the Evolution page, it seems rather barren. There's quite a bit more information that would be very useful to readers. I've gleaned quite a bit of this from various creationist sources, and they might help add even more information to the page. I would say that all of the following information is at least as academically viable and accurate as the information already present.

You should reference the popular Peppered Moth study, noting that the researchers glued dead moths in place to photograph them. Don't mention that this is a common practice in entymology; instead, present it as though it is some sort of scandal. Most readers won't research the issue further and discover that the practice of gluing dead insects is common when attempting to illustrate graphical features -- especially when comparing two different specimens that don't usually hold still in the wild -- and will instead assume that the photographers were engaged in deliberate deception.
Also, point out that the peppered moths don't normally rest on tree trunks. Don't mention, however, that they do rest on the undersides of tree branches, which are essentially the same colour as tree trunks. Also point out that the moths are only active at night, being nocturnal. Most readers won't realise that this means that the moths will be resting -- and thus more vulnerable -- during the day. Instead, try to imply that the moths aren't around at all during the day -- as if they cease to exist -- so that you can imply that colouring is of no consequence because they can't be seen. You can find a lot of these arguments in Ann Coulter's latest book.

You mention Piltdown Man, but you don't mention that it is reported that [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=183 there were over 500 doctoral dissertations written on Piltdown Man]. I've tried to track down these dissertations, and I can't find a single one. It's quite likely that the claim is false, and that no actual dissertations exist at all, but you don't have to mention that. Just say that it is reported that there were 500 dissertations written and most readers won't bother researching and discovering that the "report" is inaccurate.

I'm somewhat disappointed that the page has no references of the social consequences of accepting the theory of evolution. The creator of Darwin's Deadly Legacy, who has a webpage [http://www.coralridge.org/darwin/ here], goes into detail of the social consequences of the theory of evolution. You can easily reference sources claiming that the theory of evolution is responsible for eugenics. Be sure that you don't mention that eugenics was practiced in societies that existed thousands of years before Darwin was born, just reference the instances of eugenics policies [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i2/hitler.asp endorsed post-Darwin]. Suggest that the theory of evolution implies a moral mandate to kill (or at least sterilize) the "weaker" races. Most people won't realise that such a claim is an appeal to a logical fallacy (appeal to consequence), and hopefully most of your readers won't understand that scientific theories (including the theory of evolution) don't actually dictate action or define morality and that the theory of evolution doesn't actually suggest that Jews, blacks or any other genetic group of homo sapiens is definitively "weaker" than another (because "weaker" is a relative term often dependent upon a myriad of interacting environmental conditions). Just say that Hitler determined that the Jews were weaker and hope that the readers will assume that it's a logical conclusion drawn from the theory of evolution and then imply that Hitler was following the "directives" of evolution. Don't actually use the word "directive"; evolution has no "directives", so you'll have to just let your readers incorrectly infer that it does using vague language. Try suggesting that the theory of evolution does not define acts of genocide as morally wrong. This is factually correct, and many readers won't stop and realize that the same is true of all scientific claims; after all, how many people would stop and realise that the Law of Gravity carries with it no moral compunction not to push people off of buildings? Saying that the theory of evolution suggests that genocide is a good thing would be lying, but saying only that the theory of evolution does not proscribe genocide is technically truthful, and can lead people to believe the same thing.

This can be helped further if you again suggest that the theory of evolution claims that God does not exist. Hopefully your readers won't actually study the theory to learn that such a claim is false. Mention that the theory of evolution does not involve God. Try to word it in such a way to give the impression that the theory actually denies the existence of God (but don't actually say it outright; the claim is false, but the goal is to give the impression that it is true without actually saying it) and that without God, there is no good or evil. Then suggest that if there is no good or evil, that destroying a few people for the betterment of humanity as a whole is a good thing. Hopefully most people won't see that you've directly contradicted yourself. Also, most people won't see that you've essentially admitted that you believe that Jews are in some way inferior to non-Jews (by capitulating that it would better humanity to off if not for killing being morally objectionable). Also, hopefully most people won't see that you've completely gotten off of the subject of the merits of evolution, and that you're trying to disprove an event by saying that you find the (implied) consequences of that event being true as morally repugnant, as if reality depends upon what you find acceptable.

I hope that my suggestions are useful to you. I think that the research that I have referenced is of the same intellectual integrity and honesty as the current evolution page here. With a little work, this page can become a great resource for those looking for the creationist position, a repository on the common creationist objections to the theory of evolution, with all of the research and honesty one would expect from a professional creationist outfit.

I'll do some more digging to find some more claims of equal intellectual merit and accuracy.

[[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 11:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think we should just kill off all the creationists. They keep on opening up their big traps and squelching the truth. Can't we do that, huh, huh? [[User:Caveman|Caveman]] 13:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I do not believe that your response, which suggests an inappropriate act of violence, has any relevance to my posting. I am curious as to why your only contribution to my suggestion is a non-sequitur. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 14:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I would not attempt to understand anything Caveman writes. He is incompetent in a field of intelligent conversation. His response only goes to validate protecting this page. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 15:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Duh, I even can't remembur mi own pasword! I had to make new one! Whaddya mean I'm untilligent in meningful convursashun! I shure am! I talk good! But I still think that we should kill off all creationists. If I had my club first I'd take out David R, then Aschlafly, then Jimbo Wales, then George Bush, then Emperor Palpatine, then Eragon, then Johnny Cash, then Scorpionman! huh huh! [[User:CroMagnonMan|CroMagnonMan]] 17:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I belive David was right about you, CroMagnonMan/Caveman. Come on, half the people you listed aren't known for being creationists! And your threats are of no consequence to anyone here, so stop being immature. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 17:14, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Creationism popular among the less intelligent==
According to http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm, a source cited on [Examples of Bias in Wikpedia](see entry 22, source 24), those without a high school diploma are more than twice as likely to believe in creationism than their college-graduate counterparts, (65% vs. 25%). Also, those living in or near poverty (Under $20,000) are almost twice as likely (59% vs. 29%) to believe in creationism than their well-off counterparts (Over $50,000). Of course drawing conclusions based on these facts would not be appropriate, that is far too Wikipedia-ish, I do think they have place in the article. They do, after all, come from a website that creators of Conservapedia have used often, proving its credence. --[[User:BushHugger|BushHugger]] 13:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::You know what? Shut up. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 14:43, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'll bet that the reason is because most of the major universities in the US are liberal, and therefore college grads from these universities of course believe what they are taught there. Now doesn't that make sense? [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 14:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Your second response, after your initial request for the previous individual to "shut up", appears to be a non-sequitur. What has liberalism, whether present in "most of the major universities in the US", to do with the theory of evolution? [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 14:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Scorpionman, when you respond to such users, you are only hurting yourself. I think I told you once to refuse to respond. Aschlafly has already told you to move onto another subject. What is the worst these users can do on a talk page? Also, please refrain from descending to their level of conversation. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 15:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::David, is there any reason why you remove the word " t" from Scorpionman's edits all the time? I've noticed it at least twice within the past few edits. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:18, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I just noticed that the same apparently happened a week ago on his Talk page, together with a warning about offensive language. How often will he be "warned" before action is taken? And will his overall behavior here and on other people's talk pages factor into this? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:The offensive language he was talking about, Sid, was the word "crap". I can't believe that you think I should be blocked for arguing. I mean, if I should be blocked for arguing then so should you because that's pretty much all you do on this site. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 16:59, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::I wouldn't want you banned for arguing, but you're a complete troll who does little more than namecalling and "Well, duh!" arguments that have VERY little value as an argument. And I still want to know why David acts repeatedly alters yours posts to edit out the word m/ t. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 17:51, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:You know, on Wikipedia you would have been blocked for calling me a "complete troll". It would be like me calling you a complete idiot. And please explain ''why'' you think I'm a complete troll. I don't recall ever saying "well duh" anywhere. And haven't you been saying that all along? [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 21:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I can explain that: my comp filters out potentially offensive(not obscenely offensive words for some odd reason). In the case of " t", I do not know why it is deleting it. I am not doing it on purpose. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 18:08, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:...don't you think that your browser/computer is ''slightly'' disruptive for this project? At least promise me to never edit [[Fascism]] then... --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::Grunt, snort, grunt grunt snort, beeeelllch, buuurrrp, grunt, snort, ptbhtbhtbhtbhtbhtbhtbhthb, faaaarrrtt, smack, smack, chew, spray, uuurrrp [[User:CroMagnonMan|CroMagnonMan]] 21:57, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

User talk:David R

2007-03-14T21:06:50Z

CroMagnonMan: Blah

====''Please [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=User_talk:David_R&action=edit&section=new comment]!''====

== Willy's edits ==

If you look at Willy's edits, most of them seem reasonable. I would for example point to the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Bill_Clinton&curid=6229&diff=16759&oldid=16751 Bill Clinton edit] which took out what appears to be a swipe at George Bush and replaced it with reasonable material. The Bush and Democrat edits similarly seem fine to me. (Also, I'm not sure it makes sense to give an indefinite block for the single use of profanity but that's a separate issue). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:32, 25 February 2007 (EST)

I did like the changes he made to the democrat page (and I plan to restore that page), in removing the obvious bias, but he cursed in his explanation of the Bush edit - Commandment #3. There is no room in Conservapedia for obscene language like that. --[[User:David R|David R]] 23:36, 25 February 2007 (EST)

: So, and insults aren't tolerated on Wikipedia either- so you warn the person not to do it again and block them if they do. While larger Wikis can afford to be more picky about editing, we don't have that luxury yes. Also, if you are that concerned about profanity, I suggest you delete the dif and then make the edit again. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:38, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:I understand your point of view, but he broke the rules. Profanity calls for immediate deletion. And thank you for the suggestion. I am going to fix that now. --[[User:David R|David R]] 23:40, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::David was exactly right to block this user. The profanity was bad and it was placed in a comment for everyone to see. We're not going to cheapen this website with vulgarity and obscenity. The [[The Conservapedia Commandments|rules]] say that can result in immediate blocking, and in this case the blocking is precisely what I would have done.

::Disagreements are allowed and encouraged. Vulgarity or obscenity results in immediate blocking, particularly when it is in an entry name, revision comment, or user id. This is a consistently applied rule.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:42, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::Also be aware that Willy on Wheels is the name of a famous vandal on Wikipedia. [[User:MountainDew|MountainDew]] 23:48, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::Thank you MountainDew. If I didn't feel justified in blocking him before (which I did), then I do now...--[[User:David R|David R]] 23:52, 25 February 2007 (EST)

::: You can say that again, David. Thanks much for that insight, MountainDew!--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:53, 25 February 2007 (EST)

:::: Willy on Wheels' recent edits don't look like vandalism, but vulgarity in an edit remark is not a good sign.

:::: But, for background, Willy on Wheels was indeed a famous vandal on Wikipedia, so much so that the use of such a user name seems ''very'' provocative to me. However, Willy on Wheels m.o. was a "move vandal." ''Dwight D. Eisenhower'' would become ''Dwight D. Eisenhower on wheels,'' ''Molybdenum'' would become ''Molybdenum on wheels,'' and so forth. He specialized in moving as many article as he could as fast as possible. This is obviously someone different, but he should certainly be asked about his choice of user name. [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 05:46, 26 February 2007 (EST)

:::: P. S. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]], you and I are used to the Wikipedia environment, in which (although nobody around here believes it) things like protecting pages and blocking users are taken as very serious business, and are done with the context of rather strict rules which sysops (usually!) follow. It makes being a sysop rather laborious, in fact. It's possible that Conservapedia is right to be less formal.

:::: But I would caution about one thing. Since it is still possible for a blocked user to start a new account, as far as I know, when blocking a user you must not think that you've created an impenetrable shield, but that you are trying to get the user to modify his or her behavior by using negative reinforcement (what they call "a timeout" in the parenting books). Blocks might as well be rather short. They should be long enough for the user to realize that they've been blocked, and to be a little shocked by it. A reasonable user who's been blocked will react by being more careful about their edit comments in future, for example.

:::: But any seriously hostile user will just create a new account and start over. (It's always interesting to try to judge whether new users are re-creations of blocked user by observing their editing styles. It's never possible for an ordinary user to do more than guess at this, of course). [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:06, 26 February 2007 (EST)

:::: P. P. S. Another problem with blocking is that it is reasonably effective on ''regular editors,'' who have been around for a while and think of their usernames as a kind of identity. If I were blocked on Wikipedia for a day, I'd wait it out, because I ''like'' my user name, there are people who know me under my user name, I'm (foolishly and vainly) proud of having a large number of edits under that name, and of forth. I could create a new account under a new name, but it (sob) just wouldn't be ''me.'' This probably applies to most people whose usernames are variants of their real name.

:::: But a vandal, who just created the account a few days ago, isn't going to care that much.

:::: Think "conversion, not coercion." [[User:Dpbsmith|Dpbsmith]] 06:12, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Actually, Dpbsmith, the user's IP address is blocked from entering the website at all. Believe me, I already got blocked once :). The only way for the user to get back in would be for him to change his IP address, which I believe ''is'' possible. But it takes some knowledge and persistence. --[[User:David R|David R]] 09:59, 26 February 2007 (EST)

: Actually, it is pretty trivial to change one's IP address. For example, if one is using AOL then the IP address changes almost constantly. Similarly, for almost any dial-up service all you need to do to change IP addresses is hang up and redial. Blocking an IP address does very little. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 23:19, 26 February 2007 (EST)

::Oh. I'm sorry. I'm not too familiar with AOL(except for all those trial CD's they send) or dial-up. I do know that with IE and some other browsers, you must go to the IP Configuration screen at computer start-up. --[[User:David R|David R]] 23:14, 27 February 2007 (EST)

==Blocks==

:::Good block, David. Thanks.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 21:56, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:::No problem. Two weeks enough? I don't know if he'll be back to help or hurt. I can always increase it. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:59, 1 March 2007 (EST)

:::: Two weeks sounds good in borderline cases, as in that case. I often put in an infinite block if the person is directly harmful to the site.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 23:20, 1 March 2007 (EST)

== Bonobos ==

I was in the process of expanding and cleaning the language of that up. I'd appreciate if you would undelete it for me to work on. Thanks. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 20:37, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Yeah, no problem. Just can't leave that kind of stuff up for too long. Good looking out, Joshua. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 20:38, 5 March 2007 (EST)

: Thanks, I've cleaned it up, expanded it and taken out the more blunt language. Let me know how it is.

:Its definitely a cleaner article. Thank you very much. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:03, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:Could you remove the pluralization on the word female in that article? My computer is going crazy with "forbidden words". --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:08, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:: Actually, I changed it in a slightly different fashion to just "females" since I think it is clear what types of females one is talking about. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:09, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:::Ok, that makes sense. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:11, 5 March 2007 (EST)

:::: And you are fine with how I hanlded the sexuality issue? (I have to say, I don't know why the original editor put in the details other than to be annoying or test our limits). [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 21:19, 5 March 2007 (EST)

::::Yes, it was improved dramatically. Thank you. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:34, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== Image resizing ==

In reference to my new image file on musical notes: ''Please'' resize it if you can. When I tried to upload a downsized version of the image, the software blew up--and when I put an internal link into the article, telling it to scale the image down, I can't seem to specify a pixel size in the article, as I'm used to doing in [[CreationWiki]]. When I do, the software blows up, saying that "no such file or directory" exists. All I wanted was something 290 pixels wide, and in the upper right-hand corner. Please do what you can, and then ''show me how'' for future reference.--[[User:TerryH|TerryH]] 22:25, 5 March 2007 (EST)

== Bill Clinton ==

What happened is Dprbsmith moved the Clinton page back to where it was originally. [[User:Geo.plrd|Geo.]] 23:50, 5 March 2007 (EST)

Back to Bill Clinton? I was unaware that it had ever been there before. Thank you. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 16:46, 6 March 2007 (EST)

== Great work! ==

Great effort, David, with your entry on [[Alvin York]]!!!! --[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:11, 6 March 2007 (EST)

Oh thanks. I had to write an informational essay about him in another history class and I thought it would be good to put it on the site. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 16:40, 6 March 2007 (EST)

== Tehran ==

Regarding [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Tehran&diff=19461&oldid=19458 this]? Would you like to argue that Mahmoud was not the former mayor of Tehran, and is not the current president of Iran? It's not misinformation. Ask for a source, I'd be glad to give it to you. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 23:35, 6 March 2007 (EST)

No, I was mistaken. I did not see that you had edited it correctly. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:42, 6 March 2007 (EST)

:I got the source anyways, it's on there now, feel free to critique. I'm new to Conservapedia, and am still figuring out the fine differences between it and Wikipedia. --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 23:38, 6 March 2007 (EST)

== Delete and block ==

I presume you will want to delete [[Cretinism]] and warn or block the user who made it. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:11, 7 March 2007 (EST)

Wow...yeah I was just about to delete the redirect. But I don't this blocking the user for the entry is justifiable in this case. His entry was a thoughtful redirect for the incompetent speller :). --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:13, 7 March 2007 (EST)

: You may want to look up what cretinism means. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 00:20, 7 March 2007 (EST)

::Yeah...I guess I should have. Blocking was definitely the right choice. Sorry about that. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:22, 7 March 2007 (EST)

==On my talk page==
Explain what you believe is not factual when accusing someone of not adding factual information. [[User:Sulgran|Sulgran]]

: What ''is'' factual about what was posted [[User:PhilipB|PhilipB]] 22:19, 7 March 2007 (EST)

==Democratic Party+

At least please do some serious work yourself on the Democratic Party entry. This site is so embarrassingly uneducated. Why not produce something you can be proud of? [[User:genespleen|genespleen]]

:While the article could use some work - articles always need work; they are never perfect - it did not need the "work" you suggested. As for this site, it is not uneducated nor embarrassing. In fact, I am positive that this project will look great on my college transcript.

From [[User:genespleen|genespleen]]: seriously, it depends on what you intend to do after college. Do think seriously and ask for good advice from a *range* of people about what your having participated in this site's effort may signal to others.

:Actually, the mere fact that I participated in making this site is enough. My involvement has nothing to do with the material or the stance of this site. How many students have you heard of making an online encyclopedia? --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 14:10, 10 March 2007 (EST)

I am very proud of this site. I did not think it would turn out as great as it has. As for contributing any more material to the article, I am afraid I can't - need to be up early for my SATs tomorrow! --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 21:29, 9 March 2007 (EST)

P.S. Sign your posts please. It makes it so much easier to respond.

Please also explain your objections to my edits on the Democratic Party entry. What constituted "vandalism" in my edits?

Thanks in advance for your explanation. [[User:genespleen|genespleen]]

You inserted your own biased comments and advertized a site that provided nothing to the article. There you go - my explanation. Enjoy. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 14:10, 10 March 2007 (EST)

== Work on expletiveSaddams edits please. I have my hands full. I will permanently ban him ==

Work on expletiveSaddams edits please. I have my hands full. I will permanently ban him. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:31, 10 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:I told you, I can't. Sorry, but there's nothing I can do. Christian Concern's edits may have been troublesome, but expletiveSaddams were directly harmful to the site. They should be the first priority. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 22:33, 10 March 2007 (EST)

== expletivesaddaam question ==

Where are expletiveSaddaams edits? I need to look at his edits and then decide if to ban him. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:34, 10 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:His '''name''' is the problem. Please assume your duties as a Sysop and block him. Do that first. Then revert his edits. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 22:35, 10 March 2007 (EST)

== Why are you asking me to ban someone and then.... ==

Why are you asking me to ban someone and then not giving me the information I need in order to ban him. Unless you tell me an article he edited I cannot find him to ban him. 22:38, 10 March 2007 (EST)conservative

:Are you so dense??? His name contains a curse word! He needs to be blocked. But this user sounds like he regrets using the name, so block him but uncheck the box underneath to allow account recreation. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 22:40, 10 March 2007 (EST)

PS go to Full Metal Jackets talk page, look at history, proceed from there

== I permanently banned the vandal FSaddam but please ==

I permanently banned the vandal FSaddam but please next time give me an article the person edited so I can find the person. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:43, 10 March 2007 (EST)conservative

If you told me that at the beginning, I would have gladly given you the information. His edit ''was'' on the recent edits page... --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 22:44, 10 March 2007 (EST)

== Why did... ==

Why did you erase my edits and remove some characters from the [[Talk:Main_Page]] page? Please explain...? [[User:GofG|GofG]] 23:16, 10 March 2007 (EST)

Oh, because they did have any value as the page issue had been taken care of. Plus they just added the unneeded vulgarity where it could not "be lost in the recent history". It was nothing personal at all. Most of your edits have been very valuable. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:20, 10 March 2007 (EST)

== Religions: They're not ALL True! ==

It says right on the front page: "
:Conservapedia is an online resource and meeting place where we give full credit to Christianity and America."

So why did you edit the [[religion]] page to lump Christianity in with the FALSE religions? --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 00:03, 11 March 2007 (EST)

Thanks. I was wondering who was asking me this. I did not say they were all true. I am a Christian. I have no reason to say that Christianity isn't true. I believe it is true. But we cannot say that here. It is just too biased. Take for contrast, wikipedia saying that secularism is the only true religion. That would never work. But they hint through every other article that secularism and a god-less humanity is the true religion. Likewise, instead of explicitly stating Christianity is the only true religion, we must hint that it is though our own articles. Your version would instantly turn away anyone from another religion. Christianity should not alienate other human beings. They need this encyclopedia more than we do. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:10, 11 March 2007 (EST)

Uh huh. And the NEXT thing you'e going to do is let all the liberals and atheists and whatnot start posting here, so this place can become "wikipedia junior"? If so, we might as well just post there and not waste our time!
THE TRUTH DOES NOT HAVE A "BIAS"! It sounds like you're ASHAMED of Jesus! --[[User:Fullmetajacket|Fullmetajacket]] 00:13, 11 March 2007 (EST)

I really wish you hadn't accused me of such a thing, as there is nothing further from the truth. As for the liberals and atheists, if they have something intelligent to post, I say let them. I will disregard your comments as they are probably driven by some emotional factor. Think about what you are saying before you click save. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:19, 11 March 2007 (EST)

== Tree ==

Not to be rude, but I honestly can not tell whether [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Is_it_wrong_to_have_a_Christmas_tree%3F&diff=23929&oldid=23927 this] was serious or sarcastic. Could you tell me? After all, text doesn't convey emotion or voice :D. Sorry, --[[User:Hojimachong|Hojimachong]] 00:04, 11 March 2007 (EST)

: I'm not sure, either. That's the trouble with debates over the internet. I think David is saying that the tree is a distraction to the faith. The tree is not a religious symbol.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 00:09, 11 March 2007 (EST)

:Haha. Sorry, I did not write that well. The guy we were debating said that the tree was an idol. And while the tree, could be a distraction to the faith as Mr. Schlafly suggested, I was eluding to the fact that most Christians are not sitting in their homes on Christmas, worshiping the tree. Debates over the Internet are difficult. Though in context with what I had been saying before, the entry should have been taken as sarcastic. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:14, 11 March 2007 (EST)

I agree. The tree really isn't even part of Christmas. Its a decorative tradition from Germany dating back to pagan times and is certainly not central to the Christian faith. Its no more Christian than a Santa Claus parade (which is more about Saint Nicholas and the warping of his story). Sadly, we don't have Jesus Christ parades.

== Sentence fragments? ==

I haven't noticed any sentence fragments.

Please point out specific ones if there are any and I shall fix them.

I have already fixed them all. See any of your originals in their respective history and you will see what I mean. Using the page title as the sentence's subject does not look "encyclopediac". Your contributions have been great. Just write whole sentences and I'm sure you'll do fine. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:30, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

== Commonly Misspelled Words ==

Joke: Ive noticed quit a few words that are mispelled on here. I imagine its becuz the site is still relatively knew and nobody has bothered too go over everything with a fine-tooth coomb. :)

:Yes. It is a big problem. None or at most one of my recent edits have misspelled words, because I have a new internet browser with an in-browser-spell-checker! Unfortunately, it looks as if very few others have this great tool... --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 23:41, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

==Venona series==
David, I am the author of virtually the entire Venona series in Wikiepdia; the entries I am moving here a my original work, as many current versions are sanitized of all relevent content. Here's my original user page w/Barnstar for Venobna series. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nobs01] [[User:RobS|RobS]] 00:56, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

Sorry. I didn't know that. I'll restore them right away. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 00:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:Thanks David. There are almost three hundred articles in the series. I don't see the necessity to bring them all over at once. However, some of the major articles, like [[Whittaker Chambers]] for example, just contrast that one with the current Wikipedia entry to get some idea of whats happening.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whittaker_Chambers

:Look at the work that was put into it so they could (1) refer to his mentally ill-grandmother; (2) use the word "dysfunctional" twice; (3) add "an enemy of the Republic, a blasphemer of Christ, a disbeliever in God, with no respect for matrimony or motherhood."[11] (4) ...a psychiatrist who characterized Chambers as a "psychopathic personality" and "a pathological liar."[12]

:WP:ATTFAQ refers to "obsolete and deprecated" sources. Venona evidence makes all this obsolete and deprecated. Nonetheless, in absense of any verifiable citations to discredit Chamber's testimony against Hiss, Wikipedia editors still resort to Hiss's obsolete and deprecated slanders cause they simply will not give up on a losing cause. Now you know why Conservapedia was founded. [[User:RobS|RobS]] 16:30, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== Blah ==

Scorpionman's dead! I killed him! Now I come for you! Beware, David! Hahahahaha! [[User:CroMagnonMan|CroMagnonMan]] 17:06, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Talk:Theory of evolution/Archive 2

2007-03-14T21:04:50Z

CroMagnonMan: /* There's so much more that could be here. */

==Why has 'this page ... been locked to prevent editing'?==

Why has 'this page ... been locked to prevent editing'? Are those who locked it afraid to debate the points at issue (such as the very title's assumption that evolution is just a theory rather than an observable fact), or are they pretending that there are ''no'' points at issue (almost as if the Bible said so, when in fact it has nothing whatsoever to say on the subject, apart from suggesting some Divine input)? If the first, then they are admitting to the weakness of their position. If the second, then they are frankly misrepresenting the truth. Which, when you think about it, is a bit ironic, to say the least! If knowledge of the truth is supposed to set you free, what is suppression of it supposed to do? --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 12:08, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:There is simply no valid reason for this page to be locked. If one is to present a fair and balanced article on a controversial subject, one cannot close off the avenues leading to knowledge (in its true sense). Censorship is simply unconscionable. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 17:30, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Give me a break! We're not censoring anything. We're just writing this article with a conservative perspective. That's not censorship and you ought to be ashamed to write such preposterous claims. And, of course, your absurd comment that we close off "avenues leading to truth". That's what ''Wikipedia'' does. We are opening the avenues of truth, but you don't want to see it. All you want to see is the filthy lies that come out of your mouth. That's not knowledge; that's foolishness. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 07:43, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Methinks describing NousEpyrrhytos's comment as 'filthy lies' reveals (a) abuse, (b) contempt, (c) bigotry and (d) extreme lack of perspective. Still, at least we shall all know in future how seriously to take Scorpionman's contributions. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 08:09, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::What, the same as you take Conservative's contributions? [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 13:25, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It's locked to prevent vandalism and inappropriate edits. Wikipedia also locks many of its pages. We have unlocked pages too when the inappropriate edits decline.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 17:34, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

:Define "inappropriate". [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 18:21, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::He just told you! Stop asking dumb questions. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 07:35, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

He did nothing of the kind. Stop ignoring what the texts actually say, whether biblical or otherwise. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 07:51, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Yes, he did. That's a really stupid question. What texts? [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 07:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

(a) No he didn't: if so, quote the above definition. (b) It wasn't a question at all. (c) What NousEpyrrhytos wrote. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 08:14, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Aschlafly, the last part is an extreme euphemism. The [[Special:Log/protect|protection log]] shows which pages were ''ever'' unprotected:
:::*[[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]] on March 11 (or 10, in some US time zones), re-protected within seconds.
:::*[[Theistic evolution]] on March 9 (or 8), had been protected while draft had been created.
:::*[[ACLU]] on March 8, re-protected half a day later because you didn't want an unsourced and possibly out-of-context quote to be removed.
:::*[[Earth]] on March 1, with the reasoning that the protection had been unnecessary.
:::*[[Dinosaur]] on March 1, with the same reasoning.
:::*[[Template:AboutC]] on January 19, because the admin didn't mean to protect it.
:::*[[The Theory of Evolution]] on December 18, re-protected since February 24 (or 23) to give [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] control over it. [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Theory_of_evolution&diff=next&oldid=16283 This diff] (right after re-protection) nicely shows what counts as "inappropriate edits" on Conservaedia.
:::*[[User talk:BenjaminS]] on December 4, by BenjaminS (apparently an error or a test - protection lasted less than one minute)
:::*[[Main Page]] on December 1, November 30 and November 22, re-protected since December 19 to prevent vandalism.
:::*[[How To Create a Conservapedia Account]] on December 1, with the reasoning that protection had been unnecessary.
:::10 cases, including the one which had been unprotected for less than a minute. 4 cases have been re-protected (and still are protected). Out of the 6 still unprotected cases, 5 had been protected unnecessarily. These numbers count the Main Page as one case (one of the 4 protected cases). If you count it as three cases, the Main Page breaks down into: 1 re-protected case, 3 protection/unprotection cycles happened without any vandalism causing them.
:::So I think you might want to rephrase your statement a bit. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 18:39, 11 March 2007 (EDT)

::Hey Squid (oops, Sid), I looked at the diff that you claim shows "inappropriate edits". I'll tell you what was inappropriate: the trash that was rightfully removed. None of the "misconceptions" that were previously listed are valid. Microevolution and macroevolution are ''not'' used to describe two different fields of research, they're quite different in process too. Microevolution doesn't turn chimps into people, and speciation is not macroevolution. The only real misconception about evolution is by evolutionists: that it is a fact. It is a theory, and I'm not confused about that term. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 07:56, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::Wow, coming up with silly names. What is this? Elementary school? After seeing how you basically taunt everybody who argues for more balance and a dose of reality in some articles, I kinda hope that you're just a clever vandal. However, I fear that you really believe that the current excuse for an article about the "Theory of Evolution" is great. The majority editor is a guy whose sole goal is to prove it wrong, no matter what. That's like asking a radical atheist to write an article about God. Yes, Conservapedia is proud to have its bias (even though it never openly admits that on the more prominent pages - for a site that accuses Wikipedia of concealing, distorting, and omitting things, Conservapedia seems awfully eager to hide its own blatant bias and the fact that tons of articles are stubs), so the few pro-balance people are of course fighting a lost battle. This article will probably NEVER be unlocked (the same goes for ACLU, Faith, Second Law of Thermodynamics, YEC, and others), and the "good conservatives" will tell themselves that they finally managed to tell The Truth.
:::But you know what amuses me to no end? This section from [[Examples of Bias in Wikipedia]]: "Edits to include facts against the theory of evolution are almost immediately censored." How fitting, considering that this article here ONLY has "facts" against it and got protected to prevent it from ever being exposed to pro-evolution material. I said it before, I'll say it again: Conservapedia replaces Wikipedia's alleged bias with full, 100% ultra-pro-Christian and radically pro-conservative bias. It has become different than Wikipedia, but not better. And people like you make me doubt that that will ever change. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 09:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Why should it change? Look, the point is that Conservapedia is going to be conservative, not "radical" just conservative, and Wikipedia is going to be liberal. Now if you don't like this then just stick to Wikipedia or EvoWiki (talk about a biased site!) [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 14:20, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:::this page is ridiculous, it is give no scientific evidence for the creationism theory. please, this is meant to be an unbiased site not a christian rave page
::It's amazing, actually. Anywhere else, you'd just be a sad little troll, but here, you're quite likely on your way to become a good role model. I have better things to do than "discussing" with somebody who I could automate with a Greasemonkey script. Just push the button and insert a generic "Conservapedia is good because it's so biased, but Wikipedia is bad because it's so biased! Because our bias is in line with God and The Truth!" speech into the current textbox. Push another button, and it dishes out a taunt. How does it feel to know that your entire existence could be replaced with a few lines of code without anybody noticing the difference? :) --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 16:01, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: It is amazing how many pages are protected against free speech on this website. I just was pressing "Random page" for some times. And many pages were protected. In wikipedia only some pages are protected against IP's. Here EVERY page is protected against IP and many pages are protected even agains logged-in members. I do not get it. What are you afraid so much about here? That people help articles to improve? That people share their knowledge?
::Or is it just that you are afraid that some people might correct some wrong things that you wish to have true? The censorship on this webpage reminds me to the worst dictatorships in the world. Hitler burned books and people, who were against the regime were killed. When Eastern Europe was communistic - people were not allowed to say anything against the leaders or the political system. Especialy Scorpionman reminds me to the communists from the German Democratic Republic. They were building the wall through Berlin to imprison their own people in their state. But they told to the imprisioned that the walls are for keeping out the bad capitalists.
:: Scorpionman tells: "It's locked to prevent vandalism and inappropriate edits. " - Why is the "wall" around the article? To prevent vandalism? Or is the truth - to keep bias? HE also writes: "We're not censoring anything. We're just writing this article with a conservative perspective. That's not censorship " - That is how the comunists were arguing. Even when they were starting to build the wall, they said "Nobody wants to build a wall". Sonds quite similar to "We're not censoring anything." --[[User:Itsjustme|Itsjustme]] 19:10, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Ha ha, what you said is pretty amusing. Serious, but amusing nonetheless. I assume you've been reading Chris Hedges' new book on Christian m? He asserts that we're dangerous terrorists who are trying to take over the country and kill anyone who holds views contrary to their own. We must stop them!" Sounds like paranoia. That's what liberalism has degraded to: paranoia. You know, ironically, this is exactly what happened in ancient Rome! Christians were viewed as a threat, and consequently were treated horribly. They were burned, thrown to the lions and other horrible things I won't say. I'd say we're coming very close to that in America: "Christians are a threat and we need to remove them." And as for the other stuff, no we're not afraid of your beliefs, heck you can belive anything you want! We're not afraid to debate you either, but frankly it's not really edifying or constructive. It doesn't do anything either, especially these silly internet arguments that culminate in nothing more than name-calling and childish insults. Now unless you have something useful to post, don't bother posting, like I've said before. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:44, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Since this conservative view of evolution doesn't please you, I don't expect any will but why don't you try reading [http://www.creationwiki.org/Evolution CreationWiki's article on evolution?] Perhaps you may find it at least a little more satisfactory. Cheers. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:58, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

Hate to disappoint you and all, but 9 out of 10 people in America actually believe in a supreme being. You have references to God in your pledge of allegiance. Now, please tell me how Christians are percieved as a threat. As for the 'stop with the insults' line, you were the one who used Squid. I mean, thats not even a decent and/or witty insult. It reads like its written by a 16 year old who's voice hasnt broken yet and who gets beaten up at school. And about the paranoia, its always the conservative parties that use fear and paranoia as a tactic to get themselves elected. Examples of this include the use of the percieved threat of communism, terrorism...whats next? atheism? sounds like it from what you're saying...sure, Christians were burnt at the stake...so were a lot of other people. It was a tragedy, but so were the Crusades. If you're not afraid of debating then allow other users to edit this site. ---[[User:Dezza91|Dezza91]] 03:33, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I have no power of the locking or unlocking of this page, so stop complaining to me about it and complain to Conservative or Aschlafly. I don't get beaten up at school, I was homeschooled and my voice ''has'' broken. But that's enough information; it's not safe to give out too many facts about yourself over the internet these days. Christians ''are'' percieved as a threat; you've obviously never heard of Chris Hedges or his book on the Christian Right and how we're ts and trying to take over the country. If you haven't, read it. It's ridiculous, but it will show you that I'm right in what I "claimed". I even found an article on the internet the other day (some obscure site and I forgot the address, it wasn't even worth remembering) that talked about how dangerous Christians and creationists are. Make sure you do the homework before immediately denying what I said. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 14:54, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

I don't believe scorpionman is for real. He (she?) is a provocateur.

:If there's a provocator here, it's you, Juglander. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 14:54, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

: One thing I think scorpionman is forgetting that being conservative and christian are not necessarily the same thing. Also, there are many christians who believe evolution happened (I myself happen to be one). And it helps to be open minded, I have my opinions, but if you can make valid arguements to one point my opinion can change, but attacking my beliefs without backing it up does a greater mis-service to you. [[User:Jrssr5|Jrssr5]] 12:35, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== Archive ==

This talk page should be archived, as it's getting too long and my browser always takes a long time to open it. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:03, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

You could even say it's evolved to a more advanced state! [[User:BaggerOfWolves|BaggerOfWolves]] 08:11, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Ha ha, clever! [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 13:23, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Done. [[User:Tsumetai|Tsumetai]] 08:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Seems to me ==

that this is a very radical site. I think it might be appropriate to notify the FBI and have the terror alert raised... I sense a Christian Jihad.
: Did you allready inform FBI?

:No doubt you've been reading Chris Hedges' new book about Christian m, no? [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:16, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

== Creationist Lies, and Hoaxes ==

"In fact, one consistency among the Dover school Board members' testimony, which was marked by selective memories, and outright lies under oath..."
- ''Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District'' 400 F. Supp.2d 707, n.7 at 727.

: dude i saw that too...scary. i don't htink god wants us to lie to force his Word on others. --[[User:Ilovecoulter|Ilovecoulter]] 23:12, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: That quote reminds me of [http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Job%2013:7-9;&version=46; Job 13:7-9 (CEV)]<blockquote>"''Are you telling lies for God and not telling the whole truth when you argue his case? If he took you to court, could you fool him, just as you fool others?''"<blockquote>

== Bah ==

I have serious problems with this article. It provides a plethora of evidence against evolution, but it does not list any of the pro-evolution facts, of which there is an equal if not greater number. We are striving for the truth, what is best for Christian doctrine, is that correct? [[User:GofG | GofG]] [[Special:Contributions/GofG||||]] [[User talk:GofG | Talk]] 21:40, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Once again, voicing your own opinion. Like the Proverbs say, a foolish man refuses to listen to instruction, but prefers to err his own opinion. I'm not trying to offend anyone, if anyone did any offending it was the Bible, and the Bible has every right to. Since you claim that the evidence for evolution "is equal to if not greater in number", then give us a few examples! The only ones you'll be able to give is speciation, which is not evidence for macroevolution, and no doubt fossils such as archaeopteryx and tiktaalik, each of which are full-one or full the other. Now stop with this nonsense. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:15, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:: In all fairness, evidence for micro evolution is evidence for macroevolution. It shows that it can happen, and theoretically if it were to happen when an entire population was located in one spot, it wouldn't be too far off. --[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 22:21, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:No, you're wrong. Evidence for microevolution is ''not'' evidence for macroevolution. Do these little mutations cause the organism to change to a totally different animal? Do random mutations happening all the time cause evolution toward the more complex? No! Mutations are either neutral (which certainly wouldn't advance evolution) or they're harmful. In rare cases are they beneficial, and these rare beneficial ones are hardly anything to talk about. You know I still can't see why you're taking this here instead of your precious "Talk.Origins" website [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:47, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: of course evolution isn't random, did you ever pay attention in biology? Evolution happens to give an aid or advantage to a species, and generally it stays the same species but is a little varient. Mutations are sudden major changes in a species, by the way, often due to a major change in typically environment or diet. Mutation is different from evolution. I don't see why you have to be so bitter, you act like evolution proves God doesn't exists.--[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 22:55, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::Evolution proves ''nothing'', on account of the fact that it isn't even proven. I'm referring to macroevolution by the way. Microevolution has been observed and proven, but it doesn't support the Theory of Evolution. You got a wrong definition of mutations; they are any change in the gene code. You should be well aware that the most famous effect of mutations is cancer, which is not beneficial but can cause death. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 23:03, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

::: So cancer would be a mutation, but not an evolution. We're talking about the specific of evolution. Even if my definition of mutation is wrong, you're arguing something that doesn't actually have to do with evolution. --[[User:Ronnyreg|Ronnyreg]] 21:34, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

== What Evolution is and Is Not ==

Evolution is genetic change over time; any evolutionary biologist - the only person qualified to make this judgement - will tell you this. It simply deals with change in genes. There is overwhelming evidence for this, including that DNA replication is not perfect, small changes in an amino acid chain produce profound effects, and not all organisms within a species are exactly the same. Over extended periods of time, these differences add up to large changes within a species.

Evolution is not an explanation for the origin of life. Before the origin of life, there were no genetic mutations, so it would be wrong to apply evolution to the origin of life. That is a question that must be taken up with chemists and geologists, not evolutionary biologists. It is unfair to point out flaws in evolution's explanations on the origin of life if it makes no attempt to do so.

Evolution also does not explain the origin of the universe. These seems obvious, but people still point out flaws the theory's attempt to explain the origin of the universe, even though it only describes changes in genes over time. Astronomers and physicists describe the origin of the universe, not evolutionary biologists.

Finally, evolution is one of the major unifying themes of biology. Organisms would not exist today if they did not change over time. The earth changes, and organisms change with it.--[[User:Venfayth|Venfayth]] 22:38, 12 March 2007 (EDT)

:Stop digging up dead arguments. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 22:48, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:: And these are "dead arguments" exactly how? [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 22:53, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
:Just how many times have they been used and not proved a thing? [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 14:31, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:: Hmm? An argument not convincing someone doesn't make it a bad argument. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:40, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:The burden of proof is on you, Scorpionman. For over a hundred years, the theory of evolution has been tested to try to prove it wrong. As of yet, nobody has succeeded. What is your scientific proof that genes do not change over time?--[[User:Venfayth|Venfayth]] 23:01, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
::No, the burden is on you. You don't have proof that they ''do'' change over time. And the theory of evolution has been disproved, though evolutionists will not admit it. And the Bible has been around a lot longer than your theory and it has never been disproven, so you've got nothing to brag about. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:13, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

If that be so, perhaps you might feel inclined to list some of the undeniable evidence proving that evolution is erroneos in all aspects it claims to explain. Regardless of your own personal feeling on the accuracy of either opinion, codes of conduct for debating scenarios place the burden of proof upon yourself at the present time.--[[User:Fpresjh|Fpresjh]] 09:27, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Self-discrediting of Conservapedia==

Well, at least the obvious tic tendencies of the Christian Right, as demonstrated by Conservapedia's paranoid locking out of anything that does not reflect its articles of faith, should put sensible, adult readers on their guard and warn them not to take anything it says too seriously! Thanks to this, I'm afraid, it is already pretty much self-discrediting - and is rapidly becoming a veritable conspiracy of ignorance into the bargain. --[[User:Petrus|Petrus]] 06:58, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:So you believe that creationists are dangerous terrorists who are trying to take over the country by terror and force? Like I said before, Nero thought the same thing, and so he put many Christians to death. However, none of his assumptions were correct, Christians were not trying to take over Rome and they're not trying to subdue America either. Obviously you've been reading Chris Hedges new book on Christian m. Where is the evidence behind his claims? Hmmm? Where are our nuclear weapons, weather control devices, bombs, guns and so on? [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 14:34, 13 March 2007 (EDT)
:And your nonsense about an "ignorance conspiracy" self-discredits you. Maybe Conservapedia does need more content, and perhaps it should show both sides of the issues, but what good do you think you're going to do by making all these absurd claims? If you talked reasonably with Aschlafly (and by reasonably I don't mean going "This whole website is nonsense. None of it is true. You're all a bunch of idiots."), maybe he might change his mind and semi-protect it. So why don't you post your comments on his talkpage. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 14:37, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

:: I'll briefly point out that Petrus made no claim that "creationists are dangerous terrorists who are trying to take over the country by terror and force". It isn't very civil or productive to associate with people extremist statements that they did not make. [[User:JoshuaZ|JoshuaZ]] 14:39, 13 March 2007 (EDT)

That is what can be interpreted. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

All i have to say about this argument is thank goodness for evolution. If not for this natural phenomenon we would all be identical in genotype to Noah and his wife (did she have a name?... I mean, she did all the work, right? Cooking up the dinosaurs and dodo birds for food.). If not for evolution we would all be condemned to a long and slow-living existence with life spans far too long to remain interesting.

:I have no idea what on earth you're talking about. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:15, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

yes, this is obvious.

:No it isn't. Nothing is obvious anymore. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 14:45, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== transitional states ==

lots of folks i talk to seem to misnderstand what it means to have a fossil of a "transitional state"; the current (rather short) section on transitional states also reflects this misunderstanding.

i'd suggest modifying or appending the "transitional states" stub to reflect the idea that we DO have fossil evidence of things that can be considered transitional states, depending on your definition, and the problem is that most people tend to have an uninformed definition.

not that this proves evolution or anything, but this section of the current article is a misrepresentation/misunderstanding.

here's the research: http://www.asa3.org/ASA/topics/evolution/PSCF12-97Miller.html

== Lack of 'Credible Transitional Forms'? ==

ever heard of Archaeopteryx? or Ambulocetus?

He's got you there, Scorpianman--[[User:Dezza91|Dezza91]] 03:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:No, he doesn't. Achaeopteryx was a bird. Ambulocetus seems to share a lot more in common with crocodiles than either of the others. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 08:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

This page (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html) lists all transitional fossils known through 1997 (they gotta update!), which is already quite a long list. The last thing on their list is their references (direct link to it: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part2c.html#refs), which you can see cites sources such as "Science", "Nature", publications of the Smithsonian, Harvard University Press, various textbooks, other scholarly journals, and conference proceedings...clearly a wide array of support for the existence of MANY credible transitional fossils. Given this, I don't see how one can legitimately claim that there is a lack of credible evidence.

: They can't credibly claim a lack of evidence, but they CAN protect the article, and then fail to answer your replies about how there is evidence.--[[User:AmesG|AmesG]] 11:19, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::'''AUGH!''' (Fixed the [http://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Talk:Theory_of_evolution&diff=prev&oldid=34928 overly long word]. If possible, avoid adding horizontal scroll bars to pages. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 14:51, 14 March 2007 (EDT)) [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 13:10, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Scorpionman, I do not understand why you choose to engage these mindless users, when they cannot respond in any form of intelligent conversation. It is a lose-lose situation when you are dealing with close-minded people such as them. As for a response to such "questions" they raise: We had to prevent vandalism and non-factual material from being posted on this page. There is no supported evidence that supports any of the proposed material. The article is protected; it will remain protected. Period. Deal with it. How's that for a response? --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 13:16, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::Tell me about it! Where are all your little friends, huh, Scorpionman? None of them here! They're afraid of the truth! Look, evolution is proven, duh! Why can't you get that through your thick skull? C'mon, just look at that list and see! There's no evidence for creation! A bunch of right-wing conspirators get together and start trying to abolish the truth here! It's ridiculous! And they keep on blocking the page so the truth can't be put there! Idiots! Why don't you just give up and conform to the truth? You'll be happier, healthier, and wiser. Come with us and find TRUE knowledge! [[User:Caveman|Caveman]] 13:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::There is no objective proof of evolution. Just the fitting of facts to the theory. --[[User:TimSvendsen|TimSvendsen]] 13:12, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I think I've heard that one before, and I seem to recognize it as an evolutionary argument, but I won't make that assumption yet. And once again, may I please direct you all who are unsatisfied with this article to the [http://www.creationwiki.org/General_theory_of_evolution one at CreationWiki]? [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 13:17, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

== There's so much more that could be here. ==

Looking over the Evolution page, it seems rather barren. There's quite a bit more information that would be very useful to readers. I've gleaned quite a bit of this from various creationist sources, and they might help add even more information to the page. I would say that all of the following information is at least as academically viable and accurate as the information already present.

You should reference the popular Peppered Moth study, noting that the researchers glued dead moths in place to photograph them. Don't mention that this is a common practice in entymology; instead, present it as though it is some sort of scandal. Most readers won't research the issue further and discover that the practice of gluing dead insects is common when attempting to illustrate graphical features -- especially when comparing two different specimens that don't usually hold still in the wild -- and will instead assume that the photographers were engaged in deliberate deception.
Also, point out that the peppered moths don't normally rest on tree trunks. Don't mention, however, that they do rest on the undersides of tree branches, which are essentially the same colour as tree trunks. Also point out that the moths are only active at night, being nocturnal. Most readers won't realise that this means that the moths will be resting -- and thus more vulnerable -- during the day. Instead, try to imply that the moths aren't around at all during the day -- as if they cease to exist -- so that you can imply that colouring is of no consequence because they can't be seen. You can find a lot of these arguments in Ann Coulter's latest book.

You mention Piltdown Man, but you don't mention that it is reported that [http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=183 there were over 500 doctoral dissertations written on Piltdown Man]. I've tried to track down these dissertations, and I can't find a single one. It's quite likely that the claim is false, and that no actual dissertations exist at all, but you don't have to mention that. Just say that it is reported that there were 500 dissertations written and most readers won't bother researching and discovering that the "report" is inaccurate.

I'm somewhat disappointed that the page has no references of the social consequences of accepting the theory of evolution. The creator of Darwin's Deadly Legacy, who has a webpage [http://www.coralridge.org/darwin/ here], goes into detail of the social consequences of the theory of evolution. You can easily reference sources claiming that the theory of evolution is responsible for eugenics. Be sure that you don't mention that eugenics was practiced in societies that existed thousands of years before Darwin was born, just reference the instances of eugenics policies [http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i2/hitler.asp endorsed post-Darwin]. Suggest that the theory of evolution implies a moral mandate to kill (or at least sterilize) the "weaker" races. Most people won't realise that such a claim is an appeal to a logical fallacy (appeal to consequence), and hopefully most of your readers won't understand that scientific theories (including the theory of evolution) don't actually dictate action or define morality and that the theory of evolution doesn't actually suggest that Jews, blacks or any other genetic group of homo sapiens is definitively "weaker" than another (because "weaker" is a relative term often dependent upon a myriad of interacting environmental conditions). Just say that Hitler determined that the Jews were weaker and hope that the readers will assume that it's a logical conclusion drawn from the theory of evolution and then imply that Hitler was following the "directives" of evolution. Don't actually use the word "directive"; evolution has no "directives", so you'll have to just let your readers incorrectly infer that it does using vague language. Try suggesting that the theory of evolution does not define acts of genocide as morally wrong. This is factually correct, and many readers won't stop and realize that the same is true of all scientific claims; after all, how many people would stop and realise that the Law of Gravity carries with it no moral compunction not to push people off of buildings? Saying that the theory of evolution suggests that genocide is a good thing would be lying, but saying only that the theory of evolution does not proscribe genocide is technically truthful, and can lead people to believe the same thing.

This can be helped further if you again suggest that the theory of evolution claims that God does not exist. Hopefully your readers won't actually study the theory to learn that such a claim is false. Mention that the theory of evolution does not involve God. Try to word it in such a way to give the impression that the theory actually denies the existence of God (but don't actually say it outright; the claim is false, but the goal is to give the impression that it is true without actually saying it) and that without God, there is no good or evil. Then suggest that if there is no good or evil, that destroying a few people for the betterment of humanity as a whole is a good thing. Hopefully most people won't see that you've directly contradicted yourself. Also, most people won't see that you've essentially admitted that you believe that Jews are in some way inferior to non-Jews (by capitulating that it would better humanity to off if not for killing being morally objectionable). Also, hopefully most people won't see that you've completely gotten off of the subject of the merits of evolution, and that you're trying to disprove an event by saying that you find the (implied) consequences of that event being true as morally repugnant, as if reality depends upon what you find acceptable.

I hope that my suggestions are useful to you. I think that the research that I have referenced is of the same intellectual integrity and honesty as the current evolution page here. With a little work, this page can become a great resource for those looking for the creationist position, a repository on the common creationist objections to the theory of evolution, with all of the research and honesty one would expect from a professional creationist outfit.

I'll do some more digging to find some more claims of equal intellectual merit and accuracy.

[[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 11:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:I think we should just kill off all the creationists. They keep on opening up their big traps and squelching the truth. Can't we do that, huh, huh? [[User:Caveman|Caveman]] 13:07, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::I do not believe that your response, which suggests an inappropriate act of violence, has any relevance to my posting. I am curious as to why your only contribution to my suggestion is a non-sequitur. [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 14:55, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::I would not attempt to understand anything Caveman writes. He is incompetent in a field of intelligent conversation. His response only goes to validate protecting this page. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 15:01, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

Duh, I even can't remembur mi own pasword! I had to make new one! Whaddya mean I'm untilligent in meningful convursashun! I shure am! I talk good! But I still think that we should kill off all creationists. If I had my club first I'd take out David R, then Aschlafly, then Jimbo Wales, then George Bush, then Emperor Palpatine, then Eragon, then Johnny Cash, then Scorpionman! huh huh! [[User:CroMagnonMan|CroMagnonMan]] 17:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

==Creationism popular among the less intelligent==
According to http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm, a source cited on [Examples of Bias in Wikpedia](see entry 22, source 24), those without a high school diploma are more than twice as likely to believe in creationism than their college-graduate counterparts, (65% vs. 25%). Also, those living in or near poverty (Under $20,000) are almost twice as likely (59% vs. 29%) to believe in creationism than their well-off counterparts (Over $50,000). Of course drawing conclusions based on these facts would not be appropriate, that is far too Wikipedia-ish, I do think they have place in the article. They do, after all, come from a website that creators of Conservapedia have used often, proving its credence. --[[User:BushHugger|BushHugger]] 13:37, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::You know what? Shut up. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 14:43, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
::I'll bet that the reason is because most of the major universities in the US are liberal, and therefore college grads from these universities of course believe what they are taught there. Now doesn't that make sense? [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 14:44, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::: Your second response, after your initial request for the previous individual to "shut up", appears to be a non-sequitur. What has liberalism, whether present in "most of the major universities in the US", to do with the theory of evolution? [[User:Dimensio|Dimensio]] 14:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

::::Scorpionman, when you respond to such users, you are only hurting yourself. I think I told you once to refuse to respond. Aschlafly has already told you to move onto another subject. What is the worst these users can do on a talk page? Also, please refrain from descending to their level of conversation. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 15:04, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:::::David, is there any reason why you remove the word "fascist" from Scorpionman's edits all the time? I've noticed it at least twice within the past few edits. --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:18, 14 March 2007 (EDT)
:::::I just noticed that the same apparently happened a week ago on his Talk page, together with a warning about offensive language. How often will he be "warned" before action is taken? And will his overall behavior here and on other people's talk pages factor into this? --[[User:Sid 3050|Sid 3050]] 15:56, 14 March 2007 (EDT)

:The offensive language he was talking about, Sid, was the word "crap". I can't believe that you think I should be blocked for arguing. I mean, if I should be blocked for arguing then so should you because that's pretty much all you do on this site. [[User:Scorpionman|Scorpionman]] 16:59, 14 March 2007 (EDT)