Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

Talk:Atheism/archive15

2010-07-31T19:24:12Z

JacobP: /* Problems with the basic definition */

== Atheism and Immorality ==

To make this article more neutral, it seems important to point out both sides of the "Atheism and immorality" debate. I found an article in Psychology Today, a reputable academic journal, saying the following.

Suppose "good" just meant "commanded by God"; it would follow that "God is good" means only that God does what he commands," which is faint praise. Belief in a benevolent God is substantive only if one believes that God acts in accordance with some independent moral standard. On this view, even theists should accept that morality is independent of religion. [http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/experiments-in-philosophy/200806/do-atheists-pose-threat-morality]

Additionally,
Research suggests that the independence of morality and religion is actually widely recognized outside of academic philosophy, even among staunch theists. For example, developmental psychologist Larry Nucci interviewed highly religious children from a wide range of backgrounds (including Catholics, Mennonites, and Orthodox Jews), and he found that they were overwhelmingly likely to judge that stealing would be wrong even if God were to say that stealing is permissible (see his Education in the Moral Domain). The aforementioned Pew study also reveals that fewer than a third of Americans cite religion as the major source of their moral values, and more than half claim that practical experience and common sense are the major source.' [http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/experiments-in-philosophy/200806/do-atheists-pose-threat-morality]

Why isn't this page open for direct editing?

== Psychological profile of atheists, further study ==

Further study needed (see previous resources on this matter on talk page via archives): Psychological profile of atheists: http://thecountryshrink.com/tag/atheism/ [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 21:35, 28 June 2009 (EDT)

:Biet-Hallahmi, author of “Atheism, A Psychological Profile”, in “The Cambridge Companion to Atheism”, wrote, “…what these individuals [the most elite] had, in addition to their creativity and high intelligence, was a strong wish to create distance between themselves and their parents.” - Caplovitz and Sherrow 1977; Quoted in “Cambridge Companion to Atheism”: “Atheists: a Psychological Profile”, Cambridge University Press, p307. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:30, 18 January 2009 (EST)

::: ''Atheists: A Groundbreaking Study of America's Nonbelievers (Paperback)''[http://www.amazon.com/Atheists-Groundbreaking-Study-Americas-Nonbelievers/dp/1591024137] [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:37, 18 January 2009 (EST)

== Pol Pot ==

It would be interesting if we could get a little bit about Pol-Pot in the Atheism and Communism section as he was undoubtedly one of the most murderous against religion along with Hohxa. Though It appears that this article is locked for editing.
--[[User:Matthew2208|Matthew2208]] 16:11, 6 November 2009 (EST)
:::Create a section on Pol Pot and atheism in the Pol Pot article and I can stick it in the atheism article. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 01:24, 27 November 2009 (EST)

He, and Mao, etc. operated out of the same objectively baseless moral foundation which atheism is based upon, that of one's own "golden compass," which history proves can easily point south. This basis for morality is that every man does that which is right in his own eyes - with no moral standard higher than him - and which is explicitly contrary to Dt. 12:8. Thus men like Mao could easily justify their atrocities. This is not to say that atheists cannot be relatively good persons, or that much evil has not been in done the name of religion, or as part of it, but atheists can offer no assurance, outside past character, that they will do good, as who immutably defines good? Some persons honestly believe it would be best for the world to eliminate the Jews, or to take children away from creationist parents. Even deceit is valued as a virtue among some people. But the Bible in its totality is a transcend moral authority which is proven to be beneficial, and actually disallows such things as the Crusades, and Inquisitions, let alone Hitler being or acting as a Christian which atheists strive ti implicate Christianity in, yet in contrast, the world would prosper if it yielded to the Spirit of Christ. And may I do far better therein.[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 18:26, 15 December 2009 (EST)
::::I am going to be adding Pol Pot. Thanks for the input. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 15:09, 8 April 2010 (EDT)

== "Satire" image ==

[[File:Atheism.png]]

I'm uncomfortable with this.
This is inappropriate for an encyclopedia to have.

If this is completely necessary, I should think the one for Christianity should be on the Christianity page. I'd insert an image but it's telling me to do a CAPTCHA that I can't even see.

Also, you should know that the imageboard 4chan is responsible for both of these images. [[User:Happyface|Happyface]] 16:38, 9 December 2009 (EST)

I happen to agree with Happyface. I understand that this is a conservative website, however this image is rather unbecoming of an encyclopedia. Furthermore, if the goal of this website is to attempt to change the views of others, then this image should be removed. In my opinion it will only cause more contempt and bigotry from both sides, rather then causing more non-theists to reconsider their views.
:::::Satire images are certainly put on encylclopedias. I don't see anyone complaining about [http://www.conservapedia.com/File:Darwin_monkey_cartoon.jpg this satire] put on the evolution page. Secondly, have you demonstrated that there is bigotry in the satire? The satire certainly points out the folly of atheism but where is the hatred of atheists that is supposedly being spewed out or being created? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 14:16, 10 February 2010 (EST)

== The merriam-webster definition of Atheism ==

a : a disbelief in the existence of deity
b : the doctrine that there is no deity

[http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/archaic]

If you want to define atheism, simply take the bible and replace every word God with the phrase "creepy old man who is invisible and watching me all the time". Then you can get the sense of an atheist's mind I think. They don't debate theists because for them "crazy old man" is an absurdity.

Example: John 3:16, For the creepy old man who is invisible and watching me all the time so loved this world that he gave his only son so that whoever believes in him wont die , and will enter eternal life.--[[User:JeffD|JeffD]] 21:03, 22 December 2009 (EST)

Pardon me if I'm not editing this correctly. This is my first contribution to conservapedia. JeffD wrote, "If you want to define atheism, .. Then you can get the sense of an atheist's mind I think." Mr. JeffD, atheists are not all of one belief on this. They did not go to 'atheist school' to learn how to believe. You are picking out one kind of atheist, one character, and imagining that all other atheists are the same.

More to my general point here, though. The definition of 'atheism' here is also artificially limited, regardless of what the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy or the Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy says. Atheism, in its broadest sense, merely requires the absence of belief in God, or in a god if we expand the audience to those theists who believe in gods other than the Christian/Islamic/Judiac deity. The definition here should be expanded to indicate such: Atheism is the absence of belief in God -- or the denial of the existence of God.

This can be seen in both the plausibilities of belief and in the word itself. People who profess no belief one way or the other may often be classified as 'agnostic', but this is just shifting the issue. Agnostics simply say we can't know. Let's look at the word itself to see the issue clearly illustrated. (A)theism would be the lack of theism -- the broader definition I've alluded to above. (Athe)ism would be the belief in no good existing -- the narrower definition currently on conservapedia. Unless there is reason to narrow the definition, it should be made as wide and flexible as possible. Otherwise something of a strw man is being set up. Many (a)theists would claim that (athe)ists maintain an unjustified belief. You cannot try to criticize (a)theists with a line of reasoning intended for (athe)ists and think you are making progress.

Don't be afraid of the light.

shonangreg

:Name an atheistic proposition that doesn't see "God" as an absurdity, a non entity, I'm no trying to make some broad philosophical statement, just demonstrating why the run of the mill atheist appears to either not be interested in debate or "running" away from debate. Stress on the word "appears" and on "run of the mill". There's no attempt here to paint anyone with "one brush", although on the other hand a simple dictionary definition of "abscence of belief" doesn't catch the full character and dimension of "atheist thought".--[[User:JeffD|JeffD]] 09:39, 26 December 2009 (EST)
::::::I see no proof and/or evidence was give above that atheism is accurate/correct. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 10:58, 27 December 2009 (EST)

:::::::I see no proof and/or evidence anywhere that theism is correct. [[User:Jab5000|Jab5000]]
::::::::::Jab, I don't believe you are looking that hard and are also ignoring the evidence you do have. Jab, how many Christian apologetic books have you read? "Maybe the atheist cannot find God for the same reason a thief cannot find a policeman." - Francis Thompson[[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:30, 5 February 2010 (EST)
:::::::::::::shonangreg, Re: Merriam webster dictionary: I suggest you look at the difference between the words disbelief and unbelief. Secondly, Conservapedia did not cherry pick Encyclopedias of Philosophy as far as the definition of atheism. I suggest you look at the footnoted material in the sections of the atheism article focused on the definition of the word "atheism". [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 12:03, 11 February 2010 (ESt)

The irony here is it is harder to define "An Athiest" than "A Christian" because we have read many different books while researching our beliefs and opinions. We are not stuck with one, rather dated textbook translated so many times that the original meanings, if any, have been obscured. All relegions suffer this problem to some degree. Please also bear in mind that almost all athiests will disagree with one another over the exact definition of "Atheism" because we tend to be argumentative free thinkers.

: Your comment helps confirm the view that atheism is really simply anti-Christianity. Atheism is unified by only one belief: an opposition to Christ.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 21:12, 29 April 2010 (EDT)
::::You misspelled atheist and religions. What kind of schooling did you obtain? Was it homeschooling, private schooling, or public schooling? [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 23:05, 29 April 2010 (EDT)

==Most religiously free countries have Christian backgrounds==

A comprehensive new study on religious liberty around the world shows that countries with Christian backgrounds generally have the highest levels of religious freedom. The study, directed by esteemed expert on religious persecution Paul Marshall, also found that officially atheist or Islamic countries tend to have the least religious freedom. [http://www.gofbw.com/news.asp?ID=7593 ''Christian nations more free, report says'', Jul 25, 2007] [http://97.74.65.51/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=27389]

Atheists counter by touting a different study proporting that religion is bad for society, which George H. Gallup, Jr. refutes,[http://www.touchstonemag.com/archives/article.php?id=18-10-061-r ''Dogma Bites Man''] as well as Scott Gilbreath [http://magicstatistics.com/2007/01/13/gregory-paul-shot-down-again ''Gregory Paul shot down again'']
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Besides freedom, there are other factors that are linked to the well-being of a nation, and the all effects are not immediately seen as linked to the cause. In addition, God blesses obedience to His precepts and principals to the degree that they do so, regardless of the persons. To the degree that a nation obeys the light God gave it, such as regards upholding wise and honest leadership and just jurisprudence, honoring parents and preserving the family, and promoting national integrity, hard work, capitalism, etc., it will be blessed.*

Besides spiritual blessings, or because of them, obedience results in temporal benefits as well, but such are usually realized after long term obedience, and others, like as children inheriting the fruit of their father's hard word, can even realize them more. "I sent you to reap that whereon ye bestowed no labour: other men laboured, and ye are entered into their labours." (John 4:38) Likewise, the full realization of negative effects of national disobedience to God's precepts does not happen overnight, and those that inherit and perpetuate such often realize it more, in this life. America has much entered into blessings procured by the obedience by others to God's precepts and principals, but has increasingly forsaken the right way and gone after carnal lusts, and is reaping the corruption thereof.

*Rm. 2 teaches that a pious pagan who obeys the light that he has, which the Bible affirms men are given by conscience and creation, is superior to a learned believer in the one true God who practices unrighteousness.

But to obey the light one has means he will be attracted to The Light, and thus pious pagans, as Cornelious and co. were (Acts 10), opened their hearts to Christ, as "he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God." (John 3:21)[[User:Daniel1212|Daniel1212]] 19:21, 15 December 2009 (EST)

==Problems with the basic definition==

A number of discussions get sidetracked when contending sides use definitions of "atheism", and they wind up talking past each other.

For most people, "atheism" is the '''denial''' of God's existence. It is a specific, deliberate position; your mind is made up; you've thought the matter over and made a decision about what to believe.

For many others, "atheism" is a '''lack of belief''' in God. This is really two positions in one: it includes both an active, definite denial with what most people call [[agnosticism]], i.e., the position of neither accepting or rejecting God's existence.

Our solution, at Conservapedia, should be to pick one definition and stick to it. We should not handicap our readers with [[shifting ground]] arguments. Rather, if there are any significant arguments which employ the shifting ground fallacy to trick people, we should expose them.

When we started this article, one of the first problems we encountered was a refusal of some contributors to use regularly defined terms. This caused some confusion and wasted some time.

So I think we will be wise to impose some editorial standards, as follows:

#The word '''atheism''' means denying that God exists. This can include denying that any "gods" exist, but this is very minor point, and refers only to polytheistic religions. (NOTE: For the purposes of this article, Trinitarian Christian theology is considered monotheistic.)
#The word '''agnostic''' means being unsure whether God exists or not. This may include a claim that there is no way to know one way or another, as well as a personal uncertainty or hesitation to make a decision on the matter.

This means that when we encounter a statement that lumps atheists and agnostics together, we may need to stop for a moment to define our terms - especially if the other writer is using the word ''atheist'' differently. Well, the term "[[unbeliever]]" is always useful in this context. --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] [[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]] 08:12, 31 January 2010 (EST)
:::::I sent you an email about this matter. [[User:Conservative|conservative]] 02:29, 5 February 2010 (EST)

::::::Actually, there is a very clear distinction between the terms 'Agnosticism' and 'Atheism'. The two are not mutually exclusive. One can be both, one, or neither of the two. Agnosticism, or its opposite, gnosticism, are epistemological claims regarding whether or not one has 'knowledge' of something. Theism or atheism are claims regarding belief. An 'agnostic' is one who claims that, regarding their belief or disbelief in God, they do not think that they 'know'. Or, to put it simply, they aren't sure. A 'gnostic' is somebody who does claim to 'know' whether or not God exists.

::::::So, one could be one of four things: 1. Agnostic Theist - One who believes in God but isn't 'sure' that God exists. 2. Gnostic Theist - One who believes in God and knows that God exists. 3. Agnostic Atheist - One who does not believe in God, but is not 'sure' that God does not exist. or 4. Gnostic Theist - One who 'knows' that God does not exist.

::::::These definitions should be acknowledged in the article.[[User:JacobP|JacobP]] 15:24, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

Talk:Counterexamples to Evolution

2010-07-31T19:18:35Z

JacobP: /* Problems I see with this page */

[[Talk:Counterexamples_to_Evolution/archive1|Archive 1]]

== My plans for this article ==

I plan on organizing this article into groups, so there would be a group for the statistical counterexamples, and a group for the counterexamples that rely on functions that do not come from the evolutionary mechanisms, or maladaptive characteristics. I am open to suggestions. I also archived the page as it was when I came here. I would also like someone to rewrite the end of the intro paragraph, it doesn't make much sense how it was and only makes a little more how I wrote it. Thanks' --[[User:SamF|SamF]] 22:27, 21 January 2010 (EST)

:First of all, God bless you for archiving and clearing up this page! It makes the discussion better.

:I'm all for better organization of the entry, but without any dilution. So please have at it!--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:35, 21 January 2010 (EST)
I've categorized, and reworded one poorly worded point. I'll look for resources over the weekend and on Monday morning I should be able to life most of the citation needed tags. Some of these seem like they would be impossible to prove to me. Having looked at consciousness as a subject I feel pretty confident in saying that it is a mystery no matter what, and that it should probably be left off of this list, as a for instance. --[[User:SamF|SamF]] 18:06, 22 January 2010 (EST)

{{quotebox|Consciousness - No animal displays self-awareness (such as clothing), morality, tool-making, or self-sacrifice to the same extent that man does. It is unclear how a random mutation could have arisen which accounts for humanity's significantly higher cognitive ability.[Citation Needed]}}
:What do you mean by "it is a mystery no matter what"? It seems to me that what the article's saying is precisely that it ''is'' a mystery - so no natural process could have created it; since atheistic evolution allows only natural processes, but consciousness exists, atheistic evolution can't be all there is. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 18:20, 22 January 2010 (EST)
::It is just as unclear how a supernatural power might generate consciousness. It is a whole big can of worms and thousands of people in philosophy and neuroscience are working on it. The Evolutionary psychology people have a pretty neat little story about how something that manifests itself exactly like consciousness is beneficial and might come about, I think that if we ever do crack the consciousness puzzle then they will swoop in and claim to have an answer. I think that the bit in that counterexample about consciousness can be axed just fine and the rest left standing. Consciousness is its own big philosophical question, and I have serious doubts as to how accurately an argument about it can be contained in one paragraph, let alone one line. --[[User:SamF|SamF]] 18:28, 22 January 2010 (EST)
:::Um, a miracle? That's the whole point about miracles: we don't understand how God did them. Of course it's "unclear." If you want to say that naturalistic scientists are trying to figure out how evolution might bring consciousness about, that's fine with me, as long as it's clear they haven't found it yet. --[[User:EvanW|EvanW]] 18:46, 22 January 2010 (EST)

== No other animal exhibits religion ==

Are we really sure that humans are the only organisms with religious beliefs? Is there a scientifc reason why [[wolf|wolves]] howl to the moon (or perhaps it's actually to God, who created them)? Organization, communication skills, family traditions, common sense, etc are religious traits; religion brings order and meaning to society (which probably explains why idiocy and corruption is invading human society). Sounds like something a liberal would argue: ''If God exists, why are humans the only ones that believe in him'', and my rebuttal is always ''How do we 'know' that animals don't believe in God? Have you asked one?'' [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 16:01, 17 February 2010 (EST)

:Your point reflects open-mindedness and a willingness to rely on logic rather than consensus. But note that in sharp contrast with humans, animals do not engage in any activities suggestive of prayer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 22:00, 17 February 2010 (EST)
::I don't know much about animal psychology, but I ''really'' like the poetic notion of wolves howling at the moon being prayer. That's just... beautiful. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 23:05, 17 February 2010 (EST)
:::Well, animals do not speak English, so of course we're not going to witness animal prayer. Also, dogs howl over their owners bodies when they witness the passing of their owners, but rather than argue like a [[liberal style|whiny liberal]], I'm going to walk away from this one. [[User:DMorris|DMorris]] 08:04, 18 February 2010 (EST)

== Some of these are rather incomplete ==

For instance 1.6.1 {{cquote|The fact that new discoveries, such as Raptorex, routinely call into question key dogmas of evolutionism and require the "immutable" laws of evolution to be reassessed. By contrast, creationism has prevailed in the face of scientific discoveries for six thousand years.}}
Not only is the second half a parodist's dig on creationism "creationism has prevailed ''in the '''face''' of'' scientific discoveries" the first half doesn't really explain why raptorex is supposed to be parodoxiacal. It's an interesting species, but there is nothing apparent (especially not in the sentence) that counters evolution, the adaptations of ''T. rex'' and Raptorex are related to balance, specifically how you get the biggest head on the smallest, fastest, body. If no one steps forward to expand this in the next two weeks I'm going to trim it from the list. I think two weeks is a fair timeline. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 00:26, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
:I cut some more out, I would suggest cutting the statistical argument out, it's hard to do with out making up random numbers. Pulling wheat from chaff is going to take some work, but I suspect you will be pleased in the end. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 01:03, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
::Do not remove without discussion. Do not censor material from the article. [[User:DouglasA|DouglasA]] 01:55, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
:::I did not censor anything, I did some editing.
:::* 1.2.6 is parody, Jim put it in there to mock Andy after their discussion ended in Andy saying that beauty was intrinsic, I clarified Andy's counterexample per his feelings on the subject
:::* 1.3.2 is about ploidy, the last time it was removed there was an edit comment about durum wheat, did anyone ever bother to look it up? Durum wheat is descended from Emmer wheat, Duram wheat is tetraploid and Emmer wheat is diploid. That is conclusive proof that it is not impossible. Hence it is probably parody.
:::* 1.3.4 actually misreports the selfish gene
:::* 1.2.7 we know how cicadas manage to wait , we know that those cicadas that come out a year early or a year late die with out mating typically. we can move mating windows in lab animal populations. So we have a means a motive and an opportunity, more parody.
:::* 1.5.6 You cannot demonstrate a lack of fossils until you dig up all the fossil bearing strata on earth, which is a very big task (digging out the trilobites alone would leave the globe covered in a foot thick layer of fossils) Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
:::I'm just trying to clean up this article a bit, it seems to be a place were parody and counterexample alike are piled in together and they are never checked. --[[User:Brendanw|Brendanw]] 14:19, 11 April 2010 (EDT)
::::You were warned not to touch this article, Brendan, then you did again. [[User:JacobB|JacobB]] 14:29, 11 April 2010 (EDT)

== Lack of mechanism ==

The first point in this section is:
*Animals flee to high ground before a deadly tsunami hits their shoreline, defying any plausible materialistic explanation.
(There follows a reference which does not state that there is no materialistic explanation - in fact, it suggests one.) But I'm more interested in the consequences of there being no materialistic explanation. Did God personally guide the animals to escape? Were the warned by angels? If God or the angels warned the animals - why didn't they warn the human beings?--[[User:British_cons|British_cons]] [[User_talk:British_cons|(talk)]] 15:10, 12 April 2010 (EDT)

== Problems I see with this page ==

1 Example one is not true, we have many different races and genetic diversity can be ANY difference in genes (Your genes are not the EXACT SAME as your mother/father's, that is genetic diversity)

2 Example number three is pointless. Not all genes affect multiple traits, and thus evolution can happen to some without affecting a lot of traits. Furthermore, a mutation can happen to a gene that controls multiple traits and benefit one trait, but that doesn't mean that it will negatively affect the other traits.

Under Lack of Mechanism:

1 Example two is basically a bunch of buzz words lined up in a row.

2 Example five Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. All other animals might think that fall foliage looks terrible, and humans may simply have a mass delusion about it. All in all it feels like a pointless cop-out.

3 Example twelve is a flat out lie. SOME animals do have self awareness. Here is just one example I found after mere seconds of looking. http://earthtrust.org/delbook.html

4 Example sixteen can be explained by slowly getting more and more of this chemical into their blood stream. A better explanation is that a minuscule bit of anti-freeze won't kill you, you grow a little resistance to it, pass it on, get more anti-freeze and more resistance, etc.

Under Maladaption:

1 Example three could be the process of evolution unfinished. You could be looking at something that is not quite complete, but will be someday.

Under Wrong prediction

1 Example one is simple if you know about evolution: There was creature that came after the gorilla, but before the chimp, a small group of these creatures lost these dna blocks, and another group did not. One group evolved into chimps, one into humans.

2 Example three: Much of it has been shown to be useful, but much of it still has no recognized purpose.

3 Example five: Take one second out of your day and google "Wisdom teeth". We no longer need them, thus most people don't have them (a replacement example could be "Why do some people still have wisdom teeth?")

Under Missing Fossils:

1 example one is a lie: http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/whaleevolution.gif

2 Example four is obvious because single celled organisms are so small that it is VERY difficult to find a fossil of one out in the wild.

Under Irreducible Complexity: (Note that I won't spend much time here as I know I have a HORRIBLE bias against Irreducible Complexity and I feel that I will just try to argue away all points)

1 Example three: Wings can help something jump farther (Even a small bit helps). Also just because there is no perceived benefit does not mean that something is a disadvantage.

And those are the only MAJOR problems I have with it. I see no problem in arguing against evolution (all things should be argued against in my opinion), but we need to stick to the facts, unlike our liberal counterparts...

:Explain the seed of a maple tree then. [[User:Karajou|Karajou]] 22:54, 6 May 2010 (EDT)

While I don't see the relation to my edit and a maple seed... I assume you are talking about how can something so small become so big? Simple: A maple seed contains DNA. A good analogy for what DNA does is this: There is this thing called RNA, and it is like a construction worker. Now RNA "reads" DNA, which are like a buildings blueprints. Then it goes and lays down "Amino Acids" which are like concrete, beams etc. to a construction worker. Where does the body (seed in this case) get these amino acids, you may ask. Simple: It gets them from the nutrients it absorbs while in the soil. These Amino Acids go and make different structures, one example being an "enzyme" which breaks down big molecules into small molecules that the body can use. So just like these blueprints "become" turn into a tree.

Now, obviously it is a whole lot more complicated. But I don't want to spend the hours it would take to explain enough of 9th grade and AP Biology that would fill in all the gaps. But really it isn't that hard to understand, is it? A seed absorbs a whole bunch of water, sunlight, minerals, etc. and then converts them into building blocks that it can use and energy.

Also, the whale's evolutionary ancestor is the indohyus

: You have to do better than that. A common evolutionist trick of pushing work on others for them to try to prove evolution wrong doesn't work here. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 23:21, 15 May 2010 (EDT)

::Wait...so when a theist asks an atheist for proof of atheism, is that not the exact same fallacy? Unless the atheist states outright that they know there is no God - very few do, most state that they simply do not believe there is convincing evidence for God - it seems strange to have this contradiction. Unless, of course, intellectual honesty is not a conservative value. [[User:JacobP|JacobP]] 15:18, 31 July 2010 (EDT)

== Additional support ==

Mr. Schlafly,

As I looked out the window last night, I was struck by the simple, inherent beauty of the moonlight reflecting off the clouds, and in a sudden moment of clarity it occurred to me that this provides further support to your observation that evolution cannot account for objective beauty. Allow me to explain: in science, it is important for some sort of control to be employed when evaluating a claim, be it an independent group or simply a counterbalancing null hypothesis. Applying that reasoning to the current context, if something such as the beauty of autumn leaves had evolved, making it a purely materialistic biological phenomenon (what a revolting concept!), then the null hypothesis would be that such beauty would not be found in non-biological systems. The latter is disproved by the objective
beauty of moonlight reflecting upon clouds, which is composed entirely of non-biological objects and is therefore unexplainable by evolution.

On the other hand, if the beauty of autumn leaves had not evolved, one would ''expect'' to find similar examples in a non-biological context- as indeed we do. What do you think of this insight? Is it significant enough to merit inclusion? If so, I would be happy to put it in (in a more succinct form, of course!). Thank you. [[User:AJFrederickson|AJFrederickson]] 08:17, 26 June 2010 (EDT)

== Missing Fossil #1 ==

Sorry to display liberal talkativeness, but I did some research on the statement that whales have no plausible evolutionary ancestor and found [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/12/photogalleries/whale-pictures/ this article]. If this is true, then I propose we should remove Missing Fossil Counterexample #1. However, I do not know if Natural Geographic is slanted toward the left. Could I have some of your insight on this? -[[User:Jwilhem|Jwilhem]] 12:38, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
:I realize this doesn't concern me too much, but I've had [http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/03/are_liberals_atheists_more_evo.html this article] on hand for a while. It might shed some light on NG's poly views. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 12:43, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
::I also have the same thing from another source [http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v450/n7173/full/nature06343.html here]. I think most mainstream scientific journals lean toward the left though. [[User:Jwilhem|Jwilhem]] 12:49, 30 July 2010 (EDT)
:::I don't know enough about those types of science to really comment on the authenticity or lack thereof. Your comment about NG just reminded me of that article I mentioned and its leanings, so I thought I'd share it with you. [[User:Tzoran|Tyler Zoran]] [[User talk:Tzoran|Talk]] 12:56, 30 July 2010 (EDT)

:::The cited articles are silly. National Geographic, which fell for the dinosaur-bird fossil fraud about a decade ago, states in the first link above, "The land-dwelling Indohyus probably dove into streams to avoid predators, as seen in an artist's conception above." The "Nature" article isn't any more plausible. Darwin himself said that whales evolved from black bears swimming with their mouths open. Needless to say, the atheistic attempts to plug this gap raise more questions than they answer.--[[User:Aschlafly|Andy Schlafly]] 14:05, 30 July 2010 (EDT)